DETAILED 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:
(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: “coupling member” in claim 1 (described at least in paragraph [0037] as being a hinge), and “Locking member” of claims 3 and 13 (see 112 section below).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Relating to the claim interpretation:
Since the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) requires the locking member to be defined by the specification, the disclosure must sufficiently describe and make clear what structurally comprises the locking member. Neither the drawings nor the specification clearly show or describe any structure which constitutes the claimed locking member besides a generic “black box”.
As such, at least claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to provide clear support for and establishing the necessary metes and bounds for determining the scope of the claimed locking member.
Also, at least claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for a lack of written description for the locking member. A review of the four corners of the disclosure fails to provide any drawings, details in the specification, abstract support, or original claim language to show that Applicant had possession of any type of locking member. No discussion/depiction of any locking member appears in either the specification or drawings besides a generic black box with no additionally disclosed structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machamer (US Pat No 8,915,497) in view of Folsom (US Pat No 5,954,473).
Regarding claim 1, Machamer discloses a roller assembly for media loading comprising:
a frame (18);
a plurality of parallel rollers (17) that protrude from a bottom surface of the fixed frame, wherein each roller is rotatably coupled to the fixed frame via a respective pin (e.g. shaft); and
a coupling member (14) to mechanically couple the fixed frame to a reference surface,
wherein the plurality of parallel rollers is movable with respect to the bottom surface of the fixed frame (shown in figures 1 and 2).
It is noted that Machamer fails to disclose the frame having the specifically claimed structure. However, Folsom discloses a frame (30) that is substantially rectangular and comprises a first interior surface and a second interior surface opposite the first interior surface including rolling elements (57, 58). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Machamer with the teachings of Folsom to have a more stable structure allowing for the correction of the direction of travel of the sheet as conveyed. The combination teaches the rollers attached to the frame via plurality of pins between the first interior surface and second interior surface.
Regarding claim 2, Machamer discloses the coupling member comprises a hinge to enable a rotation of the fixed frame with respect to the reference surface (shown in figure 1).
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Machamer discloses the fixed frame further comprises a plurality of pivoting arms, wherein each pivoting arm has a first end coupled to the fixed frame and a second end coupled to a pin of the plurality of pins (shown in figure 2).
Regarding claims 5, 8, Machamer discloses to feed carton blanks, wherein while not explicitly disclosed, the thickness of a carton blank ranges anywhere from 1.5mm to greater than 15mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device taught by Machamer to be able to move from 1 to 9mm to achieve the predictable result of being capable of feeding the desired product to be fed.
Regarding claim 6, Machamer discloses a media loading system comprising:
a frame (18);
a conveyor (12) to move a medium towards an output region;
a lateral guide (13) adjacent to the conveyor, wherein the lateral guide extends along a length of the conveyor; and
a roller assembly extending along the length of the conveyor, the roller assembly comprising:
a plurality of rollers (17) rotatable about a plurality of guiding axis perpendicular to the lateral guide, wherein the plurality of rollers is movable with respect to the conveyor to contact an upper surface of the medium as the medium is moved by the conveyor towards the output region (e.g. since the adjuster can be used to make the rollers perpendicular).
It is noted that Machamer fails to disclose the frame having the specifically claimed structure. However, Folsom discloses a frame (30) that is substantially rectangular and comprises a first interior surface and a second interior surface opposite the first interior surface including rolling elements (57, 58). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Machamer with the teachings of Folsom to have a more stable structure allowing for the correction of the direction of travel of the sheet as conveyed. The combination teaches the rollers attached to the frame via plurality of pins between the first interior surface and second interior surface.
Regarding claim 12, Machamer discloses a media loading buckling prevention mechanism comprising:
an upper frame (18) extending along a length of a reference surface, wherein the upper frame is to be positioned at a distance above a target surface; and
a plurality of rolling elements (17) protruding from a bottom surface of the upper frame, wherein the plurality of rolling elements is movable to contact an upper surface of the medium to be moved over the target surface,
wherein the plurality of rolling elements is biased (via spring shown in figure 2) towards the medium so that a contact of a rolling element with the upper surface of the medium pushes the rolling element towards the upper frame (shown in figures 1 and 2).
It is noted that Machamer fails to disclose the frame having the specifically claimed structure. However, Folsom discloses a frame (30) that is substantially rectangular and comprises a first interior surface and a second interior surface opposite the first interior surface including rolling elements (57, 58). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Machamer with the teachings of Folsom to have a more stable structure allowing for the correction of the direction of travel of the sheet as conveyed. The combination teaches the rollers attached to the frame via plurality of pins between the first interior surface and second interior surface.
Regarding claim 14, Machamer discloses the upper frame further comprises biasing members (shown in figure 2) to bias the rolling elements towards the upper surface of the medium such that an overall force exerted towards the upper surface of the medium is increased.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Machamer in view of Iwata et al (US Pat No 12,109,801).
Regarding claim 15, It is noted that Machamer fails to explicitly disclose the force applied to the media conveyed. However, Iwata discloses a similar conveyance device wherein the force of the rollers acting on the media are adjusted in accordance with the media fed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device to apply a force within the range of 0.8 to 1.2N since the determination of a desired or optimum value for the force being applied by rollers is routine experimentation and with the lack of criticality disclosed by the applicant’s disclosure, is found to be obvious in view of the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 11 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: None of the prior art on record discloses or suggests each and every element of the applicant’s claimed invention, specifically the distance from the lateral guide to the rollers, the details relating to the floating frames, or the hinge to move the roller assemble into and out of operation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 11/25/25, with respect to 112(b) relating to “fixed frame” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 112(b) for the term “fixed frame” has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the applicant’s remarks noting disagreement with 112(f) interpretation; there are no substantive argument provided. As such, the terms are still believed to invoke 112(f).
In response to the disclosure of the claimed locking mechanism; the applicant’s drawings show a black box with a hashed line and an arrow pointing out of it. The applicant’s specification provides no detail as to what the structural details of the box are, and are required for claim elements being interpreted under 112(f). Currently, there is no disclosure of such structure and the metes and bounds of the feature are indiscernible. As such, the structure required for the claimed “locking member” must be disclosed or the claimed feature changed out of form which can be interpreted under 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 Patrick Cicchino whose telephone number is (571)270-1954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM to 5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Patrick Cicchino/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619