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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 18, the word “ane” should be –an--, and in line 30, “ashape” should be –a shape--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-12 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 7, it is unclear what is meant by the retention head acting upward on the containers as this implies it is pressing upward on the containers or is under the container so it acts upward, but the disclosure teaches this is an element(5) located on top of the container so it is unclear how something on top of the container acts upward on the container. For the purpose of examination, this is considered to be something that acts on the top of the container.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, it is unclear what is meant by varying the shape of the actuation device as the device itself does not appear to change shape. Does this mean varying the cam path? Varying the actions of the actuation device? For the purposes of examination, this is considered to mean varying the actions of the actuation device.
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerstberger(DE102004056343A!) in view of Buchholz et al.(GB 2086344)
Gerstberger discloses a device for applying labels to he tops of bottles comprising means for conveying the containers along a path with retention heads that contact the top of the containers(8), a transfer station(10.1) for transferring labels to the top of bottles with the label extending vertically with a first end located in a lower region and a second end located on the retention head(Figure 3), and an application assembly which moves parallel with the bottles along their path and is synchronized with them, which has a crimping device comprising a first pad(38) which contacts a first end of the label and a second pad(20) which suction means which contacts a second end of the label. The second pad is configured to move so as to oscillate with respect to the first pad about a rotation axis axially offset from the axis of the second pad so that the second pad presses the second end of the label to the opposite side of the bottle from the first end(Figure 4) and is connected to a cam(27) which though not explicitly described, one in the art would appreciate causes this oscillation and moves the second end of the label from the retention head to the second pad then rotates the second pad.(machine translation) The reference does not disclose control means which detect the lack of the label and inhibit the movement of the second pad. Buchholz et al. discloses a labeling device which detects the absence of a label and prevents the actuation device from rotating to prevent contamination of the pressing device with adhesive.(Pg. 6, ll. 39-59) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have a control means in Gerstberger than detects the absence of a label and does not rotate the second pad to prevent contamination of the pad with adhesive as taught by Buchholz et al.(Pg. 6, ll. 39-59)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest an engagement element which interacts with the following roller on the sliding guide to modify the movement of the following roller when the lack of a label is detected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BARBARA J MUSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-1222. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:30 M-Th; 7:30-3:30 second Fridays.
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 Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
BARBARA J. MUSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/BARBARA J MUSSER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746