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 .
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of May 22, 2024 are under examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on May 22, 2024. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
See “container discharge apparatus…for discharging and separating containers” in claim 1 with “apparatus” being the generic placeholder and “discharging and separating containers” being the modifying function. The specification discloses a group of parallel conveyors.
See “container cleaning apparatus…configured to transport containers in a first direction” in claim 23 with “apparatus” being the generic placeholder and “container cleaning…configured to transport containers in a first direction” being the modifying functions. The specification fails to disclose a corresponding structure.
See “container discharge apparatus…for discharging and separating containers” in claim 23 with “apparatus” being the generic placeholder and “discharging and separating containers” being the modifying function. The specification discloses a group of parallel conveyors.
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.
It is noted that while “container discharge apparatus” in claim 1 is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), the limitation “container feed apparatus” in claim 1 is not being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the claim recites “first conveyor belts”.
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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation “container cleaning apparatus…configured to transport containers in a first direction” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f). However, as the specification fails to disclose and/or link the corresponding structure, the claim limitation is not supported by the specification and fails to satisfy the written description requirement.
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 1-24 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.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, the claim recites “a container feed apparatus” and “container feed apparatus for feeding containers”. The claim language is not clear if these recitations refer to the same structure or are intended to refer to different structural elements.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, the language “designed” and “designed respectively to” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what limiting scope the language imposes on the claims. It is unclear if "designed" is intended to be interpreted as a step to be performed (i.e., a method step) or if it is to be interpreted in a manner similar to "configured".
Regarding Claim(s) 5, the claim recites “the buffer belt or the buffer belts are drivable” and “the buffer comprises the several drivable buffer belts”. This language renders the claim indefinite because the claim recites alternatives (belt or belts) and also limits the structure to a single alternative (belts). The scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 7 recites “maintain a first speed of a main conveyor in the first direction”. The claim is considered indefinite because the relationship between the main conveyor and the rest of the claimed structure. The claim is incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. It is unclear as to what “main conveyor” referring.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, the claim is considered indefinite because the language “maintain a first speed…and simultaneously decelerate the buffer belt…or simultaneously decelerate the buffer belts” does not make clear what is required by the claim. A first interpretation is the language is requiring the “maintain a first speed… and simultaneously decelerate the buffer belt”, but not the “simultaneously decelerate the buffer belts”. A second interpretation is the language requiring the “maintain a first speed… and …simultaneously decelerate the buffer belts”, but not the “simultaneously decelerate the buffer belt”. A third interpretation is the language requiring the “simultaneously decelerate the buffer belts” but not the “maintain a first speed… and …simultaneously decelerate the buffer belts”. The claim language should be amended to clarify which features are required by the claimed invention.
Claim 8 lacks antecedent basis for “maintain the first speed of the container feed apparatus” as the claims have not set forth that the container feed apparatus has a first speed.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, the claim is considered indefinite because the language “maintain the first speed…and simultaneously increase the third speed of the buffer belt…or simultaneously increase the respective third speed of the buffer belts” does not make clear what is required by the claim. A first interpretation is the language is requiring the “maintain the first speed… and simultaneously increase the third speed of the buffer belt”, but not the “simultaneously increase the respective third speed of the buffer belts”. A second interpretation is the language requiring the “maintain the first speed… and … simultaneously increase the respective third speed of the buffer belts”, but not the “simultaneously increase the third speed of the buffer belt”. A third interpretation is the language requiring the “simultaneously increase the respective third speed of the buffer belts” but not the “maintain the first speed… and simultaneously increase the third speed of the buffer belt”. The claim language should be amended to clarify which features are required by the claimed invention.
Claim 9 lacks antecedent basis for “maintain the first speed of the container feed apparatus” as the claims have not set forth that the container feed apparatus has a first speed.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, the claim is considered indefinite because the language “maintain the first speed…and simultaneously decelerate the buffer belt…or simultaneously decelerate the buffer belts” does not make clear what is required by the claim. A first interpretation is the language is requiring the “maintain the first speed… and simultaneously decelerate the buffer belt”, but not the “simultaneously decelerate the buffer belts”. A second interpretation is the language requiring the “maintain the first speed… and …simultaneously decelerate the buffer belts”, but not the “simultaneously decelerate the buffer belt”. A third interpretation is the language requiring the “simultaneously decelerate the buffer belts” but not the “maintain a first speed… and …simultaneously decelerate the buffer belts”. The claim language should be amended to clarify which features are required by the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, the language “if the containers transported from the container feed apparatus to the buffer belts and the containers returned from the buffer belts fill a starting region of the buffer belt” is confusing as it is unclear as to what “region of the buffer belt” refers. Which buffer belt of the buffer belts is being referenced?
Regarding Claim(s) 11, the claim is considered indefinite because the language “maintain the first speed…and simultaneously increase the sixth speed of the buffer belt…or simultaneously increase the sixth speed of the buffer belts” does not make clear what is required by the claim. A first interpretation is the language is requiring the “maintain the first speed… and simultaneously increase the sixth speed of the buffer belt”, but not the “simultaneously increase the sixth speed of the buffer belts”. A second interpretation is the language requiring the “maintain the first speed… and … simultaneously increase the sixth speed of the buffer belts”, but not the “simultaneously increase the sixth speed of the buffer belt”. A third interpretation is the language requiring the “simultaneously increase the sixth speed of the buffer belts” but not the “maintain the first speed… and simultaneously increase the sixth speed of the buffer belt”. The claim language should be amended to clarify which features are required by the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, the claim is considered indefinite because the language “increase the ninth speed of the container feed apparatus…and simultaneously increase the tenth speed of the buffer belt…or simultaneously increase the tenth speed of the buffer belts” does not make clear what is required by the claim. A first interpretation is the language is requiring the “increase the ninth speed of the container feed apparatus…and simultaneously increase the tenth speed of the buffer belt”, but not the “simultaneously increase the tenth speed of the buffer belts”. A second interpretation is the language requiring the “increase the ninth speed of the container feed apparatus…and…simultaneously increase the tenth speed of the buffer belts”, but not the “simultaneously increase the sixth speed of the buffer belt”. A third interpretation is the language requiring the “simultaneously increase the tenth speed of the buffer belts” but not the “increase the ninth speed of the container feed apparatus…and simultaneously increase the tenth speed of the buffer belt”. The claim language should be amended to clarify which features are required by the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is considered indefinite because the phrase “for example” at Line 3 is not clear if the language following the phrase is required by the invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 21, it is unclear how the single-track infeed conveyor is drivable in the third direction, yet configured to convey containers in the first direction.
Regarding Claim(s) 23, Claim limitation “container cleaning apparatus…configured to transport containers” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not appear to disclose or link structure for performing the cleaning function and the transport function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-22, 24 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Osborne (USPN 3104753).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Osborne teaches a buffer apparatus comprising: a container feed apparatus (conveyors 16) ; a buffer (transfer belt 18) downstream of the container feed apparatus; and a container discharge apparatus (conveyors 20, 22) downstream of the buffer, wherein the container feed apparatus for feeding containers to the buffer is configured to transport containers in a first direction by first conveyor belts (endless conveyors 16), wherein the buffer comprises a drivable buffer belt (transfer belt 18) or several drivable buffer belts arranged in parallel, which is/are each designed to transport containers in a second direction, the second direction running transversely to the first direction, and wherein the container discharge apparatus is for discharging and separating containers from the buffer in the first direction or in a third direction opposite to the first direction (the conveyors 20, 22 move in an opposite direction to that of the conveyors 16). The direction in which the belt (18) moves is considered traverse to the direction of the conveyors (16). The term “traverse” does not require the directions be perpendicular, only that second direction cross the first direction. Further, the claim language does not require the containers to actually be supported by the buffer belt.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carter (USPN 3040870).
Regarding Claim(s) 23, Carter (USPN 3040870) teaches a buffer apparatus comprising: a container cleaning apparatus (pasteurizer 20, conveyor 21); a buffer (accumulator A1) following the container cleaning apparatus; and a container discharge apparatus (conveyors 51, 52) following the buffer, wherein the container cleaning apparatus is configured to transport containers in a first direction (to the right in Figure 1), wherein the buffer comprises a drivable buffer belt or several drivable buffer belts arranged in parallel (conveyors 24, 24a, 24b, 24c, 24d), each configured to transport containers in a second direction 9to the right in Figure 1), wherein the first direction and the second direction extend in the same direction (both to the right in Figure 1), wherein the container discharge apparatus is for discharging and separating containers from the buffer in a third direction which is transverse to the first and second directions (upwards in Figure 1).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborne.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Osborne teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a length of the buffer belt or the buffer belts is dimensioned such that, in a buffer operation, buffering of containers on the buffer belt or the buffer belts is possible for a period of 0 to 30 minutes, 0 to 20 minutes, 0 to 10 minutes, 0.15 to 15 minutes, 0.1 to 10 minutes, or 0.1 to 5 minutes. However, the amount of time a container spends being buffered would be dependent upon the length of the belts and the velocity of the belts. The buffer time would be equal to length divided by velocity. Therefore, the length of the belt would be a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dimension the length of the buffer belt or buffer belts, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Rose (USPN 2763359).
Regarding Claim(s) 24, Carter teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the drivable buffer belt is further configured to, or the several drivable buffer belts arranged in parallel are further configured respectively to, transport containers in a fourth direction, wherein the second and the fourth direction are opposite to each other, and wherein the third direction is transverse to the fourth direction. Rose (USPN 2763359) teaches a receiving conveyor having a belt (10) configured to transport containers in a first direction (to the left in Figure 1), the receiving conveyor feeding to a buffer having parallel buffer belts (22, 23, 24, 40, 41) configured to transport containers in a second direction (by belts 22, 23, 24), the second direction extending in the same direction as the first direction. The buffer belts are also configured to transport container in a fourth direction (by belts 40, 41), the fourth direction being opposite to the second direction. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Carter such that the drivable buffer belt is further configured to, or the several drivable buffer belts arranged in parallel are further configured respectively to, transport containers in a fourth direction, wherein the second and the fourth direction are opposite to each other, and wherein the third direction is transverse to the fourth direction. The containers would be recirculated when overcrowded.
Claim(s) 1, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink (USPN 3604551) in view of Tarlton (USPN 7222718).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Fink (USPN 3604551) teaches a buffer apparatus comprising: a container feed apparatus (belts 5,6,7) ; a buffer (conveyor 13) downstream of the container feed apparatus; and a container discharge conveyor (conveyor 20) downstream of the buffer, wherein the container feed apparatus for feeding containers to the buffer is configured to transport containers in a first direction (to the right in the figure) by first conveyor belts (belts 5, 6, 7), wherein the buffer comprises a drivable buffer belt or several drivable buffer belts arranged in parallel [Col. 3:36, “belts 13”], which is/are each designed to transport containers in a second direction (downward in the figure), the second direction running transversely to the first direction, and wherein the container discharge conveyor is for discharging and separating containers from the buffer in the first direction or in a third direction opposite to the first direction (the conveyor 20 moves to the left in the figure). As “container discharge apparatus” is being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as covering a group of parallel conveyors, Fink fails to teach the container discharge apparatus. Tarlton (USPN 7222718) teaches a buffer apparatus comprising a feed apparatus (conveying surfaces 125,132), a buffer (conveying surface 152) downstream of the feed apparatus and a container discharge apparatus having a group of parallel conveyors (165-170) discharges and separates products from the buffer. The parallel conveyors move at different speeds to separate products and create a single file flow of articles. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fink to include a container discharge apparatus having a group of parallel conveyors to discharge and separate containers from the buffer as taught by Tarlton. The parallel conveyors would produce a single file flow of articles for downstream use.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Fink teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a length of the buffer belt or the buffer belts is dimensioned such that, in a buffer operation, buffering of containers on the buffer belt or the buffer belts is possible for a period of 0 to 30 minutes, 0 to 20 minutes, 0 to 10 minutes, 0.15 to 15 minutes, 0.1 to 10 minutes, or 0.1 to 5 minutes. However, amount of time a container spends being buffered would be dependent upon the length of the belts and the velocity of the belts. The buffer time would be equal to length divided by velocity. Therefore, the length of the belt would be a result effective variable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to dimension the length of the buffer belt or buffer belts, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of Tarlton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shields et al. (USPN 4410078).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Fink teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the drivable buffer belt is further designed or the several drivable buffer belts are further designed respectively to transport containers in a fourth direction, wherein the second and fourth directions are opposite to each other and the fourth direction is transverse to the first direction. Shields et al. (USPN 4410078) teaches a buffer (132) that is capable of operating in opposite directions to direct articles to the desired machines (46-52) in the event that presses (42,44) cease operation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fink such that the drivable buffer belt is further designed or the several drivable buffer belts are further designed respectively to transport containers in a fourth direction, wherein the second and fourth directions are opposite to each other and the fourth direction is transverse to the first direction. This would allow containers to be moved to the location where they are needed.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, the claim recites the speed at which belts are driven, which is considered a recitation of the manner of operating the apparatus. Such recitations do not limit the structure of the apparatus and are not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114. That being said, Fink does disclose buffer belts driven at 10 to 30 feet per minute [Col. 3:30-34], which would be 3-9 meters per minute, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Fink teaches the buffer comprises several drivable buffer belts arranged in parallel (as seen in the Figure) and teaches a common drive (16-18) for the buffer belts. The claim recites the speed at which belts are driven, which is considered a recitation of the manner of operating the apparatus. Such recitations do not limit the structure of the apparatus and are not given patentable weight. See MPEP 2114. That being said, Fink does disclose buffer belts driven at 10 to 30 feet per minute [Col. 3:30-34], which would be 3-9 meters per minute, which falls within the claimed range. Fink fails to teaches speeds in the negative range, which is considered to indicate movement in an opposite direction. Shields et al. teaches a buffer (132) that is capable of operating in opposite directions to direct articles to the desired machines (46-52) in the event that presses (42,44) cease operation. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fink such that the drivable buffer belt is operated at a negative speed. This would allow containers to be moved to the location where they are needed.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of Tarlton and Shields et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Layne et al. (USPN 6959803).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Fink teaches at least one transition region (plate 33) is arranged between the container feed apparatus and the buffer, wherein a length of the transition region is shorter than a length of the buffer (as seen in the Figure). Fink fails to teach the transition region is a single drivable belt in order to transport containers in the second direction or in the fourth direction, or wherein the transition region comprises a same number of drivable belts as the buffer, wherein the drivable belts are designed to transport containers in the second direction or in the fourth direction. Shields et al. teaches conveying articles in opposite directions (as described above). Layne et al. (USPN 6959803) teaches a transfer conveyor (10) that receives articles from a conveyor (12), the transition conveyor comprising a belt (belt C). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art provide a single drivable belt in order to transport containers in the second direction or in the fourth direction, or wherein the transition region comprises a same number of drivable belts as the buffer, wherein the drivable belts are designed to transport containers in the second direction or in the fourth direction. Using a belt as a transition region would reduce the wear on the container as compared to sliding over a transition plate.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fink in view of Tarlton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Polderman (USPN 4054199).
Regarding Claim(s) 22, Fink teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the container discharge apparatus comprises: downstream of the buffer, a first group of several first conveyors arranged in parallel, which can be driven in the third direction transverse to the second direction and are configured to separate containers and to convey them in the third direction, following in parallel to the first group of the several first conveyors arranged in parallel, a second group of several second conveyors arranged in parallel, which can be driven in the first direction and are designed to convey the separated containers in the first direction, one or more third conveyors, whose number is smaller than the number of second conveyors, wherein the third conveyor or third conveyors is/are designed to transport the separated containers. Polderman (USPN 4054199) teaches a first group of several first conveyors (conveyors 6-10) arranged in parallel, which can be driven in the third direction transverse to the second direction and are configured to separate containers and to convey them in the third direction, following in parallel to the first group of the several first conveyors arranged in parallel, a second group of several second conveyors [Col. 2:47-49, “one or more return paths”] arranged in parallel, which can be driven in the first direction and are designed to convey the separated containers in the first direction, one or more third conveyors (path 3), whose number is smaller than the number of second conveyors, wherein the third conveyor or third conveyors is/are designed to transport the separated containers. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide downstream of the buffer, a first group of several first conveyors arranged in parallel, which can be driven in the third direction transverse to the second direction and are configured to separate containers and to convey them in the third direction, following in parallel to the first group of the several first conveyors arranged in parallel, a second group of several second conveyors arranged in parallel, which can be driven in the first direction and are designed to convey the separated containers in the first direction, one or more third conveyors, whose number is smaller than the number of second conveyors, wherein the third conveyor or third conveyors is/are designed to transport the separated containers. The groups of conveyors would act to transform bunched containers into a single row.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 4361759 and USPN 9038808 each disclose speed control of a buffer apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653