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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 1/23/2026. Claims 19 and 23have been canceled. Claims 15, 20-22, 25, 28, and 29 have been amended. Claims 34-37 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes the entire argument for rendering obvious the instant claims is that the different vacuum sources of Carmichael (US 2015/0035228) are independently freely controllable, or such independent freely controllable vacuum sources are at least obvious. Applicant claims and argues vacuum strength or control of vacuum at a specific point in time or location, i.e. an angular position, without describing how this recites a structural distinction from Carmichael. Applicant is claiming a device and not a method and thus changing the vacuum at different places, i.e. different angular positions, or to different strengths, does not require prior art device to teach this exact function or process, but only requires the prior art device have a structure capable of carrying out this function. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226,228-29 (CCPA 1971 ); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844,847, 120 USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Examiner’s position has been controllable vacuum devices in Carmichael are at least obvious and such devices enable vacuum control as desired at any location since if the vacuums are freely controllable, they could have been controlled by an operator at different angular positions, i.e. as a function of angular position. Applicant continues to argue with regard to the function of the operation without addressing Examiner’s rationale as to why the prior art does not have a structure capable of carrying out this function. If Applicant posits a freely controllable vacuum device cannot carry out this function, they should clearly explain why. Further, if Applicant wants to claim vacuum changes at precise locations as direct consequence of the device structure, this structure must be clearly claimed, such as vacuum cavities configured to do so (e.g. passing over vacuum only at specific locations to necessarily implement the changes at angular position as a consequence of the movement), or a controller stated as being programed to implement such vacuum changes. Applicant has not claimed this.
Applicant argues Carmichael does not teach vacuum tuning is intended during rotation. However, as described above, Carmichael need not teach this directly as long as this capability is obvious. There is no reason why a tunable vacuum configured to operate during rotation would have been incapable of vacuum tuning during said rotation. Disabling a tuning function during rotation is added complexity that limits functionality of the device. Examiner has argued it would have been obvious to make the devices freely tunable and there is no reason to restrict control such that any tunability is impossible once the drum is rotating. Furthermore, it would have been advantageous to make changes to the vacuum during operation if desired so as to implement real-time adjustments if needed.
Applicant argues there is no suggestion the bore [301] can be repositioned during operation. Examiner agrees, but it is unclear why this matters. Each of the bores [301] at a different vertical positions relative to the drum surface are connected to a different vacuum source each of which are at least obvious to be rendered freely and independently tunable. For the reasons described in the rejection, previous arguments, and these arguments, this enables the device as being capable of the functioning as claimed in Claim 15. This rationale has been clearly laid out in prior arguments and rejections (See arguments in non-final mailed 10/23/2025, explaining how different resting regions are connected to different vacuums and thus the vacuum strength in different resting regions is freely changeable when implementing independently controlled vacuum sources).
Applicant discusses the blocks [105] (which can restrict the circumferential extension of internal vacuum cavities), but again, it is unclear why this prevents free tuning of the vacuum sources as desired to allow vacuum changes at any time during operation, including at different positions during rotation. Presumably, during operation, an operator could change the vacuum strength of any vacuum at any time, and there is no reason why such a capability isn’t desired, and every reason why such capability is desired (i.e. to make real time adjustments when needed). Such a capability in the device enables an operator to change the vacuum as a function of angular position even if such a function wasn’t intended in Carmichael. Even though this specific process of varying as a function of angular position is not taught, an operator could carry out such a process by manually adjusting the vacuum sources during operation and thus the device of Carmichael would at least appear capable of carrying out the claimed adjustments in the resting regions as a function of angular position. As such, it would appear to have all necessary structure imparted by claiming such a function.
Although now indefinite, Claim 29 appears to overcome the prior art rejections.
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.
Claim 15, 16, 20-22, 25, 27-29, and 31-37 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 15 recites the resting region is configured to be connected to an “air suction means” and separately “connectable or are connected to different vacuum sources.” No relationship between the air suction means and vacuum source is ever described and they appear to be recited as completely distinct features. However, Claim 25 recites the air suction means comprises a first vacuum source and second vacuum source adapted to generate a distinct vacuum. However, this would appear to already be stated in Claim 15 with the different vacuum sources selectively generate distinct vacuum making it unclear if the different vacuums sources in Claim 15 are distinct from the first and second vacuum sources of Claim 25. Examiner assumes they must be the same since the specification does not support four such vacuum sources. However, the claim is quite unclear and Applicant should reconcile the fact the suction sources are claimed distinctly without connection within the claim language.
Further, Claim 15 recites the suction openings “are connectable” to different vacuum sources” implying they need not be connected, thus potentially not requiring the vacuum sources in Claim 15 even though the air suction means is required. However, since Claim 15 now recites these resting regions “are selectively activatable on command in order to generate” first and second degrees of vacuum at different locations. This would appear to definitively require the different vacuum sources to be present and connected to allow the ability to selectively activate this vacuum and it is unclear how the claim could read otherwise. This makes the previously alternative “are connectable” appear meaningless, or at least makes the end of the claim confusing if Claim 15 does not require the presence of vacuum sources. Examiner requires clarification on what is actually being claimed, but has assumed separate vacuum sources must be present for each resting region or the claim does not make sense, presumably the first and second vacuum sources as part of the air suction means must be present in Claim 15. Applicant must clean up the language of the claim and pay attention to claim consistency. As Claim 15 has grown longer, the scope has become progressively more confusing about what structure Applicant intends to claim. Applicant should review the relationship between terms and simplify or connect terminology, and also review dependent claim to see if anything is actually added. If Applicant thinks the current language is clear, an explanation addressing the above concerns and clarifying the intended scope on the record should be provided. If Applicant does not intend to require different vacuum sources be present in Claim 15, Applicant should explain what is actually means to render the resting regions “selectively activatable on command in order to generate the first degree of vacuum at suction openings on said first resting region and the second degree of vacuum at suction openings on said second resting region.” Especially if said operation is distinct from the air suction means comprising a first and second vacuum source.
Claim 15 recites the first and second resting region each have respective openings adapted to generate a distinct vacuum as detailed in the language above. This clearly indicates each of the first and second resting region having openings to generate the distinct vacuum. Claim 20 states there are first and second suction openings in each region. It is unclear if these are distinct suction openings from those previously recited in Claim 15, and thus unclear if these first and second suctions must be connected to the vacuum source as stated for the openings in claim 15. Examiner assumes Applicant must merely be labelling the openings of Claim 15 with Claim 20 since otherwise, there would not appear to be support for the claim as having a second type of openings in the same region that need not be connected to the same vacuum source. Thus, Claim 20 is either non-limiting and Applicant should label the first and second openings in Claim 15, or else it is unclear, and Examiner requires clarification as to how Claim 20 limits the claim scope and how this is supported by the instant specification. Again, Examiner implores Applicant to review the claim language for consistency because the scope has become increasingly muddled with further amendments to the point the Examiner is having difficulty interpreting the intended structure of Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim introduces “a plurality of second resting regions” and then recites “a single second vacuum source adapted to create a second degree of vacuum that is applied to said suction openings of both of said second resting regions.” It is unclear how the plurality of second resting regions relates to “both of said second resting regions” later recited. It is unclear if this implies the “plurality” applies is two regions, both connected to the same vacuum source, or if only two of a larger number need be connected to a single vacuum source. Since a single second resting region is not defined structurally, specifying only two of a larger plurality means little. As such, Examiner has interpreted all the second resting regions (and all of the second suction openings) as being connected to the same vacuum source since this would appear to be Applicant’s intent. Applicant should clarify the language to indicate if this is what was intended.
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) 15, 19-23, 25, 27, 33, and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmichael et al. (US 2015/0035228).
Regarding Claims 15, 19-23, and 25, Carmichael et a. teaches a labeling machine (See Abstract), comprising a conveyor of containers to be labeled along an advancement path (See Fig. 1 and page 3, paragraph [0044], and note it is implicit there is some sort of conveyor advancing the containers, anything causing said advancement reasonably being a conveyor) and at least one labeling assembly [L’] arranged along said advancement path, said labeling assembly [L’] comprising an unwinding assembly for a label ribbon [1] (See Fig. 2 and pages 1-2, paragraphs [0014]-[0024], although no “unwinding assembly” is taught explicitly, the invention is directed to roll-fed processes utilizing continuous labelling webs, which implicitly suggests the use of labelling rolls that unwind the labelling web into the system; at the very least this is obvious since it is standard for extended length webs to be held on rolls and be unwound therefrom in web processing devices) and at least one conveyance drum [100] designed to receive on a lateral surface thereof said label ribbon and/or labels [L] obtained by cutting said label ribbon (See page 2, paragraph [0033]-[0036], teaching cutting on the drum), a peripheral region of said conveyance drum [100]/[300] having a plurality of sliders that are angularly spaced around an axis of said conveyance drum [100]/[300] and have at least one portion in relief outward with respect to the lateral surface of said conveyance drum (See Fig. 7, clearly illustrating darker shaded “sliders” that project out from the vacuum drum [8], i.e. are in relief outward; note two are shown in Fig. 7 and its implicit they hold the labels and are angularly spaced around the drum) wherein at least one of said sliders has resting regions comprising a first resting region has a first and second resting region configured to apply mutually different attraction force to the ribbon, wherein said resting regions comprise air suction means which are structure so as to allow said resting region to generate a different degree or level of vacuum between said resting regions (See page 4, paragraphs [0067]-[0070] and Fig. 7, and note bores [301] at different radial distances are connected to different grooves [104A] as in Fig. 6A, wherein “each groove 104A may be put in fluidic communication with a different vacuum source set at a respective pressure. Thus, suction forces with different intensities can be applied to different portion [sic] of the label L being held against the outer vacuum drum.” Note the suction openings in the top central portion of the sliders and the outer portion(s) are clearly connected to bores [301] at distinct radial distances and thus connected to separate suction unit operable at different suction forces).
Examiner submits using distinct suction sources connected to different areas of the surface implies or at least renders obvious separate control of said suction sources (i.e. turning on/off or adjusting power) in order to achieve the different intensities as recited. Such an ability to tune the vacuum power would enable suction to be greater at any bore [301] connected to any separate vacuum source, i.e. by turning the vacuum source for the bore to a higher power than the others. Such tunability is standard in vacuum devices to control vacuum output which can save energy at lower setting and increase hold at higher settings, and when utilizing different vacuum sources, it is implied or at least obvious that each can be individually controlled to expand system control to both save energy and increase hold in each section as desired. The vacuum must operate during rotation of the drum and is no reason to inhibit tunability during such rotation thus at least rendering the selective tunability/activation freely controllable, including as a function of angular position if so desired.
Thus, the slider is certainly adapted as claimed to generate difference vacuums because the bore for the peripheral sides between the extended most in relief central portion could be powered to create a stronger vacuum. This is because Figure 7 in Carmichael clearly illustrates the side portions of the slider each connected to bores at different heights (i.e. different angular distances thus implying connection to different grooves [104] that each have a distinct vacuum source functional to tune suction intensity individually at each of the leading, top, and trailing sections of each slider therein). This clearly renders the system functional to be implemented as claimed wherein a first vacuum source may apply different a degree vacuum of suction, such as lower suction, to the center portion, i.e. the first resting area, and a second vacuum source can apply a separate vacuum force to the second suction openings, wherein each of the trailing and leading second regions are connected to their own second vacuum source that may apply a greater force to these regions.
It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226,228-29 (CCPA 1971 ); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844,847, 120 USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Thus, the central raised region need not actually be taught as having a lower vacuum, but need only capable/adapted of being implemented as such, which individually controllable vacuum sources could certainly implement, e.g. by deactivating or lowering the central vacuum source while leaving one of the peripheral vacuum sources running, and by changing the vacuum based on angular position, e.g. when the slider contacts or releases the label. Examiner submits Claim 33 is largely functionally claimed and achievable via tunable vacuum sources, which are obvious, as described above, each section of the slider being adjacent one another “circumferentially in line” with a center section recessed “above” the leading and trailing section. As above, the tunability of the vacuums sources allows each of these sections vacuum degree to be controlled as desired relative to each other.
Regarding Claims 27, Examiner submits “dimensional extent” is vague and broad language. Examiner submits the second openings on a slider are on either side of the first openings. This means the second openings span a wider region of the circumference of the drum in one slider than the first openings at the relief portion in between the leading and trailing portions. The also span are larger area because they are two section relative to one center section. This spanning of a wider region is reasonably interpreted as these second openings having a greater “dimensional extent,” wherein the “dimensional extent” is considered to be the spanning width along the circumference within each slider. Note if Applicant intends for the individual suction openings to have each have a larger area individually, this must be claimed explicitly. The current language is not specific enough to reflect such a limitation.
Regarding claims 35-37, Carmichael et al. illustrates a chamber beneath the central portion of the slider (see Fig. 7). Although a chamber is not specifically illustrated for the second resting region, the use of a common vacuum cavity supplying multiple suction openings is well known in vacuum suction devices. This is evidenced by Carmichael’s own use of a chamber in the central portion of the slider. It would have been apparent that, instead of individual elongated ducts [302] extending from each bore to the respective vacuum holes, a single larger duct could extend to a cavity spanning the width of the drum. That cavity could then supply vacuum to each hole through shorter connecting ducts. Both configurations deliver suction from a common vacuum source to the same openings. Accordingly, modifying the fluid path from individual ducts to a shared vacuum cavity represents a routine design variation in fluid routing, rather than a structural distinction producing a different functional result. Note the cavities must be hermetically sealed from one another since they supply vacuum from separate sources.
Claim(s) 15,19-23, 25, 27, 33, and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al. (US 2011/0168334) in view of Carmichael et al. (US 2015/0035228).
Regarding Claims 15, 19-23, 25, 27, and 33, Kramer teaches a labeling machine (See page 1, paragraph [0016]), comprising a conveyor [6],[5] of containers [2] to be labeled along an advancement path and at least one labeling assembly [7] arranged along said advancement path, said labeling assembly [7] comprising an unwinding assembly for a label ribbon [3a] (See Fig. 2 and page 1, paragraph [0018], and note a supply spool and framework for unspooling the continuous label [3a], i.e. label ribbon, is an unwinding assembly; and note any such label [3a] could certainly be printed) and at least one conveyance drum [8] designed to receive on a lateral surface thereof said label ribbon and/or labels obtained by cutting said label ribbon, a peripheral region of said conveyance drum [8] having a plurality of sliders [9],[9a] that are angularly spaced around an axis of said conveyance drum [8] and have at least one portion in relief outward with respect to the lateral surface of said conveyance drum [8] (See page 2, paragraph [0018], wherein the vacuum pads, interpreted to be sliders as claimed, project out from the vacuum drum [8], i.e. are in relief outward) wherein at least one of said sliders has resting regions comprising a first resting region [35.3], having smaller cross-section openings [38], i.e. suction openings, and a peripheral second resting region [35], having larger cross-section openings [37], adapted to apply mutually different attraction forces with respect to said label ribbon and/or said labels (See Fig. 6 and page 2, paragraphs [0020] and [0026], wherein Examiner submits larger cross-section openings, i.e. greater dimensional extent, connected to the same central area supplied with a vacuum source will create a greater vacuum force than the smaller openings in the peripheral area, and note any combination of sections [35],[35.2],[35.3] may be considered a first or second region; and note there is no reason [35] and [35.2], which are touching, could not both be considered the same region, i.e. a second resting region, which is both peripheral and able to draw more force than section [35.3] alone).
Kramer et al. fails to specifically describe different vacuum sources adapted to generate different vacuum on the resting regions. However, it is known to connect the different surfaces, i.e. resting regions, of a slider, including the central and angled peripheral regions, to different vacuum sources, so different vacuum intensities can be applied to different regions of the label as desired (See, for example, Carmichael et al., Fig. 7 and page 4, paragraphs [0060] and [0067]-[0070], wherein Fig. 7 shows both the central raised region of the slider, i.e. the most in relief region, and each of the angled side regions as being connected to a different bore [301], each at different heights associated with a groove [104] that may be connected to a separate vacuum source that may be freely controllable by a control unit, and a sensor detecting an operating condition, so as to apply a desired vacuum intensity to different parts of the label). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize separate vacuum forces for each of central [35] and each of peripheral regions [35.2],[35.3] on the slider in Kramer et al. Such individual control of such sections of a slider in known to be suitable, as taught in Carmichael et al., so as to vary vacuum intensities as desired at different portions of the label being held against said slider. A similar suction system in Carmichael is thus obvious in order to provide maximum operational flexibility as taught as advantageous therein.
Note such individual control of different vacuum sources associated with each resting region would provide the ability to make the most in relief, i.e. protruded, central region have, i.e. adapted to have, a lower vacuum force than the side regions, thus making the central region [35] in Kramer et al. the first resting region under such an interpretation. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226,228-29 (CCPA 1971 ); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844,847, 120 USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Thus, the central raised region need not actually be taught as having a lower vacuum, but need only capable/adapted of being implemented as such, which individually controllable vacuum sources could certainly implement, e.g. by deactivating or lowering the central vacuum source while leaving one of the peripheral vacuum sources running, and by changing the vacuum based on angular position, e.g. when the slider contacts or releases the label.
Regarding claims 35-37, Carmichael et al. illustrates a chamber beneath the central portion of the slider (see Fig. 7). Although a chamber is not specifically illustrated for the second resting region, the use of a common vacuum cavity supplying multiple suction openings is well known in vacuum suction devices. This is evidenced by Carmichael’s own use of a chamber in the central portion of the slider. It would have been apparent that, instead of individual elongated ducts [302] extending from each bore to the respective vacuum holes, a single larger duct could extend to a cavity spanning the width of the drum. That cavity could then supply vacuum to each hole through shorter connecting ducts. Both configurations deliver suction from a common vacuum source to the same openings. Accordingly, modifying the fluid path from individual ducts to a shared vacuum cavity represents a routine design variation in fluid routing, rather than a structural distinction producing a different functional result. Note they must be hermetically sealed from one another since they supply vacuum from separate sources.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al. and Carmichael et al. and/or in view of Carmichael et al. as applied to Claim 23 above, and further in view of Bright et al. (US 5,858,143).
Regarding Claim 28, Kramer et al. and Carmichael et al. and Carmichael et al. alone teach the method of Claim 23 above. As described above, Carmichael et al. teaches a sensor that monitors operational conditions of the system to implement controlled vacuum on the label as desired (See page 4, paragraph [0059]). Carmichael et al. fails to specifically teach a sensor for detecting angular position. However, it is known to monitor numerous operational conditions of label applying vacuum drums via sensor, including using sensors to provide position information for the drum, i.e. angular position (See, for example, Bright et al., col. 3, lines 26-39). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a sensor to monitor position of the vacuum drum, i.e. angular position, to convey such an operational status to the control means for controlling the vacuum sources, such as is described in Carmichael et al. Doing so would have predictably provided positional information, such as is known in similar labelling machines, such as, for example, to ensure alignment of the drum and the label when activating and deactivating various suction sources.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 29, 31, and 32 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 29 recites second suction openings on a leading side, trailing side, and circumferentially aligned on a top side and bottom side of the first resting region to surround the first resting region. This means the second suction openings come circumferentially before the first resting region (leading side), circumferentially after the first resting region (trailing), and in the same circumferential area on the top and bottom side of the drum (i.e. opposing edges of the drum so the first region is therebetween in a width direction of the drum) to surround the first resting region. This clearly recites the first resting region surround on all four sides with second suction openings. Examiner submits there is no motivation a conveyance drums used in a device for labelling containers and having a plurality of sliders on spaced on the exterior of the conveyance drum to have at least one slider having a first resting region with openings and a plurality of second regions with second openings as claimed. Specifically, the claims recite second suction openings surround the first resting region on four sides and are all connected to the same single vacuum source, which is distinct from the vacuum source to which the openings of the first resting region are connected. Such an organization of suction holes to a vacuum source on a slider in a label conveyance drum as claimed is not known in the prior art.
Claim 34 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Carmichael et al. is the closest prior art describing separate vacuum sources on different portions of a slider but the portion of the slider between the other portions protrudes more, not less, than the portions around it. There is no motivation for a region protruding less between two regions that protrude more than the region between them wherein each region may have different vacuum strength applied at different locations via separate vacuum sources in a labeling conveyance system such as is claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746