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 Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 8/24/2026. Claims 25, 27, 35, 37, and 40 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues because wall [62] does not cover a top portion of all the interior elements in JPH0236452B2, these elements are not an interior space even though they are behind one of the walls [61] and in an interior location between walls [61] and/or [62] and the attachment portion making up the base device. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously argued, the combined housing formed by [61],[62] clearly creates a larger opening, which is the full border around the edges of each of parts [61],[62], and anything housed behind the walls is in the internal environment, wherein element [61] is clearly one of those walls, and wherein E1 is clearly behind wall [61] when retracted. The internal location between wall [61] and the base element is reasonably an internal space as claimed.
Applicant argues “nothing in the reference places E1 within… or separates E1 from the external environment.” See Response filed 8/24/2026, page 13. However, this is untrue since wall [61] does this and E1 moves between an interior area behind housing wall [61] and then beyond the edge of wall [61] as is clearly shown in the figures, i.e. the edge of the opening, to an external space. Nothing in the instant claims requires the housing to surround the cassette on all sides everywhere to create the internal space. The combined [61],[62] parts wherein at least part [61] houses everything behind it as claimed is reasonable to define the claimed internal space with a large opening defined by the edges of combined parts [61],[62], wherein E1 is behind the edge of wall [61] when retracted. Applicant appears to argue only both walls [62] and [61] fully covering the cassette elements in all areas can create an internal space. However, the claim is not so specific and there is no reason being housed only between wall [61] and the base device in some areas is not part of the internal space. Applicant is free to amend to a more specific structure to overcome this broad reading, but they have not. As such, the rejection is not overcome.
It is further noted it was argued that it would have been a design choice to extend any housing to protect more areas of the cassette. Although Applicant argues this is conclusory, the extent of coverage of a housing is certainly a matter of routine design absent evidence of criticality, wherein more coverage equates to more protection but also more material use and manufacturing difficulty. The choice of coverage itself in making this choice, however, is routine. See MPEP 2144.
Applicant arguments for Claims 25, 27, 35 and 37 are persuasive, and claims 25 and 35 are now allowable. However, Claims 27 and 37 remain obvious for the reasons below to address the amended limitations for a more specified movement.
Applicant argues JPH0236452B2 does teach a third connector as claimed. However, Applicant is taking an overly narrow view of a third connector as something that connects the device as an end effector to a distinct “manufacturing system.” However, Examiner maintains such structural specificity is not mandated by the claim language. As previously explained, any connector at all in the base device connecting to any movable framework in a manufacturing process is a third connector for connection to a manufacturing system. The manufacturing system may be outside the base device and cassette or a small functional part of those systems. The term is completely vague and it demands broad interpretation, i.e. a manufacturing system is virtually anything. It is further noted the manufacturing system is not even claimed, but only a capable connection of the third connector.
The pin [E2] is a distinct connection part and whether it is technically part of [E] or not is largely semantic since main body of [E] and the connecting pin [E2] are clearly separate parts an may be interpreted as such. Furthermore, pin [E2] connects to the rotating framework [54], which even alone, is a movable mechanical part in a manufacturing process and thus a manufacturing system. Nothing prevents this interpretation.
Finally, Examiner notes the housing is not even part of Claim 33 and thus it is unclear how the coverage of a housing not part of the base device can distinguish it. Furthermore, the arguments above with regard to interior space are repeated.
Further with regard to the third connecting device, it is noted this limitation is separately addressed in the rejection of Claim 39, and Applicant has not separately addressed this. As such, even if the 102 fails, and Examiner does not concede this, Claim 33 is still rejected as a 103 in the rejection of Claim 39.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 24, 26, 33, 36, and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JPH0236452B2 (all textual citations to English machine translation provided via google patents on 8/12/2026, original in 1/9/2024 IDS).
Regarding Claim 21, 26, 33 and 36, JPH0236452B2 teaches an application device, comprising: a cassette device [10] (See Fig. 3); and a base device (See page 3, paragraph starting with “Embodiment Figs. 1 and 2, indicating solid lines are the cassette and broken lines, e.g. [D],[E], etc. are the autolabeler, interpreted to be the base), wherein the cassette device comprises a housing [61],[62] having a first connecting device [40] (See Fig. 3), wherein a first opening is formed in the housing and connects an interior space of the housing to an external environment of the housing (See Fig. 3, wherein anything housed behind the walls is in the internal environment, i.e. anything behind wall [61] is in an interior space between this wall and the framework of the base device, and is thus an interior space; and note the entire portion of [E] is behind wall [61] and thus in the interior space when restriction; and note the combined housing formed by [61],[62] clearly creates an larger opening, which may be the full border around the edges of each of parts [61],[62], thus meaning moving past the edge of [61] is movement past the opening). It is further noted this feature would separately have been obvious since it would have been a design choice to extend any housing, i.e. element [62], to protect more areas of the cassette. The extent of coverage of a housing is certainly a matter of routine design absent evidence of criticality, wherein more coverage equates to more protection but also more material use and manufacturing difficulty. The choice of coverage itself in making this choice, however, is routine. See MPEP 2144. However, the current coverage of JPH0236452B2 is considered to read on the claims as written.
JPH0236452B2 further teaches wherein the interior space can accommodate a tape [T1], the tape extending from a first end to a second end and self-adhesive punched parts are arranged on the tape on a first side (See Fig. 1, and note the tape, which has labels, i.e. self-adhesive punched part, is housed in roll [11] on first reel [20] at a first end and extending to a second end at second reel [30]; note the instant claim does not positively recite the tape and it is not part of the claimed device),
wherein the cassette device comprises a first reel [20] arranged in the interior space of the housing and mounted on the housing [61] so as to be able to rotate about a first axis of rotation, the first reel comprising a first reel core [21], and further wherein the tape is wound around the first reel core [21] with a section which comprises the first end (See page 3, towards bottom, wherein paragraph beginning with “Roll support means 20” states the reel may be rotatable; note Fig. 3 show attachment to housing [61]),
wherein the cassette device comprises a second reel [30] arranged in the interior space of the housing and mounted on the housing [61] so as to be able to rotate about a second axis of rotation, the second reel comprising a second reel core [30] to which is attached a section of the tape which comprises the second end (See Figs. 1 and 3, and page 4, paragraph just below mid-page starting with “Although not essential,” wherein winding means [30] rotates to collect the release paper tape as actuated by a power source, i.e. a first actuator as in Claims 26 and 36, on the autolabler, i.e. base device, implying some sort of shaft and shaft axis to implement the rotation via rotational force friction),
wherein the tape is guided along a path from the first reel to the second reel (See Fig. 1, clearly shown moving from tape supply [11] on reel [20] to rotating shaft [30] for winding the release paper tape),
wherein the cassette device comprises a guide unit [51],[52],[53],[54] arranged in the interior space of the housing and connected to the housing [61], the guide unit configured such that the tape is guided in such a manner that a first section of the path is opposite the first opening and the first side of the tape faces the first opening in the first section (See Figs. 2 and 3, and note the outer portion of the tape is a first side facing the first opening, as it is guided by fixed guides [51],[52],[53] and movable guide [54], all secured to housing [61]),
wherein the base device comprises a base body having a second connecting device [42] that is connected in a positive-locking and releasable manner to the first connecting device [40] (See Figs. 1 and 3, and page 4, paragraph mid-way beginning with “In the illustrated embodiment,” wherein the numbers are mislabled but it is clear the C-shaped receiving member [40], shown clearest in Fig. 3, receives protrusion [42], as label in Figs. 1-2, to releasable lock cassette to autolabler, any substance of which is a base body), and a third connecting device [E2] for connection to a manufacturing system [54] (See Fig. 1, and bottom of page 4, paragraph starting with “As can be seen from,” discussing engagement pins [E2] connecting with arm [54a] of guide [54], which is part of functioning of a manufacturing process and the a manufacturing system as claimed; note the Examiner submits literally any connector or part of the system may be considered a third connector since it is completely undefined, such as engagement pin [E2], and any mechanical structure is a manufacturing system, such as movable guide [54]; note the manufacturing system of Claim 33 is not claimed and is given no structure, nor is it limited to device other than parts of the cassette itself), and
further wherein the base device comprises a deflection unit [E] that is arranged at least partially in the interior space of the housing [61],[62] and comprises a free end and a deflection element [E1] attached to the free end, the deflection unit [E] arranged on a second side of the tape that is opposite the first side of the tape and the first section of the path, wherein the deflection unit is movably coupled to the base body in such a manner that the deflection unit can be moved between a retracted position and an extended position along a travel path, wherein in the retracted position the deflection element and the tape are arranged in the interior space, and wherein in the extended position a subsection of the tape is in contact with the deflection element, and the deflection element and at least the subsection of the tape which is in contact with the deflection element are arranged in the external environment (See Figs. 1-2, page 3, consecutive middle paragraphs beginning with “Embodiment Figs. 1 and 2” and “In the label cassette 10,” and bottom of page 4, paragraph starting with “As can be seen from,” wherein the movable peeling means is part of the autolabeler, thus implicitly movable secured thereto to function, and moves between a retracted position not in contact with the tape in Fig. 1 and an extended position for peeling the labels in Fig. 2; note anything contacting the tape to peel on the free end is a deflection element, i.e. projecting end [E1], and note the body of [E] that is separate from pin [E2] is the deflection unit).
Regarding Claim 24, the Examiner submits under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the word, any cylindrical surface acting as a bearing and deflection surface over which the tape moves is reasonably considered a deflection roller. Examiner submits guide [51] and either of [54b],[54c] (See Figs. 1 and 3) are first and second deflection rollers as claimed.
Regarding Claim 41, any position between the extended and retracted position is an intermediate position the peeling means [E] enters.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 22, 23, 34, 28, 38, 42 and 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH0236452B2 as applied to Claims 21 and 33, and further in view of JPS6215411B2 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided via google patents on 8/12/2026, original in 1/9/2024 IDS) and optionally JP2000281268 (wherein all citations are to the English machine translation provided via EPO on 8/12/2026, original in 1/9/2024 IDS) for Claims 28 and 38.
Regarding Claims 22, 34, 42, and 43, JPH0236452B2 teaches the method of Claims 21 and 33 above. JPH0236452B2 teaches the label is peeled via peeling means [E], but is silent to any application to a part or object. However, known application methods after a peeling mean peels a label from a tape travelling in a cassette would have predictably been suitable.
JPS6215411B2 teaches a series of cassettes [3] positionable in a base device (See Figs. 1-3, and note the figures are organized out of order, but showing a device mounted to a base in Fig. 2, i.e. base device, and receiving series of cassettes [7] as shown in Fig. 1, each with first [4] and second reels [5] for conveying labelled tape, see Fig. 3), wherein each cassette has labeled tape wherein the label is peeled via a extendable and retractable action of peeling doctor [19] (See page 3, bottom of page, paragraph stating with “A label peeling doctor 19,” and Fig. 2, showing in less detail the peeling device activating within base device, and Fig. 5 on same page as Fig. 2, showing clearly the extending peeling doctor [19] for peeling a label, which goes between non-operating, i.e. retracted, and operating, i.e. extended, for label peeling from tape). After peeling the label via the extended position of the peeling doctor [19], the label is grabbed via suction pad plunger [41] moving via piston and cylinder along an effective axis to come into contact with the peel label, secure it, and apply it to a desired location (See Figs. 1, 2, and 9 and page 5, first full paragraph stating with “The label suction cup” and until the end of the main description on page 5, teaching a piston-cylinder pressing means [55] for moving label suction cup [41], which is clearly a vacuum suction device as shown in Fig. 9, wherein the label suction cup moves axially into contact with the peeled label to secure thereon and transport it to an location for application, pressing the label, and releasing suction, implying a vacuum device with vacuum source generating the suction). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a cylinder, piston, and suction pad plunger associated with the base device in JPH0236452B2. JPH0236452B2 is silent on the application process and in similar cassette label devices with extension peeling, it is known to utilize such actuatable suction pad plungers to grab and apply the peeled label, thus making this desirable in the base device for precise application of the peeled labels. Note the retracted and extended position for grabbing the labels are a first and second position respectively, and any other location may be considered a third position.
Regarding Claim 23, the paths must intersect so the suction pad can make contact with the label on the peeler.
Regarding Claims 28 and 38, JPH0236452B2 teaches the method of Claims 21 and 33 above. JPH0236452B2 teaches printing desired information on labels that presumably changes based the different information (See page 2, paragraph at top beginning with “In many cases”). JPH0236452B2 does not teach a data storage device and acquisition unit. However, it is known many cassettes may be installed in such labelling systems and each cassette may have information associate with it that is read by the base device to carry out necessary instructions (See, for example, JPS6215411B2, page 3, middle bottom two paragraphs beginning with “A label code item,” teaching a code on the cassette and containing cassette related data is read by a label-type code reader; and optionally JP2000281268, pages 19-20, paragraphs [0027]-[0029], teaching an IC unit [30] stored in a reel can be read by a data acquisition device to provide printing information). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to associate each cartridge with some data about the cartridge that can be read by the base device. Doing so enables the base device to distinguish between cartridges, and carry out the function associated with them appropriately, such as desired printing. Examiner submits even a printed code is reasonably a data storage device as claimed, but more digital versions are obvious. Anything reading the information is a first acquisition unit.
Claim(s) 27, 37, 39, 40, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH0236452B2 as applied to Claims 21 and 33 and further in view of JPS6215411B2 and DE102018217921 (wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation, original and translation in 1/9/2024 IDS).
Regarding Claims 27, 37, and 39, JPH0236452B2 teaches the method of Claims 21 and 33 above. As described in the rejections of Claims 21, 22, 34, and 36 above, JPH0236452B2 is silent as to the mechanism for applying the peeled label, but similar peel labels housed within cassettes are known to be grabbed by suction pads for desired application. However, label dispensers are known to be carried on robot arms for more flexible and diverse location placement (See, for example, DE102018217921, page 2, paragraph [0006]), and DE102018217921 teaches a suction pad for grabbing a peeled part and applying the peeled part (See Figs. 1-2) wherein the application unit is attached via a “quick release fastener,” i.e. third connecting device, to a robot arm (See page 12, paragraph [0041] and page 17, paragraph [0053]). Thus, it at least would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a robot arm that can quick releasably accommodate the label device of JPH0236452B2. Doing so would have predictably enabled the device to be easily secured to the robot that can then automatically position the labeling device as desired for application, such as is well known. Note this replaces the third connector as interpreted in Claim 33 above, and Claim 33 is separately rejectable as a 103 by this alternative.
Note for Claims 27 and 37, when using such a system as above, the deflection unit often must move in and out at regular intervals as shown in DE102018217921 so it can avoid contact with the suction pad, which teaches a central control and actuator, such as pneumatic or an electromechanical actuator, to drive the repeated movement for each delivery (See DE102018217921, Figs. 1-2 and pages 14-15, paragraph [0046]-[0047], and page 16, paragraph [0051]). Thus, when implementing such a suction pad delivery system as is considered obvious as described above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a second actuator configured to drive movement between retracted and extended positions in the system of JPH0236452B2 while passing through an intermediate position therebetween. Doing so would have predictably allowed regular supply of the label upon extension, and retraction out of the way during application. Examiner submits nothing in the claim indicates a configuration to stop at the intermediate position, and thus movement through the intermediate position from restricted to extended that passes through an intermediate position is considered suitable.
Regarding Claim 40, JPH0236452B2 teaches replaceable cassettes, but fails to specifically teach a specific station housing cassettes. However, in replaceable cassette labeling systems, an area holding multiple cassettes to be utilized in the labeling system is well-known so the labeling device can easily utilize these cassettes (See, for example, JPS6215411B2, Fig. 1, showing a magazine holder [7] holding magazines [30], i.e. cassettes holding label reels to be utilized in the label device). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize an area housing cassettes for use in the labelling device of JPH0236452B2. Doing so is well-known in replaceable cassette labeling devices to cassette are easily accessible for use in the labeling device utilizing those cassettes. Any such area is a changing station as claimed.
Regarding Claim 44, JPH0236452B2 teaches the method of Claim 44. JPH0236452B2 doesn’t teach a roller as the deflection element. However, rollers are well-known at the end of extendable and retractable deflection unit for peeling an adhered material on a reel-to-reel conveyed web to facilitate wrapping around the deflection edge (See, for example, DE102018217921, page 13, paragraph [0043] and Figs. 1-2, teachings deflection roller [26]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize a deflection roller as claimed. Such rollers are known for similar devices and would have predictably been suitable to enable peeling while facilitating web conveyance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 35 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: There is no clamping function as now claimed in claims 25 and 35 and there is no motivation to implement such a device in the specific system as described.
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 SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights