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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
1. Applicant’s amendments of claims 1 and 7 overcome the 112(b) rejections of the previous Office Action.
2. Amended claim 1 contains limitations not previously considered, and in further search and consideration, better art was found to address the limitations of amended claim 1. Consequentially, the rejection involving Brown and Hernandez is withdrawn, and Applicant’s argument is moot.
3. Applicant argues that the Examiner’s assertion in the previous Office Action that the combined apparatus is “capable of” performing the functional limitations of original claim 1 is improper as the “prior art must perform the specific process steps without reprogramming”. This part of Applicant’s argument is still relevant to the new set of rejections listed below. The Examiner disagrees with this argument as MPEP 2114.I teaches- “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art… The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432; In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213, 169 USPQ 226, 228 (CCPA 1971).” Applicant does not argue that the combined apparatus would be incapable of performing the functional limitations of original claim 1, and therefore fails to meet the burden of establishing that the prior art does not possess the characteristics that the Examiner asserts. Further, Applicant’s argument is directed to a “test of computer controlled processes” (pg. 9 line 3 of Applicant’s Remarks filed 06/29/2026), which is wholly irrelevant to claim 1 as claim 1 has neither a computer nor a controller in its apparatus limitations. For at least these reasons, this argument is unpersuasive.
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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-15, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2021/0110952; previously presented; hereafter Brown) in view of Tomasetta et al. (US 11,104,468; hereafter Tomasetta) and Scott et al. (US 2002/0084020; previously presented; hereafter Scott).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a label pasting device (labeler- 50; [0041]) comprising a clamping mechanism (label applicator- 62; [0043]-[0044]; shown in action between Figures 13-15) including at least one vacuum suction hole (vacuum ports- 66) that is shown as a pair in Figure 15 and is noted to adsorb a label (“draws a vacuum… to retain… the label”; [0044]) and thus can be considered a pair of grippers. The grippers fold and paste the label onto a cable (noted as a wire) via slot- 68 at a first end of a label ([0044]). Brown further teaches of a six-axis collaborative robotic arm (robotic arm- 14) that can have different end effectors ([0037]; see Figure 1).
Brown does not teach of a rotating mechanism and associated limitations, but as noted teaches the inclusion of a six-axis collaborative robotic arm that can have different end effectors. Tomasetta teaches of a rotating mechanism (end effector- 310, noted as 210 for other embodiments) shown in Figures 3J and 3K that includes a fixed plate (second plate- 314) and a rotatable plate (first plate- 312), the rotatable plate is openable and closable relative to the fixed plate as shown in the motion between figures as folding a label (label- 370), which establishes applicability to the immediate application and the ability to make a second fold at the second end of the label (col. 12 lines 17-41). The advantage of Tomasetta’s rotating mechanism is that in combination with various sensors, Tomasetta’s rotating mechanism verifies that the label is properly applied (col. 11 lines 42-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use the rotating mechanism of Tomasetta in the apparatus of Brown for the advantage of having mechanical structure that verifies that the label is applied properly.
It is unclear if the gripper pair of Brown is openable and closable, however if they are not, then slot- 68 must be of a constant gap and can only be applied to a specific cable diameter. Scott teaches that a pair of parallel beams should be laterally movable to accommodate for differences in sizes ([0031]), which when applied to Brown would make the gripper pair openable and closable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to make the gripper pair of Brown open and closable as suggested by Scott for the advantage of being accommodating for cables of different sizes.
Claim limitations pertaining to label, including that it is T-shaped, that a first and second fold are created, and similar limitations are considered material or article worked upon by an apparatus. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. Further, as MPEP 2114.II teaches- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). These concepts of patentability establish that if the apparatus is capable of performing the function as it relates to the label and the cable, it will still anticipate/render obvious the claim limitation. In the case of claim 1, the vacuum suction holes are noted above for adsorbing a label as well as folding and pasting a label onto a wire (which would be applicable to a cable), and therefore are capable of adsorbing onto a vertical part of a T-shaped label to pick up the T-shaped label, as well as folding and paste the vertical part of the T-shaped label onto a cable to form a first fold. The six-axis collaborative robotic arm has a vast range of movement, and with Tomasetta’s rotating mechanism is capable of supporting an upper half of a horizontal part of the T-shaped label to the fixed plate from the back of the label, and then the rotatable plate is capable of folding and paste a lower half of the horizontal part of the T-shaped label onto the upper half to form a second fold. Since the combined apparatus is capable of performing the functions of claim 1, claim 1 is not patentable over the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, Brown teaches that the cable is held in a cable clamp (grommets- 34; [0039]). As seen in Figure 15, the cable is maintained in an orientation perpendicular to the label. The “vertical part of the T-shaped label” is material worked upon and does not add patentability as mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Brown teaches that the clamping mechanism is moved in a direction perpendicular to the cable toward the cable, the cable enters the pair of grippers to fold and paste the label onto the cable along an axis of the cable ([0044]; the end step is shown in Figure 15). Since Brown explicitly teaches this process step, the apparatus is capable of performing this function. The “vertical part of the T-shaped label” is material worked upon and does not add patentability as mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the pair of grippers is raised in such a way that the cable is aligned with the opening of the pair of grippers and then the pair of grippers are raised up in a linear fashion (via linear actuator- 172; [0044]). In respect to the cable, this is the radial direction of the cable. This is accomplished while the cable is clamped ([0039]).
Regarding claim 5, as seen in Figure 13 of Brown, the inner side of an end of each of the pair of grippers has a clamping protrusion (half of the hemisphere bottom of receiving slot- 68). These protrusions make a clamping surface, and the label is clamped onto the cable.
Regarding claim 6, as noted in applying Scott as in claim 1, the pair of grippers are closable. Consequentially, if a T-shaped label with vertical part that has an end and a root were within the pair of grippers while being closed, it would clamp them together. This is merely an operation of the apparatus, which does not impart patentability as mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Brown teaches that on each flat end face (distal face) of the gripper has a at least one vacuum hole ([0043]).
Regarding claim 8, in applying Tomasetta as in claim 1, both the fixed plate and rotating plate have flat surfaces and are configured to apply labels (col. 12 lines 17-20). The limitations directed to the flat surfaces and the label are merely operational steps of the apparatus, which does not impart patentability as mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the entirety of claim 9 is directed to operational steps of the apparatus, which does not impart patentability as mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the entirety of claim 10 is directed to operational steps of the apparatus, which does not impart patentability as mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the entirety of claim 11 is directed to operational steps of the apparatus, which does not impart patentability as mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the entirety of claim 12 is directed to operational steps of the apparatus, which does not impart patentability as mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the entirety of claim 13 is directed to operational steps of the apparatus, which does not impart patentability as mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the entirety of claim 14 is directed to operational steps of the apparatus, which does not impart patentability as mentioned in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, in applying the rotating mechanism of Tomasetta in the apparatus of Brown, the rotating mechanism (end effector- 24 of Brown) is attached to a base (robotic arm- 14; [0037]). As the fixed plate is fixed, it is fixedly installed on the base, and since the rotatable plate is rotatable, it is rotatably installed on the base.
Regarding claim 18, in applying Tomasetta as in claim 1, as shown between Figures 3J and 3K, the fixed plate (second plate- 314) and the rotatable plate (first plate- 312) define respective engagement faces and are seen as engaging a surface of a label (label- 370), which could be the back of the label. Figure 3J shows an open position of the rotating mechanism, wherein the engagement faces of the fixed plate and the rotatable plate are co-planar with each other, and Figure 3K shows a closed position of the rotating mechanism, wherein the engagement faces of the fixed plate and the rotatable plate are opposed to each other.
Regarding claim 19, in applying Tomasetta as in claim 18, Tomasetta teaches that the rotatable plate is rotatably attached to the fixed plate about a single axis (axis of the actuator- 316; col. 12 lines 28-32).
Regarding claim 20, in applying Tomasetta as in claim 19, as seen in the differences between Figures 3J and 3K, the rotatable plate is rotated approximately 180 degrees relative to the fixed plate between the open position and the closed position.
Regarding claim 21, the six-axis robotic arm of Brown is independent of their gripper. Since the rotating mechanism of Tomasetta is integrated into the six-axis robotic arm, it operates independently and could form a second fold independently from the operation of the gripper.
Regarding claim 22, Brown teaches a label pasting device (labeler- 50; [0041]) comprising a clamping mechanism (label applicator- 62; [0043]-[0044]; shown in action between Figures 13-15) including at least one vacuum suction hole (vacuum ports- 66) that is shown as a pair in Figure 15 and is noted to adsorb a label (“draws a vacuum… to retain… the label”; [0044]) and thus can be considered a pair of grippers. The grippers fold and paste the label onto a cable (noted as a wire) via slot- 68 at a first end of a label ([0044]). Brown further teaches of an independent six-axis collaborative robotic arm (robotic arm- 14) that can have different end effectors ([0037]; see Figure 1).
Brown does not teach of a rotating mechanism and associated limitations, but as noted teaches the inclusion of an independent six-axis collaborative robotic arm that can have different end effectors. Tomasetta teaches of a rotating mechanism (end effector- 310, noted as 210 for other embodiments) shown in Figures 3J and 3K that includes a fixed plate (second plate- 314) and a rotatable plate (first plate- 312) that are attached to each other by an axis of rotation (axis of the actuator- 316), the rotatable plate is openable and closable relative to the fixed plate as shown in the motion between figures as folding a label (label- 370), which establishes applicability to the immediate application and the ability to make a second fold at the second end of the label (col. 12 lines 17-41). The advantage of Tomasetta’s rotating mechanism is that in combination with various sensors, Tomasetta’s rotating mechanism verifies that the label is properly applied (col. 11 lines 42-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to use the rotating mechanism of Tomasetta in the apparatus of Brown for the advantage of having an independent mechanical structure that verifies that the label is applied properly.
It is unclear if the gripper pair of Brown is openable and closable, however if they are not, then slot- 68 must be of a constant gap and can only be applied to a specific cable diameter. Scott teaches that a pair of parallel beams should be laterally movable to accommodate for differences in sizes ([0031]), which when applied to Brown would make the gripper pair openable and closable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to make the gripper pair of Brown open and closable as suggested by Scott for the advantage of being accommodating for cables of different sizes.
Claim limitations pertaining to label, including that it is T-shaped, that a first and second fold are created, and similar limitations are considered material or article worked upon by an apparatus. Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). See MPEP 2115. Further, as MPEP 2114.II teaches- "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). These concepts of patentability establish that if the apparatus is capable of performing the function as it relates to the label and the cable, it will still anticipate/render obvious the claim limitation. In the case of claim 22, the vacuum suction holes are noted above for adsorbing a label as well as folding and pasting a label onto a wire (which would be applicable to a cable), and therefore are capable of adsorbing onto a vertical part of a T-shaped label to pick up the T-shaped label, as well as folding and paste the vertical part of the T-shaped label onto a cable to form a first fold. The six-axis collaborative robotic arm has a vast range of movement, and with Tomasetta’s rotating mechanism is capable of supporting an upper half of a horizontal part of the T-shaped label to the fixed plate from the back of the label, and then the rotatable plate is capable of folding and paste a lower half of the horizontal part of the T-shaped label onto the upper half to form a second fold. Since the combined apparatus is capable of performing the functions of claim 22, claim 22 is not patentable over the prior art.
Conclusion
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER S WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571) 272-8343. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Philip Tucker can be reached on 571-273-1095. 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.
/ALEXANDER S WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/ALEX B EFTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights