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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 15 states “packaging in assembly”. This is not shown in the original drawings and is not sufficiently described in the written specification as to what exactly this means. The new figure 6 just shows this as a box and does not clarify what is being claimed.
For sake of examination the claims are interpreted as shown in the prior art rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(2) as being anticipated by Papsdorf (US 9,573,771).
Re claims 1,16, Papsdorf teaches an article picking and placing system 100 and inherent method of use, the system comprising:
a first article picking tooling (102,132,134 meets as broadly claimed) and a second article picking tooling (106) , and an intermediate transportation unit (broadly MD2) configured in between an article infeed transportation unit (broadly MD1) and an article output transportation unit (broadly MD3);
a control unit (138,222, paragraph 164 (starts bottom of column 35), etc. figures 3A,3B, etc.) for synchronizing the first and second article picking tooling such that (i) the first article picking tooling picks and/or forms a first configuration of articles from the infeed transportation unit for transfer to the intermediate transportation unit, thereby forming an intermediate configuration on said intermediate transportation unit, and (ii) the second picking tooling picks a second configuration of articles from said intermediate transportation unit for transfer to the output transportation unit, wherein the second and intermediate article configurations are different relative to each other and each different from the first article configuration.
Re claim 2, Papsdorf teaches (see figures 3A,B, etc.) the intermediate configuration of articles consists of a plurality of said first article configurations.
Re claim 3, Papsdorf teaches (see figures 3A,3B,22, etc.) the second configuration of articles consists of at least a part of at least two consecutive first article configurations.
Re claim 4, Papsdorf teaches (see figures 3A,3B,22-26, etc., columns 8-10; column 32, paragraph 4; column 33, paragraph 3-4; column 35, paragraph 5, etc.) the first and/or second article picking tooling comprises one or more pluralities of individual gripping heads, each plurality of gripping heads being position and motion controlled.
Re claim 5, Papsdorf teaches (see figures 3A,3B,22-26, etc., columns 8-10; column 32, paragraph 4; column 33, paragraph 3-4; column 35, paragraph 5, etc.) each of the individual gripping heads is position and motion controlled.
Re claim 6, Papsdorf teaches (see figures 3A,3B,22-26, etc., columns 8-10; column 32, paragraph 4; column 33, paragraph 3-4; column 35, paragraph 5, etc.) the gripping heads are mounted on independent, motion-controlled movers on one or more support rails on the first and/or second article picking tooling.
Re claim 7, Papsdorf teaches (see figures 3A,3B,22-26, etc., columns 8-10; column 32, paragraph 4; column 33, paragraph 3-4; column 35, paragraphs 1-5, etc.) one or more support rails (various apparently unnumbered see figures 3A,3B,6-11, 22-26, 32-33) are mounted on a frame or robot (various apparently unnumbered see figures 3A,3B,6-11, 22-26, 32-33) comprising a vertical moving mechanism for enabling a vertical movement of the gripping heads to pick up a configuration of articles.
Re claim 8, Papsdorf teaches (column 7 paragraph 3- column 10 1st paragraph, figures 3,7,10-18) at least the first article picking tooling comprises a plurality of support rails (not clearly numbered, see various rails in figures 3,7,10-18) mounted in parallel and a support rail moving mechanism (not clearly numbered, see various rails relatively adjustable in multiple directions in figures 3,7,10-18, column 7 paragraph 3- column 10 1st paragraph, columns 21-22 (throughout) for varying the distance between said support rails.
Re claim 9, Papsdorf teaches (at least column 7 paragraph 3- column 10 last paragraph, paragraph 164 (starts bottom of column 35), figures 3,7,10-18) the individual gripping heads (see figures) are adapted to selectively orientate an individual article during said transfer.
Re claim 10, Papsdorf teaches (column 7 paragraph 3- column 10 last paragraph, paragraph 164 (starts bottom of column 35), figures 3,7,10-18) the control system controls the movement of support rails and the movement of its gripping heads such that the gripper heads achieve a gripper head configuration in accordance with the configuration of the articles on the infeed transportation unit and/or on the intermediate transportation unit.
Re claim 11, Papsdorf teaches (column 7 paragraph 3- column 10 last paragraph, paragraph 164 (starts bottom of column 35), figures 3-6) the articles at the infeed transportation unit are in transit while the control system is enabled to synchronize the pace and pitch of the gripping heads of the first article picking tooling with the pace and pitch of the articles present at the infeed transportation unit.
Re claim 12, Papsdorf teaches (column 7 paragraph 3- column 10 last paragraph, paragraph 164 (starts bottom of column 35), column 31 paragraph 3 – at least bottom of column 33, figures 3-6) the control system is enabled to synchronize the pace and pitch of the gripping heads of the second article picking tooling with the pace and pitch of the output transportation unit.
Re claim 13, Papsdorf teaches a system according to wherein the articles can be beverage containers (10,12; column 10, paragraph 5; column 11, paragraph 1; column 12, paragraph 1).
Re claim 14, Papsdorf teaches (figures 3A, 3B; background, column 12, 1st & 3rd paragraph; column 31, paragraphs 2-3) a packaging machine comprising a system according to claim 1.
Re claim 15, Papsdorf teaches (figures 3-6; background, column 12, 1st & 3rd paragraph; column 31, paragraphs 2-3; column 7 paragraph 3- column 10 last paragraph, paragraph 164 (starts bottom of column 35)) the output transportation unit transports packaging in assembly and wherein the control system is enabled to synchronize the pace and pitch of the gripping heads of the second article picking tooling with the pace and pitch of said packaging in assembly, while said packaging in assembly being in transit.
Conclusion
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 112 rejection is maintained. As noted above, it is still not sufficiently described as to what “packaging in assembly” means.
Applicant argues Papsdorf does not teach the article picking tooling because 102 is an infeed conveyor apparatus and 134 is a carriage and so there is no picking. However, there is no special definition of picking given in the original specification. Papsdorf’s article picking tooling 102,132,134 picks the articles & thus does meet the claims as currently written.
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 MICHAEL S LOWE whose telephone number is (571)272-6929. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling M,Th,F & alternating W 6:30am-6:30pm.
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 5712727097. 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.
MICHAEL S. LOWE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/MICHAEL S LOWE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652