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 .
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, such as “device”, 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: the “distribution device” which is configured to apportion articles conveyed from the single- track conveyor region to the first conveyor track and the second conveyor track in claim 1, the “ detection device” which is arranged to detect gaps between the articles conveyed by the single-track conveyor region of claim 8, the “first apportioning device” which is configured to apportion articles conveyed downstream of the first conveyor track to the first multi-track conveyor region in claims 13-14, and the “second apportioning device” which is configured to apportion articles conveyed downstream of the second conveyor track to the second multi-track conveyor region in claims 13-14.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 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 1, the word "preferably" in line 1 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1-3, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Omori et al. (JP 9-132320).
In regard to claim 1, Omori shows an apparatus that conveys and apportions containers M that includes a single-track conveyor region B and a dual-track conveyor region 1/2 which is arranged directly downstream of the single-track conveyor region B. The dual-track conveyor region has a first conveyor track 1 and a second conveyor track 2. A distribution device 5 is configured to apportion articles conveyed from the single- track conveyor region B to the first conveyor track 1 and the second conveyor track 2. The dual-track conveyor region has a height-offset conveyor portion in which the first conveyor track 1 is arranged higher than the second conveyor track 2 (see figures 3-6). While conveyor track 2 may have one lateral edge that is arranged at the same height as the conveyor track 1, the first conveyor track 1 may still be viewed as being “arranged higher than” the second conveyor track 2 when the quoted language is given a reasonably broad interpretation because the center of the conveyor track 1 is arranged above the center of the conveyor track 2.
In regard to claim 2, in the height-offset conveyor portion, an upper-side conveyor face F1 of the first conveyor track 1 is arranged higher than an upper-side conveyor face F2 of the second conveyor track 2 (see the annotated figure below).
In regard to claim 3, the second conveyor track 2 is inclined away from the first conveyor track 1 (see figures 3-6).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 8, , the distribution device 5 is movable between a first position, in which the distribution device is positioned for distributing the articles to the first conveyor track 1, and a second position, in which the distribution device is positioned for distributing the articles to the second conveyor track 2 (see the movement arrow in figure 1).
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Keller et al. (DE 43 14 462 and US 5,423,410).
In regard to claim 1, Keller shows an apparatus that conveys and apportions containers 2 that includes a single-track conveyor region 32 and a dual-track conveyor region 33/43 which is arranged directly downstream of the single-track conveyor region 32 (see figures 3-6). The dual-track conveyor region has a first conveyor track 33 and a second conveyor track 43. A distribution device 50/51 is configured to apportion articles conveyed from the single- track conveyor region 32 to the first conveyor track 33 and the second conveyor track 43. The dual-track conveyor region has a height-offset conveyor portion in which the first conveyor track 33 is arranged higher than the second conveyor track 43 (see figures 5 and 6 which show that the second conveyor track 43 is below the bend B in the transfer plate 52 and which show that the first conveyor track 33 is in line with the bend B).
PNG
media_image2.png
386
850
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, in the height-offset conveyor portion, an upper-side conveyor face F1 of the first conveyor track 33 is arranged higher than an upper-side conveyor face F2 of the second conveyor track 43 (see the annotated figure below). The first conveyor track 33 and the second conveyor track 43 have upper longitudinal edges E1/E2 opposing one another. In the height-offset conveyor portion, the upper longitudinal edge E1 of the first conveyor track 33 is arranged higher than the upper longitudinal edge E2 of the second conveyor track 43.
PNG
media_image3.png
546
978
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 3, the second conveyor track 43 is inclined away from the first conveyor track 32 (see figure 5).
In regard to claim 8, the distribution device 50/51 is arranged at a downstream end of the single-track conveyor region 32 and as such, one of the features of claim 8 is fulfilled.
In regard to claim 9, the apparatus of Keller includes an air supply device 50 for supplying the articles with an air flow for movement towards the second first conveyor track 43. The air supply device supplies the articles with the air flow and is arranged upstream of the height-offset conveyor portion (see figure 3 showing the air supply device 50 upstream of the first conveyor track 33).
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 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller et al.
While Keller does not discuss the limitations of claims 11-16, it should be noted that the containers 2 being conveyed are can bodies that are being fed to downstream can processing equipment. Such can processing equipment commonly have a conveying capacity of > 60,000 articles per hour and commonly include pasteurizing, inspecting, packaging, and handling machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to operate the apparatus of Keller at a conveying capacity > 60,000, and use it to feed the cans to at least one of a pasteurizing, inspecting, packaging, and handling machine. When this is done, the apparatus would have all the structure required by claims 12 and 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 10-11, 13-15, and 17-20 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A DEUBLE whose telephone number is (571)272-6912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday flex schedule.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/MARK A DEUBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651