DETAILED ACTION
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(s) 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinkogler et al (US Pat No 6,623,001) in view of Michler et al (US Pub No 2003/0021668).
Regarding claim 10, Kluge discloses a method for stacking flat items in order to form stacks with a predefined number of flat items by means of a single stacking wheel, having the following steps:
a) introducing flat items into compartments of the single stacking wheel (2, e.g. via transport system 5),
b) transporting the flat items in the compartments of the single stacking wheel (shown in fig. 1),
c) removing the flat items from the compartments of the single stacking wheel (e.g. via fence 4) and forming a stack with the predefined number of flat items (3), and
It is noted that Steinkogler fails to disclose removing the stack of flat items. However, Michler discloses a similar stacking device including a means (54) for removing the stack of flat items (60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Steinkogler with the teaching of Michler to achieve the predictable result of having a full system for stacking and removing the stack after the stack has been completed.
The combination discloses after introduction of the predefined number of flat items into the compartments of the stacking wheel, no flat item is introduced into at least one subsequent compartment of the stacking wheel (noted at least by [0058] of Michler noting the use of empty compartments, and teaching by Steinkogler with the relating of placing sheets in desired slots, see column 6, lines 10-27), and repeating steps a) through d) using the single stacking wheel, and
wherein a drive of the single stacking wheel is configured to increase rotational speed of the single stacking wheel so that no flat item is transported into the respective at least one subsequent compartment of the single stacking wheel, the drive being further configured to restore the rotational speed of the single stacking wheel to be synchronized with a transport device, or a drive of a transport device is configured to reduce the transport speed of the transport device so that no flat item is transported into the respective at least one subsequent compartment of the single stacking wheel, and the synchronized transport speed is then restored the drive being further configured to restore the transport speed of the transport device to be synchronized with the single stacking wheel (noted by Steinkogler where the sheets feed to the stacking wheel can be sped up or slowed, or the kinematics of the stacker wheel itself can be controlled in the desired manner such that sheets are deposited into the desired slot, or no slot, see column 4, lines 6-15).
Regarding claim 11, Kluge discloses a device for stacking flat items by means of
only a single stacking wheel (1), for forming stacks with a predefined number of flat items,
a transport device (5) for transporting the flat items into compartments of the single stacking wheel, for which purpose the transport speed of the transport device and the rotational speed of the stacking wheel are synchronized,
a stripper (4) for removing the flat items from the compartments of the single stacking wheel,
a tray (3) on which the flat items removed from the compartments of the single stacking wheel are deposited and stacks with the predefined number of flat items are formed.
It is noted that Steinkogler fails to disclose removing the stack of flat items. However, Michler discloses a similar stacking device including a means (54) for removing the stack of flat items (60) wherein the stack is configured to be removed with the predefined number of flat items from the tray by the stack transport device so that a subsequent stack can be formed (see [0057]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Steinkogler with the teaching of Michler to achieve the predictable result of having a full system for stacking and removing the stack after the stack has been completed.
The combination discloses after introduction of the predefined number of flat items into the compartments of the stacking wheel, no flat item is introduced into at least one subsequent compartment of the stacking wheel (noted at least by [0058] of Michler noting the use of empty compartments, and teaching by Steinkogler with the relating of placing sheets in desired slots, see column 6, lines 10-27).
Regarding claim 14, Steinkogler discloses a gap between flat items transported by the transport device is provided in each case after a number of flat items corresponding to the predefined number, so that no flat item is transported into the respective at least one subsequent compartment of the single stacking wheel (see column 7, lines 22-31). Further the combination renders obvious the required gap being larger for the empty slots (or stopped conveyance causing a larger gap by transport system 5).
Regarding claim 15 and 16, it is noted that Steinkogler is silent as to the size of the gap needed and shows gap (ta) being smaller than the size of item 7A. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the gap size to either be a fraction, size of a article or multiple thereof since it merely requires routine experimentation to figure out an optimal size of a gap to be provided for a stacker wheel.
Regarding claim 17, as noted in the rejection of claim 11, Michler notes the use of empty compartments can be present and that “any number” of slots can remain empty. As such, it’s obviated that two, three, four or five compartments remaining empty as Michler notes that a plurality is capable of being used. Further, the applicant’s disclosure fails to provide criticality to any particular number.
Regarding claim 18, Steinkogler discloses the compartments of the stacking wheel have a curved, rectilinear, or helical profile along their profile or a section of the profile (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 19, Michler discloses a first tray (46) is configured to be removed from a stacking location by moving downwards with the stack to provide space for introducing a second tray (38) above the stack formed on the first tray; or pivoting the first tray together with the stack away from the stacking location (as shown in figures 4-11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Kluge with the teachings of Michler to achieve the predictable result of constantly depositing sheets defining and moving them away from the stacking device (noted at least in abstract).
Regarding claim 20, Kluge discloses a method for stacking flat items in order to form stacks with a predefined number of flat items by means of a single stacking wheel, having the following steps:
a) introducing flat items into compartments of the single stacking wheel (2, e.g. via transport system 5),
b) transporting the flat items in the compartments of the single stacking wheel (shown in fig. 1),
c) removing the flat items from the compartments of the single stacking wheel (e.g. via fence 4) and forming a stack with the predefined number of flat items (3), and
It is noted that Steinkogler fails to disclose removing the stack of flat items. However, Michler discloses a similar stacking device including a means (54) for removing the stack of flat items (60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Steinkogler with the teaching of Michler to achieve the predictable result of having a full system for stacking and removing the stack after the stack has been completed.
The combination discloses after introduction of the predefined number of flat items into the compartments of the stacking wheel, no flat item is introduced into at least one subsequent compartment of the stacking wheel (noted at least by [0058] of Michler noting the use of empty compartments, and teaching by Steinkogler with the relating of placing sheets in desired slots, see column 6, lines 10-27), and repeating steps a) through d) using the single stacking wheel, and
wherein a drive of the single stacking wheel is configured to increase rotational speed of the single stacking wheel so that no flat item is transported into the respective at least one subsequent compartment of the single stacking wheel, the drive being further configured to restore the rotational speed of the single stacking wheel to be synchronized with a transport device, or a drive of a transport device is configured to reduce the transport speed of the transport device so that no flat item is transported into the respective at least one subsequent compartment of the single stacking wheel, and the synchronized transport speed is then restored the drive being further configured to restore the transport speed of the transport device to be synchronized with the single stacking wheel (noted by Steinkogler where the sheets feed to the stacking wheel can be sped up or slowed, or the kinematics of the stacker wheel itself can be controlled in the desired manner such that sheets are deposited into the desired slot, or no slot, see column 4, lines 6-15).
Michler further discloses the stack is removed with the predefined number of flat items onto a first tray (46); wherein the first tray is configured to be removed with the predefined number of flat items from a stacking location below the stacking wheel; wherein, after removing the first tray from the stacking location, a second tray (38) is configured to be introduced at the stacking location for receiving a subsequent stack of flat items. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Kluge with the teachings of Michler to achieve the predictable result of constantly depositing sheets defining and moving them away from the stacking device (noted at least in abstract).
Regarding claim 21, the combination discloses the first tray is configured to be removed from the stacking location by moving downwards with the stack to provide space for introducing the second tray above the stack formed on the first tray in order to receive the subsequent stack by the second tray (shown in figures 4-11).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kluge et al in view of Michler et al, further in view of BOHM et al (US Pub No 2022/0223919).
Regarding claim 22, it is note that the combination fails to disclose pivoting of the stacking tray. However, BOHM discloses the tray is configured to be removed from the stacking location by pivoting the first tray together with the stack away from the stacking location and pivoting the second tray into the stacking location (shown in figure 1, and paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination with the additional aspect of pivoting to allow the stack to be removed from the tray with the assistance of gravity, wherein the stack is then conveyed by the designated conveyor (e.g. 30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 1/20/26, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing o of 11/20/25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619