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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of group II claims 1-10 was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2025.
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Norton (US 3658220 A)
PNG
media_image1.png
270
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
CLAIM 1. Norton discloses an apparatus for manufacturing a display apparatus (Note: “for manufacturing a display unit” is considered a statement of intended use or purpose.1), the apparatus comprising:
a separation part that separates a half-cut target [Fig. 2] into a plurality of target portions (Norton discloses an apparatus [Fig. 3] for processing "sheet material which has been cut into a plurality of connected articles" (Abstract). The "separator means 26" is the separation part (Col. 2 line 52+). The articles are connected by "tabs or nicks" (a "half-cut" state) (Col. 3 line 52+)),
wherein the separation part comprises a plurality of first moving parts each driven in a driving direction to move the plurality of target portions (Norton uses a "first conveyor means" and a "second conveyor means" (first moving parts) to move the articles (Abstract & Col. 6 Line63+).), and
as each of the plurality of first moving parts is driven, a distance between the plurality of target portions separated gradually increases (The "conveyor unit 29 is driven at a substantially greater speed than the stripping unit 14" (p. 5). This differential speed breaks the nicks and separates the rows of articles, increasing the distance between them (Col. 3 line 66+).).
CLAIM 2. Norton discloses an apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of first moving parts comprises a conveyor forming an endless track (The apparatus uses conveyors as the primary moving parts, such as "conveyor unit 29" and "conveyor means 27" and "upper and lower tape conveyors," which typically form endless tracks. (Col. 3 line 65 – col 5 line 75).).
CLAIM 3. Norton discloses an apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a second moving part that moves at least one of the plurality of first moving parts in a direction intersecting the driving direction (After initial row separation, a "skewing conveyor unit" is used to laterally separate the articles within each row (col. 4, lines 33-40). This skewing action applies forces "transverse to the direction of advance of the articles" (col. 6, lines 35-50) (a direction intersecting the primary driving direction).).
CLAIM 4. Norton discloses an apparatus of claim 3, wherein the second moving part moves at least one of the plurality of first moving parts in a direction perpendicular to the driving direction (The skewing conveyor breaks the connecting tabs by effecting "relative movement of the adjacent articles transverse to the direction of advance of the articles" to break nicks along a line "perpendicular to the fibers of the material." (col. 6, lines 35-50)).
CLAIM 5. Norton discloses an apparatus of claim 1, wherein driving directions of at least two of the plurality of first moving parts intersect each other (The combined action of the main separating conveyors (moving in the primary feed direction) and the subsequent skewing conveyors, which induce a lateral, perpendicular movement to achieve final article separation, supports this claim. (col. 2, lines 15-26; col. 4, lines 61-75).).
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.
Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Norton (US 3658220 A) in view of Bouchard (US 20030102016 A1).
CLAIM 6. Norton discloses an apparatus of claim 1. While Norton describes the delivery of articles to a shingling and stacking unit, it lacks an explicit disclosure of a "transfer robot" for the final transfer to a storage location.
Bouchard teaches the use of automated transfer devices to move a plurality of articles from one station or surface to another within a processing system. Specifically, Bouchard discloses that once articles are processed, they can be moved by "pick-and-place machines" which "automatically pick and place the chips with suction cups or mechanical grippers" (Bouchard ¶ [0007]). Bouchard further describes "transfer units" (230, 251) utilizing "transfer arms" (231, 251) configured to engage a plurality of articles and slide them from a processing surface or conveyor to a subsequent buffer or storage platform (Bouchard ¶ [0074], [0080]).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to incorporate a transfer robot or automated transfer arm, as taught by Bouchard, to perform the final transfer of the target portions from the conveyor system of Norton to the storage location. A POSITA would be motivated to use a robotic transfer mechanism to automate the removal of articles from the conveyor to "decrease cycle time" and ensure "compacting" or orderly placement into the storage area (Bouchard ¶ [0042], [0074]). The use of a robotic arm or pick-and-place machine to move articles from a conveyor to a storage tray is a well-known automation technique that yields the predictable result of increased throughput and handling precision.
CLAIM 7. Norton in view of Bouchard discloses an apparatus of claim 6, wherein the transfer robot comprises: a first transfer robot; and a second transfer robot, and the first transfer robot and the second transfer robot sequentially transfer the plurality of target portions to the storage location (Bouchard teaches the use of multiple transfer units and arms in sequence to move and process articles. Specifically, Bouchard discloses a "first transfer unit 230" with a "first transfer arm 231" to move chips to a buffer, followed by a "second transfer unit 251" with a "second transfer arm 251" and "third transfer arm 253" to further move and compact the same chips (¶[0074], [0080], [0081]). It would have been obvious to provide sequential robots as taught by Bouchard to move the target portions of Norton in stages, thereby allowing one robot to return for a new load while the second completes the storage transfer to "decrease cycle time" (Bouchard ¶[0042])).
CLAIM 8. Norton in view of Bouchard discloses an apparatus of claim 6, wherein the transfer robot comprises an adsorbing part that adsorbs the plurality of target portions (Norton utilizes conveyors and friction/pressure to engage articles. Bouchard, however, explicitly teaches that robotic transfer machines (pick-and-place) "automatically pick and place the chips with suction cups" (Bouchard ¶[0007]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to equip the transfer robot of Norton with an "adsorbing part" (vacuum suction cup) as taught by Bouchard to improve the reliability of the grip on the target portions and ensure they are securely held during transfer without damaging the surface of the articles.).
CLAIM 9. Norton in view of Bouchard discloses an apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a residue storage storing residue of the plurality of target portions separated by the separation part (The apparatus separates "carton blanks and waste material" in a "stripping means" unit 14. While a dedicated storage bin for residue is not detailed, Bouchard teaches that processed articles are moved to specific "holding trays," "nests," or "storage platforms" to organize the results of the separation (Bouchard ¶[0007], [0074]). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to provide a "residue storage" (such as a tray or bin) downstream of the stripping means of Norton to collect the separated waste, as providing a designated receptacle for separated materials is a standard and necessary practice for maintaining a clean and functional automated production environment.).
CLAIM 10. Norton in view of Bouchard discloses an apparatus of claim 9, wherein the residue storage crushes the stored residue of the plurality of target portions (This limitation does not clearly or explicitly provide a structural distinction. The claim fails to recite any specific structure or specialized mechanical assembly required to perform said crushing. In the absence of a defined structure, this limitation is functional and is met by the operation of any conventional waste receptacle where the accumulated weight of the material causes the residue at the bottom of the container to be compressed or "crushed.").
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
12/14/2026
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
1 The claim preamble language, "An apparatus for manufacturing a display apparatus," is considered a statement of intended use or purpose and does not recite structural limitations that distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art apparatus disclosed by Norton. The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis; if the body of the claim sets forth a structurally complete invention and the preamble merely states the purpose, the preamble is not a limitation. The structure described in the body of the claim is fully capable of processing various sheet materials, including carton blanks as taught by Norton.