DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/30/25.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the purpose of consistency, one of the terms should be selected: “picking up and transporting means” or “picking up and transporting units”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
4. 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.
5. 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.
Claims 1-10 disclose the term “picking up and transporting means.”
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-10 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. (CN 112722439; et al.; “Zhang”; refer to attached translation) is the most relevant prior art.
Zhang discloses a cartoning machine (Figs. 1A, 1B) comprising:
- a magazine (16) configured to store a stack of cardboard dies (4);
- an unfolding station (Fig. 1B), in which the cardboard dies (4) are put into shape assuming the shape of an open box (3; Fig. 1B);
- a product feeding station (6), into which products (8) intended to be packaged in boxes (3) obtained from the cardboard dies (4) are fed (Figs. 1A, 1B) ;
- a product insertion station (7), in which the products (8) are inserted into the open boxes (3; Figs. 1A, 1B);
- an exit station (end of element 9) for the boxes (3) with the products (8) inside them (Figs. 1A, 1B);
- picking up and transporting means (1, 2) for picking up and transporting the cardboard dies (4) configured and controlled for moving the cardboard dies (4) along a moving path between the magazine (16), the unfolding station and the product insertion station (7; Figs. 1A, 1B);
- control means (pg. 2 last paragraph) for controlling the picking up and transporting means (pg. 4 para. 6);
wherein the picking up and transporting means (1, 2) comprise two independent picking up (2) and transporting units (1) for picking up and transporting the cardboard dies (4; Figs. 1A, 1B).
Zhang fails to disclose each of the picking up and transporting units comprising gripping members configured to engage one cardboard die of the cardboard dies. Zhang only discloses the picking up unit comprising gripping members (Figs. 1A, 1B).
It would not have been obvious to modify the transporting unit of Zhang with a gripping unit, because it would render to cartoning machine inoperable. Replacing a 3-degree of freedom articulating arm with gripping members would not allow movement of the cardboard dies from the magazine to the product insertion station.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, see “applicant’s arguments”, filed 6/30/25, with respect to the non-final rejection filed on 4/30/25 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The non-final rejection of 4/30/25 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Langen et al. (US 2021/0039816; “Langen”). The Langen reference was acquired after searching the CPC class B65B 43/305. Like the Zhang reference mentioned above, the Langen reference discloses picking up and transporting units (116a). However, Langen fails to disclose the picking up and transporting units being independent gripping elements.
b. Ansaloni et al. (EP 3 381 821 A1; “Ansaloni”). The Ansaloni reference was acquired after searching the CPC class B65B 43/145. Like the Zhang reference mentioned above, the Ansaloni reference discloses picking up and transporting units (21). However, Ansaloni fails to disclose the picking up and transporting units being independent gripping elements.
7. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYAMINDAE JALLOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1927. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30am-5:00pm and alternating Fridays from 7:30am-4:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHELLEY SELF, can be reached on (571)272/4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
9. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EYAMINDAE C JALLOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights