DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Amendment filed 12/29/25 was entered into the record.
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.
Claims 2 and 4 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 2 recites the limitation "the suction cups" twice in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the top grippers.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
As best understood, claim(s) 1-10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. US 2019/0299414 (“Kato”).
Regarding claim 1, Kato disclosed a blank separating device for separating flat blanks, in particular of cardboard material, for producing dimensionally stable outer packaging such as cardboard boxes, with
a supply station (4) in which a, in particular vertical, stack of, in particular, plate-shaped stamping sheets (including 1, 7), each having a plurality of blanks lying in one plane, adjoining one another and connected to one another via predetermined tearing points, in particular micro-connections, is kept,
a robot (11) for removing at least one blank of an uppermost stamping sheet, in particular from the supply station,
a controller for controlling at least all moving parts of the blank separating device (see at least paragraphs 0058 and 0068-0070),
wherein the robot is designed as a separating robot with a corresponding gripping tool (27) with which it is capable of gripping only one or a group of several, in particular still connected, blanks from the interconnected blanks of the uppermost stamping sheet and separating the blank or the group of blanks by lifting it off from the stack and thereby tearing off the predetermined tearing points towards at least one adjacent blank of a remainder of the uppermost stamping sheet,
at least one hold-down device (26) is provided for preventing the remainder of the uppermost stamping sheet from lifting off when the blank or the group of blanks gripped by the separating robot is lifted.
Regarding claim 2, Kato disclosed the gripping tool has as gripper one or more top-side grippers, in particular adhesion grippers (27) arranged in particular in a horizontal gripping plane (Figure 3b). The alternatively claimed suckers are not strictly required according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Kato disclosed each top gripper is attached to a radially extending spoke (13b) and is adjustable in position along the spoke (see Figures 3A and 4A).
Regarding claim 4, Kato disclosed the gripping tool is designed in such a way that the individual top-side grippers can be activated in a controlled manner in a specific sequence, individually or in groups (see at least Figures 3B and 4B).
Regarding claim 5, Kato disclosed several hold-down devices (26b) either the undersides of the hold-down devices lie in a common horizontal hold-down plane (Figures 1 and 2) - or the hold-down devices are designed in such a way that they can adapt to an uneven, in particular sagging top side of the stack.
Regarding claim 6, Kato disclosed the at least one hold-down device is movably attached to a base frame of the supply station, and is movable in a vertical (paragraph 0053) as well as in at least one of the two horizontal transverse directions (through regular movement of the device) and (the hold down device) is in particular a hold-down frame (including 26a) having hold-down bars (26b) extending in one or both horizontal transverse directions, the hold-down bars being adjustably mounted in the hold-down frame thereby being movable, or capable of being moved, in at least one, preferably both, transverse directions, in particular the hold-down bars are automatically adjustable in a controlled manner (in pressing directions, see paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 7, Kato disclosed the at least one hold-down device is fixed to a tool base body (10) of the robot tool, in particular several hold-down devices (26b) are arranged so as to be adjustable in their position relative to the tool base body (paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 8, Kato disclosed each top gripper is associated with a hold-down device (26, see Figure 1) in particular, a hold-down device positioned radially further outwards with respect to the basic tool body is attached to each top gripper (see Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 9, Kato disclosed the supply station comprises a mechanical supply aligner (13) which holds and/or brings at least the uppermost stamping sheet, in particular the entire stack, into a desired position in two horizontal directions by means of lateral stops which are adjustable, in particular adjustable in a controlled manner (see at least paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 10, Kato disclosed the mechanical supply aligner is arranged either on the supply base frame or on the hold-down frame or on the tool base body (see Figure 3A).
Regarding claim 12, Kato disclosed a blank magazine (2), in particular one that is open upwards or to the side, is present in such a position that the separating robot can deposit a blank held by it therein.
Regarding claim 15, Kato disclosed packaging machine (for inserting and packaging products in a dimensionally stable outer packaging, in particular a cardboard box, with a cardboard box erector for producing a cardboard box from a flat blank of cardboard material, a plurality of transfer robots along a transfer path for transferring products into cardboard boxes), wherein the packaging machine comprises:
a blank separating device (11) for separating individual blanks from a stamping sheet with a plurality of blanks connected to one another via predetermined tearing points, in particular micro-connections. See also MPEP 2111.02 II.
Regarding claim 16, Kato disclosed the packaging machine comprises a transport system (R1, R2) leading through the packaging machine and a blank magazine (2),
the blank separating device and/or the separating robot is positioned in the packaging machine in such a way that it can deposit a separated blank or a group of separated blanks held by it directly on the transport system or optionally also in the blank magazine (see at least Figure 13).
Regarding claim 18, Kato disclosed a method for producing separated blanks from a stack of, in particular plate-shaped, stamping sheets with several blanks lying approximately in one plane and adjoining one another, connected to one another via predetermined tearing points, in particular micro-joints, in particular by means of a blank separating device (11), wherein
one or more blanks (1) from an uppermost or foremost stamping sheet, in particular one lying on the stack (including 7), are automatically gripped and moved out of the sheet plane thereof by a separating robot of a blank separating device while tearing off the predetermined tearing points (see at least Figures 8-10)
a remainder of the uppermost or foremost stamping sheet (7) is automatically kept on the stack.
Regarding claim 20, Kato disclosed the remainder rest of the uppermost or foremost stamping sheet around the blank is thereby automatically held in the sheet plane (see at least Figure 2).
Regarding claim 22, Kato disclosed before gripping and lifting out the blank - the uppermost or foremost stamping sheet is brought into a predetermined target position in the horizontal plane (see at least Figures 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 23, the stamping sheets, in particular the uppermost or foremost stamping sheet, are or is selected in a standard size (see at least Figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, Kato disclosed in addition to the stack of stamping sheets, a supply of separated blanks (see C2 for example) is kept available to bridge standstill times of the blank separating device.
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.
As best understood, claim(s) 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato in view of Neri EP 0581188 A1 (“Neri”). Kato disclosed the limitations of claim 1 as listed above but did not teach a scanner as claimed. Neri teaches a non-contact position scanner (28) for the position of the uppermost sheet in the horizontal plane relative to the supply base frame, the separating robot is connected to the position scanner by data, in particular via the control system, so that it can still grip the blank to be gripped in the same gripping position of the basic tool body for the blank (see at least Figure 3). A non-contact inspection scanner (28, 29) is present which checks the separated blank for quality features, in particular its shape and/or size and/or quality of its outer edges and/or quality of its printing and/or motif of its printing, in particular the test scanner is either at a test station separate from the supply station and the blank magazine which is arranged in particular downstream of the supply station and/or upstream of the blank magazine or is arranged on the separating robot, in particular on the tool base body (Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the teachings of Neri in order to inspect for quality to adjust as necessary as is well known in the art.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato. Kato disclosed the limitations of claim 18 as listed above but did not seem to specify the blanks were printed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use printed blanks that were ready to use on at least one side, in particular before being separated from the uppermost or foremost stamping sheet as the adhesive members. Printed adhesive members are entirely well known to use for labeling for example.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
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 HOWARD J SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3096. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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.
/HOWARD J SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights