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 August 21, 2024 are under examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe on August 21, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP23192392.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on August 21, 2024. 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.
It is noted that original copies of the DE102015106788 B4 and EP 3736232 A1 have not been provided. However, original copies of the documents are attached to this office action.
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 Objections
At claim 8, line 3, please insert a comma after “first path”.
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 “first transport element configured to transport the container” in claim 1, with “element” being the generic placeholder and ‘configured to transport the container” being the modifying functional language. The specification discloses a star wheel.
See “second transport element configured to transport the container” in claim 3, with “element” being the generic placeholder and ‘configured to transport the container” being the modifying functional language. The specification discloses a star wheel.
See “third transport element configured to transport the container” in claim 8, with “element” being the generic placeholder and ‘configured to transport the container” being the modifying functional language. The specification discloses a screw element.
See “element configured to grab the container” in claim 16, with “element” being the generic placeholder and ‘configured to grab the container” being the modifying functional language. The specification fails to disclose a corresponding structure.
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.
It is noted that “support element configured to support the container” in claim 16 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because “support” is considered to be structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation “element configured to grab the container” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), however, the specification fails to disclose a corresponding structure. As such, the claim lacks written description support for the claim language.
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 6, 14, 16 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) 6, the claim is indefinite because the claim language has not set forth what is considered “an operation position”.
Regarding Claim(s) 14, the use of the phrase “in particular” in the claim calls into question, inter alia, whether or not the elements are required by the invention and the metes and bounds of the invention.
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Claim limitation “element configured to grab the container” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only discloses “a flexible element 19 to grab the container 11” and fails to disclose a clear structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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, 15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Thompson (USPN 1097893).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Thompson teaches a feeding device for feeding at least one container (cans 31) to a conveyor device, comprising: a first transport element (shaft 11 driving vertical pusher bars 14 through spiders 12, 13) configured to transport the container along a first path (along helical track 6) from a first infeed position (at switch rail 37) to a first outfeed position (opening 41); and a first guiding structure (track 6 provides the guiding structure) configured to guide the container along the first path from the first infeed position to the first outfeed position, while the container is transported by the first transport element; wherein the first guiding structure comprises a ramp (the track 6 is helical and considered a ramp) with an inclination so that during transport along the first path at least two spatial coordinates of the container change between the first infeed position and the first outfeed position. As the cans move along the helical track, at least two spatial coordinates would change, due to movement in an arc (two spatial coordinates) as well as a vertical component (a third spatial coordinate).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Thompson teaches the ramp has an inclination so that three spatial coordinates of the container between the first infeed position and the first outfeed position change during transport along the first path. As the cans move along the helical track, there would a change in three spatial coordinates, due to movement in an arc (two spatial coordinates) as well as a vertical component (a third spatial coordinate).
Regarding Claim(s) 3, Thompson teaches a second transport element (shaft 7 driving vertical pusher bars 10 through spiders 8, 9) configured to transport the container along a second path from a second infeed position (inlet opening 24) to a second outfeed position (at switch rail 37), wherein the second transport element is arranged such that the first path and the second path are continuous (as seen in Figure 2, the cans move from pushers bars 10 to pusher bars 14 along a continuous path).
Regarding Claim(s) 4, the first path and second path are connected to one another (as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim(s) 5, Thompson teaches a second guiding structure (helical track 5) configured to guide the container along the second path from the second infeed position to the second outfeed position, wherein the second guiding structure comprises a ramp (a helical track is considered a ramp) with an inclination so that during transport along the second path at least two spatial coordinates or three spatial coordinates of the container change between the second infeed position and the second outfeed position. As the cans move along the helical track, there would a change in three spatial coordinates, due to movement in an arc (two spatial coordinates) as well as a vertical component (a third spatial coordinate).
Regarding Claim(s) 7, the first transport element and the second transport element comprises a star wheel. The shafts (7,11) along with the vertical pusher bars (10, 14) are considered star wheels as there is a rotating structure having recesses (spaces between adjacent pusher bars) to receive the cans.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, the first path and the second path are circular paths (as seen in Figure 2), and wherein the first path and second path are connected so that the two paths form an S-shaped path (as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim(s) 14, the first transport element and the second transport element are linked to each other by a drive mechanism (shaft 18 and gears 19, 19’, 20, 21, 22), in particular a belt-pulley assembly or by a gear assembly or by a combination of both.
Regarding Claim(s) 15, Thompson teaches a conveyor system for transporting containers, comprising: a feeding device according to claim 1 (as described above); and a conveyor device (discharge table 42), wherein the feeding device is configured and arranged to hand off the containers to the conveyor device.
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Thompson teaches a method for feeding at least one container to a conveyor device, comprising: moving at least one container from a first infeed position (37) to a first outfeed position (41) along a first path (helical track 6); adjusting the position of the container so as to change at least two spatial coordinates or three spatial coordinates of the at least one container while moving the container along the first path (as described above); and handing off the container at the first outfeed position to the conveyor device (discharge table 42).
Regarding Claim(s) 18, Thompson teaches moving at least one container from a second infeed position (24) to a second outfeed position (37) along a second path (helical track 5); handing over the container at the second outfeed position to the first transport element (as seen in Figure 2); and adjusting the position of the container so as to change at least two spatial coordinates or three coordinate of the container while moving the containers along the second path (as described above).
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 Thompson.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, Thompson teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach in an operation position of the feeding device, the second infeed position of the second transport element is arranged lower in a vertical direction than the first outfeed position of the first transport element. 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 second infeed position of the second transport element is lower in a vertical direction than the first outfeed position of the first transport element as engineering expedient to move containers to a desired elevation.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kruger (USPN 2284286).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Thompson teaches the limitations described above, and further teaches a feed disk (23) configured to transport containers along a third path from a third infeed position (where cans are placed on the feed disk) to a third outfeed position (24), wherein the third transport element is arranged such that the first path, the second path and the third path are continuous (as seen in Figure 2). The cans travel continuously from the feed disk to the helical track 5 and to the helical track 6. . Thompson fails to teach a third transport element configured to transport the container. The limitation “third transport element configured to transport the container” has been interpreted under 35 USC 112f to encompass a screw element and equivalents. Krueger (USPN 2284286) teaches a screw element (spiral 25) feeding containers to a star wheel (65). The use and operation of screw elements is well-known in the art for controlling the speed and spacing of articles. 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 “third transport element configured to transport the container” (a screw element) for the feeding disk of Thompson 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 screw element would control the speed and spacing of containers being delivered to the second transport element.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, the first path, the second path and the third path are connected to one another (as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim(s) 10, Thompson teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the third transport element includes a screw element. Krueger (USPN 2284286) teaches a screw element (spiral 25) feeding containers to a star wheel (65). The use and operation of screw elements is well-known in the art for controlling the speed and spacing of articles. 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 “third transport element configured to transport the container” (a screw element) for the feeding disk of Thompson 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 screw element would control the speed and spacing of containers being delivered to the second transport element.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Danel et al. (US Pub 20190256299 A1).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Thompson teaches the limitations described above and teaches that the first transport element and second transport element are driven by a single source (through pulleys 16 on shaft 15), yet fails to teach the first transport element and the second transport element are driven by a single motor. Danel et al. (US Pub 20190256299 A1) teaches a first and second transport element (transfer wheels 38A-G), all driven by a single motor (electric motor 88) through gears (90A-G, 92) [Para. 139]. The operation of using a single electric motor to drive multiple star wheels is known in the art, and said operation would be 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 use a single motor to drive the first transport element and the second transport element to synchronize the operation of the transport elements 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) 13, Thompson teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach the single motor is an electric motor. Danel et al. (US Pub 20190256299 A1) teaches a first and second transport element (transfer wheels 38A-G), all driven by a single motor (electric motor 88) through gears (90A-G, 92) [Para. 139]. The operation of using a single electric motor to drive multiple star wheels is known in the art, and said operation would be 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 use a single electric motor to drive the first transport element and the second transport element to synchronize the operation of the transport elements 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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Baker (USPN 772078).
Regarding Claim(s) 16, Thompson teaches the limitations described above and teaches a support element (disk 42) configured to support the container, yet fails to teach a flexible element configured to grab the container. Baker (USPN 772078) teaches a flexible element (conveyor K having fingers k) configured to grab a container (see Figure 2). The conveyor (K) is considered flexible as it moves around sprockets (I2,L2) and the fingers are considered to be flexible as a finger would be flexible to some extent. 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 flexible element configured to grab the container to support the container.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 11059679 is an English equivalent document of EP 3736232 and teaches a feeding device comprising a first transport element and a first guiding structure comprising a ramp that would read on at least claim 1. DE20204105553 U1 discloses a first transport element and a ramp. DE102015106788B4 discloses a first transport element and ramp and would read on at least claim 1. USPN 4756403 discloses a first transport element and ramp and would read on at least claim 1.
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