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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Skyum fails to teach, show or suggest…to pick up or deposit a sheet product in/from a position arranged between both manipulators on the conveyor” [emphasis added]) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues Skyum’s first and second manipulators “cannot reach an area of the conveyor positioned between them (see area between the frame rails of R1 and R2) such that a common conveyor position is accessible by two different manipulators.”
As per the previous argument, the Examiner responds that Applicant has not claimed that first and second manipulators “reach an area of the conveyor positioned between them.” Regarding Applicant’s argument that Skyum fails to disclose “a common conveyor position is accessible by two different manipulators,” the Examiner disagrees and has provided a detailed interpretation within the body of the rejection.
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: “first manipulator” and “second manipulator.” The Examiner notes that “manipulator” is defined as “[a] device which can be used to move, arrange or operate something” (Wiktionary.com). Thus, the term is understood to be a generic term, or generic placeholder, and is coupled with the functional language of “movable along the main direction.”
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.
Claims 8-13 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 8 is indefinite due to being dependent upon itself. Given that Claim 8 had been dependent from cancelled Claim 7, which had been dependent from Claim 1, the Examiner will interpret Claim 8 and being dependent from Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Skyum et al. (US 12,338,082).
Skyum discloses;
Claim 1. A sorting device for sheet-like products (G_O), having a main product conveyance direction (X),
the sorting device comprises a first manipulator (R1), provided with gripping means (G), configured to connect to one or more products, which are aligned along a direction parallel to the main direction (Fig. 5a); the first manipulator is movable along the main direction between a pick-up position (position over the area comprised of R1 and R2), in which the gripping means is able to pick up one or more products, and a release position (position over the area comprised of I1 and I2), in which the gripping means is able to release the products; the gripping means of the first manipulator is movable along a transverse direction (Y), perpendicular to the main direction, a conveyor (FC), movable along the conveyance direction and arranged to support one or more products; the gripping means of the first manipulator is movable along the transverse direction, so as to reach the conveyor to deposit or pick up one or more products;
a second manipulator (R2), provided with gripping means (G) configured to connect to one or more products, which are aligned along a direction parallel to the main direction, wherein the second manipulator is movable along the main direction between the pick-up position, in which the gripping means is able to pick up one or more products, and the release position, in which the gripping means is able to release the products,
wherein the first manipulator and the second manipulator are each configured to reach a platform area (R1 and R2) along the conveyor main direction such that the gripping means of the first manipulator and the gripping means of the second manipulator are each able to pick up one or more products positioned in the platform area (Col. 12, Ln. 55-60, Col. 20, Ln. 57-65, Col. 23, Ln. 1-21, and Fig. 3 and 5a-5c).
The Examiner notes that the term “position” is defined as “the point or area occupied by a physical object” (Merriam-Webster.com).
Claim 3. The device according to claim 1, wherein the gripping means of the first manipulator comprises two or more cups (M1-M4), arranged aligned along a direction parallel to the main direction, which are activatable independently of each other (Col. 21, Ln. 41-65, and Fig. 4a).
Claim 4. The device according to claim 1, wherein the first manipulator comprises a carriage (CT1), provided with a cross member (upper cross member supporting CT2) with which the gripping means is associated (Col. 20, Ln. 57-65, and Fig. 3).
Claim 5. The device according to claim 4, wherein the gripping means of the first manipulator is movable along the cross member in the transverse direction (Col. 20, Ln. 57-65, and Fig. 3).
Claim 6. The device according to claim 1, wherein the gripping means of the first manipulator rotates about a substantially vertical rotation axis (RT_a) (Col. 21, Ln. 1-7, and Fig. 3).
Claim 8. The device according to claim 7 (interpreted as being dependent from Claim 1), wherein the gripping means of the second manipulator is movable along a (interpreted as “the”) transverse direction, perpendicular to the main direction (Col. 20, Ln. 57-65, and Fig. 3).
Claim 9. The device according to claim 8, wherein the gripping means of the second manipulator comprises two or more suction cups (M1-M4), arranged aligned along a direction parallel to the main direction which are activatable independently of each other (Col. 21, Ln. 41-65, and Fig. 4a).
Claim 10. The device according to one of claim 8, wherein the second manipulator comprises a carriage (CT1), provided with a cross member (upper cross member supporting CT2) with which the gripping means is associated (Col. 20, Ln. 57-65, and Fig. 3).
Claim 11. The device according to claim 10, wherein the gripping means of the second manipulator is movable along the cross member in the transverse direction (Col. 20, Ln. 57-65, and Fig. 3).
Claim 12. The device according to claim 8, wherein the gripping means of the second manipulator rotates about a substantially vertical rotation axis (RT_a) (Col. 21, Ln. 1-7, and Fig. 3).
Claim 13. The device according to claim 8, wherein the first manipulator and the second manipulator are independently movable from one another along the main direction (Col. 22, Ln. 27-44, and Fig. 5a-5c).
Claim 14. The device according to claim 1, wherein the pick-up position is the platform area (Fig. 5a-5c).
With respect to the limitations that have been cited as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the structures cited in the art of record as disclosing or teaching these limitations are either structurally similar to the respective structure in Applicant’s originally filed disclosure or perform the same claimed function.
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 RONALD P JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-8311. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272-7097. 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.
/RONALD P JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652