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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/ Elections/Restrictions
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-15, and 17-20 remain pending.
Claims 2 and 16 are cancelled.
Claims 21 and 22 are new and now also pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 20, “The method as claimed” should instead be “The apparatus as claimed”.
-Claim 21, line 29, “the other machine element” would be better recited as “another machine element”.
-Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites “determining separations between contours of one of the at least two machine elements (12, 14, 17) or between contours of one of the at least two machine elements (12, 14, 17) and of the product or between contours of the products”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because in the first alternative limitation it is unclear as to how a separation can be determined between “one of the at least two machine elements” as there is not two structures recited in such alternative.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-15 and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gohrs (EP 3650361 A1-cited in IDS, see attached PDF for copy including English translation with paragraph numbering referred to below).
Regarding Claim 1, Gohrs discloses a method for controlling a packaging machine (10; Figure 1) for producing wrappers for producing wrappers for smokable products (22; Figure 6) of the tobacco industry (Para. 0001, 0029), with several drives (of shafts 1, 2, 3 hereinafter referred to as 1, 2, 3; Figures 2-4) capable of being activated independently of one another which move machine elements (11, 13, 19) of the packaging machine on trajectories on which the machine elements might collide (at collision areas 15, 17) with one another or with another component of the packaging machine or with products being handled in the packaging machine (10; Para. 0030), comprising the steps of:
a) creating a digital simulation model (“digital image 28” created by simulation program 29) of the packaging machine (10), reproducing the drives (1, 2, 3) and the machine elements (11, 13, 19; as shown in Figure 3; Paras. 0020, 0021, 0055, 0059-0060 outline creating the digital image);
b) simulating, with the aid of the simulation model (28), differing relative positions of the drives (1, 2, 3) and the states of the packaging machine (10) arising at these relative positions (Paras. 0020, 0022, 0055, 0058-0060 outline simulation of movements of the machine elements and recognizing states of the machine in conjunction with the model “digital image 28”; Para. 0047 discloses determining forecast values to be compared with the workspace data which can be alternatively viewed as a simulation; see “note” below);
c) querying actual positions of the drives (1, 2, 3) of the packaging machine (Para. 0023, 0047 which outline recording actual movements and positions; also note Para. 0055 clearly outlines simulating the movements/positions of the machine elements and products which readily requires an actual position to do so);
d) ascertaining, within each simulation, collision-free traversing paths for the machine elements (11, 13, 19; via 29 the workspace data generated; see Para. 0040, 0046, 0047 and Para. 0055-0058; specifically Paras. 0040, 0046 outline generating collision free paths; note that the reference to the generated workspace data that includes collision free positioning in table “25.1” can be readily viewed as an ascertainment of the collision-free traversing path as referenced in Paras. 0042, 0046; note also the forecast values of Para. 0047 can be readily viewed as an ascertained collision-free traversing paths if the values are within 25.1 of the table; see “note” below);
e) moving the machine elements (11, 13, 19) of the packaging machine (10) respectively along the ascertained collision-free traversing paths by appropriate control of the drives (1, 2, 3; see Para. 0040, 0046 and Para. 0057-0058);
wherein on the basis of the actual positions of the drives (1, 2, 3), each simulation is carried out and the collision-free traversing paths are ascertained (Para. 0055 clearly outlines simulating the movements/positions of the machine elements and products which readily requires an actual position to do so; actual position acquisition is outlined in Para. 0023, 0047-0049; such simulated/calculated data is then compared to workspace data generated that includes collision free positioning in table “25.1” can be readily viewed as an ascertainment of the collision-free traversing path as referenced in Paras. 0042, 0046) by adapting the positions of the drives (1, 2, 3) of the simulation model (28) to the queried actual positions of the respective assigned drives (1, 2, 3) of the packaging machine within each simulation, so that the positions of the drives (1, 2, 3) in the simulation model (28) correspond to the actual positions of the assigned drives (1, 2, 3) in the packaging machine (10; see Para. 0023, 0047 which outline recording actual movements and positions while Para. 0046 and 0040 outline generating such collision free paths thereof; Para. 0023 and 0047 also outline forecast data and future positions derived from actual values; also note in order to create the image 28, the positions of the drives must be sensed and recorded in some manner in order to create the image and carry out the simulations as disclosed).
Note: two different interpretations are referenced in the rejection of Claim 1 above with respect to the “simulation” on the basis of the actual positions.
(1) First, there is the initial simulation referenced in Paras. 0020, 0022, 0055, 0058-0060 with respect to generating the initial “workspace data” via simulation which, at the very least, would require the initial actual positions of the drive in order to carry out such simulations. And further with respect to such interpretation, Para. 0058 discloses “an online calculation or online generation of the workspace data by means of the simulation” which would readily require an actual position during the online status of the machine to carry out such a simulation and within the generation of the “workspace data”, collision-free paths are readily attained (i.e. stored in subset 25.1 of the table).
(2) Secondly, it can be reasonably interpreted that the “forecast data” that is calculated/simulated as outlined in Para. 0047 can be readily viewed as a “collision-free traversing path” when it is determined to be within the subset 25.1 of the table of the “workspace data” and therefore the mere determination of the “forecast data”, which requires the queried actual positions, can be readily viewed as ascertainment of such “collision-free traversing path” when within the 25.1 subset of the workspace data.
Regarding Claim 4, Gohrs discloses when trajectories of the at least two machine elements (11, 13, 19) intersect in a region of overlap (15, 17; Figures 6-7), determining separations between the at least two machine elements (11, 13, 19) or between a first of the at least two machine elements (11, 13, 19) and a product (group 23 of 22) moved by a second of the at least two machine elements or between products (23) moved by the at least two machine elements (11, 13, 19), that arise when the at least two machine elements (11, 13, 19) are located in the region of overlap (15, 17) within each simulation for differing relative positions of the drives (1, 2, 3) of the at least two machine elements (11, 13, 19; see Paras. 0031-0040 describes the different overlap regions in which collisions could occur and alterations of such separations via control of the drives 1, 2, 3).
Regarding Claim 6, Gohrs discloses determining separations (16, 20a, 20b; Figures 6-7) between one of the machine elements (11, 19) moved by said drive (1, 2, 3) or a product (23) moved by this machine element (11, 19), on the one hand, and a stationary component (i.e. 13 is stationary when receiving the product 23) of the apparatus (10), on the other hand that arise when the machine element (11, 19) is moved in or along the region of the stationary component (13) within each the simulation for differing relative positions of one drive (1, 2, 3 see Paras. 0031-0040 describes the different overlap regions and separations between components and control of the drives 1, 2, 3; note also Para. 0002, 0011).
Regarding Claim 8, Gohrs discloses determining separations (i.e. 20a, 20b; Figure 7) between a predetermined synchronous position or target position for one of the machine element (i.e. 19) moved by at least one of the drives (3) and the position of this machine element (19) arising at the respective relative position of the drive (3) within each simulation for differing relative positions of one drive (i.e. see Para. 0042, 0050 which outline that the positions (corresponding to a separation) will not lead to collision).
Regarding Claim 9, Gohrs discloses considering the separations (at 20a/20b) in the ascertainment of a collision-free traversing path for the one of the machine element or further machine elements (11, 13, 19; Para. 0040, 0046 and Para. 0057-0058; it is noted that the positions and movements are determined and therefore a separation will readily be created based on such).
Regarding Claim 10, Gohrs discloses the simulation model (28 generated by 26) encompasses all the drives (1, 2, 3) and the machine elements (11, 13, 19) moved by said drives (1, 2, 3) and the other components of the packaging machine (10; as shown in Figure 2) with which the machine elements (11, 13, 19) and/or the products (23) moved by the machine elements (11, 13, 19) might collide on their trajectories (see Para. 0011-0012 which outlines the factoring of other parts of the machine).
Regarding Claim 11, Gohrs discloses each simulation and the ascertaining of the collision-free traversing paths of step d) are carried out during the operation of the packaging machine, or before or during a process of putting the packaging machine (10) into operation(Para. 0018 discloses simulating and determining occurring prior to operation; see Para. 0023 which discloses such during operation).
Regarding Claim 12, Gohrs discloses each simulation (generation of workspace data via 28, 29), inclusive of the ascertaining of the collision-free traversing paths of step d), are performed by one or more computing devices (26; Para. 0055-0056).
Regarding Claim 13, Gohrs discloses moving the machine elements (11, 13, 19) respectively along the ascertained collision-free traversing paths by the appropriate control of the drives (1, 2, 3) during the operation of the packaging machine (10) or during a process of putting it into operation (Para. 0040-0041 disclose the movement along the ascertained paths).
Regarding Claim 14, Gohrs discloses within the scope of the ascertainment of the collision-free traversing paths a first collision-free traversing path is ascertained for a first of the machine elements (i.e. 13), and a second collision-free traversing path is ascertained for a second of the machine elements (i.e. 19), and in that the control of the drives (2, 3) is undertaken in such a manner that the second machine element (19) is moved along the second collision-free traversing path only when the first machine element (13) has already been moved along the first collision-free traversing path (per the collision free path of Para. 0040; it is noted that the position of the pocket 13 must be obtained prior to the pushers 19 acting on the products within the pocket 13; see Para. 0036-0039 for reference).
Regarding Claim 15, Gohrs discloses an apparatus (10; Figure 1) for producing wrappers (Para. 0001, 0029) according to the method of Claim 1 (see above), comprising:
the machine elements (11, 13, 19) and the several drives (1, 2, 3; Figures 2-4), wherein the drives (1, 2, 3) are capable of being activated independently of one another which respectively move at least one of the machine elements (11, 13, 19) of the apparatus (10) on a trajectory on which at least one of the machine elements (11, 13, 19) might collide (at collision areas 15, 17) with another of the machine elements or with another component of the apparatus or with products (22, 23) being handled in the apparatus (10; Para. 0030),
a computing device (26; Figure 2) for creating the digital simulation model (28; Figure 2) of the packaging machine (10), reproducing at least the drives (1, 2, 3) and the machine elements (11, 13, 19), for aiding in the simulation of the differing relative positions of the drives (1, 2, 3) and the states of the packaging machine (10) arising in these relative positions (Paras. 0020, 0022, 0055, 0060), for the ascertaining of the collision-free traversing paths for the machine elements (11, 13, 19) within each simulation (Para. 0040, 0042 describe the corresponding collision free paths that are stored in table 25; see the “note” in rejection of Claim 1), for the querying of the actual positions of the drives (1, 2, 3) of the packaging machine (Para. 0023, 0047), wherein on the basis of the actual positions of the drives (1, 2, 3), for carrying out of each simulation and the ascertaining of the collision-free traversing paths (Para. 0023, 0048-0049) by adapting the positions of the drives (1, 2, 3) of the simulation model (28) to the queried actual positions of the respective assigned drives (1, 2, 3) of the packaging machine within each simulation, so that the positions of the drives (1, 2, 3) in the simulation model (28) correspond to the actual positions of the assigned drives (1, 2, 3) in the packaging machine (10; see “note” in Claim 1 above; see Para. 0023, 0047 which outline recording actual movements and positions while Para. 0046 and 0040 outline generating such collision free paths thereof; Para. 0023 and 0047 also outline forecast data and future positions derived from actual values; also note in order to create the image 28, the positions of the drives must be sensed and recorded in some manner in order to create the image and carry out the simulations as disclosed);
a drive controller (“the control of the device 10 or to the corresponding controls of the drives of the machine elements 11, 13, 19”; Para. 0057-0058) which controls the drive (1, 2, 3) in such a manner that the at least of the one machine elements (11, 13, 19) that is movable is moved, or capable of being moved, along the ascertained collision-free traversing paths has been assigned to each of the drives (1, 2, 3; per Para. 0040, 0042).
Regarding Claim 17, Gohrs discloses means of a simulation program (29; Para. 0059), the digital simulation model (28) of the packaging machine is created or the collision-free traversing paths for the at least two machine elements (12, 14, 17) are ascertained (Para. 0059-0060).
Regarding Claim 18, Gohrs discloses determining separations (16, 20a, 20b; Figures 6-7) between contours of one of the at least two machine elements (11, 19) or between contours of one of the least two the machine element (11, 19) and of the product (23) or between contours of the products (23; see Paras. 0031-0040 describes the different overlap regions in which collisions could occur and control of the drives 1, 2, 3).
Regarding Claim 19, Gohrs discloses separations between contour of the one of the at least two machine elements (11, 19) or of the product(23) moved by it, on the one hand, and contour of the stationary component(i.e. 13 is stationary when receiving the product 23), on the other hand are determined (see Paras. 0031-0040 describes the different overlap regions and separations between components and control of the drives 1, 2, 3; note also Para. 0002, 0011).
Regarding Claim 20, Gohrs discloses the digital simulation model (28) of the packaging machine is created by means of a simulation program (29) installed on the computing device (26; Para. 0059).
Regarding Claim 21, Gohrs discloses a method for controlling a packaging machine (10; Figure 1) for producing wrappers for producing wrappers for smokable products (22; Figure 6) of the tobacco industry (Para. 0001, 0029), with several drives (of shafts 1, 2, 3 hereinafter referred to as 1, 2, 3; Figures 2-4) capable of being activated independently of one another which move machine elements (11, 13, 19) of the packaging machine on trajectories on which the machine elements might collide (at collision areas 15, 17) with one another or with another component of the packaging machine or with products being handled in the packaging machine (10; Para. 0030), comprising the steps as claimed (see rejection of Claim 1) and further:
wherein, within each simulation for differing relative positions of the drives (1, 2, 3), separations (16, 20a, 20b; Figures 6-7) are determined, wherein said separations are either:
f) separations (16, 20a, 20b; Figures 6-7) between contours of at least two machine elements (11, 19) or between contours of one of the machine elements (11, 19) and of the product (23) product moved by the other machine element (23; see Paras. 0031-0040 describes the different overlap regions in which collisions could occur and control of the drives 1, 2, 3) which arise when the two machine elements (11 ,19) are located in a region of overlap where their trajectories intersect (at areas 15, 17; Figure 5), or
g) separations between contour of the one of the at least two machine elements (11, 19) or of the product (23) moved by it, on the one hand, and the contour of a stationary component (i.e. 13 is stationary when receiving the product 23) of the apparatus, on the other hand, which arise when the one machine element (11, 19) is moved in or along the region of the stationary component (13; see Paras. 0031-0040 describes the different overlap regions and separations between components and control of the drives 1, 2, 3; note also Para. 0002, 0011).
Regarding Claim 22, Gohrs discloses an apparatus (10; Figure 1) for producing wrappers (Para. 0001, 0029) according to the method of Claim 21 (see above), comprising the same structures of Claim 15 (see rejection of Claim 15).
Examiner’s Note / Allowable Subject Matter
Examiner notes that if Applicant was to incorporate an additional step into or add details to the ascertaining step of Claims 1 and 21 drawn to the details in Para. 0052 of the Specification, such an amendment would likely overcome the prior art rejections outlined above. For example, if Applicant was to incorporate a step of “determining separations…” (similar to that of Claim 4, 6, and 21) and further define “wherein the ascertaining of the collision-free traversing paths is carried out by reference to the simulation model and on the basis of the determined separations within the simulation”, such limitations would appear to clearly overcome the rejections outlined above.
Alternatively, Examiner notes that if Applicant was to incorporate details outlined on Para. 0009 that the “simulating” is carried out “cyclically or continuously” during operation of the machine, such features in combination with Claims 1 and 21 would appear to also overcome the prior art rejections.
Claims 3, 5 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 3, while Gohrs discloses the actual positions of the drives (1, 2, 3) of the packaging machine are queried (Para. 0023, 0047), and in that on the basis of these actual positions, collision-free traversing paths are ascertained within the scope of the simulations and Gohrs discloses a database (25), Gohrs does not readily disclose storing/associating collision-free traversing paths in association with actual positions and then selecting such paths when actual positions are queried. Para. 0023 and 0047 disclose generating future positions but compares such positions to workspace data which will indicate if such future positions will result in collisions. There is no association of previously ascertained collision free paths and actual positions that are detected/queried.
Regarding Claims 5 and 7, Gohrs discloses determining separations (see rejections of Claims 4 and 6) but does not readily disclose optimizing these separations (16, 20a, 20b; Figure 6, 7 is used as an example but separation 16 is shown in Figure 6) within the scope of the ascertainment of collision-free traversing paths by correcting the separations in the region of overlap to be at least greater than zero.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments (on Pages 16-17) that:
…
PNG
media_image1.png
334
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
108
629
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
279
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not readily require an “online simulation” and merely because the simulation of Gohrs is an initial simulation to generate the “workspace data” and digital image, does not preclude one from interpreting the determined collision free data from being viewed as claimed ascertaining of collision free paths. Even further, Para. 0058 of Gohrs outlines that such online simulations can be carried out. And further, as outlined above, mere calculation of forecast data (Para. 0047) can be reasonably viewed as ascertaining collision free paths when the forecast data falls within the subset (25.1) of the workspace data denoting no collisions.
Refer to the “note” in the rejection of Claim 1 outlined above.
In response to Applicant’s arguments (on Pages 17-18) that:
PNG
media_image4.png
505
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
165
639
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner again points attention to the “note” in the rejection of Claim 1 outlined above (and substantially copied below) as there are two different interpretations referenced with respect to the “simulation” on the basis of the actual positions.
(1) First, there is the initial simulation referenced in Paras. 0020, 0022, 0055, 0058-0060 with respect to generating the initial “workspace data” via simulation which, at the very least, would require the initial actual positions of the drive in order to carry out such simulations. And further with respect to such interpretation, Para. 0058 discloses “an online calculation or online generation of the workspace data by means of the simulation” which would readily require an actual position during the online status of the machine to carry out such a simulation and within the generation of the “workspace data”, collision-free paths are readily attained (i.e. stored in subset 25.1 of the table).
(2) Secondly, it can be reasonably interpreted that the “forecast data” that is calculated/simulated as outlined in Para. 0047 can be readily viewed as a “collision-free traversing path” when it is determined to be within the subset 25.1 of the table of the “workspace data” and therefore the mere determination of the “forecast data”, which requires the queried actual positions, can be readily viewed as ascertainment of such “collision-free traversing path” when within the 25.1 subset of the workspace data.
It is further noted that the calculation of the forecast data and comparison to the stored workspace data can be readily viewed as a simulation without further details claimed.
In response to Applicant’s arguments (on Page 18) that:
PNG
media_image6.png
330
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
157
637
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts that there is no subsequent simulation claimed that would require the claimed simulating to be carried out “online” with respect to and on the basis of the “actual positions”. Therefore, the mere initial simulations which require the actual initial positions of the elements can be readily viewed as the simulating as claimed. And further as outlined above, the forecast data and comparison thereof can also be reasonably viewed as the simulating based on the actual positions without further claimed details.
In response to Applicant’s arguments (on Pages 19-22) pertaining to Claim 21 that:
PNG
media_image8.png
523
637
media_image8.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image9.png
470
636
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
420
634
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts the claimed invention of Claim 21 does not require any form of quantitative determination and only requires a separation being determined which can be a quantitative of qualitative determination between two structures. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 5/11/2026
Prosecution Insights