DETAILED ACTION 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. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: Line 7, delete “100” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Claim Objections Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, Line 4, replace “a respective product (200)” with “ a respective product (200) of the products (200) ” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 7, 14, 20, 22, 25 , 27, and 33 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 7 recites “The apparatus (100) according to claim 7…” This appears to state that claim 7 is dependent upon itself. Therefore, it is indefinite and unclear as to what constitutes the metes and bounds of claim 7. As such, it has not been further treated on the merits. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the operative element (122a)" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claim 14 recites the limitation "the opposed operative element (121a)" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, it is also indefinite and unclear as to whether claim 14 is meant to depend upon a different claim or whether claim 14 is meant to depend upon claim 1? Finally, it is indefinite and unclear as to how "the operative element (122a)" in Line 2 and the "the opposed operative element (121a)" in Line 3 relate to the “actuation means” as previously recited in claim 1? Claim 20 recites the limitation "the activation element (126a)" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claim 20 recites the limitation "the opposed activation element (121b)" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, it is also indefinite and unclear as t o whether claim 20 is meant to depend upon a different claim or whether claim 20 is meant to depend upon claim 1? Finally, it is indefinite and unclear as to how "the activation element (126a)" in Line 2 and the "the opposed activation element (121b)" in Line 3 relate to the “actuation means” as previously recited in claim 1? Claim 22 recites the limitation "the profile (126)" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claim 22 recites the limitation "the gripping/releasing area (300)" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, it is also indefinite and unclear as to whether claim 22 is meant to depend upon a different claim or whether claim 22 is meant to depend upon claim 1? Claim 25 recites the limitation "the activation element (126a)" in Line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, claim 25 recites the limitation "the opposed activation element (121b)" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As such, it is also indefinite and unclear as to whether claim 25 is meant to depend upon a different claim or whether claim 25 is meant to depend upon claim 1? Finally, it is indefinite and unclear as to how "the activation element (126a)" in Line 3 and the "the opposed activation element (121b)" in Lines 3-4 relate to the “actuation means” as previously recited in claim 1? Claim 27 recites “transmission means (160)”. However, it is indefinite and unclear as to how the “transmission means (160)” as recited in claim 27 relate to the “ actuation means ” as previously recited in claim 1? Claim 33 recites the limitation "the lever" in Line 4 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 11,767,178 (Elmar) . Regarding Claims 1, 2, 9 , Elmar teaches: Claim 1 - an apparatus (32 - Figure 2b) for gripping and moving products, for automated machines in plants for processing and transporting products, the apparatus comprising a gripper (2 – Figure 1b) configured to grip and release a respective product, said gripper (2) comprising a first and a second jaw (4a, 4b) for gripping and releasing the respective product, at least one of said first or said second jaw (4a, 4b) being relatively movable between a close engagement and gripping position of the respective product and a distant disengagement and releasing position of the respective product, the apparatus further comprising actuation means (30a/30b) of the relative movement of at least one of said first or said second jaw (4a, 4b) wherein said actuation means (30a/30b) move at least one of the respective first or second jaw (4a, 4b) according to at least one of magnetic forces of attraction or repulsion, (Figures 1a-2b) ; Claim 2 - wherein the actuation means (30a/30b) comprise first actuation means (30a/30b) for moving at least one of the first or the second jaw (4a, 4b) one relatively to the other in close engagement and gripping position of the product, t hrough forces of magnetic attraction, (Figures 1a-2b); Claim 9 - wherein the first actuation means (30a/30b) are provided on the gripper ( 2 ) , (Figures 1a-2b) . Claim(s) 1, 2, 14, 20, 22, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 8,701,872 ( Fahldieck ). Regarding Claims 1, 2, 14, 20, 22, 25, and 27 , Fahldieck teaches: Claim 1 - an apparatus ( 1/1’ and 2/2’ ) for gripping and moving products, for automated machines in plants for processing and transporting products, the apparatus comprising a gripper ( 1/1’ ) configured to grip and release a respective product, said gripper ( 1/1’ ) comprising a first and a second jaw ( 1a/1b or 1a’/1b’ ) for gripping and releasing the respective product, at least one of said first or said second jaw ( 1a/1b or 1a’/1b’ ) being relatively movable between a close engagement and gripping position of the respective product and a distant disengagement and releasing position of the respective product, the apparatus further comprising actuation means ( 7, 11 /12 ) of the relative movement of at least one of said first or said second jaw ( 1a/1b or 1a’/1b’ ) wherein said actuation means ( 7, 11 /12 ) move at least one of the respective first or second jaw ( 1a/1b or 1a’/1b’ ) according to at least one of magnetic forces of attraction or repulsion, (Figures 1-8 ) ; Claim 2 - wherein the actuation means ( 7, 11 /12 ) comprise first actuation means ( 7 ) for moving at least one of the first or the second jaw ( 1a/1b or 1a’/1b’ ) one relatively to the other in close engagement and gripping position of the product, through forces of magnetic attraction, (Figures 1-8 ); Claim 14 - wherein at least one of the operative element ( 11 ) or the opposed operative element ( 12 ) is a permanent magnet , (Figures 1-8); Claim 20 - wherein at least one of the activation element ( 11 ) or the opposed activation element ( 12 ) is a permanent magnet , (Figures 1-8); Claim 22 - wherein said apparatus provides a relative movement between the gripper ( 1/1’ ) and the profile ( 2/2’ ) to bring them into position facing each other in the gripping/releasing area , (Figures 1-8); Claim 25 - a gap or opening ( between magnets (11) and (12) ) between the activation element ( 11 ) and the opposed activation element ( 12 ), wherein the activation element (1 1 ) and opposed activation element (12) act in conjunction without contact , (Figures 1-8); Claim 27 - further comprising transmission means ( 7 or 11/12 ) provided on the gripper ( 1/1’ ) , (Figures 1-8). Claim(s) 1, 2, 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0193702 (Fahldiek) . Regarding Claims 1, 2, 3 and 8 , Fahldieck teaches: Claim 1 - an apparatus ( 1’ ) for gripping and moving products, for automated machines in plants for processing and transporting products, the apparatus comprising a gripper ( 1’ ) configured to grip and release a respective product, said gripper ( 1’ ) comprising a first and a second jaw ( 6a, 6b ) for gripping and releasing the respective product, at least one of said first or said second jaw ( 6a, 6b ) being relatively movable between a close engagement and gripping position of the respective product and a distant disengagement and releasing position of the respective product, the apparatus further comprising actuation means ( AA and BB ) of the relative movement of at least one of said first or said second jaw ( 6a, 6b ) wherein said actuation means ( AA and BB ) move at least one of the respective first or second jaw ( 6a, 6b ) according to at least one of magnetic forces of attraction or repulsion, ( Annotated Figure 2 Below ); Claim 2 - wherein the actuation means ( AA and BB ) comprise first actuation means ( AA ) for moving at least one of the first or the second jaw ( 6a, 6b ) one relatively to the other in close engagement and gripping position of the product, through forces of magnetic attraction, ( Annotated Figure 2 Below ); Claim 3 - wherein the actuation means ( AA and BB ) comprise second actuation means ( BB ) for moving at least one of the first or the second jaw ( 6a, 6b ) one relatively to the other in distant disengagement and releasing position of the produc t , through forces of magnetic repulsion , (Annotated Figure 2 Below); Claim 8 - wherein the gripper ( 1’ ) comprises a lever ( 8a, 8b ) that is rotatable about a respective axis of rotation ( 7 ) and is operatively associated with the first jaw ( 6a ) or second jaw ( 6b ) and is configured so that the rotation of said lever ( 8a, 8b ) imparts a rotation to the first jaw (6a) or second jaw (6b) with which the lever (8a, 8b) is operatively associated, (Annotated Figure 2 Below). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-6, 11, 17, 28, 30, and 32 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. Claim 33 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. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Josh Rodden whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303) 297-4258 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 8-5 MST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 27 2 - 1467 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOSHUA E RODDEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642