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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 05/02/2024, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-20, are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of an Information Disclosure Statement, filed 08/16/2024, which has been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed and dated copy of the PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to this Office action.
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:
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;
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
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.
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 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) 1, 4-6 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoffman et al. (US 20070271879 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffman (US 20070271879 A1) discloses a napkin folding apparatus (10) for folding a napkin (45) around at least one piece of flatware to form a flatware bundle (Abstract, and [0045]), the apparatus comprising:
a napkin cartridge (a napkin cartridge (not shown); [0055]) for receiving a plurality of napkins (45);
at least one flatware cartridge (34) for receiving a plurality of pieces of flatware (Fig. 1; [0066]);
a folding assembly (16) having a deck assembly (18) for receiving one of the plurality of napkins (45) and at least one of the plurality of pieces of flatware (88), and
a rolling assembly (48) for rolling the one of the plurality of napkins (45) and the at least one of the plurality of pieces of flatware (88) into the flatware bundle (Figs. 17 and 19); and
a transport assembly (66) including an actuator and a gripper assembly (robotic arm; [0065]) movable by the actuator for transporting the flatware and the flatware bundle ([0065]).
Hoffman further teaches:
Regarding claim 4, wherein the deck assembly includes a base (base of 18) and a napkin pickup assembly (38) rotatable relative to the base ([0054]).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the deck assembly includes a base (base of 18) and a napkin pickup assembly (38) rotatable relative to the base ([0054]).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the rolling assembly (48) includes a grip assembly (its surface) that engages an end of the at least one of the plurality of pieces of flatware (45) to rotate the flatware to form the flatware bundle (Figs. 13-14).
Regarding claim 20, Hoffman discloses a method of creating a flatware bundle ([0001]), the method including: rotating a napkin pickup assembly (38) from a first position (Fig. 2) to a second position to pick up a napkin (Fig. 1); rotating the napkin pickup assembly (38) from the second position (Fig. 1) to the first position (Fig. 2); transporting at least one piece of flatware (88) via a transport assembly (12, 90) from a flatware cartridge (34) to a receiving position over the napkin (Fig. 10); and rotating the napkin (45) and at least one piece of flatware (88) via a grip assembly (surface of 48) to create the flatware bundle (Figs. 17-20).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman et al. (US 20070271879 A1) in view of Dunbar et al. (US 5469688 A).
Regarding claim 7, Hoffman further discloses including a taping assembly (Fig. 15) including a roll holder (105) for receiving a roll of tape (106), a transport mechanism (via 58, 60) for transporting the tape (106)
However, Hoffman is silent with regards to a guide rail for guiding the roll of tape, a cutting mechanism for cutting the tape, and a transport mechanism for transporting the tape once cut to the deck assembly.
Dunbar in a related invention teaches a cutting mechanism (94) for cutting the tape (92) from a roll holder (90), and a transport mechanism for transporting the tape once cut to the deck assembly (32).
Therefore 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 Hoffman apparatus by incorporating a cutting mechanism and transport mechanism for transporting the tape once cut to the deck assembly, as suggested by Dunbar, in order to further maintain the napkin 14 in wrapped relationship.
Hoffman as modified is further silent regarding a guide rail for guiding the roll of tape.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ways for guiding the roll of tape as a matter of design choice since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known method or configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that the use of a guide rail as a conveying means solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with how Hoffman as modified guides its roll of tape. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Hoffman in view of Dunbar to obtain the invention specified in claim 7 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, wherein the taping assembly (Fig. 15 of Hoffman) further includes a feed mechanism (see roller; Fig. 9-10 of Dunbar) including one or more drive wheels (rollers of Dunbar) but is silent regarding drive wheels are driven by a motor to drive the tape towards the cutting mechanism.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ways drive the rollers as a matter of design choice including using a motor since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known method or configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that the use of a guide rail as a conveying means solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with how Hoffman as modified drives its rollers. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Hoffman in view of Dunbar to obtain the invention specified in claim 8 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Hoffman as modified discloses the transport mechanism ((via 58, 60 of Hofman) but is silent wherein the transport mechanism includes one or more drive wheels that are driven by a motor to drive the tape towards the deck assembly.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ways drive configure the transport mechanism as a matter of design choice including using drive wheels driven by a motor since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known method or configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that the use of a guide rail as a conveying means solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with how Hoffman as modified transports its tape. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Hoffman in view of Dunbar to obtain the invention specified in claim 9 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Claims 1-3, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (WO2022101830A1; its equivalent of US 20240002086 A1 is used herein for the rejection) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20070271879 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Foley discloses a napkin folding apparatus (50) for folding a napkin (60) around at least one piece of flatware to form a flatware bundle ([0103]), the apparatus (50) comprising:
a napkin cartridge (200/62) for receiving a plurality of napkins (60);
at least one flatware cartridge (302, 304, 306) for receiving a plurality of pieces of flatware (80, 82, 84);
a folding assembly (100) having a deck assembly (150, 152) for receiving one of the plurality of napkins (60) and at least one of the plurality of pieces of flatware (80, 82, 84), and
a rolling assembly (130, 140) for rolling the one of the plurality of napkins (60) and the at least one of the plurality of pieces of flatware (80, 82, 84) into the flatware bundle (Fig. 11); and
a transport assembly ([0160] “It is contemplated that an automated mechanism could be used to pick up the wrapped utensils from the wrapping assembly 100”) including an actuator and a gripper assembly movable by the actuator for transporting the flatware and the flatware bundle ([0160]).
However, Foley is silent with regards to transport assembly including a gripper assembly and an actuator.
Hoffman in a related invention teaches transport assembly (66) including a gripper assembly and an actuator (robotic arms; [0065]).
Therefore 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 Foley transport assembly by having substituted it with a transport assembly having robotic arms, as suggested by Hoffman. Because the Applicant did not disclose any criticality or significance with respect to the transport assembly including a gripper, it would have also been well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any manner of conveying or transport assembly configuration, as a matter of choice, to attain transfer the bundle to the next stage of processing through such a modification. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)., and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, transferring of wrapped bundles from one station to another.
Foley as modified further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, wherein the deck assembly (150, 152 of Foley) includes a deck (its top surface of Foley) and a motor (122 of Foley) configured to rotate the deck (150, 152 of Foley) such that a top of the deck is proximate a napkin (62 of Foley) in the napkin cartridge (Fig. 4 of Foley).
Regarding claim 3, Foley teaches wherein the deck (150, 152) includes a receiving area for receiving the napkin (62 of Foley) and at least one piece of flatware (80; Fig. 6 of Foley), but is silent regarding one or more vacuum openings for grabbing the napkin.
Hoffman teaches one or more vacuum openings (43, 46) for grabbing the napkin (Fig. 2).
Therefore 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 apparatus of Foley by incorporating one or more vacuum openings, as suggested by Hoffman in order to further hold the napkin in place.
Regarding claim 10, further including a first lifting assembly (mechanical arm; [0117] of Foley) having a first lever arm (210 of Foley) for lifting the plurality of napkins ([0117] of Foley), and at least one second lifting assembly (400) having a second lever arm (410, 415, 450) for lifting the plurality of pieces of flatware ([0137]-[0141] of Foley).
Regarding claim 11, Foley teaches wherein the napkin cartridge, at least one flatware cartridge, the folding assembly, the transport assembly, the first lifting assembly, and the at least one second lifting assembly are disposed in the housing as disclosed above but is silent with regards to the housing.
Hoffman teaches a housing (20) to house the different component of the apparatus (Figs. 1-3).
Therefore 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 apparatus of Foley by incorporating a housing, as suggested by Hoffman in order to house the different components of the machine.
Regarding claim 12, wherein the at least one flatware cartridge includes a first flatware cartridge (302), a second flatware cartridge (304), and a third flatware cartridge (306 of Foley).
Claims 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (WO2022101830A1; its equivalent of US 20240002086 A1 is used herein for the rejection) in view of Hoffman et al. (US 20070271879 A1), and in further view of Dunbar et al. (US 5469688 A).
Regarding claim 13, Foley discloses a napkin folding apparatus (50) for folding a napkin (60) around at least one piece of flatware to form a flatware bundle ([0103]), the apparatus (50) comprising:
a napkin cartridge (200/62) for receiving a plurality of napkins (60);
at least one flatware cartridge (302, 304, 306) for receiving a plurality of pieces of flatware (80, 82, 84);
a folding assembly (100) having a deck assembly (150, 152) for receiving one of the plurality of napkins (60) and at least one of the plurality of pieces of flatware (80, 82, 84), and
a rolling assembly (130, 140) for rolling the one of the plurality of napkins (60) and the at least one of the plurality of pieces of flatware (80, 82, 84) into the flatware bundle (Fig. 11);
a transport assembly ([0160] “It is contemplated that an automated mechanism could be used to pick up the wrapped utensils from the wrapping assembly 100”) including an actuator and a gripper assembly movable by the actuator for transporting the flatware and the flatware bundle ([0160]).
a taping assembly including a roll holder for receiving a roll of tape ([0160] “a taping apparatus could be added to apply tape, or a band of paper with adhesive, around the napkin 60 to secure the napkin 60 around the utensils 80, 82, 84”), a first lifting assembly (mechanical arm; [0117]) having a first lever arm (210) for lifting the plurality of napkins ([0117]), and at least one second lifting assembly (400) having a second lever arm (410, 415, 450) for lifting the plurality of pieces of flatware ([0137]-[0141]).
However, Foley is silent with regards to transport assembly including a gripper assembly and an actuator.
Hoffman in a related invention teaches transport assembly (66) including a gripper assembly and an actuator (robotic arms; [0065]).
Therefore 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 Foley transport assembly by having substituted it with a transport assembly having robotic arms, as suggested by Hoffman. Because the Applicant did not disclose any criticality or significance with respect to the transport assembly including a gripper, it would have also been well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any manner of conveying or transport assembly configuration, as a matter of choice, to attain transfer the bundle to the next stage of processing through such a modification. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)., and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have yielded predictable results, namely, transferring of wrapped bundles from one station to another.
Foley as modified is silent regarding a cutting mechanism for cutting the tape, and a transport mechanism for transporting the tape once cut to the deck assembly.
Dunbar in a related invention teaches a cutting mechanism (94) for cutting the tape (92) from a roll holder (90), and a transport mechanism for transporting the tape once cut to the deck assembly (32).
Therefore 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 Foley as modified apparatus by incorporating a cutting mechanism and transport mechanism for transporting the tape once cut to the deck assembly, as suggested by Dunbar, in order to further maintain the napkin in wrapped relationship.
Regarding claim 14, wherein the deck assembly (150, 152 of Foley) includes a base and a napkin pickup assembly (210 of Foley) rotatable relative to the base (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the base (Legs of 230 of Foley) has a receiving area for receiving the napkin (Fig. 7) and at least one piece of flatware (80), and
Foley is silent regarding the napkin pickup assembly has a vacuum for grabbing the napkin.
Hoffman teaches one or more vacuum openings (43, 46) for grabbing the napkin (Fig. 2).
Therefore 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 apparatus of Foley by incorporating one or more vacuum openings, as suggested by Hoffman in order to further hold the napkin in place.
Regarding claim 16, wherein the rolling assembly (130, 140 of Foley) includes a grip assembly (its surface) that engages an end of the at least one of the plurality of pieces of flatware (45 of Foley) to rotate the flatware to form the flatware bundle (Figs. 10-11 of Foley).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the taping assembly ([0160] “a taping apparatus could be added to apply tape, or a band of paper with adhesive, around the napkin 60 to secure the napkin 60 around the utensils 80, 82, 84” of Foley) further includes a feed mechanism (implicit) but is silent regarding drive wheels are driven by a motor to drive the tape towards the cutting mechanism.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to contrive any number of desirable ways to drive the feed mechanism as a matter of design choice including using a motor since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known method or configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, since applicant has not disclosed that the use of a guide rail as a conveying means solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with how Hoffman as modified drives its rollers. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Foley as modified to obtain the invention specified in claim 17 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 18, wherein the at least one flatware cartridge includes a first flatware cartridge (302 of Foley), a second flatware cartridge (304 of Foley), and a third flatware cartridge (306 of Foley), and the at least one second lifting assembly includes one lifting assembly for each of the first, second, and third flatware cartridges (Figs. 17-20 of Foley).
Regarding claim 19, Foley teaches wherein the napkin cartridge, at least one flatware cartridge, the folding assembly, the transport assembly, the first lifting assembly, and the at least one second lifting assembly are disposed in the housing as disclosed above but is silent with regards to the housing.
Hoffman teaches a housing (20) to house the different component of the apparatus (Figs. 1-3).
Therefore 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 apparatus of Foley by incorporating a housing, as suggested by Hoffman in order to house the different components of the machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11a-7p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS IGBOKWE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731