Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
2. Claims 1-6 and 8, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 3,512,660 (Bende) (hereinafter “Bende”) (a reference of record).
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1-2 disclose a method for removing a plate-shaped first workpiece (30) from an upper side of a stack of plate-shaped further workpieces (30) in a sequential direction of the further workpieces (30), the method comprising:
lifting the first workpiece (top sheet 30) using a gripper (via elements 52 and 54 and/or rollers 58a and 58b);
inserting a separating layer (including air from elements 50) between a raised corner of the first workpiece (top sheet 50) and a second workpiece (sheet 30 below top sheet 30) from the stack of further workpieces (30), the second workpiece (sheet 30 below top sheet 30) being adjacent to the first workpiece (top sheet 30);
holding down the stack of further workpieces (30) by the separating layer (including air from elements 50);
removing (via rollers in Fig. 2) the first workpiece (top sheet 30) from the stack of further workpieces (30); and
measuring (via element 60) a thickness of the first workpiece (top sheet 30).
Regarding claim 2, column 2, lines 52-54 disclose that at least at times a gas (air) flows out of at least one nozzle (50) of the separating layer.
Regarding claim 3, column 2, lines 52-54 disclose that the gas is compressed air.
Regarding claim 4, column 2, lines 63-65 disclose that at least at times suction occurs through a nozzle (52) of the separating layer. Element 52 can be considered to be part of the separating layer when only rollers 58a and 58b are considered to be parts of the gripper.
Regarding claim 5, Figs. 1-2 dislcose removing the gripper (including 52 and 54) from the first workpiece (top sheet 30) after the insertion of the separating layer between the raised corner and the adjacent second workpiece (sheet 30 below top sheet 30).
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 1-2 disclose displacing and/or pivoting the stack of further workpieces (30) after the insertion of the separating layer between the raised corner and the adjacent second workpiece (sheet 30 below top sheet 30). See, e.g., column 2, lines 12-48.
Regarding claim 8, Figs. 1-2 show that the separating layer is inserted between a separating portion of the first workpiece (top sheet 30) comprising the raised corner and the adjacent second workpiece (sheet 30 below top sheet 30), the separating portion comprising the raised corner, an adjacent corner, and an edge between the raised corner and the adjacent corner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
3. Claims 9, 11-12, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over German Publication No. 2225620 (hereinafter “DE’620”) (cited in the 8/23/24 IDS) in view of Bende.
PNG
media_image1.png
782
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Figs. 1-6 of DE’620 show a device (Fig. 3) for removing a plate-shaped first workpiece (top sheet) from an upper side of a stack (16) of plate-shaped further workpieces (other sheets) in a sequential direction of the further workpieces (other sheets),
the device (Fig. 3) comprising:
a gripper (including 26) configured to grip the first workpiece (other sheets), the gripper (including 26) having a drive (including 49, 57-59 and 72) configured to move the gripper (including 26) along a lifting axis (vertical axis along element 57) of the device (Fig. 3);
a separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) aligned perpendicular to the lifting axis (vertical axis along element 57),
a positioner (including 48, 55, upper element 53 and upper part of element 25) being configured to move the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) along the lifting axis (vertical axis along element 57) and perpendicular thereto;
a transport device (including 19) configured to remove the first workpiece (top sheet) from the stack (16) of further workpieces (other sheets);
wherein the device (Fig. 3) is configured to:
lift the first workpiece (top sheet) using the gripper (including 26);
insert the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) between the raised corner of the first workpiece (top sheet) and a second workpiece (sheet below top sheet) from the stack (16) of further workpieces (other sheets), the second workpiece (sheet below top sheet) being adjacent to the first workpiece (top sheet);
hold down the stack (16) of further workpieces (other sheets) by the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5);
remove the first workpiece (top sheet) from the stack (16) of further workpieces (other sheets) with the transport device (including 19). DE’620 teaches all of the elements of this claim, except for a thickness gage for measuring the thickness of the first workpiece after removing the first workpiece from the stack of further workpieces, wherein the device is configured to: measure a thickness of the first workpiece, as claimed.
Bende provides a general teaching that it is well-known in the art to provide a device (10) for removing a plate-shaped first workpiece (top sheet 30) from an upper side of a stack of plate-shaped further workpieces (30) in a sequential direction of the further workpieces (30), with a thickness gage (60) for measuring a thickness of a first workpiece (top sheet 30) after removing the first workpiece (top sheet 30) from a stack of further workpieces (30), wherein the device (10) is configured to: measure (via element 60) the thickness of the first workpiece (top sheet) with the thickness gage (60), for the purpose of detecting double feeding of sheets. See, e.g., lines 6-8 in column 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apparatus of DE’620 with a thickness gage and measure the thickness of the first worksheet (top sheet) of DE’620, for the purpose of detecting double feeding of sheets, as taught by Bende.
Regarding claim 11, DE’620 shows the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) is configured as a sheet, but DE’620 does not explicitly teach that this sheet is a metal sheet, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a metal sheet, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for the intended use. See, e.g., MPEP2144.07. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the separating layer a metal sheet for the purpose of allowing the separating layer to be a thin enough to fit between the sheets while also being strong enough to hold down the sheets below the top sheet.
Regarding claim 12, DE’620 shows that the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) comprises at least one nozzle (“Nozzle” in annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, DE’620 shows that the at least one nozzle (“Nozzle” in annotated Fig. 5) is provided on an end face of the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Figs. 1-6 of DE’620 disclose a method for removing a plate-shaped first workpiece (top sheet) from an upper side of a stack (16) of plate-shaped further workpieces (other sheets) in a sequential direction of the further workpieces (other sheets), the method comprising:
lifting the first workpiece (top sheet) using a gripper (including 26);
inserting a separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) between a raised corner of the first workpiece (top sheet) and a second workpiece (sheet below top sheet) from the stack (16) of further workpieces (other sheets), the second workpiece (sheet below top sheet) being adjacent to the first workpiece (top sheet);
holding down the stack of further workpieces (other sheets) by the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5);
removing (via vacuum roller 19) the first workpiece (top sheet) from the stack of further workpieces (other sheets); and further comprising
retracting the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) such that the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) moves from above (Fig. 6) the stack of further workpieces (other sheets) to a retracted position (Fig. 5) closer to a lifting axis (lower axis 71) from which a support arm (lower element 53) that supports the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) extends. DE’620 teaches all of the method steps except for measuring a thickness of the first workpiece, as claimed.
Bende provides a general teaching that it is well-known in the art to measure (via element 60) a thickness of a first workpiece (top sheet) after removing the first workpiece (topmost sheet) from a stack of workpieces (sheets), for the purpose of detecting double feeding of sheets. See, e.g., lines 6-8 in column 3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to measure the thickness of the first worksheet (top sheet) on the apparatus of DE’620, for the purpose of detecting double feeding of sheets, as taught by Bende.
Regarding claim 17, Figs. 1-6 of DE’620 show that the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) is plate-shaped, and wherein a planar surface of the plate-shaped separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) is configured to abut the second workpiece (sheet below topmost sheet) and thereby hold down the second workpiece (sheet below topmost sheet).
Regarding claim 18, Figs. 1-6 of DE’620 show a support arm (lower arm 53) extending laterally from the positioner (including 48, 55, upper element 53 and upper part of element 25) toward (see Fig. 5) the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) and away from the lifting axis (vertical axis along element 57), wherein the separating layer (“Separating layer” in annotated Fig. 5) is configured to be selectively extended from and retracted toward the support arm (lower arm 53) relative to the lifting axis (vertical axis along element 57).
4. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE’620 in view of Bende as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of German Publication No. 4214232 (hereinafter “DE’232”) (cited in the 8/23/24 IDS). With regard to claim 13, DE’620 shows a separating layer with a nozzle, but does not show a plurality of nozzles, as claimed.
DE’232 shows that it is well-known in the art to utilize a plurality of nozzles in a separating layer between first and second work pieces, for the purpose of providing adequate air to separate a top sheet from sheets below the top sheet, as shown in Figs. 3 and 4 of DE’232. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apparatus of DE’620 in view of Bende with a plurality of nozzles, for the purpose of providing adequate air to separate the top sheet from the sheets below the top sheet, as taught by DE’232.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Office’s interpretation of the term “separating layer”
is impermissibly broad in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard set forth in the MPEP. In support of this argument, applicant cites a portion of MPEP2111 to claim that “separating layer” cannot be interpreted as an air layer from jet 50 of Bende.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. While applicant cited a section of the MPEP for claim interpretation, applicant did not include MPEP2111.01, which clarifies that the words of a claim must be given their “plain meaning” unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. With regard to “plain meaning”, the dictionary broadly defines the term “layer” as “1. a thickness of some material laid on or spread over a surface”. See Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, 1996 by Random House Publishing Value Publishing, Inc., at page 1091. In view of this broad definition of layer, the examiner takes the position that jet 50 that blow air between a top sheet separated from a sheet below the top sheet provides a thickness of some material (air) spread over a surface (surface of sheet below top sheet). As such, jet 50 that blows the air layer can be considered a separating layer, as claimed.
Next, applicant argues that numbered paragraphs [0020], [0021], [0025], [0036], and [0048] of the published specification state that the separating layer can have a nozzle or nozzles, can hold down or block movement of a workpiece, can be a band or belt, can be a metal sheet, and can even be retracted. Applicant also argues that the separating layer must have physical solid contours.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a separating layer that includes one or more nozzles, holds or blocks a workpiece, can be a band or belt, can be metal, can be retracted, and has physically solid contours) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Next, applicant argues that Bende fails to disclose or suggest holding down the stack of further workpieces by the separating layer, as claimed.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. Lines 50-54 in column 2 of Bende state that “The destacking apparatus includes commercially available magnetic separators 48 which fan the top sheets 30 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 2 and air jets 50 which blow air between the fanned sheets 30 to help separate the sheets and prevent a double sheet pickup.” Also, lines 62-69 in column 2 of Bende state “In the extended position the vacuum cups 52 engage the top sheet 30 and a vacuum is created within the cups so that the top sheet is secured to the cups. The flow of fluid in the hydraulic cylinder 56 is reversed and as the support plate 54 and attached cups 52 with the secured sheet 30 are lifted vertically, the air jets 50 and magnetic separators 48 assure that only one sheet is removed from the stack.” (emphasis added). In other words, while cups 52 are sucking and lifting the top sheet, air jets 50 producing the layer of air that helps hold down the stack of sheets below the top sheet to prevent double sheet pickup. As such, air jets 50 produce the layer of air holding down the stack of further workpieces, as claimed.
For similar reasons as noted above with regard to independent claim 1, all of the limitations of independent claim 9 are met by Bende.
With regard to dependent claims 2 and 3, applicant argues that the Office contends that air from air jets 50 of Bende correspond to the recited gas that flows out of a nozzle of a separating layer. See Detailed Action, page 5. In the rejection of claim 1, the Office has already alleged that the air from the air jets 50 of Bende corresponds to the separating layer. It is respectfully submitted that it is improper to rely on the same structure in Bende to read on two different claim elements.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. The examiner referred to the separating layer as (including air from elements 50). The term “including” is open ended like comprising and is not limited to the air itself. The elements 50 can also form part of the separating layer. Moreover, elements 50 are structure that is required to produce the air in the separating layer. Without elements 50, only ambient air would be present, which would not result in any separating layer. With regard to claim 3, the gas (air) from jets 50 is compressed.
With regard to claim 4, applicant argues that the Office alleges that the vacuum cups 52 of Bende can correspond to nozzles of a separating layer, despite having previously alleged that the vacuum cups 52 are grippers in the rejection of claim 1.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. The rejection of the lifting step of claim 1 in the Office action states “lifting the first workpiece (top sheet 30) using a gripper (via elements 52 and 54 and/or rollers 58a and 58b). In other words, the gripper can be only rollers 58a and 58b. When this interpretation of the gripper is applied, elements 52 and 54 are not part of the gripper. Since rollers 58a and 58b are magnetic and grip the top sheet, these rollers alone can be a gripper, as claimed. As such, the vacuum cups 52 can be added as part of the overall structure of the separating layer with the jets 50 that blow the air.
Also, applicant argues “No part of the vacuum cups 52 is ever arranged below a top sheet, so no portion of the vacuum cups 52 can ever be inserted between a raised corner of a first workpiece and a second workpiece.
The examiner disagrees with this argument. Claim 1 does not require the entire separating layer to be inserted between first and second workpieces. Rather, a portion of the separating layer can be inserted and meet the claim limitations of claim 4. In fact, only a portion of applicant’s separating layer 34 is inserted between first and second work pieces in Fig. 3 of the instant application.
In addition, applicant argues “Moreover, if the vacuum cups 52 are part of the separating layer, they must also hold down the stack of workpiece while the rollers 58a, 58b function as grippers. Bende describes no such function, and it would be nonsensical to suggest that vacuum cups 52 should help hold down workpieces when doing so would prevent workpieces from being fanned out and separated by magnetic separators 48 and air jets 50, rendering the device of Bende inoperable for its intended purpose.”
The examiner disagrees with this argument. As mentioned above in response to applicant’s argument about the holding step in claim 1, lines 50-54 and 62-69 in column 2 of Bende explicitly teach that the air from jets 50 holds down the stack of sheets below the top sheet to prevent double sheet pickup while the vacuum cups 52 simultaneously lift up the top sheet and transfer the top sheet over to the rollers 58a and 58b that grip the top sheet.
The rejections of new claims 15 and 17-18 are also outlined above.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 16 is 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.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. 2009/0127768 (Shima et al.); U.S. Patent No. 5,052,675 (Shehata et al.); and U.S. Patent No. 2,282,224 (Harrold) all provide teachings that it is common in the art to refer to devices that blow air as devices that insert a layer of air between first and second workpieces to separate these workpieces (i.e., a separation layer).
8. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 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, Mike 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights