DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 21, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks submitted with the RCE, Applicant maintains their argument . that it would not have been obvious to modify Carson to include “wherein said discharge angle is between 33-37 degrees”, as recited in independent Claim 1. The Examiner maintains that there are numerous rationales to modify Carson, as described in detail in the October 28, 2025 Advisory Action, and as shown below.
Applicant has also amended independent Claims 1, 9, and 18 to recite, “wherein said deflector is structured to induce a rotation motion of said container closures as said container closures enter the discharge hopper and said rotation motion continues through a portion of the discharge hopper; and wherein said rotation motion is clockwise with respect to said horizontal plane such that leading edges of said container closures rotate in a downward direction with respect to said horizontal plane and trailing edges of said container closures rotate in an upward direction with respect to said horizontal plane.” As described below, these limitations are taught by prior art and the rejection is modified to include prior art that teaches these limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 9, 18, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al., US 2003/0194308 (cited by Applicant) in view of GB 2,100,234 (cited by Applicant; “GB ‘234”), Kroskob, US 11,337,373, Lederer, US 3,827,582 (“Lederer 1”), Ogle et al., US 2004/0084280, and Lederer, US 3,311,218 (“Lederer 2”).
With regard to Claims 1, 9, and 21-22, Carson discloses an unload stacking assembly (Figs. 1-4, [0015]-[0020]) comprising:
a discharge hopper (12, 42, 44, Figs. 1-4) structured to receive a plurality of container closures (16) from a conveyance assembly (14);
a deflector (30, 40), structured to deflect said container closures into said discharge hopper in a desired orientation (Figs. 3-4);
wherein the conveyance assembly (14) is disposed in a horizontal plane (Fig. 2), and wherein the discharge hopper is disposed at a discharge angle with respect to the horizontal plane (Fig. 2).
With regard to Claims 18 and 23, Carson discloses a method of stacking container closures comprising the steps of:
conveying a plurality of container closures (16, Figs. 1-4) to a discharge hopper (12, 42, 44) on a conveyance assembly (14), and
inducing a rotation motion of said container closures using a deflector (30, 40) to move said container closures into said discharge hopper in a desired orientation (Figs. 3-4),
wherein said conveyance assembly includes a number of conveyor belts disposed in a horizontal plane (14, Fig. 1; Note: “One” conveyor belt can be construed to be “a number”); and
wherein said discharge hopper is disposed at a discharge angle with respect to said horizontal plane (Fig. 2).
While Carson discloses a discharge hopper that is angled with respect to the horizontal plane, Carson does not specifically teach a range of the discharge angle that is between 15-60 degrees or 33-37 degrees, or the specific angle of 35 degrees. However, Kroskob, Lederer 1, and Ogle each teach an angled discharge hopper:
Kroskob discloses a device for stacking articles (Figs. 1-59, C5, L62 – C15, L45) in which articles are conveyed to a surface (22) that is in a horizontal plane (Figs. 1, 45-48) and then transferred to a discharge hopper/surface (23) via a deflector (60, Figs. 14-19, 49-51), wherein the discharge hopper/surface has a discharge angle between 30 – 40 degrees (C9, L61 – C10, L22);
Lederer 1 discloses an unload stacking device (Figs. 1-4, C1, L41- C3, L67) that includes a discharge hopper (10, 12, Fig. 1) that receives a plurality of container closures (11) from a deflector (14), wherein the discharge hopper is disposed at a discharge angle with respect to the horizontal plane (Figs. 1-4, C2, L4-12);
Ogle discloses a device for accumulating articles (Figs. 1-11, [0031]-[0161]) that includes a discharge hopper (42, Figs. 2, 4) having a discharge angle between 30 – 80 degrees ([0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify Carson such that the range of the discharge angle of the discharge hopper was between 15-60 degrees or between 33-37 degrees, or at 35 degrees because an angled surface within these ranges or at 35 degrees will allow the container closures/lids to slide via gravity to efficiently form the stack, for the following reasons:
Kroskob’s teaching of providing a discharge angle between 30-40 degrees builds on Carson’s unspecified angle since making the angled surface steeper than what appears to be shown in Carson allows the articles to be efficiently moved from one area to another area using gravity and to stack the articles on the discharge hopper for a subsequent operation such as re-orienting the stack (See Kroskob, C9, L61 – C10, L22).
Ogle teaches:
“The slide angle can be configured large enough to adequately overcome static-friction forces, and small enough to avoid an excessive speed of the articles when the articles are transferred to the conveyor 50. In a particular feature the slide angle 92 can be at least a minimum of about 30 degrees, as measured from the local horizontal. The slide angle can alternatively be at least 50 degrees, and can optionally be at least 55 degrees to provide improved performance”
(See Ogle, [0075])
Lederer 1 provides the motivation to angle the discharge hopper of a unload stacking assembly used for stacking container closures/lids and teaches that the angle must be selected to assist in the gyroscopic precession of the lids on rollers while avoiding the tendency of the lids to fall down or stop rotating (See Lederer 1, C1, L2-33).
As such, these references describe numerous advantages of angling the discharge hopper to have an angle that ranges between 15-60 degree or 33-37 degrees, or have an angle of 35 degrees (i.e., efficient stacking, overcome static-friction forces, avoid an excessive speed of the articles, and avoiding the tendency of the lids to fall down or stop rotating when being moved on rotating rollers). Moreover, both Carson and Lederer 1 teach that having an angled discharge hopper is advantageous when stacking container closures/lids, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to apply the teachings of Kroskob, Ogle, and Lederer 1 to Carson to achieve these same advantages. Finally, determining the optimum angle of an discharge hopper involves only routine skill in the art and the motivation to do so would be to achieve any of the advantages as described above. With regard to the specific angle ranges of “15-60 degrees” and “33-37 degrees”, as recited in Claims 1, 9, and 18, and the specific angle of “35 degrees” as recited in Claims 21-23, where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). In addition, Applicant has not shown why these angle ranges or the specific angle of 35 degrees is critical (see MPEP 2144.05(III), which states, “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range." Citing In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). The ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to determine the optimum range of the discharge angle of the discharge hopper, and would be able to modify Carson using known methods and this modification would yield only predictable results.
While Carson and Lederer 1 show deflectors that induce a rotation of the container closures/lids, these reference fail to show a deflector wherein the rotation motion is clockwise with respect to said horizontal plane such that leading edges of said container closures rotate in a downward direction with respect to said horizontal plane. Lederer 2 discloses a deflector for container closure/lids (10, Figs. 1- 11, C3, L23 – C7, L3) that is structured to induce a rotation motion of said container closures as said container closures enter the discharge hopper (Figs. 1, 3, 9, 10) and said rotation motion continues through a portion of the discharge hopper (36, 38); and wherein said rotation motion is clockwise with respect to said horizontal plane (the term “clockwise” is a relative term with regard to the horizontal plane of the conveyance assembly of the stacking assembly and depends on the view from which this term is determined; If Figs. 1, 3, 9, and 10 were drawn from the opposite side of the assembly, the rotation of the lids would be in the clockwise direction) such that leading edges (LE, Figs. 3, 9, 10) of said container closures (10) rotate in a downward direction with respect to said horizontal plane (Figs. 9-10) and trailing edges of said container closures rotate in an upward direction with respect to said horizontal plane (Figs. 9-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Carson’s deflector such that the leading edge of the container closures/lids rotate in a clockwise, downward direction while the trailing edge rotates in a upward direction because this type of deflector provides a simple and efficient way to use gravity such that the container closures/lids are oriented on their edges facing the same direction, as taught by Lederer 2 (Figs. 9-10). While Lederer 2 describes a deflector that can be structured such that, when the container closures/lids have a flange on only one side, the deflector allows the container closures/lids to be rotated in different orientations (leading edge downward or trailing edge downward) depending on whether the flange is contacting the delivery conveyor (see Figs. 1, 3, 9, 10 where the leading edge is rotated downward) or the flange faces away from the delivery conveyor (see Figs. 2, 5, 6, 8 where the trailing edge is rotated downward). However, Lederer 2’s deflector need not be operated in such a manner (i.e., the discriminating edge could be located such that the lids all have their leading edges rotate downwards as shown in Figs. 9-10) and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated by the embodiment shown in Figs. 9-10 of Lederer 2 when it is desired to make a simpler and more cost effective deflector.
With regard to Claim 9 and 18, while Carson teaches an unload stacking assembly “for handling like circular articles, such as discs, rings, and lids” ([0001]), Carson does not teach a liner machine for lining a plurality of container closures. GB ‘234 discloses an unload stacking assembly and method of stacking container closures (Figs. 1-4, P1, L3 – P3, L48), that includes a liner machine for lining a plurality of container closures (P1, L6-10; P1, L66-89; P2, L78-88), a conveyance assembly (1, Fig. 1) for conveying the container closures (2) from the liner machine (P2, L91-103), and an unload stacking assembly that includes a discharge hopper (4, Fig. 1, P2, L128 – P3, L5) structured to receive a plurality of container closures (2) from the conveyance assembly (1); and a deflector (13, Fig. 2; 14/15/16/17, Fig. 3; 14/15/19/20/21, Fig. 4), structured to deflect said container closures into said discharge hopper in a desired orientation (Figs. 2-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention, to use Carson’s unload stacking assembly with a liner machine such as that taught by GB ‘234 because Carson specifically teaches that his invention is for use with circular articles such as lids ([0001]), which are similar to container closures. In addition, Carson’s unload stacking assembly is intended to help automate the process of reorienting these circular articles into a stack of articles having the same on-edge or vertical orientation ([0009]), and the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that Carson’s unload stacking assembly could be used with container closures provided from a liner machine based on the teachings of GB ‘234, and would be able to make this modification using known methods and the modification would yield only predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson in view of GB ‘234, Kroskob, Lederer 1, Ogle, and Lederer 2, as applied to Claim 9, and further in view of Baumann et al., US 2010/0219043. Claim 18 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson in view of GB ‘234, Kroskob, Lederer 1, Ogle, Lederer 2, and Baumann. While Carson can be construed to discloses “a number or conveyor belts” (as described above for Claim 18), Carson fails to teach first and second conveyor belts, or “a number of conveyor belts”, when the recited “number” is construed to be more than one. Baumann discloses an unloading apparatus (Figs. 1-3, [0022]-[0037]) that includes a first conveyor belt (1, Fig. 1; 10. Fig. 2) and a second conveyor belt (2, Fig. 1; 11, Fig. 2) for conveying grouped articles to a robot (100) for reorientation/reorganization of the individual articles (Figs. 1-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify Carson such that at least two conveyor belts were used to supply the container closures to the deflector because it would allow additional space between the container closures to be created, i.e., by making the speed of the second conveyor belt faster than the first conveyor belt (as taught by Baumann [0023]), thereby preventing possible jamming of the container closures when they reach the deflector and discharge hopper belt (as taught by Baumann ([0009]-[0018]) and helping to ensure that resultant stack is properly made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 3,463,293 discloses a gyroscopic means by which articles travel axially on rollers and further teaches other factors to consider if the rollers are tilted (C4, L3-47).
US 4,391,560 discloses another deflector for container closures/lids in which only the leading edge is allowed to rotate downward.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN E SCHWENNING whose telephone number is (313)446-4861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272 -7097. 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.
/LYNN E SCHWENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652