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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s RCE filing on 08/27/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-11, 13, 26, 30, and 32 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 12, 14-25, 27-29, 31, and 33-34 are pending and examined below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/23/2026 has been entered.
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 34 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 34 lines 10-11, the phrase “the position adjustment is in the form of a height adjustment, namely a movement vertically upwards” renders claim 34 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is considered vertical. Claim 34 discloses the side strip is movable along a transport direction. However, claim 34 does not disclose what orientation the transport direction has, nor disclose the relative orientation of the structural features relative to the transport direction. It is unclear what is considered the vertical direction and how the transport direction and other structural features are oriented relative to the vertical direction. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “the position adjustment is in the form of movement relative to the transport direction”.
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.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Hansen (4,967,539) in view of reference Keyser et al. (4,844,852).
Regarding claim 33, Hansen disclose a separating device (Figure 4) for separating individual or multiple container products (7) from a frame structure (1) which is made of plastics material, wherein the separating device (Figure 4) comprises:
a conveying device; and
at least one side strip (15),
wherein the at least one side strip (15) is movable along a transport direction using the conveying device,
wherein the conveying device acts on individual positioning aids (63) of the side strip (15),
wherein the conveying device comprises a pivotable pawl arrangement (65), and
wherein the pivotable pawl arrangement (65), when at a pick-up point in contact with the at least one positioning aid of the side strip, picks up the side strip to move in the transport direction using an actuator (67) and then returnable to a starting position to engage a second positioning aid after moving over said second positioning aid.
(Figure 4-6 and Column 2 lines 16-18, Column 3 lines 46-49, Column 5 lines 63-68 through Column 6 lines 1-19)
However, Hansen does not disclose a centering device.
Keyser et al. disclose a centering device (48, 54) configured to fix a positioning aid (42) of a side strip (18) in a clamping manner. (Figure 4-5 and Column 5 lines 65-68, Column 7 lines 40-44, 50-55)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the separating device of Hansen by incorporating the centering device as taught by Keyser et al., since column 7 lines 50-55 of Keyser et al. states such a modification would ensure precise alignment of the container product being separated.
Regarding claim 34, Hansen disclose a separating device (Figure 4) for separating individual or multiple container products (7) from a frame structure (1) which is made of plastics material, wherein the separating device (Figure 4) comprises:
a conveying device (65);
at least one side strip (15); and
a punching device (9),
wherein the side strip (15) is movable along a transport direction using the conveying device (65), and
wherein the conveying device (65) acts on individual positioning aids (63) of the side strip (15).
(Figure 4-6 and Column 2 lines 16-18, Column 3 lines 46-49, Column 5 lines 63-68 through Column 6 lines 1-19)
However, Hansen does not disclose a centering device.
Keyser et al. disclose a centering device (48, 54) configured to fix a positioning aid (42) of a side strip (18) in a clamping manner, wherein centering device (48, 54) is positioned by using a position adjustment device (26, 28), wherein the position adjustment device (26, 28) is in the form of a distance adjustment from the side strip (18). (Figure 4-5 and Column 5 lines 65-68, Column 7 lines 29-36, lines 40-44, 50-55)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the separating device of Hansen by incorporating the centering device as taught by Keyser et al., since column 7 lines 50-55 of Keyser et al. states such a modification would ensure precise alignment of the container product being separated.
Since Hansen disclose the conveying device and a punch device engages the side strip from above, when modifying Hansen in view of Keyser et al., the centering device in interpreted to engage the side strip from above and from below. Therefore, when the centering device is distance adjusted from the side strip, the centering device is interpreted to form movement perpendicular to the transport direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12, 14-25, 27-29, and 31 are allowed.
Examiner called Thomas Dienwiebel and left message indicating a proposed examiner’s amendment on 09/15/2026. No response received.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 07/23/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-11, 13, 26, 30, and 32 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 12, 14-25, 27-29, 31, and 33-34 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(a) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 towards claim 21 with reference Hansen (4,967,539) modified by reference Keyser et al. (4,844,852), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejection towards claim 21.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 towards claims 33-34 with reference Hansen (4,967,539) modified by reference Keyser et al. (4,844,852), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
Claims 33-34 have been amended to recite picking up and a vertical movement, respectively. Hansen in view of Keyser does not teach, nor suggest such a setup.
Claim 33 discloses the pivotable pawl arrangement is configured to pick up the side strip to move said side strip in the transport direction. In column 6 lines 8-11 of Hansen, the pivotable pawl arrangement (65) is disclose to engage the side strip (15) in order to move the side strip (15) in the transport direction. Since the pivotable pawl arrangement engages the side strip to move said side strip in the transport direction, Hansen is interpreted to disclose the feature of “a pivotable pawl arrangement, which, when at a pick-up point in contact with the at least one positioning at of the side strip, picks up the side strip to move in the transport direction”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Keyser et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of a centering device that is positionable above the side strip. Keyser et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a centering device configured to fix a positioning aid of a side strip in a clamping manner, wherein centering device is positioned by using a position adjustment device, wherein the position adjustment device is in the form of a distance adjustment from the side strip. Hansen is relied upon for the teaching of a device that moves a side strip along a transport direction, wherein said device is positioned above the side strip.
Since Hansen discloses the conveying device engages the side strip from above, when modifying Hansen in view of Keyser et al., the centering device engages the side strip from above and from below. Therefore, Hansen modified by Keyser et al. is interpret to disclose the centring device is positionable using a position adjustment, wherein the position adjustment is in the form of movement relative to the transport direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 September 18, 2026
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights