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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pessina (WO 01/87750) in view of Middelberg et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,855,368).
Regarding claim 1: Pessina discloses a separator device for a folder-gluer machine, the separator device being configured to divide a shingled stream of folding boxes into separate batches, the separator device comprising:
a vertically movable separator head (Fig. 1; via 15 through vertical adjustable mechanism 6/5’) configured to move up and down in a vertical direction between a counting position in which the separator head is not in contact with the boxes and a separating position in which the separator head is in contact with the boxes, see for example (Figs. 1a – 1c),
at least one upper evacuation conveyor belt in the form of an endless upper evacuation conveyor belt (via 17) having a contact portion for contacting an upper surface of the folding boxes when the separator head is in the separating position (via belt 17 pressing on top surface of blanks 2), and wherein the upper evacuation conveyor belt is configured to be driven at an evacuation speed (via belt 17 driven at certain speed) when contacting the folding boxes,
wherein the separator device further comprises a lower conveyor system having a first conveyor belt and a second conveyor belt (via conveyor belts 1, 11 & 12) arranged one after the other in a direction of transportation of the boxes,
and wherein the first conveyor belt is configured to be operated at a first speed (via speed of 11) and the second conveyor belt is configured to be operated at a second speed (via another speed of belt 12) when the separator device is in the counting position,
and wherein the second conveyor belt is configured to be accelerated to a third speed when the separator head is in the separating position, and wherein the boxes are pinched between and transported by the upper evacuation conveyor belt and the lower second conveyor belt in unison, (intended use limitations of the “second conveyor belt” not given much patentable weight in the apparatus claims).
Pessina does not disclose the amended claim referring to the endless belt to be a movable up and down in a vertical direction by the separator head. However, Middelberg discloses similar system with the use of movable endless belt up and down in a vertical direction by a separator head, see for example (Figs. 1-3; via belt B moving vertically by member 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Pessina’s belt to be movable vertically by using a separator head, as suggested by Middelberg, in order to come up with an adjustable conveying path for the articles while pressing down on the article (column 1, lines 50-55).
Regarding claim 2: Pessina discloses that the first speed and the second speed are equal (via bels 11 & 12 appears to be driven equally).
Regarding claim 15: Middelberg discloses that separator head comprises a thrust plate (Figs. 1-3; via head 46 on plate or bracket arm 44) configured to abut against front leading edges of an upstream shingled stream of the boxes when the separator head is in the separating position to momentarily stop the upstream boxes while the second conveyor belt is accelerated to the third speed, see for example (Fig. 1-3; via 46/44 and belt B; intended use limitations of the head and plate are not given much patentable weight).
Claim(s) 3-8 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pessina (WO 01/87750) in view of Middelberg et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,855,368) and further in view of Schaum et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0094391).
Regarding claim 3: Pessina discloses the first and second conveyor belts of the lower conveyor system with a transition point between the first conveyor belt and the second conveyor belt (via 1, 11 & 12 and the shown space or gap between them).
Pessina in view of Middelberg do not disclose those lower belts having a modifiable contact length with a displaceable in the direction of transportation of the transition point. However, Schaum discloses similar mechanism with adjusting belts length, see for example (Figs. 1-2 & 8-9; via 18/19 and 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Pessina’s lower belts with an adjustable mechanism, as suggested by Schaum, in order to come up with an adjustable length conveyor bed or section which may be adjusted in length to match a gap or space between two spaced apart conveyor sections, (paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 4: Pessina discloses that the sum of the contact lengths of the first and second conveyor belts is constant (Fig. 1; via 11 & 12 appears to be constant).
Regarding claim 5: Pessina discloses that the transition point between the first and second lower conveyor belts is located upstream of the separator head in the direction of transportation (Fig. 1; via the transition point between belts 1 & 11).
Regarding claim 6: Pessina may not specifically suggest a use of control system comprising a control unit and a memory, wherein the memory comprises a program enabling the control unit to calculate a theoretical longitudinal position of the separator head and a theoretical longitudinal position of the transition point between the first and second lower conveyors. However, the Office takes an official notice a use of control system with a control unit and memory to control and adjust and position mechanical parts in desired places as the machine is running, is very old and known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Pessina in view of Middelberg’s device with a use of a control system with a control unit and memory, in order to gain more control of the device’s stations and the entire operation.
Regarding claim 7: Pessina discloses that the memory comprises instructions of the number of boxes to be included in each batch, and wherein the separator device further comprising a counting device configured to detect the passage of the front edges of the boxes and send information to the control system to initiate the descent of the separator head (intended use of the claimed memory and counting device, which not given much patentable weight in the apparatus claims).
Regarding claim 8: Pessina discloses that the contact lengths of each respective conveyor belt is supported by a support structure, see for example (Figs. 1a – 1c; via 3 & 48’) comprising a plurality of rollers attached to roller frames (via the shown rollers 45, 44, 49, 54, 50, etc.), the roller frames being interconnected to each other by a connection mechanism to form a line. Further, Schaum discloses that at least one distal roller frame is stationary and the remaining roller frames are movable in the direction of transportation, and wherein a displacement mechanism is connected to a movable distal roller frame of each support structure (Figs. 1-2; via movable rollers 18 with its frame while the remaining are stationary) and is configured to displace the movable roller frames at a displacement distance in the direction of conveyance, whereby each support structure is extendable and retractable in the direction of transportation (intended use limitations of the claimed movable roller frames).
Regarding claim 11: Schaum discloses that the connection mechanism comprises a plurality of pivotable connection links (Figs. 8-9; via pivotable connection links 124a & 124b).
Regarding claim 12: Schaum discloses that the pivotable connection links comprise a first linear connection element and a second linear connection element (via 124a & 124b), and wherein the first and second connection elements together form a cross (Figs. 8-9), the first and second linear connection elements having their central pivot points (via the shown pivot points of lings 124a/124b) in the center of the cross, and wherein a connection to each roller frame is provided in the central pivot point (via frames 112a – 112c moves in respect to the center of pivot points of the links).
Regarding claim 13: Schaum discloses that a connection frame (via 112a – 112c) attached to the movable roller frame of the first conveyor belt and the movable roller frame of the second conveyor belt (via 112a & 112e), and wherein the connection frame is connected to the displacement mechanism and configured to perform a reciprocating movement in the direction of transportation, see for example (Figs. 8-9 and the shown reciprocating movements).
Regarding claim 14: Schaum discloses that the connection frame is further attached to a compensation roller of the first conveyor belt and a compensation roller of the second conveyor belt (via rollers 118) and/or 120), whereby a displacement of the connection frame both modifies the contact lengths and the return lengths of the first and second conveyor belts, see for example (Figs. 8-9; further claimed limitations of an intended use of the frame not given much patentable weight).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 11-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely sole on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
As set forth above and in response to applicant’s arguments that the applied art of Pessina ‘750 does not suggest the amended claims referring to the conveyor belt to be movable up and down in a vertical direction by the head, the new art of Middelberg ‘368 has been introduced; Figs. 1-3; via belt B moving vertically by member 46.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731