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: claim 1 lacks a typical transition between the preamble and the body of the claim (comprising, consisting etc.). 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, 13 and 14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “substantially the same width”, and the claim also recites “exactly the same width” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 13 and 14, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7-10, 12-13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 8,117,733 to Reggiani.
Regarding claim 1 Reggiani discloses an unpacking device which is designed to remove a thin-walled packaging wrapper (3) from a workpiece, having a processing station having a workpiece receptacle (see figure 6 area between rollers where 3 is situated) for receiving the workpiece (3), and having a pair of counter-rotating rollers (5/6) which are mounted so as to be rotatable about counter-rotating axles (see figure 6) and between which is formed an intake gap (see figure 6), at least one of the counter-rotating rollers being driven by a drive (col. 3 lines 12-15) so as to rotate about its counter-rotating axle; and the pair of counter-rotating rollers being disposed on a circumference of the processing station in such a manner and designed to draw the thin-walled packaging wrapper into the intake gap (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 5 Reggiani discloses the counter-rotating axles deviate by at most 15 degrees from a mutually parallel alignment (see figure 6, axes are parallel).
Regarding claim 7 Reggiani discloses the intake gap over its length has only substantially, at least substantially, or exactly the same width (see figure 6, axes are parallel).
Regarding claim 8 Reggiani discloses the intake gap has a width which is actively adjustable by an adjustment drive, and/or wherein the counter-rotating rollers are loaded toward one another by a spring force of a spring (col. 3 lines 35-55).
Regarding claim 9 Reggiani discloses the processing station has a bearing surface on which the workpiece is to be placed adjacent to the counter-rotating rollers (surface of rollers 10/11 when swung into contact with 3).
Regarding claim 10 Reggiani discloses said unpacking device has a loading device (21) which is designed to transport a workpiece (3) to the processing station and/or remove said workpiece from the processing station.
Regarding claim 12 Reggiani discloses a method for removing a thin-walled packaging wrapper from a workpiece (3), comprising the steps: a) offering up a workpiece having a thin-walled packaging wrapper to an intake gap (moving 3 into contact with 5/6 so 2 is inserted into the gap) between a pair of counter-rotating rollers which are mounted so as to be rotatable about counter-rotating axles (see figure 6); b) inducting the thin-walled packaging wrapper (intaking 2 into the gap, see figure 6) so far into the intake gap that the thin-walled packaging wrapper is stripped from the workpiece (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 13 Reggiani discloses rotating the workpiece, by way of a workpiece circumference, transversely past the intake gap, either prior to gripping the thin-walled packaging wrapper by way of the intake gap, in particular for increasing the probability that the thin-walled packaging wrapper makes its way into the intake gap; and/or when inducting the thin-walled packaging wrapper into the intake gap, in particular for facilitating the stripping of the thin-walled packaging wrapper from the workpiece (the work piece rotates into position in the removal station when being transferred from the conveyor 21 to the removal station 8).
Regarding claim 16 Reggiani discloses the method being carried out with an unpacking device (figure 4), which is designed to remove a thin-walled packaging wrapper (2) from a workpiece (3), the unpacking device comprising: a processing station (8) having a workpiece receptacle (see figure 6) for receiving the workpiece (3), and a pair of counter-rotating rollers (5/6) which are mounted so as to be rotatable about counter-rotating axles (figure 6) and between which is formed an intake gap (figure 6), at least one of the counter-rotating rollers being driven by a drive (col. 3 lines 10-15) so as to rotate about its counter-rotating axle; and the pair of counter-rotating rollers being disposed on a circumference of the processing station in such a manner and designed to draw the thin-walled packaging wrapper into the intake gap (see figure 6).
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reggiani.
Reggiani does not explicitly disclose a processing machine, the unpacking device being disposed along an automated conveyor line in front of the processing machine, and unpacked workpieces being transported by the conveyor line from the unpacking device to the processing machine, the processing machine being from the following group: milling machine, turning machine, grinding machine, polishing machine, coating machine, cleaning machine, film-wrapping machine, and block-mounting machine.
That said it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicants’ claim to have modified Reggiani to include a processing machine, the unpacking device being disposed along an automated conveyor line in front of the processing machine, and unpacked workpieces being transported by the conveyor line from the unpacking device to the processing machine, the processing machine being from the following group: milling machine, turning machine, grinding machine, polishing machine, coating machine, cleaning machine, film-wrapping machine, and block-mounting machine because Reggiani is intended for use in an automated operation (in this instance opening objects such as stacks of lids to be seamed onto containers (col. 1 lines 10-13) and as such feeding the opened stack of container lids via a conveyor to either a machine for attaching them or for cleaning them would have been well known and part of a standard automated assembly for closing containers via the lids. See MPEP 2144.03.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6, and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: the roller configuration of the work receptacle as set forth in claims 2 and 15 distinguishes the claims from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims. The changing of the direction of rotation of the workpiece (claim 14) distinguishes the claim from the prior art when considered in combination with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other roller based systems for removing film/packaging from an object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
Prosecution Insights