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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"a holding means for holding the rod-shaped article" in claim 16. The limitation recites "means for" and the term "holding" is a functional descriptor that lacks definite structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 30 is 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 30 recites "a cutting angle between 20 degrees and 70 degrees." It is unclear as to how the angle is measured (how is the angle determined/measured?).
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.
Claims 16-19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neubauer (DE 102010002583, with English machine translation).
Regarding claim 16, Neubauer discloses an apparatus for aligning rod-shaped articles comprising a reference element (see Fig. 5), the apparatus comprising:
a conveyor configured to accommodate and to transport a rod-shaped article comprising a reference element (see conveyor drum 90);
a holding means for holding the rod-shaped article in the conveyor, the holding means allowing temporary rotation of the rod-shaped article (conveying drums are provided with suction air/head to hold the rods, [0028-0029]);
a detection device configured to detect a rotational position of the rod-shaped article by detecting a position of the reference element (see sensor 82, [0097-0099]);
a mechanical positioning unit to rotate the rod-shaped article held by the holding means around a longitudinal axis of the rod-shaped article (see blow-out valve 91 and roller cam 92, [0101]).
Neubauer discloses the apparatus detects if a seam (reference element) is in the field of view of the sensor when the rod is being conveyed and if so, the rod is broad into contact with a rolling cam arranged on the conveying drum to rotate the rod by a predetermined angle ([0099-0101]). Thus, the apparatus activates an actuator of the mechanical positioning unit when the detection device detects a reference element position. Although Neubauer does not expressly disclose a "controller," the apparatus comprises a sensor device that determines a position of a seam and only activates the actuator of the positioning unit when the seam is in the incorrect position ([0023-0024,0097-0101])--thus, Neubauer inherently has a controller that receives information from the sensor, determines whether seam is present, and activates the positioning unit.
Regarding claim 17, the seam ([0097-0101]) is construed as reading on a marker provided on an outside of the rod-shaped article.
Regarding claim 18, the conveyor is a fluted conveyor drum (drum with receiving troughs, [0039]).
Regarding claim 19, Neubauer discloses a cutting device ([0048]).
Regarding claim 29, Neubauer discloses a method for aligning rod-shaped articles comprising a reference element, the method comprising:
receiving a rod-shaped article comprising a reference element in a seat of a conveyor (rod 100 received within conveyor drum 90);
transporting and holding the rod-shaped article comprising the reference element (conveyor 90 rotates rod, which is held with suction/negative pressure, [0028-0029]);
detecting a rotational position of the rod-shaped article by detecting a position of the reference element of the rod-shaped article, while holding the rod-shaped article (see sensor 82 which detects position of seam, i.e., a reference element, [0097-0099]); and
using information on a detected position of the reference element of the rod-shaped article and mechanically rotating the rod-shaped article around a longitudinal axis of the rod-shaped article from the detected position to a defined position by a mechanical positioning unit (Neubauer discloses the apparatus detects if a seam (reference element) is in the field of view of the sensor when the rod is being conveyed and if so, the rod is broad into contact with a rolling cam arranged on the conveying drum to rotate the rod by a predetermined angle, [0099-0101]).
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (DE 102010002583, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Luke (US 4149546).
Regarding claim 20, Neubauer does not disclose a guiding element arranged at a distance and parallel to the conveyor; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the conveyor with a guiding element since Luke, similarly directed towards a rod conveyor in the tobacco art, teaches providing arcuate guides adjacent conveyor drums (see guides 5, 7', 8', 9', 12', 13'; Fig. 1; col 2, lines 41-57). One would have been motivated to use well-known and conventional means to retain rods with an associated conveyor drum.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (DE 102010002583, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Murphy (US 3415350).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Neubauer does not disclose a moving belt configured to contact and rotate the rod-shaped article; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the apparatus with a moving belt since Murphy, similarly directed towards an apparatus for aligning articles, teaches providing friction belts 22/23 to rotate articles along a conveyor to achieve a desired orientation (col 2, lines 64-col 3, line 51). One would have been motivated to provide an economical and highly efficient means to rapidly orient the articles being conveyed (col 1, lines 63-68). As to claim 22, the belt speed is controlled (col 3, lines 1-14).
Claims 23-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (DE 102010002583, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Heaney (US 4883449).
Regarding claims 23-25, Neubauer does not disclose an activated roller held in the conveyor; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the apparatus with activated roller since Heaney, similarly directed towards a rod conveyor in the tobacco art, teaches providing indexing devices 40 for providing angular displacement of rods conveyed on drum 30 (col 3, lines 46-col 4, line 56; col 5, lines 45-col 6, line 14; chuck shoe assembly 78 contacts chuck 42 to actively roll the chuck and the attached rods). One would have been motivated to employ the activated rollers taught by Heaney in the apparatus of Neubauer to secure the rods as they are rotated by a predetermined amount. As to claims 24 and 25, Heaney's indexing devices are provided on the drum and associated with the channel for the rods on the conveyor drum.
Regarding claim 27, Neubauer does not disclose the flutes and having an opening configured for the mechanical positioning unit to pass through; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the apparatus with opening as claimed since Heaney, similarly directed towards a rod conveyor in the tobacco art, teaches providing indexing devices 40 for providing angular displacement of rods conveyed on drum 30 (col 3, lines 46-col 4, line 56; col 5, lines 45-col 6, line 14; chuck shoe assembly 78 contacts chuck 42 to actively roll the chuck and the attached rods; as seen in Figs. 4 and 5, the indexing device/chuck assembly extends through openings in the bracket 44 to contact the rods). One would have been motivated to employ the indexing device taught by Heaney in the apparatus of Neubauer to secure the rods as they are rotated by a predetermined amount.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (DE 102010002583, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Heitmann (US 4969551).
Regarding claim 26, Neubauer does not disclose a multiple rotation element; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the apparatus with a multiple rotation element since Heitmann, similarly directed towards a rod conveyor in the tobacco art, teaches providing a rotation device that rotates multiple rods via projections 27,27a to impart a rolling movement to oncoming successive articles of the series (col 4, lines 34-40; col 7, lines 24-34).
Claims 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (DE 102010002583).
Regarding claim 28, Neubauer does not disclose an output control arranged at a release location; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the apparatus with an output control that detects the condition of the reference element at the release and adjusts the mechanical positioning unit since Examiner takes Official Notice that feedback control loops are very well known and conventional in process control (feedback control measures an output, calculates error relative to a setpoint, and adjusts process variables in response).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (DE 102010002583, with English machine translation) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Panz (EP 3461352).
Regarding claim 30, Neubauer discloses cutting the rod-shaped articles ([0048]). While Neubauer does not disclose cutting a reference element in the form of a susceptor band at a cutting angle of 20 to 70 degrees, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided susceptor bands and cut at 20 to 70 degrees since Panz, similarly directed towards tobacco rods, teaches providing metal strips to enable, support, and influence the generation of required heat ([0002]) and to cut these strips during processing at desired angles to reduce cutting resistance ([0025]), wherein Fig. 1 and 3 clearly illustrate the circular blade as cutting at about 45 degrees (angle formed by tangent of blade and metal strip).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights