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 1 is amended. Claim 6 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-4, filed 12/19/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of EP3564006 hereinafter EP’006, listed in IDS translation provided in view of ISHIKA (US 20090133993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1,2,3,7, 8, 10, 12,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 unpatentable over EP3564006 hereinafter EP’006, listed in IDS translation provided in view of ISHIKA (US 20090133993).
Regarding Claim 1 EP’006 discloses feed device for a conveyor system for preforms , which is designed to convey preforms coming in an orderly manner from an upstream module of the conveyor system to a downstream module of the conveyor system (Figure 1, [0023]-[0024], feed device-1, a conveyor system-4.1, 4.2 for preforms-2 which transports the preforms arriving in an ordered manner from an upstream module of the conveyor system to a downstream module of the conveyor system where preforms are separated in singles ) , the feed device comprising: a first and a second conveyor belt each guided over at least two rollers (Figure 2a, conveyor belts-4.1,4.2, wheels-4.3,4.4), wherein a conveying path for the preforms is formed between a first belt section of the first conveyor belt (Figure 2a) and a second belt section of the second conveyor belt (Figure 2a), wherein the first and second conveyor belts are arranged such that a lateral edge surface of the first conveyor belt and a lateral edge surface of the second conveyor belt form a support for a support ring of a preform (Figure 1,2a, support ring-), and wherein the support can be brought into engagement with the underside of the support ring (Figure1,2a, [0025], support ring-2.4). EP’ 006 didn’t specify that that an accumulation force is applied in the conveying direction (F) to the preform located in the conveying path. However, Examiner notes that the function of the apparatus/structural parts is not given patentable weight in apparatus claims -the manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. In re Casey 15 USPO 235. The process of using an apparatus sis viewed as a recitation of intended use and is given no patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2114 Ri - 21415 R2 for further details.
“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber. 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); Inre Danlv. 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v.Bausch & Lomb Inc.. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)”.
EP’006 discloses that the support for a support ring of a preform being formed at least partially by side edges of the teeth of the toothed belts (Figure 1, 2a [0023]; EP’006) but didn’t disclose that wherein conveyor belts are formed as toothed belts. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, ISHIKA discloses that the conveyor device has toothed belt (abstract, [0037], toothed belt-120, Figure 1)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine EP’006 teaching of the conveyor device with that of the toothed belt taught by Ishika for the purpose of slip free synchronous movement.
Regarding Claim 2, EP’006 discloses feed device according to in that wherein in each case a surface of the first and second conveyor belt oriented perpendicular to the edge surface forms two opposite stabilizing surfaces for the portion of the preform adjoining below the supporting ring (Figure 2a showing the surface of the first and second conveyor belt oriented perpendicular to the edge surface; in Figure 1 showing the stabilizing surfaces are the portion of the preform-2 adjoining below the supporting ring-2.4 ), which can be brought into engagement with the portion of the preform adjoining below the supporting ring in such a way that a deflection of the preform located in the conveying path transversely to the conveying direction is limited ( Figure 1, clamping belts 4-5-4.6 so that the deflection is limited , [0024]).
Regarding Claim 3 EP’006 discloses that the feed device has a drive for each conveyor belt ([0024]).
Regarding Claim 7 EP’006 discloses that the edge surfaces of the conveyor belts, which are designed as a support for a supporting ring of a preform (Figure 1, 2a, lateral edge-2.2support ring-2.3, preform-2, conveyor belts-4.1,4.2, [0023]-[0024] ), but didn’t specifically disclose that are designed in such a way that, when a limit accumulation force on a preform located in the conveying path is exceeded, a sliding slip occurs between the edge surfaces and the supporting ring (41) of the preform.
However, Examiner notes that the function of the apparatus/structural parts is not given patentable weight in apparatus claims -the manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. Inre Casey 15? USPO 235. The process of using an apparatus sis viewed as a recitation of intended use and is given no patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2114 Ri - 21415 R2 for further details.
“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber. 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); Inre Danlv. 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v.Bausch & Lomb Inc.. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)”.
Regarding Claim 8, EP’006 discloses wherein the stabilizing surfaces of the conveyor belts are aligned vertically (Figure 1, 2a).
Regarding claim 10 EP’006 discloses that conveyor belts each have a stabilizing surface which are designed in such a way that the distance between the conveyor belts (Figure 1 showing the stabilizing surfaces are the portion of the preform-2 adjoining below the supporting ring-2.4 ) in the conveying path increases preferably in the direction facing away from the support (Figure 2a showing the conveyor belts 4.1 and 4.2 have greater distance as they face away from the support) .
Regarding Claim 12 EP’006 discloses the conveyor belts are arranged in such a way that the conveying path is horizontal (Figure 1, 2a).
Regarding Claim 18 EP’006 discloses that conveying system for preforms comprising a feed device and a plurality of preforms which are conveyed at a variable distance from one another in the conveying path of the feed device (Figure 1, [0023]-[0024], feed device-1, a conveyor system-4.1, 4.2 for preforms-2 which transports the preforms arriving in an ordered manner from an upstream module of the conveyor system to a downstream module of the conveyor system where preforms are separated in singles), but didn’t specifically disclose that wherein an accumulation force can be applied to the preforms in a downstream section of the conveying path of the feed device. However, Examiner notes that the function of the apparatus/structural parts is not given patentable weight in apparatus claims -the manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. Inre Casey 15? USPO 235. The process of using an apparatus sis viewed as a recitation of intended use and is given no patentable weight. Please see MPEP 2114 Ri - 21415 R2 for further details.
“While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber. 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board’s finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); Inre Danlv. 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v.Bausch & Lomb Inc.. 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original)”.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3564006 hereinafter EP’006 in view of ISHIKA (US 20090133993).further in view of Drysdale US 20060269648,.
Regarding Clam 4 , EP’006 discloses that the feed device has a drive for each conveyor belt ([0024]) but didn’t disclose that wherein the feed device comprises a common drive for the first and the second conveyor belt. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art , both conveyor belts are driven by the same motor( [0025], drive motor for conveyor belt system-51 for the belts 52,54).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teaching of EP’006 with that of the teaching of Drysdale’s single drive for the purpose of more synchronous movement of the belts ([0025], Drysdale)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3564006 in view of ISHIKA (US 20090133993) and further in view of WO 2006058512, herein WO’512 translation attached.
Regarding Claim 5 EP’006 discloses that feed device for a conveyor system for preforms , which is designed to convey preforms coming in an orderly manner from an upstream module of the conveyor system to a downstream module of the conveyor system (Figure 1, [0023]-[0024], feed device-1, a conveyor system-4.1, 4.2 for preforms-2) but didn’t disclose that wherein the conveyor belts are made of a plastic. In the related field of endeavor pertaining n to the art, WO’512 discloses that the conveyor belts/rails could be made of plastic (Figure 9, [0110], translated ).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teaching of EP’006 with that of the plastic conveyor belts taught by WO’512 for the purpose of mechanical resilience and specific wear requirements ([0110])
Claim(s) 9,11, 13-14,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over by EP3564006 in view of ISHIKA (US 20090133993) and further in view of Tanner (US 20190070768).
Regarding Claim 9 EP’006 discloses first and second conveyor belt oriented perpendicular to the edge surface forms two opposite stabilizing surfaces for the portion of the preform adjoining below the supporting ring (Figure 1,2a) but didn’t disclose that the stabilizing surfaces of the conveyor belts have an inclination of between 50 and 10° with respect to the vertical. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art Tanner discloses that the conveyor belts have inclined surface ([002]), therefore combining EP’006 which teaches that stabilizing surfaces are formed on the by engaging portion with the underside of the support ring of the preform with the conveyor belts and the inclined surface teaching by Tanner; the inclination between the stabilizing surface and the conveyor belt can be achieved.
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teaching of EP’006 with that of the Tanner’s inclined surface for the purpose of continuos flow of the preforms at different elevations.
Further the combine references above do not teach the inclination angle as recited. However EP’006 discloses that each conveyor belt is controlled by a drive ([0024], EP’006) , hence the controlled operation will be able to achieve the desire recited angle.
Regarding Claim 11, EP’006 which teaches that stabilizing surfaces are formed on the by engaging portion with the underside of the support ring of the preform with the conveyor belts (figure 2A) but did not teach that the stabilizing surfaces each have a gradation which divides the stabilizing surfaces each into a first partial stabilizing surface and a second partial stabilizing surface. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art Tanner discloses that the conveyor belts have inclined surface ([002]), therefore combining EP’006 with Tanner it would make the two stabilization surfaces formed by the inclined plane at different slopes.
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teaching of EP’006 with that of the Tanner’s inclined surface for the purpose of continuos flow of the preforms at different elevations.
Regarding Claim 13 EP’006 discloses in Figure 1 showing the stabilizing surfaces are the portion of the preform-2 adjoining below the supporting ring-2.4. however it didn’t disclose that the conveyor belts have a width such that the stabilizing surfaces cover at least one-twentieth of the preform located in the conveyor section. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Tanner discloses that conveyor units can be adjusted in width by width adjustment mechanism (Figure 2, width adjustment mechanism-20, [0037]).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teaching of EP’006 with that of the Tanner’s width adjustment mechanism for the purpose of feed device can be adjusted to preforms with different sizes or different diameters ([020], Tanner)
Regarding Claim 14 EP’006 discloses in Figure 1 showing the stabilizing surfaces are the portion of the preform-2 adjoining below the supporting ring-2.4. however it didn’t disclose that the conveyor belts have a width between 10 and 50 mm. . In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Tanner discloses that conveyor units can be adjusted in width by width adjustment mechanism (Figure 2, width adjustment mechanism-20, [0037]). Tanner didn’t particularly disclose that the conveyor belts have a width between 10 and 50 mm. However, this is a design choice. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teaching of EP’006 with that of the Tanner’s width adjustment mechanism for the purpose of feed device can be adjusted to preforms with different sizes or different diameters ([020], Tanner).
Regarding Claim 19, EP’006 discloses that feed device for a conveyor system for preforms , which is designed to convey preforms coming in an orderly manner from an upstream module of the conveyor system to a downstream module of the conveyor system (Figure 1, [0023]-[0024], feed device-1, a conveyor system-4.1, 4.2 for preforms-2) but didn’t disclose that the feed device is arranged downstream of an line-up sorter, and upstream of a take-off device. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art , Tanner discloses the feed device is arranged downstream of an line-up sorter and upstream of a take-off device (Figure 1, line-up sorter, take-off/clamping conveyor-11)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teaching of EP’006 with that of the Tanner’s teaching line-up and take off device for the purpose of guiding them through the inspection and rejection unit of the conveyor path ([0035], Tanner).
Regarding Claim 20 Tanner discloses characterized in that the gap detection sensor connected to a control system which, upon detection of one or more gaps ([0014], [0017]), controls the at least one drive in such a way that the rotational speed of the conveyor belts is increased ([0015], [0024], [0040]). However, Tanner didn’t disclose that plurality of gap sensors are used. The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Tanner discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate_the gap sensors , since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the gap sensors for the purpose of detecting the lack of preforms in the conveying line. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) .
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over by EP3564006 hereinafter EP’006 in view of ISHIKA (US 20090133993) and further in view of Tanner (US 20190071194), hereinafter Tanner’194.
Regarding Claim 15 EP’006 discloses that feed device for a conveyor system for preforms , which is designed to convey preforms coming in an orderly manner from an upstream module of the conveyor system to a downstream module of the conveyor system (Figure 1, [0023]-[0024], feed device-1, a conveyor system-4.1, 4.2 for preforms-2). Tanner’194 discloses a minimum sensor-S6 (Figure 3, [00015]) for detecting preforms is arranged at the downstream section of the conveying path of the feed device and a maximum sensor-S5 (Figure 3, [00014]) for detecting preforms is arranged at the upstream section of the conveying path of the feed device.
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teaching of EP’006 with that of the Tanner’s sensors for the purpose of adjusting the speed of the conveyor as required ([0014]-[0015], Tanner, 194).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over by EP3564006 hereinafter EP’006 in view of ISHIKA (US 20090133993) and Tanner (US 20190071194), hereinafter Tanner’194 further in view of Tanner (US 20190070768).
Regarding claim 16, EP’006 that feed device for a conveyor system for preforms , which is designed to convey preforms coming in an orderly manner from an upstream module of the conveyor system to a downstream module of the conveyor system (Figure 1, [0023]-[0024], feed device-1, a conveyor system-4.1, 4.2 for preforms-2) but didn’t disclose minimum and maximum sensors in the conveying path of the feed device. In the related field of edneavor pertaining to the art, Tanner’194 disclose a minimum sensor-S6 (Figure 3, [00015]) for detecting preforms is arranged at the downstream section of the conveying path of the feed device and a maximum sensor-S5 (Figure 3, [00014]) for detecting preforms is arranged at the upstream section of the conveying path of the feed device.
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teaching of EP’006 with that of the Tanner’s sensors for the purpose of adjusting the speed of the conveyor as required ([0014]-[0015], Tanner, 194).
The above combination didn’t disclose that at least one gap detection sensoris arranged between the minimum sensor and the maximum sensor which gap detection sensor is set up to detect gaps in the conveying path between preforms. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Tanner discloses a gap detection sesnsor-S3 in the upstream path to detect gaps in the conveying paths between preforms ([0015]). Combining the above reference Tanner’194 with that of Tanner’s gap sensor the above claim limitation can be achieved.
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teaching of EP’006/Tanner’s 194 with that of the Tanner’s gap sensor for the purpose of supply preforms more quickly and close the gap created ([0015]).
Regarding Claim 17 Tanner discloses characterized in that the gap detection sensor connected to a control system which, upon detection of one or more gaps ([0014], [0017]), controls the at least one drive in such a way that the rotational speed of the conveyor belts is increased ([0015], [0024], [0040]).
ConclusionAny inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741