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
1. Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 line 7 uses the phrase “0,005 m or less than 0,004 m”. To conform with US convention, this should be rewritten as “0.005 m or less than 0.004 m” using a period rather than a comma to indicate the decimal placement.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
2. This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means of” in claim 1 line 17. The phrase “cyclical cooperation between the first cutting element and second cutting element” is sufficient structure to perform this function, and therefore a 112(f) interpretation is unnecessary.
“means of” in claim 8 line 6. The phrase “mutual rotation of the first roller and second roller to perform the cutting of the web” is sufficient structure to perform this function, and therefore a 112(f) interpretation is unnecessary.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
3. Claim 11 is 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 11, 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 11 recites the broad recitation “less than 20°”, and the claim also recites “less than 5°” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. There is additionally a recitation of the ranges “5° and 15°” and 10° and 20°”. 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.
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 1-7, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deckert et al. (US 2009/0260713; hereafter Deckert) in view of Raybuck (US 3,188,084).
Regarding claim 1, Deckert teaches of a labelling module for applying labels onto articles adapted to contain a pourable product ([0003]) comprising a feed system comprising a feed roller (conveying rollers- 8 and 9) for feeding a web (label material- 3) along a feed path, a cutting unit (cutting unit- 5) further down the feed path, and a transfer device even further down the feed path (transfer drum- 6; [0022]; see Figure 1). The cutting unit (described in [0022]) comprises a first roller (blade shaft unit- 14) carrying at least one first cutting element (mating blade- 12), and a second roller (cutting drum- 10) comprising a second cutting element (cutting-drum blade- 11). The first and second cutting elements are on the lateral surfaces of their respective rollers and cyclically cut the web by cyclical cooperation between the first cutting element and the second cutting element via controlled roller rotation ([0022]). The connecting point of the first and second elements is the cutting station, and is arranged between the lateral surfaces of the first roller and of the second roller as seen in Figure 1. This creates a sequence of spaced-out labels as seen in Figure 1 with 2 shown precut labels- 3. One label is downstream on the transfer device (transfer drum- 6) and a second label is further downstream on a respective article (labeling bottles- 2; [0021], [0027]). The transfer device is noted as a vacuum drum ([0026]), and the intersection between the transfer device and a rotor (rotor- 7) define an application station ([0021]).
In regard to the various speeds of the feed roller, second roller, and vacuum drum, these functional limitations as currently claimed are directed towards a manner of operating the apparatus- MPEP 2114.II states- ‘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)’. Deckert teaches that the entire apparatus is controlled by a control system (central control unit- 112; [0043]; see Figure 7), and therefore the speeds of the feed roller, second roller, and vacuum drum could function in a way to meet the functional limitations of claim 1, and therefore these functional limitations do not differentiate over the prior art of Deckert.
Deckert does not teach that the cutting unit comprises a stopping member and associated limitations. Raybuck teaches of a stopping member (impaling pin- 5) that is carried by a cutting roller (cylinder- 1; noted with cutting blocks- col. 2 lines 51-59; see Figure 1). In the context of Deckert, this is the first roller. As seen in Figure 1, the stopping member cyclically interacts with a web by holding, or in other words temporarily blocking the movement of the web, at a position exclusively downstream of the cutting station from the feed path (the cutting station of Figure 1 is the intersection of rollers 1 and 2 with cutting elements 3 and 4 interacting; the stopping member is right after the unlabeled cutting block of cylinder 1 that is downstream of the cutting station). The advantage of Raybuck’s stopping member is a simpler and more economic cylinder (col. 2 lines 28-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the proposed invention to include the stopping member of Raybuck in the apparatus of Deckert for the advantage of having a simpler, more economic cutting.
Regarding claim 2, in applying Raybuck as in claim 1, as seen in Figure 1 of Raybuck, the stopping member cyclically interacts with a web by holding, or in other words temporarily blocking the movement of the web, at a position downstream of the cutting station from the feed path (the cutting station of Figure 1 is the intersection of rollers 1 and 2 with cutting elements 3 and 4 interacting; the stopping member is right after the unlabeled cutting block of cylinder 1 that is downstream of the cutting station).
Regarding claim 3, in applying Raybuck as in claim 1, and as mentioned in the rejection of claim 1, the stopping member is on the first roller exclusively downstream from the cutting elements. Raybuck teaches that the stopping member is arranged at the lateral surface of rollers (col.1 lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 4, the first cutting element of Deckert is a blade member (mating blade- 12), and the second cutting element is a counterblade member (cutting-drum blade- 11, which as seen in Figure 1 is to correspond with the blade member and is therefore a counterblade member). As seen in Figure 1, the first roller is rotatable on its own axis, which is the first axis. In applying Raybuck as in claim 1 and claim 3, the stopping member is carried by the first roller at the lateral surface thereof and in a position exclusively downstream of the blade member, relative to a direction of rotation of the first roller about the first axis.
Regarding claim 5, in applying Raybuck as in claim 4, the stopping member being positioned exclusively downstream of the blade member is in a direction relative to an advancement direction of the web along the feed path.
Regarding claim 6, in applying Raybuck as in claim 4, Raybuck teaches that the stopping member is used to press (noted as impale) and therefore the end is a presser element. Raybuck teaches that the stopping member protrudes from the lateral surface of the cylinders (col.1 lines 20-27), and therefore the presser element does as well. This presses the web against the second roller in a position exclusively downstream of the cutting station, relative to the feed path, to temporarily block the movement along the feed path of a portion of the web which during cutting thereof is cyclically arranged downstream of the cutting station, this being done in a similar manner as noted in the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 4.
Regarding claim 7, as seen in Figure 1 of Deckert, the second roller is rotatable about a second axis (cutting drum- 10 rotating around its axis). The first roller (roller 13) and second roller are adjacent to each other and are on opposite sides of the feed path and cutting station. The first and second cutting elements, which are blade and counterblade members, are on the lateral surfaces of their respective rollers and cyclically cut the web by being at opposite sides of the web when conveyed to the cutting station ([0022]).
Regarding claim 9, as seen in Figure 1, the first roller of Deckert rotates on its axis, which is the first axis upon which the first cutting element is cyclically conveyed to the cutting station. In applying Raybuck, the stopping member would also be carried on the lateral surface thereof. As seen in Figure 1 of Raybuck, the stopping member is arranged at an angular distance from the first cutting element relative to the first axis. The blocking of movement of the web occurs just before the cutting element interacts with the web, as there are no processing steps in-between.
Regarding claim 12, as seen in Figure 1, the first roller of Deckert rotates on its axis, which is the first axis upon which the first cutting element is cyclically conveyed to the cutting station. In applying Raybuck, the stopping member would also be carried on the lateral surface thereof.
In applying Raybuck, Raybuck does not teach the specific width of the stopping member, however, MPEP 2144.04.IV.A teaches- “the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Since the only difference between the prior art and the claimed device is a dimensional width, there is no reason the prior art combination device would operate differently than the claimed device and is therefore not patentably distinct and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 13, Deckert teaches the inclusion of multiple cutting elements on their first roller ([0024]). In applying Raybuck as in claim 1, this would also include a stopping member associated with each cutting element.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 8 and 10 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.
Regarding claim 8, as seen in Figure 2 of Deckert, the second roller is configured to support the web on its lateral surface. Deckert teaches that blade and counterblade members engage at the cutting station by means of mutual rotation of the first roller and second roller to perform the cutting of the web ([0022]). In applying Raybuck as in claim 1, the stopping member is interacting with the web during the entirety of the cutting process. Deckert does not teach or render obvious that the counterblade member is a recess or slot.
Regarding claim 10, as seen in Figure 1, the first roller of Deckert rotates on its axis, which is the first axis upon which the first cutting element is cyclically conveyed to the cutting station. In applying Raybuck, the stopping member would also be carried on the lateral surface thereof.
As seen in Figure 1 of Raybuck, the stopping member is arranged at an angular distance from the first cutting element relative to the first axis of one eighth of a circle (this being the distance between 8 angularly equidistant cutting elements). Figure 1 shows that at this angular distance the stopping member of Raybuck is not at the cutting station at the same time as the cutting element, and therefore Raybuck does not teach or render obvious that the stopping member is arranged at an angular distance from the first cutting element relative to said first axis so that when the first cutting element is located at the cutting station also the stopping member is located at the cutting station.
7. Claim 11 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.
Regarding claim 11, as seen in Figure 1, the first roller of Deckert rotates on its axis, which is the first axis upon which the first cutting element is cyclically conveyed to the cutting station. In applying Raybuck, the stopping member would also be carried on the lateral surface thereof.
As seen in Figure 1 of Raybuck, the stopping member is arranged at an angular distance from the first cutting element relative to the first axis of one eighth of a circle (this being the distance between 8 angularly equidistant cutting elements) for an angular distance of 45°. This falls outside the largest claimed range of less than 20°, and therefore Raybuck does not teach or render obvious this angular distance between the stopping member and first cutting element.
Conclusion
8. 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