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 June 27, 2024 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on June 27, 2024 and January 31, 2025. 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 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 3, 14, 18-20 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) 3, the language “by an internal duct airflow” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the language is attempting to set forth an “internal duct”.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, the claim is considered indefinite because it is unclear how a duct can be generally horizontal while also defining a change in elevation.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, the language “the first and second air streams” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how “air streams” are different from “airflow” as also recited in the claim.
Regarding Claim(s) 19, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the “receptacle” is part of the invention. The claim recites the receptacle in the preamble and in the body, but the language appears to be a recitation of intended use. The claim language should be amended to clarify if the receptacle is part of the invention.
Claim 20 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12, 13, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cahill et al. (USPN 4915547).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Cahill et al. (USPN 4915547) teaches a packaging material conveyance system for conveying protective packaging articles from a protective packaging machine to a receptacle, the packaging material conveyance system comprising: a main duct (22) having a packaging article inlet (see Figure 6, left end of duct 22) configured to receive formed packaging articles, and having a first outlet (Figure 3 shows an article 12 exiting the duct, also hopper 36 receive articles from duct 22) configured to allow the packaging articles to exit therefrom, the main duct being elongated and configured to transport the articles in a longitudinal direction within the main duct from the packaging article inlet to the first outlet (the duct is elongated and would be configured to transport articles); and a blower assembly [Col. 3:38, “fan or compressor”] operably connected to the main duct to generate airflow that enters the main duct from at least two non-adjacent sides of the main duct to propel the articles through the main duct (Figure 6 shows the airflow entering from opposite sides of the duct, hence non-adjacent). The language “for conveying protective packaging articles from a protective packaging machine to a receptacle” is considered a recitation of the intended use of the system and does not structurally limit the system.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Cahill et al. teaches the packaging article inlet is connected to an outlet of a machine (station 10). The language “the protective packaging machine that converts a high-density supply material into the packaging articles having a lower density than the supply material” is not considered to limit the structure of the conveyance system as the preamble of claim 1 sets forth that the conveyance system conveys articles from the packaging machine to a receptacle. The packaging machine is not considered to be an element of the conveyance system.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, as the preamble of claim 1 has set forth that the receptacle is not an element of the conveyance system, recitations toward the receptacle do not limit the structure of the conveyance system. That being said, Cahill et al. teaches a receptacle (36) receiving articles conveyed through the duct (22).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, there is a blower duct section (Figure 6, at arrows 48) fluidly connecting the blower assembly and the main duct to introduce the airflow at an angle relative to the longitudinal direction of the main duct.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, the blower duct section comprises first and second blower duct sections (sections on each side of the duct), and the airflow comprises first and second air streams (as seen in Figure 6) configured to enter the main duct via the first and second blower duct sections at first and second angles, respectively.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, the angles are not greater than about 90 degrees (Figure 6 shows an angle less than 90 degrees).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, the first and second air streams are configured to energize boundary layers on top and bottom sides of the articles, respectively, so as to accelerate the articles from the packaging article inlet of the main duct. The air streams would inherently energize boundary layers on the sides of the article, as fluid flowing over a surface creates a boundary layer. The air stream would accelerate the articles.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, the first and second air streams are configured to engage opposite sides of the articles (since the air streams enter the duct from different sides).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Cahill et al. shows duct sections each defining a substantially straight path. Figure 12 show a duct (122) with straight sections and curved sections.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, the duct appears rectangular.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, the main duct is configured to receive articles at the inlet. The language “that have been cut and separated by the protective packaging machine” do not limit the structure of the conveyance system as the language is directed to the articles transported by the conveyance system. Recitations toward articles handled by an apparatus do not bear on the patentability of the apparatus. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding Claim(s) 17, recitations toward articles handled by an apparatus do not bear on the patentability of the apparatus. See MPEP 2115.
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) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Szatkowski (USPN 3129978).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Cahill et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the blower comprises a first blower for generating the first air stream and a second blower for generating the second air stream. Szatkowski (USPN 3129978) teaches first and second blowers (blower units 29) for generating first and second air streams to propel an article. 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 first and second blowers to generate first and second air streams as taught by Szatkowski to propel articles since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Cahill et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the first blower and the second blower are arranged on the at least two non-adjacent sides of the main duct. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the first and second blower on non-adjacent sides of the main duct as engineering expedient. One of ordinary skill would place the blowers in a location taking into consideration such parameters as available space.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Cahill et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the first and second blowers are arranged proximate the packaging article inlet of the main duct. However, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the first and second blowers proximate the inlet as engineering expedient. One of ordinary skill would place the blowers in a location taking into consideration such parameters as available space.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Meins (USPN 6454495).
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Cahill et al. teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach an elbow of the main duct arranged between the first and second duct sections, the elbow being wider than the first and second duct sections. Meins (USPN 6454495) teaches an elbow (2) being wider than a duct (14) to ensure the article can change orientation without deformation [Col 5:11-14]. 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 an elbow of the main duct arranged between the first and second duct sections, the elbow being wider than the first and second duct sections in order to allow movement of the article without deformation of the article.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Szatkowski.
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Cahill et al. teaches a packaging material conveyance system for conveying protective packaging articles from a protective packaging machine to a receptacle, the packaging material conveyance system comprising: a main duct (22) extending a predetermined length from a packaging article inlet (see Figure 6, left end of duct 22) to at least a first outlet (Figure 3 shows an article 12 exiting the duct, also hopper 36 receives articles from the duct), the main duct configured to receive the articles output by the protective packaging machine (the duct receives articles from station 14) and transport the articles to a first outlet corresponding to the receptacle (hopper 36), the main duct defining a longitudinal direction corresponding to a direction of travel of the articles in the main duct (the duct would have a longitudinal direction); a first blower [Col. 3:38, “fan or compressor”] operably connected to a first blower duct section for generating a first airflow that enters the main duct at a first predetermined angle relative to the longitudinal direction. Cahill et al. teaches a first and second airflow entering the main duct at predetermined angles (see Figure 6, airflow entering duct through apertures 48), and the airflow through the apertures propels the articles through the main duct. Cahill et al. fails to teach a second blower operably connected to a second blower duct section for generating a second airflow that enters the main duct at a second predetermined angle relative to the longitudinal direction, wherein the first and second air streams are configured to propel the articles through the main duct. Szatkowski (USPN 3129978) teaches first and second blowers (blower units 29) for generating first and second air streams to propel an article. 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 first and second blowers to generate first and second airflows as taught by Szatkowski to propel articles since the elements were known in the art and one of ordinary skill, using known methods, could have combined the elements and achieved predictable results. The language “for conveying protective packaging articles from a protective packaging machine to a receptacle” is considered a recitation of the intended use of the system and does not structurally limit the system.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahill et al. in view of Fuss (USPN 3762772).
Regarding Claim(s) 19, Cahill et al. teaches a packaging material conveyance system for conveying protective packaging articles from a protective packaging machine to a receptacle, the packaging material conveyance system comprising: a main duct (22) extending a predetermined length from a packaging article inlet, the main duct defining a longitudinal direction (the duct would have a longitudinal direction) corresponding to a direction of travel of the articles in the main duct; a blower [Col. 3:38, “fan or compressor”] operably connected to the main duct (through injectors 46), the blower oriented at an angle (injector 46 is at an angle) to the longitudinal direction of the main duct so as to generate airflow to propel the articles through the main duct. Cahill et al. fails to teach a diverter, the main duct configured to receive the articles output by the protective packaging machine and transport the articles to the diverter corresponding to the receptacle; the diverter being configured to act as an outlet in an open position and as part of the main duct in a closed position, wherein in the open position the packaging articles are diverted into the receptacle and when in the closed position the packaging articles are configured to continue to an additional receptacle that follows the receptacle; and the receptacle associated configured to receive the articles conveyed by the internal duct airflow from the inlet to the diverter. Fuss (USPN 3762772) teaches a main duct (26) feeding articles to a receptacle (10) through a diverter (40), the diverter being configured to act as an outlet in an open position (Figure 3) and as part of the main duct in a closed position (Figure 2), wherein in the open position the packaging articles are diverted into the receptacle and when in the closed position the packaging articles are configured to continue to an additional receptacle that follows the receptacle. 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 a diverter, the main duct configured to receive the articles output by the protective packaging machine and transport the articles to the diverter corresponding to the receptacle; the diverter being configured to act as an outlet in an open position and as part of the main duct in a closed position, wherein in the open position the packaging articles are diverted into the receptacle and when in the closed position the packaging articles are configured to continue to an additional receptacle that follows the receptacle; and the receptacle associated configured to receive the articles conveyed by the internal duct airflow from the inlet to the diverter. The diverter would allow sorting of the articles. The language “for conveying protective packaging articles from a protective packaging machine to a receptacle” is considered a recitation of the intended use of the system and does not structurally limit the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14 and 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. USPN 2993737 discloses angled airflow to propel articles in a duct. USPN 4582455 discloses angled airflow to propel articles in a duct.
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