DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks and amendments, filed 3/23/2026, with respect to rejections of claims 15, 16, 18 and 20 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 15, 16, 18 and 20 under 35 USC 112 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103a.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no suggestion that Carmichael’s hood would not remove vapors and fumes or rotate on command and is rather attached to the cleaning device, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 use the word “means,” and are therefore 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 the word means 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:
“labeling means” in claim 1. The specification discloses “In particular, the labeling means 6 comprise a drum 8, which may be a transfer drum or a cutting and transfer drum and faces the containers 3 in order to transfer to said containers the labels 7 obtained from the cutting of a label ribbon 9, picked up from a spool 9a, in a per se known manner. The labeling means 6 comprise, moreover, at least one adhesive application assembly 10 designed to supply adhesive to the labels 7 before their transfer to the containers 3 on the part of the drum 8.”
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.
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:
“labeling assembly” in claim 11, 14. The specification discloses corresponding structure by disclosing “Each labeling assembly generally has an unwinding assembly which is designed to unwind the label ribbon from its spool” and “there is at least one labeling assembly 5 that has labeling means 6 adapted to apply the labels 7 on the containers 3 that transit on the conveyor 2.” The specification also discloses “In greater detail, the labeling assembly 5 comprises a base framework 12, which forms, conveniently in its upper part, a worktop 12a, on which the adhesive application assembly 10 is mounted, as well as the other components of the labeling means 6.”
“adhesive application assembly” in claim 11, 14. The specification discloses corresponding structure by disclosing “Typically, the adhesive application assembly is constituted by a glue roller” and “For example, the adhesive application assembly 10 comprises a glue roller 10a, which is arranged laterally to the drum 8 to contact the labels 7 or the label ribbon 9 entrained by the drum 8.”
“supporting element” in claim 17, 18, 19. The specification discloses corresponding structure by disclosing “In particular, the supporting element 16 is, conveniently, provided by a tubular body 17, which in turn provides the discharge duct 14.”
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carmichael (US 20160280411 A1), DE 202016104049 U1 and Schinelli (US 20180354670 A1).
As to claim 11, Carmichael discloses a labeling machine comprising a conveyor (carousel 5) for moving containers to be labeled along an advancement path (article path P) and at least one labeling assembly (label transfer drum 8, feeding unit 12, cutting unit 14, glue applicator 15) arranged along said advancement path and provided with labeling means (label transfer drum 8 and glue applicator 15) configured to apply at least one respective label to the containers that transit on said conveyor, said labeling means comprising at least one adhesive application assembly (glue applicator 15) designed to supply adhesive to the labels before transfer of the labels to the containers, further comprising at least one extraction hood (evacuation hood 32)which is mounted on said labeling assembly. See Figure 1, below:
PNG
media_image1.png
568
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Carmichael, however, does not disclose that the extraction hood is configured to rotate on command, with respect to said labeling assembly, between an active position, in which the extraction hood is arranged above said adhesive application assembly, and an inactive position, in which the extraction hood is arranged at least partially outside of a work area of said labeling means.
However, changes in size/proportion and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B. Similarly, making parts separable and adjustable is often obvious, MPEP 2144. V C and D, and rearrangement of parts is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Additionally, DE 202016104049 U1 discloses an extraction hood with an active position, in which the extraction hood is arranged above said adhesive application assembly. See the translation, disclosing:
In the figure is a glue roller 1 shown in a housing 2 is arranged. A deduction 3 for sucking glue vapors is also shown. The trigger includes a fume hood 4 , which is arranged in operation above the glue roller. Alternatively, it is also possible to remove glue from the side. In addition, the trigger comprises a connecting pipe 5 The hood with a container 6 combines. Glue vapors from the glue roller can thus be sucked in above the glue roller and transported through the tube to the container.
DE 202016104049 U1 also teaches in the translation that “In addition, the vapors can pose a health hazard for operators” and “It is therefore an object of the invention to provide a trigger for the extraction of glue vapors, which avoids contamination of the production facility and the customer's piping systems and reduces health hazards to the operator.” Thus, the hood functions as a protective body for the operator because it reduces health hazards.
See Figure 1, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
478
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See also Figures 2 and 3, disclosing second and third embodiments.
PNG
media_image3.png
476
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
508
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Schinelli discloses that it is known to have safety features such as a protective body that is configured to move on command, with respect to said labeling assembly, between an active position, in which the safety feature such as a protective body is arranged above said adhesive application assembly, and an inactive position, in which the safety feature such as a protective body is arranged at least partially outside of a work area of said labeling means. See paragraphs 0043-44, disclosing:
[0043] According to the invention, such delimiting means comprise at least one protective body 7 which can move slideably, with respect to the base frame 2, between an active position, shown for example in FIG. 1, in which the protective body 7 delimits at least partially the work area of the labeling means 6, and at least one inactive position, which is spaced with respect to the active position, in which free access is allowed from the outside to the work area of the labeling means 6, as shown for example in FIG. 2.
[0044] In more detail, the protective body 7 is, advantageously, mounted so that it can slide along one or more guides 8 that extend substantially vertically from the base frame 2, so as to allow the protective body 7 to pass from a lowered condition with respect to the base frame 2, in which the protective body 7 is in the active position, to a raised condition with respect to the base frame 2, in which the protective body 7 is instead in the inactive position, and vice versa.
See Figures 1 and 2, below:
PNG
media_image5.png
860
740
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
934
826
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized an extraction hood with an active position, in which the extraction hood is arranged above said adhesive application assembly as suggested by DE 202016104049 U1 and to have to have safety features such as a protective body that is configured to rotate on command, with respect to said labeling assembly, between an active position, in which the safety feature such as a protective body is arranged above said adhesive application assembly, and an inactive position, in which the safety feature such as a protective body is arranged at least partially outside of a work area of said labeling means as suggested by Schinelli in order to achieve the full limitation of that the extraction hood is configured to move on command, with respect to said labeling assembly, between an active position, in which the extraction hood is arranged above said adhesive application assembly, and an inactive position, in which the extraction hood is arranged at least partially outside of a work area of said labeling means in order to achieve to provide a movable hood for the extraction of glue vapors, which avoids contamination of the production facility and the customer's piping systems and reduces health hazards to the operator, and because such features would have been obvious changes in size/proportion and shape, obvious making parts separable and adjustable and obvious rearrangement of prior art parts. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; MPEP 2144. V C and D,; MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 12, Carmichael does not disclose wherein said extraction hood is arranged, in said active position, at a closer distance with respect to said adhesive application assembly.
However, changes in size/proportion and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B. Similarly, making parts separable and adjustable is often obvious, MPEP 2144. V C and D, and rearrangement of parts is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
Additionally, DE 202016104049 U1 discloses an extraction hood close to the adhesive application assembly, and Schinelli discloses moveable protective body wherein the active position is closer to the labeling assembly and the inactive position is further would have made obvious wherein said extraction hood is arranged, in said active position, at a closer distance with respect to said adhesive application assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein said extraction hood is arranged, in said active position, at a closer distance with respect to said adhesive application assembly as suggested by the extraction hood of DE 202016104049 U1 and the moveable protective body of Schinelli in order to achieve to provide a movable hood for the extraction of glue vapors, which avoids contamination of the production facility and the customer's piping systems and reduces health hazards to the operator, and because such features would have been obvious changes in size/proportion and shape, obvious making parts separable and adjustable and obvious rearrangement of prior art parts. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; MPEP 2144. V C and D,; MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 13, Carmichael does not disclose wherein said extraction hood is connected to means for conveyance of fumes or vapors collected by said extraction hood toward a lower part of said labeling assembly.
However, DE 202016104049 U1 discloses wherein said extraction hood is connected to means for conveyance of fumes or vapors collected by said extraction hood toward a lower part of said labeling assembly. See the translation, disclosing:
In the figure is a glue roller 1 shown in a housing 2 is arranged. A deduction 3 for sucking glue vapors is also shown. The trigger includes a fume hood 4 , which is arranged in operation above the glue roller. Alternatively, it is also possible to remove glue from the side. In addition, the trigger comprises a connecting pipe 5 The hood with a container 6 combines. Glue vapors from the glue roller can thus be sucked in above the glue roller and transported through the tube to the container.
DE 202016104049 U1 also teaches in the translation that “In addition, the vapors can pose a health hazard for operators” and “It is therefore an object of the invention to provide a trigger for the extraction of glue vapors, which avoids contamination of the production facility and the customer's piping systems and reduces health hazards to the operator.”
See Figure 1, below:
PNG
media_image2.png
478
752
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See also Figures 2 and 3, disclosing second and third embodiments.
PNG
media_image3.png
476
708
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
508
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein said extraction hood is connected to means for conveyance of fumes or vapors collected by said extraction hood toward a lower part of said labeling assembly as suggested by DE 202016104049 U1 in order to achieve to provide a movable hood for the extraction of glue vapors, which avoids contamination of the production facility and the customer's piping systems and reduces health hazards to the operator and because such features would have been obvious changes in size/proportion and shape, obvious making parts separable and adjustable and obvious rearrangement of prior art parts. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; MPEP 2144.04 V C and D; MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 14, Carmichael does not disclose wherein said labeling assembly comprises a base framework which forms a worktop, on which said adhesive application assembly is mounted, said extraction hood being supported by said base framework so that the extraction hood can rotate, with respect to said base framework, about a rotation axis, for a movement thereof between said active position and said inactive position.
However, Schinelli discloses wherein said labeling assembly comprises a base framework (base frame 2) which forms a worktop, on which said adhesive application assembly is mounted. See paragraph 0039, disclosing:
[0039] In particular, the base frame 2 supports the labeling means 6 that make it possible to affix labels on the individual containers 4 transiting along the conveyor 3.
As noted above, DE 202016104049 U1 suggests an extraction hood close to said adhesive application assembly and Schinelli discloses a moveable protective body. See the discussion in claims 11-13, above. Additionally, changes in size/proportion and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B. Similarly, making parts separable and adjustable is often obvious, MPEP 2144. V C and D, and rearrangement of parts is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI C. An arrangement wherein said extraction hood being supported by said base framework so that the extraction hood can rotate, with respect to said base framework, about a rotation axis, for a movement thereof between said active position and said inactive position would have been an obvious changes in size/proportion and shape (going from linear shape or direction to rotational); as well as an obvious making parts separable and adjustable and rearrangement of parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein said labeling assembly comprises a base framework which forms a worktop, on which said adhesive application assembly is mounted, said extraction hood being supported by said base framework so that the extraction hood can rotate, with respect to said base framework, about a rotation axis, for a movement thereof between said active position and said inactive position as suggested by the extraction hood of DE 202016104049 U1 and the moveable protective body of Schinelli in order to achieve to provide a movable hood for the extraction of glue vapors, which avoids contamination of the production facility and the customer's piping systems and reduces health hazards to the operator, and because such features would have been obvious changes in size/proportion and shape, obvious making parts separable and adjustable and obvious rearrangement of prior art parts. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; MPEP 2144. V C and D,; MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 15, Carmichael does not disclose wherein said extraction hood is connected to an extraction flow path arranged below said worktop.
However, DE 202016104049 U1 discloses wherein said extraction hood is connected to an extraction flow path (such as path to a conventional pump). See the translation, disclosing “For sucking the glue vapor, any known suction system may be used, for example a conventional pump.”
Additionally, changes in size/proportion and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B. Similarly, making parts separable and adjustable is often obvious, MPEP 2144. V C and D, and rearrangement of parts is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI C. An arrangement wherein an extraction device is arranged below said worktop would have been an obvious changes in size/proportion and shape (going from linear shape or direction to rotational); as well as an obvious making parts separable and adjustable and rearrangement of parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein said extraction hood is connected to an extraction flow path arranged below said worktop as suggested by the conventional pump of DE 202016104049 U1 in order to achieve to provide a movable hood for the extraction of glue vapors, which avoids contamination of the production facility and the customer's piping systems and reduces health hazards to the operator, and because such features would have been obvious changes in size/proportion and shape, obvious making parts separable and adjustable and obvious rearrangement of prior art parts. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; MPEP 2144. V C and D,; MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 16, Carmichael does not disclose wherein said extraction hood is connected to a discharge duct, which passes through said worktop and is connected to said extraction flow path.
However, DE 202016104049 U1 discloses wherein said extraction hood is connected to a discharge duct (“connecting pipe 5”).
Additionally, changes in size/proportion and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B. Similarly, making parts separable and adjustable is often obvious, MPEP 2144. V C and D, and rearrangement of parts is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI C. An arrangement wherein the discharge duct passes through said worktop and is connected to said extraction flow path would have been an obvious changes in size/proportion and shape (going from linear shape or direction to rotational); as well as an obvious making parts separable and adjustable and rearrangement of parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein said extraction hood is connected to a discharge duct, which passes through said worktop and is connected to said extraction device as suggested by the discharge duct (or connecting pipe) and conventional pump of DE 202016104049 U1 in order to achieve to provide a movable hood for the extraction of glue vapors, which avoids contamination of the production facility and the customer's piping systems and reduces health hazards to the operator, and because such features would have been obvious changes in size/proportion and shape, obvious making parts separable and adjustable and obvious rearrangement of prior art parts. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; MPEP 2144. V C and D,; MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 17, Carmichael does not disclose wherein said extraction hood is supported by a supporting element which is mounted so that it can rotate on said worktop about said rotation axis.
However, DE 202016104049 U1 as discussed above in claim 11 discloses said extraction hood as a protective body. Additionally Schinelli discloses that protective bodies are supported by a supporting element such as guides 8 and post 8a. See paragraphs 0044-45, below:
[0044] In more detail, the protective body 7 is, advantageously, mounted so that it can slide along one or more guides 8 that extend substantially vertically from the base frame 2, so as to allow the protective body 7 to pass from a lowered condition with respect to the base frame 2, in which the protective body 7 is in the active position, to a raised condition with respect to the base frame 2, in which the protective body 7 is instead in the inactive position, and vice versa.
[0045] Conveniently, each guide 8 is fixed to a respective post 8a that extends, substantially vertically, from the base frame 2 and is, advantageously, engaged slideably by a corresponding slider 9 which is fixed to the protective body 7, for example by way of adapted brackets 9a.
Additionally, changes in size/proportion and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B. Similarly, making parts separable and adjustable is often obvious, MPEP 2144. V C and D, and rearrangement of parts is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI C. An arrangement wherein said extraction hood is supported by a supporting element which is mounted so that it can rotate on said worktop about said rotation axis would have been an obvious changes in size/proportion and shape (going from linear shape or direction to rotational); as well as an obvious making parts separable and adjustable and rearrangement of parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein said extraction hood is supported by a supporting element which is mounted so that it can rotate on said worktop about said rotation axis as suggested by the extraction hood DE 202016104049 U1 and the guides and posts of Schinelli in order to achieve to provide a movable hood for the extraction of glue vapors, which avoids contamination of the production facility and the customer's piping systems and reduces health hazards to the operator, and because such features would have been obvious changes in size/proportion and shape, obvious making parts separable and adjustable and obvious rearrangement of prior art parts. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; MPEP 2144. V C and D,; MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 18, Carmichael does not disclose wherein said discharge duct is formed inside said supporting element.
However, changes in size/proportion and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B. Similarly, making parts separable and adjustable is often obvious, MPEP 2144. V C and D, and rearrangement of parts is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI C. An arrangement wherein said discharge duct is formed inside said supporting element would have been an obvious changes in size/proportion and shape; as well as an obvious making parts integral and rearrangement of parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein said discharge duct is formed inside said supporting element because such features would have been an obvious integration of known parts under MPEP 2144. V B and additionally would have been obvious changes in size/proportion and shape and obvious rearrangement of prior art parts. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 19, Carmichael does not disclose wherein said supporting element comprises a tubular body, which has at least one first portion which extends substantially vertically above said worktop and is mounted, at a lower end thereof, so that it can rotate about its own axis with respect to said base framework, and at least one second portion which is connected, at one end, to an upper end of said first portion and extends substantially radially with respect to said first portion, said second portion being connected, at another end, to said extraction hood.
However, changes in size/proportion and shape is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B. Similarly, making parts integral is often obvious. MPEP 2144. V B. Rearrangement of parts is often obvious. MPEP 2144.04 VI C. An arrangement wherein said supporting element comprises a tubular body, which has at least one first portion which extends substantially vertically above said worktop and is mounted, at a lower end thereof, so that it can rotate about its own axis with respect to said base framework, and at least one second portion which is connected, at one end, to an upper end of said first portion and extends substantially radially with respect to said first portion, said second portion being connected, at another end, to said extraction hood would have been an obvious changes in size/proportion and shape; as well as an obvious making parts integral and rearrangement of parts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized wherein said supporting element comprises a tubular body, which has at least one first portion which extends substantially vertically above said worktop and is mounted, at a lower end thereof, so that it can rotate about its own axis with respect to said base framework, and at least one second portion which is connected, at one end, to an upper end of said first portion and extends substantially radially with respect to said first portion, said second portion being connected, at another end, to said extraction hood would have been obvious changes in size/proportion and shape, obvious making parts separable and adjustable and obvious rearrangement of prior art parts. MPEP 2144.04 IV A and B; MPEP 2144.04 IV B and C; MPEP 2144.04 VI C.
As to claim 20, Carmichael does not disclose that said extraction flow path is connected to a duct for evacuation toward an outside environment.
However, DE 202016104049 U1 discloses that said extraction flow path is connected to a duct for evacuation toward an outside environment. See the translation, disclosing:
The glue vapors pass through a glue vapor inlet 7 in the container. With the reference number 11 Here is an air outlet designated by the purified air can escape from the container. In this example, the air outlet is a pressure relief valve 11a arranged, which is optional.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have utilized that said extraction flow path is connected to a duct for evacuation toward an outside environment as taught by DE 202016104049 U1 so that purified air can escape.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GEORGE R KOCH whose telephone number is (571) 272-5807. The examiner can also be reached by E-mail at george.koch@uspto.gov if the applicant grants written authorization for e-mails. Authorization can be granted by filling out the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form.
The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6:30.
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 C TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
GRK
Prosecution Insights