DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 64-78 in the reply filed on July 19th 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both identified claim groups have overlapping subject matter, such that the examination of all currently pending claims is appropriate. This is not found persuasive because the elected invention requires a different field of search, than the non-elected invention. The non-elected invention would require an extensive search in the conveyor arts.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
3. Claims 43-63 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 10th 2025.
Priority
4. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copies have been filed in parent Application No.DE 102022102713.9, filed on February 4th 2022; and DE 102022109288.7, filed on March 14th 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 1st 2023 and June 1st 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the references cited therein are considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
6. 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.
7. 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 64 recites the phrase “transfer device”.
Claim 64 recites the phrase “means of the transfer device”.
Claim 74 recites the phrase “conveying device”.
Claim 75 recites the phrase “conveying device”.
Claim 75 recites the phrase “endless conveying means”.
Claim 76 recites the phrase “endless conveying means”.
Claim 77 recites the phrase “transfer device”.
Claim 77 recites the phrase “means of the transfer device”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
8. 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.
9. Claim 64-78 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 64, recites the phrase “…projecting upwardly beyond the level of a respective package component…” this claim is deemed indefinite because the level of the package component is not defined. Is the level the bottom, middle or top of the package component? Further clarification is required.
Claim 64 recites the phrase “…can be fed to the pick-up region…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the “can be” operations are occurring or not.
Claim 64 recites the phrase “…can be fed picked up by the transfer device…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the “can be” operations are occurring or not.
Claim 64 recites the phrase “…can be fed by means of the transfer device…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the “can be” operations are occurring or not.
Claim 64 recites the phrase “…can be moved through the insertion region…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the “can be” operations are occurring or not.
Claim 64 recites the phrase “…in each case together with the product disposed thereon…” This claim is deemed indefinite each case is not defined. Only one case is recited.
Claim 64 recites the phrase “…which each one have one or more insertion space…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear which element is “which each one”. Further clarification is required.
Claim 65 recites the phrase “…the folding abutment is at least adjustable…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear whether the adjusting is positively recited or not.
Claim 65 recites the phrase “…can be removed from the packaging machine…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the “can be” operations are occurring or not.
Claim 71 recites the phrase “…at least in an upper region…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear if the non-vertically extending operative section on the upper region of the folding contour is positively recited or not.
Claim 74 recites the phrase “…at least in the pick-up region…” This claim is deemed infinite because it is unclear if the curve support in the pick-up region is positively recited or not.
Claim 74 recites the phrase “…can be fed…” This claim is deemed indefinite because it is unclear whether or not the “can be” operations are occurring or not.
Claim 74 recites the phrase “…in each case together with the product disposed thereon…” This claim is deemed indefinite each case is not defined. Only one case is recited.
Claim 77 recited the phrase “…wherein a respective carrier can, as required, be placed on the buffer space…” This claim is deemed indefinite because “can” and “as required” contradict one another.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 64-78 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.
Regarding claim 64, the most relevant prior art is Bonneville et al. (CA 2 771 570 A1; “Bonneville”).
Bonneville disclose a machine (2) for packaging food products (86), wherein the products (86) are each disposed on a carrier (84, 88) that has a base (88) and a tab (84) pivotable relative to the base (88) about a kink line (Fig. 8),
wherein the packaging machine (2) comprises a pick-up region (para. [0031]), a transfer device (4), and an insertion region (12),
wherein the carriers (84, 88), in each case together with the product (86) disposed thereon (Fig. 8), can be fed to the pick-up region (para. [0031]), can be picked up by the transfer device (4), can be fed by means of the transfer device (4) to the insertion region (12).
Bonneville fails to disclose wherein the carriers can be inserted with a downward movement of the transfer device into a package component.
It would not have been obvious to modify Bonneville with the aforementioned limitation because the transfer device of Bonneville is a horizontal conveyor, which displaces the carrier laterally, without a change in pitch. Providing a downward movement on Bonneville’s transfer device would render the final apparatus inoperable.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF, can be reached on (571)272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
12. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731