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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/4/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed 9/4/2025.
Claims 1 and 7 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The Examiner notes that, while claim 18 has an underlined claim language and claim 19 is indicated as ‘Currently Amended,’ both these claims were previously presented in the claims filed 3/27/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments, see pages 9-11 (see also pages 12-16), filed 9/4/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 6, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Leadbeater, Dondeyne, and Heimberg have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include the limitation “a servo control circuit for limiting rotation of the plurality of jaws by the twisting mechanism motor.” The prior art used in the rejection fails to disclose such a limitation. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly cited prior art.
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:
at least one holder device for holding and transporting a receptacle made of combustible material (claim 1);
a first transfer mechanism for transferring powdered biomass from the hopper to a weighing station (claim 1);
a second transfer mechanism for transferring biomass from the weighing structure to fill the empty receptacle (claim 1);
a loading mechanism for placing empty cones into the holder (claim 3);
a transport mechanism for moving tubes to a loading position (claim 4);
a linkage mechanism actuator for opening and closing the jaws independently of said rotation (claim 1);
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.
The instant specification describes the limitations as having the corresponding structure as follows:
“at least one holder device for holding and transporting a receptacle made of combustible material” is interpreted as clamshell holders mounted on arms that extend from a computer controller turntable (see para. 19) or equivalents thereof;
“a first transfer mechanism for transferring powdered biomass from the hopper to a weighing station” is interpreted as feeder in the form of a chute, an auger, or a vibrating feeder (see para. 92) or equivalents thereof;
“a second transfer mechanism for transferring biomass from the weighing structure to fill the empty receptacle” is interpreted as a funnel (see para. 92) or equivalents thereof;
“a loading mechanism for placing empty cones into the holder” is interpreted as a plurality of tubes holding a stack of cones and a gripper for pulling the tubes into the holder (see para. 21) and equivalents thereof
“a transport mechanism for moving tubes to a loading position” is interpreted as a chain that transports the tubes to a loading station (see para. 21) and equivalent thereof
“a linkage mechanism actuator for opening and closing the jaws independently of said rotation” is interpreted as a crank-type linkage (see para. 84) and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “to prevent over-twisting” lacks written support in the instant specification. While the instant specification and original claims describe preventing tearing of the paper cone (see e.g. [0092]), there is no mention of “over-twisting” in the instant specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Leadbeater et al. (US 2020/0068947; of record) in view of Dondeyne et al. (US 2021/0337733; of record) and Correll et al. (US 2019/0381670).
Regarding claim 1, Leadbeater discloses a cannabis cigarette preparation system (abstract; “apparatus for mass production of a smokable product”) comprising:
an indexing module (110; see also carousel 522 in Fig 5A and para. 49 describing the carousel holds cones in an upright position; “at least one holder device”) configured to move (“holding and transporting”) cones (102; para. 36; “receptacle made of combustible material”);
a first station (191) including a filling module (130) configured to dispense a prepared dry material into the cones (para. 34; “an empty receptacle is filled with predetermined amount”) while indexing module moves the cones from station to station sequentially (para. 36); and
a second station (193) including a pinching module (150) configured to pinch twist the open ends of the cones to form a finished rolled cigarette (para. 34; “for finishing the smokable product by twisting an end of a filled receptacle”) while indexing module moves the cones from station to station sequentially (para. 36), wherein:
the empty cones have an open top end (see Fig. 2; para. 39) such that the filling module dispenses shake material (“powdered biomass”) into the cone through the open top end (see Fig. 2; para. 40);
the first station (191) includes a collection module (120) including a hopper for storing the prepared dry material (para. 32; see also material handler 560 in Fig. 5A; “storage hopper”), a weighing module mechanically coupled to the collection module for determining the weight of raw material in the collection/grinding subsystem prior to processing (para. 77; would correspond to being located in hopper 512 with the grinder mechanism 502); an opening or aperture (530; “a first transfer mechanism”) which allows raw material to be continuously provided by the material handler to the grinder (para. 50), and a funneling component (509; “a second transfer mechanism”) for filling the cone (see para. 66-67); and
the second station (193) includes a pinch and twist system (221; “a twisting mechanism”) configured to pinch and close the top ends of the cones and then rotate a predetermined amount to seal the open end of the cigarette (para. 42) while held by the indexing module (see para. 36);
wherein the cones are made of paper (para. 27), and
wherein the pinch and twist system includes:
a gripping arrangement (see Fig. 4A-D, 13, 14A-B) includes a plurality of fingers (401-404, 1301, 1302; “plurality of jaws”), the fingers are closed (see Fig. 4A-D, Fig. 14A; “grip an open end of a cone”) and rotates (para. 43; see Fig. 4A-D),
an anvil (1305), side blocks (1303, 1304), and a threaded rod (1306) (collectively “linkage mechanism”) which mechanically couple to and actuate the pinch fingers (para. 70) and cause the pinch fingers to open and close (see para. 72), and
independently controllable actuating devices (see Fig. 13) including:
first motor (1312; “twisting mechanism motor”) controlling rotation of the fingers about an axis (para. 71) to seal the open end of the cigarette (para. 42),
a second motor (1308; “linkage mechanism actuator”) which effectively controls the opening and closing of the pinch fingers (para. 71) by rotating the threaded rod to vertically translate the anvil to cause side blocks to slide and cause the pinch fingers to open and close (para. 72).
However, Leadbeater is silent as to the first actuating device including a servo control circuit for limiting rotation of the plurality of jaws by the twisting mechanism motor, wherein a twisting force applied by the twisting mechanism is limited by the servo control circuit to prevent overtwisting and tearing of the paper cone, and wherein a twisting force of the twisting mechanism is limited by controlling the twisting mechanism motor. Rather, Leadbeater merely discloses the first motor, but does not disclose the type of motor being used.
The Examiner notes that the instant application claims benefit to provisional applications 62/922056 and 62/995884. However, these provisional applications do not contain written support for the limitation “a servo control circuit for limiting rotation of the plurality of jaws by the twisting mechanism motor” as recited by claim 1. Specifically, provisional application 62/922056 merely mentions a “servo motor” (p. 1, para. 4, 6; p. 2, para. 1, 8; p. 6-7), but there is no mention of a “servo control circuit.” Moreover, provisional application 62/995884 contains no mention of any “servo.” Therefore, claim 1 is examined with an effective filing date of 4/23/2020 since the limitation was first found in the claims filed 4/23/2020 in parent application 16/856271 (see claim 19).
Correll teaches a three-dimensional perception and object manipulation robot gripper (abstract) comprising a robot (10; Fig. 1) having a gripper or hand (20), which rotates with respect to the robot arm ([0046]; see also [0013], describing rotating the gripper and [0004], describing twisting a screw), wherein the gripper includes a plurality of fingers that are independently controllable by motors, including a digital servo motor (“twisting mechanism motor”) and torque sensors, such that a feedback controller (includes a “servo control circuit”) regulates control of the force or torque applied (“limiting rotation” and “a twisting force applied by the twisting mechanism is limited”) by the plurality of fingers to the one or more objects and vary the force or torque applied by the fingers to the one or more objects ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Leadbeater’s motor to be a servo motor as in Correll and to have added a torque sensor and feedback controller as in Correll to Leadbeater’s gripping arrangement in order to obtain the predictable result of regulating control of the force or torque applied by the fingers to the cone (Correll; [0014]) with the benefit of improving the control and of the gripper (Correll; [0057]).
Regarding the claim limitations “for controlling the twisting mechanism motor to prevent over-twisting and tearing of the paper cone,” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the servo motor of modified Leadbeater is identical to the claimed invention, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Moreover, Leadbeater is silent as to a third actuating device for moving the twisting mechanism, including the twisting mechanism stepper motor, the linkage mechanism, the linkage mechanism actuator, and the plurality of jaws in a vertical direction towards and away from the cone while the cone is held by the holder at the second station.
Dondeyne teaches an improved gripper mechanism (para. 2) reasonably pertinent to the problem of impermissibly deforming or uncontrolled movements of the fingers (para. 6), the gripper mechanism (10; Fig. 1-7), comprising a plurality of arms (102; “jaws”), a movement mechanism (104; “linkage mechanism”) for changing the distance between the arms (see para. 42), a drive element (110) for changing the mutual distance between the fingers (para. 42; “linkage mechanism actuator”), drive elements (122, 142; “twisting mechanism motor”) for rotating the fingers (para. 43), and a drive element for moving the movable arm up and down (see para. 62; “third actuating mechanism”) which moves the entire gripping mechanism vertically (see arrow 202 in Figs. 1-2), the drive element are active drive elements such as suitable actuators (para. 35-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a drive element for moving the entire gripping mechanism vertically as in Dondeyne to the pinch and twist system of Leadbeater in order to obtain the predictable result of vertically moving the pinch and twist system (Dondeyne; para. 62) with the benefit of using simple movement mechanisms to increase accuracy and robustness of the fast-moving parts (para. 45).
Therefore, modified Leadbeater discloses the pinch and twist system operates as follows:
(i) the entire pinch and twist system is moved down (Dondeyne; [0062]) to a position adjacent to the open end of the cone while the fingers are open (Fig. 2 and [0042], showing the pinch and twist system being adjacent to the open ends of the cone; Fig. 4A-D and [0043], showing the fingers being open);
(ii) the fingers are substantially closed (Figs. 4A-D and [0043]) on the open end of the paper cones ([0046]);
(iii) the fingers undergo a rotation to apply two to three turns to the open end of the cone (Figs. 4A-D; [0043], [0046]) about a vertical axis (see Fig. 2);
(iv) the torque applied by the fingers is controlled/regulated by the feedback controller connected to the servo motor (Correll; [0014]); and
(v) the fingers are opened ([0046]) and the twisting mechanism is moved up (Dondeyne; [0062]) such the carousel moves a new cone to the twisting mechanism (see [0053]; see also Fig. 5A-B).
Regarding claim 2, modified Leadbeater discloses ground cannabis (para. 7; “powdered material containing cannabis”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Leadbeater discloses the number of fingers is three (Fig. 4C) and separated by a 120° angle around the circumference of the cone (see Fig. 4C).
Regarding claim 15¸ modified Leadbeater further discloses a cone stabilizing component (1202; Fig. 12; “pinch pin”) which enters a corresponding opening (1204) in cup (1205; “holding device”) to impinge upon the bottom of the cone to prevent rotation of the cone during pinch-twisting (para. 69).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Leadbeater et al. in view of Dondeyne et al. and Correll et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boucher et al. (US 2019/0320708; of record).
Regarding claims 3-4, modified Leadbeater discloses the apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 1, wherein it is known in the that traditional cigarette rolling machines are unsatisfactory because they require loading rolling papers in the machines (para. 4), and suggests that cones are loaded within the system (100) and the process continues until all the cones have been used up (para. 36).
However, Leadbeater does not explicitly disclose a third station including a loading mechanism for placing cones into the holder, wherein the loading mechanism includes a plurality of tubes for receiving stacks of said empty cones, a transport mechanism for moving the tubes to a loading position, and a gripper at the loading position for removing individual cones from a respective tube positioned at a loading station to the at least one holder device, wherein each tube includes an opening at a bottom of the tube, a diameter of the opening being selected to ensure removal from the tube of one cone at a time.
Boucher teaches a cone staging apparatus for production of smoking articles (abstract), the cone staging apparatus (100; Fig. 4-5; “a third station”) comprising a cone magazine (118; see Fig. 4-5; “a loading mechanism”) including at least one tube (124) for receiving a stack of cones in sliding fit (para. 14; see also Fig. 4-5 showing multiple tubes), a lift supporting the magazine for vertically translating the magazine between a raised position and a lowered position (“loading position”) for facilitating transfer of the cones (para. 17; “transport mechanism”), and an actuator (140) in the form of a gripper mechanism (para. 68 “gripper”) at the lowered position (see Fig. 6-7) for contacting the lower portion of the cone and pulling the cone through the aperture and into a cone pallet (“removing individual cones into a holder”), and an aperture (136; “an opening”) being sized and shaped to facilitate dispensing the cones one-by one (para. 64; see also Fig. 8B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added the cone staging apparatus of Boucher to the apparatus of Leadbeater because (a) Leadbeater suggests the cones are loaded into the apparatus but does not suggest any structure to illustrate how the cones are loaded into the indexing module; and (b) such a modification eliminates the need to produce the smoking articles in labor intensive batches by automating the loading process of the cones (Boucher; para. 48).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Leadbeater et al. in view of Dondeyne et al., Correll et al., and Boucher et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Holderman et al. (US 2019/0329514; of record).
Regarding claim 5, modified Leadbeater discloses the apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 4, comprising the actuator (Boucher; 140) in the form of a gripper mechanism (Boucher; para. 68 “gripper”) for exerting a transfer force on the cone by pinching or squeezing (Boucher; para. 68).
However, modified Leadbeater does not explicitly teach the gripper includes a pair of jaws and a first linear actuator for causing the jaws to close and grip an end of the individual cone extending from the respective tube, and a second linear actuator for moving the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator from a top position adjacent the tube to a bottom position adjacent the holding device, wherein the jaws are opened by the first linear actuator in the bottom position to release the cones to drop into a cone receiving opening in the holder device. The Examiner notes that Leadbeater does not teach the structure of the gripper mechanism.
Holderman teaches an apparatus for automated packaging of loose particles into conical containers (abstract) comprising a carousel (200; “a third station”), a cone conveyor (300; “at least one holder device”), and a de-nesting assembly (360; Fig. 3A; “a gripper”) comprising de-nesting fingers (361, 362; see Fig. 3B-C; “a pair of jaws”) and a de-nesting actuator (363; “first linear actuator") for moving the one or more fingers to open and close (para. 75; “causing jaws to close”), and a vertical actuator (364; “second linear actuator”) to adjust the vertical position of the de-nesting fingers with respect to the cone conveyor (para. 75; capable of “moving the first linear actuator and pair of jaws from a top position to a bottom position”) to deposit the cone in a cavity (313; “receiving opening”) of a die (310-340).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective to have substituted the de-nesting assembly of Holderman for the gripping mechanism of modified Leadbeater because (a) modified Leadbeater suggests using a gripping mechanism, but does not teach the structure of the mechanism; and (b) the T-shape of the de-nesting finger provides additional frictional surface area to help engage the cone and prevent plastic deformation (Holderman; para. 76).
Regarding the claim limitation “for moving the first linear actuator and gripper from a top position adjacent the tube to a bottom position adjacent the holding device, wherein the jaws are opened by the first linear actuator in the bottom position to release the cone to drop into a cone receiving opening in the holding device,” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP 2114. However, because the de-nesting assembly of modified Leadbeater is structurally similar to that instantly disclosed, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Claims 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Leadbeater et al. in view of Dondeyne et al. and Correll et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mangold et al. (DE 102016218298; of record; see machine translation).
Regarding claim 7-8, modified Leadbeater discloses the system as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, modified Leadbeater is silent as to a first base plate connected to a hollow rotation shaft for rotation by the twisting mechanism stepper motor; a second base plate linearly movable relative to the first base plate in response to linear movement of a linear actuator shaft that extends through the hollow rotation shaft of the first base plate; wherein the linkage mechanism is connected to the first base plate and the second base plate and configured to convert relative vertical linear movement between the first and second base plates into radial opening and closing movement of the jaws, wherein the linkage mechanism comprises connecting rods and crank arms, wherein the jaws extend from or are fixed to the connecting rods and the connecting rods are pivotally attached to the first base plate, and wherein the crank arms are pivotally connected at opposite ends between the second base plate and respective connecting rods to cause the respective connecting rods to pivot and thereby open and close the jaws in response to the linear movement of the second base plate relative to the first base plate.
Mangold teaches a gripping device (para. 1) reasonably pertinent to the problem of promoting a variable implementation of the gripping device (para. 4), the gripping device (1; Fig. 1, 4) comprising:
a fastening structure (15; “a first base plate”) connected to base body (4; “hollow rotation shaft” capable of rotation by the twisting mechanism motor); and
an output member (12; “second base plate”) which executes a linear movement (13) via a driven unit (8; “linear actuator shaft”) which extends through the fastening structure and the base body (see Fig. 4),
wherein the movement of the gripping finger is a linkage mechanism (see Fig. 1 and 4; see also paras. 14 and 57) indirectly connects to the fastening structure and the output member (see Fig. 1) such that the linear output movement pivots fingers inwards or outwards from the output member to close and open the fingers (para. 50; “converts relative vertical linear movements into radial opening and closing”),
the linkage mechanism comprising a joint means (27; “connecting rods”) and coupling web (25; “crank arms”), wherein the gripping means (35; “jaws”) extend from the joint means (see Fig. 1 and 4) and the joint means are pivotally mounted to the fastening structure (15; see para. 51), and the coupling webs are pivotally connected (see arrow 26a) at opposite ends between the joint means and the output member (12; see Fig. 4) such that the linear output movement pivots fingers inwards or outwards from the output member to close and open the fingers (para. 50; “converts relative vertical linear movements into radial opening and closing”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the gripping arrangement of Leadbeater with the gripping device of Mangold because the modification offers a high degree of flexibility with the gripper (Mangold; para. 7).
Regarding claim 11, modified Leadbeater further discloses a drive device (Mangold; 5; “second actuating device”) coupled to the driven unit (see Fig. 4) to such that the linear output movement pivots fingers inwards or outwards from the output member to close and open the fingers (Mangold; para. 50; “converts relative vertical linear movements into radial opening and closing”).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Leadbeater et al. in view of Dondeyne et al., Correll et al., and Mangold et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0094189; of record).
Regarding claim 9, modified Leadbeater discloses the apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 8.
However, modified Leadbeater is silent as to a pin fixed to the first base plate extending through a bearing in a second base plate to cause the second base plate to rotate with the with the first base plate while enabling the linear movement of the second base plate relative to the first base plate.
Zhang teaches a mechanical hand (abstract) reasonably pertinent to the problem of grasping semi-finished products (para. 2) comprising top plate (2; “first base plate”) and a driving plate (4; “second base plate”) wherein a linear bearing (8) is positioned in the driving plate (see Fig. 2; para 50), and a guide connection rod (10) extending from through from the top plate through the driving plate (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a guide connection rod and linear bearings as in Zhang to the plates of modified Leadbeater in order to provide support the tail ends of the shaft of Leadbeater (Zhang; para. 14).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Leadbeater et al. in view of Dondeyne et al., Correll et al., and Mangold et al. as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Correll et al. (US 2019/0381670; of record).
Regarding claim 10, modified Leadbeater discloses the apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 8.
However, modified Leadbeater is silent as to the jaws including friction pads attached to the connecting rods.
Correll teaches a robot gripper (abstract) reasonably pertinent to the problem of improving a robotic gripper’s gripping capabilities (para. 11), comprising fingers (41a, b; “jaws”) including pads (42a, b) with different stiffnesses and compliance (para. 42) and/or is a rubber coating to increase friction with an object (para. 56), the pads being removable (para. 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added pads as in Correll to the gripping device of modified Leadbeater in order to switch out the pads with varying properties such as stiffnesses, compliance, and friction (para. 42, 56) in order to customize the gripping surface for varying tasks (Correll; Para. 56) thereby making the gripping device more versatile for different tasks.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Leadbeater et al. in view of Dondeyne et al. and Correll et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heimberg (WO 2020/144275; see machine translation; of record).
Regarding claim 12, modified Leadbeater discloses the apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, modified Leadbeater is silent as to the twisting mechanism comprises: a base plate connected to a hollow rotation shaft for rotation by the twisting mechanism motor; and a hub that is linearly movable relative to the base plate in response to linear movement of a linear actuator shaft that extends through the hollow rotation shaft and the base plate, wherein the linkage mechanism is connected to the base plate and the hub and configured to convert relative vertical linear movement between the base plate and the hub into radial opening and closing movement of the plurality of jaws, and wherein the plurality of jaws extend from a plurality of connecting rods pivotally connected to the base plate, and wherein the linkage mechanism comprises a plurality of cam slots in the hub and a plurality of cam followers fixed to the connecting rods and extending into the plurality of cam slots to cause the respective connecting rods to pivot and thereby open and close the plurality of jaws in response to the linear movement of the hub relative to the base plate.
Heimberg further teaches the gripping device (1) comprises:
a base body (5; Fig. 10; “base plate”) indirectly connected to the rotating unit (see Fig. 1; “hollow rotation shaft for rotation by the twisting mechanism motor”); and
a guide element (9; “hub”) moving with respect to the base body (p. 4, para. 6) in response to movement of a guide rod (10; p. 8, para. 4; “linear movement of a linear actuator shaft”) that extends through the rotating unit (p. 7, para. 2),
wherein the parallel links (36) (“linkage mechanism”) is connected to the base body (see Fig. 10) and the guide element (see Fig. 1) and configured such that the movement of the guide element causes the gripping unit to be opened or closed (p. 11, para. 2; see also Fig. 12-13),
wherein the gripping unit (2) extend from pivot levers (37; Fig. 12; “plurality of connection rods pivotally connected to the base body”), and
wherein the linkage mechanism includes guide surfaces (22, 23; Fig. 3, Fig. 11; “plurality of cam slots”) located on the guide element (Fig. 11) and a plurality of counter-guide elements (24; Fig. 12-13; “plurality of cam followers”) fixed to the pivot levers and extending to the guide element (see Fig. 12-13) to cause move the pivot levers and thereby open and close the gripping unit in response to the guide element moving (p. 11, para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Leadbeater’s gripping arrangement for Heimberg’s gripping device in order to impart targeted control of the opening and closing movement of the gripping jaws and reliably grip an object (Heimberg; p. 5, para. 6).
Regarding claim 13, modified Leadbeater discloses that the guide rod (Heimberg; 10) has an upper end that is provided with an external thread (Heimberg; p. 7, para. 9; “screw shaft”) that extends from an actuator unit (Heimberg; 4; “second actuating device”) to a ring (Heimberg; 26) with an internal thread (Heimberg; p. 7, para. 9; “screw follower”) such that the rod is rotated (Heimberg; p. 9, para. 3) as well as moving up and down (Heimberg; p. 8, para. 4).
Regarding claim 14, modified Leadbeater discloses a lower guide rod (10/1; “pin”) extending from the base plate (see Fig. 5) and bearings (31; “at least one bearing wheel”) rotatably mounted on the pin (p. 9, para. 2) to engage the guide element (Fig. 4) such that the rotating unit can transmit a rotary movement to the gripping unit (2; p. 9, para. 2, which includes the base body and the guiding element) while allowing for relative movement therebetween (p. 4, para. 6).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Leadbeater et al. in view of Dondeyne et al. and Correll et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holderman et al. (US 2019/0329514; of record).
Regarding claim 16, modified Leadbeater discloses the apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 1, comprising the indexing module (110; see also carousel 522 in Fig 5A and para. 49 describing the carousel holds cones in an upright position; “at least one holder device”).
However, modified Leadbeater is silent as to the at least one holder device is a split clamshell holder including a first jaw fixed to an arm extending from a turntable, and a second jaw that is slidable relative to the first jaw, wherein the second jaw is biased towards the first jaw by at least one spring, the first and second jaws each include a groove that together form an opening for receiving the receptacle.
Holderman discloses automated packaging apparatus for loose particles into conical containers (abstract) for smoking (see para. 5), the apparatus (Fig. 1A-B) comprising: a cone conveyor (300; Fig. 3A; “at least one holder device”) configured to fill (“holding”) a cone (“a receptacle made of combustible material”) and rotating (“transporting”) (para. 81) including a die (310; Fig. 3F-G) including a two clamping segments (311, 312; “a first jaw” and “a second jaw”), the first segment is connected to a die actuator (350; “an arm”) extending from a die plate (301; Fig. 3D-E; “a turntable”), the die actuator separating the clamp segments (para. 109; “the second jaw is slidable relative to the first jaw”) with the use of a spring (see Fig. 3F), the two clamping segments include a groove (311b, 312b) which defines a cavity (313; “an opening”) for the cone (para. 80).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted Leadbeater’s indexing module for Holderman’s cone conveyor because clamping segments allow the cone to be filled in the die, the pass through the die to eliminate plastic deformation (i.e. preventing damage to the smoking article) that could occur if the cone were forcibly removed from the die, such as by gripping the cone (Holderman; para. 80).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Leadbeater et al. in view of Dondeyne et al., Correll et al., and Holderman et al. as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Haarer et al. (US 4782644; of record).
Regarding claim 17, modified Leadbeater discloses the apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 16, comprising the two clamping segments (Holderman; 311, 312; “a first jaw” and “a second jaw”) to hold a cone and allows a cone to be filled and extracted from the die (Holderman; para. 80).
However, modified Leadbeater is silent as to a slidable block coupled to the second jaw by a shaft extending through the first jaw, wherein a compression coil spring surround the shaft and extends between the slidable block and the second jaw to bias the second jaw towards the first jaw, and a cam bearing is mounted on the slidable block to cause the second jaw to move away from the first jaw and release a filled and twisted cone held between the jaws, the release being caused by engagement between the cam bearing and a fixed cam flock as the holder device is moved by the turntable into a releasing position following completion of twisting and transport from the second station.
Haarer teaches a machine for sorting, filling and closing hollow containers (title) for smoking articles (abstract) comprising a closing station (D; Fig. 19-21) wherein stopper carrier (52; “first jaw”) is moved down toward a tube carrier (40; “second jaw”) by means of a cam (78; “cam bearing”), which is mounted to a slide (77; “slidable block”) including a shaft surrounded by a compression spring (see Fig. 20-21), and a cam (11A; a fixed block cam) for moving the stopper carrier and guiding the slide up and down under mechanical power in the guides (Col. 8, ll. 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the clamping section of Leadbeater to include the camming system of Haarer in order to obtain the predictable result of guiding the clamping sections back and forth based on the movement of the indexing wheel (Haarer; claim 26).
Regarding claim 18, modified Leadbeater further discloses a stabilizer (1202; Fig. 12) including a causing end (1203; “a pin”) including a tip (para. 69; “second end”) to enter the opening (1204) of the cup (1205) to impinge on the bottom of the cone (para. 69).
Regarding the claim limitation “a pin ball at one end,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shape of the stabilizer to be spherical since such a modification involves a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV).
Regarding the claim limitation “when the ball pin encounters the fixed cam block to assist in release of the filled and twisted cone from the holder device,” this limitation has been considered, and construed as the manner of operating an apparatus that adds no additional structure to the apparatus as claimed. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114. However, because the apparatus of modified Leadbeater is structurally similar to that instantly disclosed, it is capable of being operated with similar if not identical claimed characteristics.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Leadbeater et al. in view of Dondeyne et al. and Correll et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sirois (US 2019/0320710; of record).
Regarding claim 19, modified Leadbeater discloses the apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 1, comprising the indexing module (110; see also carousel 522 in Fig 5A and para. 49 describing the carousel holds cones in an upright position; “at least one holder device”).
However, modified Leadbeater is silent as to the holder device includes a main body and a pair of pivoting jaws that close to capture the one in an opening forced between the jaws and the main body.
Sirois teaches a closure apparatus (Fig. 14a-15) comprising a frame (4102; “main body”) and jaws (4142; “pair of pivoting jaws” that pivot between an open and closed position (para. 102) when the cone is positioned in a cavity (4140; “an opening).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the indexing module of Leadbeater with the closure apparatus of Sirois in order hold and close the cone using a single apparatus (Sirois; para. 25) and apply a predetermined desired force to close the cone (Sirois; see para. 31). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the such a modification would eliminate the need for a separate pinching module since the closure apparatus functions to both holder and close the cone, therefore beneficially reducing the size of the apparatus.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Leadbeater et al. in view of Dondeyne et al., and Correll et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holderman et al. (US 2019/0329514; of record).
Regarding claim 20, modified Leadbeater the apparatus as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
However, modified Leadbeater is silent as to the at least one holder device is fixed directly to a turntable for transporting the holder device between station.
Holderman discloses automated packaging apparatus for loose particles into conical containers (abstract) for smoking (see para. 5), the apparatus (Fig. 1A-B) comprising: a cone conveyor (300; Fig. 3A; “at least one holder device”) configured to fill (“holding”) a cone (“a receptacle made of combustible material”) and rotating (“transporting”) (para. 81) including a die (310; Fig. 3F-G) connected to a die plate (301; Fig. 3D-E; “a turntable”), the die plate being mounted on a support shaft (302) and has a cone conveyor actuator (303) which rotates the support shaft to rotate the die plate to convey the dies and the cone the die contains through the packaging assembly (para. 79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fixed the closure apparatus of modified Leadbeater to a rotating die plate as in Holderman in order to automate the process for continuous packaging (Holderman; para. 8). Moreover, such a modification makes the process continuous, which has been held to be an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(E).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONNY V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 7:00 AM - 3:00 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, Philip Y Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. 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.
/SONNY V NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1755 /PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755