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 28, 2024 are under examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one air nozzle” and “pressurized air source” in claim 1, the subject matter of claim 11, the “flow control and a valve” of claim 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 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:
See “at least one transport mechanism” in claim 1, with “mechanism” being the generic placeholder and “transport” being the modifying function. The specification discloses a tube.
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 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.
Claim 1 recites “A pneumatic transport mechanism” and “at least one transport mechanism”. This language renders the claim indefinite because it appears the claim is setting forth a transport mechanism that comprises a transport mechanism. The claim language should be amended to clearly set forth the structure required by the invention.
Claims 2-20 are 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) 1-5, 7, 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by German Document (DE 4101257 A1, copy and machine translation attached, hereafter ‘257).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, ‘257 teaches a pneumatic transport mechanism configured to transport at least one container (“pneumatic tube cans”), the pneumatic transport mechanism comprising: a manifold (station 1) having at least one feed port (where nozzle 8 for inserting a ready-to-send pneumatic tube can meets plate 2), at least one inlet port (where end 4 of driving tube 7 meets plate 2 of station 1), and at least one outlet port (where end 5 of driving tube 7 meets plate 3 of station 1); at least one transport mechanism (pipe piece 16) having a first position adjacent to the at least one feed port and a second position adjacent to the at least one inlet port and the at least one outlet port (the pipe piece is movable on turntable (14,15) between positions by ring gear 20, pinion 22 and motor 21); an actuator (21) configured to direct the at least one transport mechanism from the first position to the second position; and at least one air nozzle (connection of tube piece 29 to pipe 7) connected to a pressurized air source and configured to blow pressurized air from the at least one inlet port to the at least one outlet port (the tube piece is connect to ends 4, 5 of driving tube 7).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, the at least one feed port and the at least one inlet port are on a first side of the manifold (as illustrated).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, the at least one transport mechanism is a tube (pipe piece) configured to receive the at least one container.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, ‘257 teaches at least one pass-through tube (pipe piece 17) having a first position adjacent to the at least one inlet port and the at least one outlet port and a second position away from the at least one inlet port and the at least one outlet port (when rotated by motor 21), wherein: the actuator is configured to direct the at least one pass-through tube from the first position to the second position, and the at least one pass-through tube configured to receive pressurized air from the at least one inlet port to the at least one outlet port in the first position. The pipe piece (17) would move by turntable and assume a position adjacent to the at least one inlet port and the at least one outlet port and then move again by the turntable to assume a position away from the at least one inlet port and the at least one outlet port. When in the first position, air would flow through the tube.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, the at least one transport mechanism is configured to receive the at least one container from the at least one feed port. The pipe piece would receive the tube can when rotated to a position under the nozzle (8).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, the actuator is a motor (as disclosed).
Regarding Claim(s) 11, the at least one air nozzle is oriented to release pressurized air from the at least one inlet port to the at least one outlet port. The tube piece (29) is shown connecting the two ends of the tube (7); therefore, the tube piece would be oriented to release pressurized air from the at least one inlet port to the at least one outlet port.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, the at least one air nozzle continuously blows pressurized air. Air would continuously move from end (4) to end (5) through the tube piece (29).
Regarding Claim(s) 13, ‘257 teaches an entry tube (upper portion of nozzle 8) configured to direct the at least one container to the at least one feed port.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, ‘257 teaches an air flow tube (the driving tube 7 after end 5) configured to receive the at least one container from the at least one outlet port.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘257 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Batcheller (USPN 623970).
Regarding Claim(s) 6, ‘257 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the actuator is a pneumatic cylinder. Batcheller teaches a pneumatic transport mechanism having a pneumatic cylinder (E) for causing rotation of tubes (D2, D3) supported on arms (D) about a rod (C’). As Batcheller shows a linear operating cylinder being used to generate rotational movement of tubes about an axis, the operation would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a pneumatic cylinder for the actuator of ‘257 and the substitution would yield predictable results. The cylinder would generate torque to rotate the pipe pieces about an axis to align the pipe pieces with tubes.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘257 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of German Document (DE 3533776 C1, copy and machine translation attached, hereafter ‘776).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, ‘257 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach a controller configured to send movement instructions to the actuator. ‘776 teaches a pneumatic transport mechanism comprising: a manifold (housing 1) having at least one inlet port (opening 14), and at least one outlet port (opening 15); at least one transport mechanism (carriage 18 having tube 27); and actuator (motor 37) and at least one air nozzle (connection of air pipe 34 to pipe socket 12) connected to a pressurized air source (air flowing in pipe socket 12) and configured to blow pressurized air from the at least one inlet port to the at least one outlet port [translation, “driving air is passed through the air duct 34 around the middle tube chamber 27”]. ‘776 teaches a controller configured to send movement instruction to the actuator [“drives of the support body 18 and slide 40, 41 are controlled automatically by an electronic control device”]. 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 controller configured to send movement instructions to the actuator in order to automatically move the pipe pieces to the desired position.
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘257 in view of ‘776 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Barrios (USPN 8641329).
Regarding Claim(s) 9, ‘257 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach at least one sensor configured to: detect when the at least one container exits the at least one outlet port, and transmit a signal to the controller when the at least one container exits the at least one outlet port, which causes the actuator to move the at least one transport mechanism from the second position to the first position. Barrios teaches a pneumatic tube system having transfer units (12, 120, 200) for directing carriers between stations. The system has a controller and sensor to monitor passage of a carrier through a transfer unit and after sensing of the carrier, control the transfer unit to direct a new carrier. [Col. 2:60-67, “A computer control system generates control signals that allow for aligning the transfer tubes of the diverters with desired ones of the first and second plurality of pneumatic tubes. It will be appreciated, these first and second pneumatic tubes may each lead to separate system zones. However, it will be further appreciated that one or more of the tubes connected to the diverters may lead directly to a user station and/or a temporary storage location.”], [Col. 3:9-15, “In one arrangement, a sensor associated with the connecting tube allows for identifying passage of a carrier there through. In many instances, once a carrier has passed through the connecting tubes, the delivery and/or receiving diverter may immediately be redirected to align another transaction prior to the carrier reaching its destination. Such functionality typically requires the receiving zone to be applying vacuum.”],[ Col. 10:3-12, “The carrier passage sensor may also monitor for passage of a carrier(s) associated with alignment of the transfer tubes 124A, 124B. Referring to an example of where blower 22C provides vacuum to draw a carrier from TCU 14A, it will be appreciated that once the carrier passes by the carrier sensor, the relief valve (which is proximate to the sensor) may be re-opened to provide air. Further, the transfer tube 124A of the first diverter 120A may be aligned to process another transaction prior to the carrier being delivered to zone C”]. 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 sensor configured to: detect when the at least one container exits the at least one outlet port, and transmit a signal to the controller when the at least one container exits the at least one outlet port, which causes the actuator to move the at least one transport mechanism from the second position to the first position. The sensor and controller would operate to automatically route containers to the desired destinations.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, ‘257 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the at least one sensor is affixed to the manifold. Barrios teaches the sensor (as described above). Further, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Moving the position of the sensor while retaining the function of the sensor would be nothing more than routine engineering practice of locating elements in the desired location. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to affix the sensor to the manifold as engineering expedient in order to detect the movement of containers.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘257 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Owens (USPN 7424340).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, ‘257 teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach at least one door affixed to the manifold. Owens (USPN 7424340) teaches a manifold (housing 150) having a door [Col. 5:9-10, “housing 150 with access door”]. 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 door to provide access to the manifold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 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. USPN 4516888, 4459069 discloses a manifold and transport mechanism. FR2359772 A1 discloses a manifold, transport mechanism and actuator.
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