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
The submission entered November 4, 2025 in response to an Office Action mailed August 6, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3, 5-21 are pending. Claim(s) 4 is/are cancelled. Claim(s) 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 16-21 is/are newly presented.
The objections to the drawings presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 3, 7-15 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
The rejection(s) of claim(s) 7-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as presented in the Office Action listed above are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue that the rationale for combining the prior art references is improper and that the combination is the result of impermissible hindsight.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
‘092 discloses transferring an article from a rotating sorting disc to a rotating transfer wheel. Davidson discloses transferring an article from a first conveying device to a second conveying device. Davidson further discloses that transfers between conveying devices need to be adjusted as exactly as possible to avoid jamming of articles or damage to the conveying devices [Col. 1:24-33]. Davidson further discloses that the transfers may change during use due to wear [Col. 1:40-43]. Davidson discloses adjusting the relative positioning of the conveying device, the transfer of the articles can be optimized [Col. 6:4-7].
Both ‘092 and Davidson disclose transferring articles between rotating elements. One of ordinary skill would reasonably understand that the transfer point be consistent to avoid disruptions in the overall system, damage to articles or damage to equipment. Davidson discloses using servomotors to rotate the conveying devices and using the servomotors to adjust the relative positioning of the conveying devices.
Applicant’s argument that the disc and transfer wheel of ‘092 operate on perpendicular axes while the conveying devices of Davidson operate on parallel axes is considered unpersuasive as the relative rotation of elements results in a point of transfer for the articles. Therefore, the teachings of Davidson would be relevant to any system where transfer occurs between rotating elements.
Applicant’s argument that ‘092 fails to suggest a need or desire to alter the relative positions of the disc and transfer wheel is considered unpersuasive as Davidson is considered to disclose the need to alter the relative position of rotating elements.
One of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify ‘092 in view of Davidson to allow relative positioning changes between the sorting disc and transfer wheel to maintain the smooth transfer of articles between the sorting disc and transfer wheel. Therefore, the rationale is considered proper and as the rationale does not rely on information only gleaned from applicant’s disclosure, the combination is considered not to be the result of impermissible hindsight.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 19-21 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. The recitations of “central hub”, “lobes”, “first wall” and “second wall” is not supported by the original specification. This is a new matter rejection.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 16-18, 20, 21 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.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, the language “the sorting disc comprises a peripheral portion that includes the plurality of openings and a recessed portion that is located radially inward of the peripheral portion, the plurality of openings are located within the recessed portion” renders the claim indefinite because the language is unclear as to the location of the plurality of openings. Are the openings located in the peripheral portion, the recessed portion or both? The recessed portion is claimed as being radially inward of the peripheral portion; therefore, the recessed portion and peripheral portion would be considered separate areas.
Further, claim 16 lacks antecedent basis for “the distribution disc”. It is unclear as to what structure is being referred.
Claim 20 lacks antecedent basis for “the distribution disc”. It is unclear as to what structure is being referred.
Claims 17, 18 and 21 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over European Document (EP 1939092 A2, copy and translation provided by applicant, hereafter ‘092) in view of Davidson (USPN 8668074).
Regarding Claim(s) 1 and 6, ‘092 teaches a singling equipment for an apparatus for packaging lollipops (A), each lollipop having a head (A2) and a stick (A1), the singling equipment comprising: a horizontally rotating sorting disc (disk 2 and ring 3) with a plurality of pockets (pockets 4), each of the pockets accommodating the head of the lollipop (see Figure 4); a vertically rotating first transfer wheel (10) with a plurality of indentations (jaws 24 having surface Z) for the stick of the lollipop; and a vertically rotating second transfer wheel (20) with a plurality of holding means (gripper 71), each of the holding means gripping the stick of the lollipop. ‘092 fails to teach the horizontally rotating sorting disc and the vertically rotating first transfer wheel are each driven by a servomotor, whose speed of rotation and/or torque is controlled independently. Davidson (USPN 8668074) teaches a first and second conveying device (101,102) having grippers (103), the conveying devices transferring bottles (104-107) from the first conveying device to the second conveying device. The conveying devices are driven by servomotors and the relative positioning of the conveying devices may be adjusting using the servomotors by minimizing the angular momentum [Col. 2:8 – Col. 4:7]. The servomotors are disclosed as having position, speed and momentum control, which is considered torque control [Col. 2:34-36]. Davidson teaches servomotors whose speed of rotation and/or torque are independently controlled. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to drive the horizontally rotating sorting disc and the vertically rotating first transfer wheel by servomotors, whose speed of rotation and/or torque is controlled independently. This would allow relative positioning changes between the sorting disc and transfer wheel.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, ’092 teaches the horizontally rotating sorting disc comprises a plurality of openings, wherein the number of openings is identical to the number of pockets. Figures 2-5 shows openings (5), wherein the number of openings is identical to the number of pockets.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, ‘092 teaches a center of each of the pockets is radially aligned with a center of a respective opening. The head of the lollipop is received in the pockets while the stick is received in the openings; therefore, the centers of the pockets and openings is considered radially aligned.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, ‘092 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach controlling means which control the speed of rotation of the vertically rotating first transfer wheel and/or the horizontally rotating sorting disc. Davidson teaches a controlling means (“control element”) and discloses the motor has speed control; therefore, the control elements would control the speed of rotation of the motor, and by extension, the conveying devices. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide controlling means which control the speed of rotation of the vertically rotating first transfer wheel and/or the horizontally rotating sorting disc in order to control the relative positioning of the wheel and disc.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, ‘092 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the method comprises monitoring the torque and/or a position deviation of the horizontally rotating sorting disc and the vertically rotating first transfer wheel. Davidson teaches the torque is monitored permanently [Col. 3:25-27, “step of determining a load can be performed continuously or at predetermined time intervals”]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to monitor the torque permanently to provide real-time adjustments.
Claim(s) 8, 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘092 in view of Davidson as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Japanese Document (JP2018135179A, copy and machine translation provided by applicant, hereafter ‘179).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, ‘092 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach adjusting required torque to maintain the horizontally rotating sorting disc and/or the vertically rotating first transfer wheel in a desired rotational position. ‘179 teaches rotating bodies (11, 12) that transport containers (2). ‘179 teaches a servomotor (121) and teaches adjusting the torque (“rotational driving force”) to synchronize the rotating bodies [see Para. 26]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the torque to maintain the horizontally rotating sorting disc and/or the vertically rotating first transfer wheel in a desired rotational position in order to synchronize the disc and transfer wheel to transfer lollipops between the disc and transfer wheel.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, ‘092 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach during a constant output of singled or wrapped lollipops or during a constant speed of rotation of the vertically rotating transfer wheel, the method comprises not maintaining a constant speed of rotation of the vertically rotating first transfer wheel ‘179 teaches rotating bodies (11, 12) and teaches one rotating body rotates at a constant speed while the other rotates at a variable speed [See Para. 17-26] because the rotating bodies have different container pitches. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to rotate the first transfer wheel at a non-constant speed to properly transfer lollipop to the second transfer wheel.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, ‘092 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the speed of rotation of the vertically rotating first transfer wheel changes during a step of picking up of the lollipop from the horizontally rotating sorting disc until a hand over to the vertically rotating second transfer wheel. However, as noted above, the speed of the rotating bodies can be varied to ensure smooth transfer of the container. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change the speed of rotation of the vertically rotating first transfer wheel during a step of picking up of the lollipop from the horizontally rotating sorting disc until a hand over to the vertically rotating second transfer wheel in order to produce a smooth transfer of lollipops.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 13-15 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.
Claims 16-21 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
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 WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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 MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653