DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action for US Application 17/998,020 for a Movement Unit and Process for Moving a Blank and Packing Apparatus Associated Thereto.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27, 35, 36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "said retention device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "said drum" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "said drum" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "said drum" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21, 22, 25-27, 30-34, 36, 37, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6,325,201 to Bailey et al. Regarding claim 21, Bailey et al. discloses a movement unit (see figure 1) for moving a blank (3) comprising at least one drum (18) configured to rotate about a rotation axis along a rotation direction. There is a blank (3) comprising a central panel (see figure 6… any of the middle panels), and a lateral panel (see figure 6… any of the panels on the sides of a respective middle panel). The lateral panel has a first end secured to the central panel by a first folding zone, and a second, free, end opposite to the first end (see the lines in figure 6).
There is at least one retention device (20, 22, 24, 26) for retaining the blank, the at least one retention device being secured to the at least one drum (see col. 2, lines 46-48). The at least one retention device comprises a support (36, 38, 40, 42), a first gripping portion (secured to the support and comprising first retention elements configured to selectively and fixedly retain the central panel (see col. 4, lines 28-46… 88), and a second gripping portion secured to the support or to the first gripping portion, the second gripping portion comprising second retention elements configured to selectively and fixedly retain the lateral panel of the blank (see col. 4, lines 28-46… 88).
Bailey et al. discloses the lateral panel as being configured to precede the central panel in the rotation direction of the drum, but does not specifically disclose the lateral panel as extending for at least 10 cm in a direction perpendicular to the first folding zone. However, the specific dimensions of the lateral panel is a design preference that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would know to adjust the size of the panel depending on the desired size of the package.
Regarding claim 22, there is a rotation group (54) configured to perform a controlled rotation of at least one of the first gripping portion and second gripping portion of the at least one retention device with respect to a radial direction of the at least one drum.
Regarding claim 25, the first folding zone coincides with a creased portion of the blank (see figure 6… the fold lines are creases). Regarding claim 26, there is a movement device (54) configured to simultaneously move in translation the first gripping portion and the second gripping portion with respect to the support or with respect to another predetermined reference. Regarding claim 27, there is a cam type rotation mechanism (54) configured to vary an angular rotation speed of the retention device with respect to the drum (see col. 2, lines 61-65).
Regarding claim 30, the at least one retention device comprises a plurality of retention devices (20, 22, 24, 26). Regarding claim 31, there is a plurality of the at least one drum, each secured to a respective retention device of a plurality of retention devices, the plurality of retention devices being configured to exchange the blank between retention devices secured to different drums (see col. 1, lines 1-35). Regarding claim 32, Bailey et al. discloses a packing apparatus for packing articles (see col. 1, lines 1-35) comprising at least one movement unit according to claim 21 (see the rejection of claim 21). Regarding claim 33, there is a first movement unit having a corresponding first retention device, and a second movement unit having a second retaining device configured to receive the blank from the first retention device (see col. 1, lines 1-35)
Regarding claim 34, Bailey et al. discloses a process for moving a blank (3) comprising providing a movement unit (see figure 1) comprising at least one drum (18) having a rotation axis for rotating in a rotation direction, and at least one retention device (20, 22, 24, 26) secured to the at least one drum. The process comprises providing a blank comprising a central panel (see figure 6… the middle panels) and a lateral panel (see figure 6… the panels on the sides of each respective middle panel), the lateral panel having a first end secured to the central panel by a first folding zone, and a second, free, end opposite said first end (see figure 6).
The process comprises bringing the drum into a removal position, wherein the retention device faces the blank, activating a first retention element (see col. 4, lines 28-46… 88) of a first gripping portion of the retention device by selectively and fixedly securing the central panel to the first retention element, and activating a second retention element (see col. 4, lines 28-46… 88) of a second gripping portion of the retention device by selectively and fixedly securing the lateral panel to the second retention element, thereby providing a controlled configuration of the blank.
The process comprises rotating the drum in a rotation direction up to a release position of the retention device, while controlling by the first and second retention elements, respective positions and orientations of the central panel and the lateral panel. The process also comprises deactivating the retention elements by disengaging the blank from the retention device while the drum is in the release position.
Regarding claim 36, the process comprises activating a movement device (54) configured to move the blank in a direction having a radial component with respect to the rotation axis of the drum. Regarding claim 37, the process further comprises activating a cam type mechanism (54… see col. 4, lines 59-67). Regarding claim 40, the process further comprises activating an additional movement unit comprising an additional first retention element configured to remove the blank from the movement unit when the movement unit has completed the release (see col. 1, lines 1-35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 24, 28, 29, and 36 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 35 and 38 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0034579 to Kalany US 2004/0244864 to Forche
US 2012/0069114 to Kaneko US 2019/0283992 to Maeyama
US 2008/0272537 to Sagesser
EP 2253569 to Fuchs
WO 2020007942 to Duwendag
DE 10214381 to Heimann
The above prior art discloses various rotating movement units.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN M MARSH whose telephone number is (571)272-6819. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9 am-7:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
STEVEN M. MARSH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3632
/STEVEN M MARSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632