DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Response to Restriction filed 11/06/2025.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 5-8, 10 and 11 have been withdrawn;
Claims 1-4 and 9 are pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5-8, 10 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/06/2025.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Limitations being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include:
Handling members (?)
Flexible Members (101L, 101R, 102L, 102R, 103L, 103R): Belts or Chains
Two Appendices (113): ?
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are 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.
On page 19 line 25 or anywhere in the specification the claimed “handling members” are not properly described in the application as filed. Further the term appendices appears to refer to several different structures of which the appendices that appear to be associated with the paddle conveyor listed on page have not been properly described in the description on page 16 line 26 or elsewhere in the specification.
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 1-4 and 9 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 1, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the exit section" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation " said belts" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitations “handling members” and “two appendices” invoke 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 disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. 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 § 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.
Claims 1-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Langen et al. (US 20120011808; Langen) in view of Papsdorf et al. (US 20160362208; Papsdorf).
Regarding Claim 1 Langen discloses Cartoning machine comprising:
- a store unit (50) configured for storing a stack (Fig. 1) of cartons (53) or blanks (52);
- a station (54) for feeding the individual blanks, arranged downstream of the store unit (50);
- an unfolding station (par 28), in which the blanks (52) are shaped, assuming the configuration of a substantially parallelepiped open box defined by an upper base, a lower base, two lateral bases, a front base and a rear base, wherein the front base and the rear base are open but intended to be closed by flaps made up of appendices of the upper and lower bases and appendages of the lateral bases: said lateral, upper and lower bases being defined by respective portions of the blanks (52); (Fig. 4, par 28)
- a product feeding station (par 5, 30), into which the products destined to be packaged in the boxes (53) obtained from the blanks (52) are fed;
- an insertion station (61 or 64), in which the products are inserted into the open boxes (53) by means of a pusher (par 5) that pushes the products through said front base; (par 5)
- an exit station (400) for the completed packages;
wherein between the insertion station (61 or 64) and the exit section (400) a paddle conveyor (12) is arranged and acting which moves downstream the filled box (53);
wherein said paddle conveyor (12) is provided with a plurality of paddles (42) connected to handling members (40) controlled independently of each other and in that the paddles (42) are mounted on flexible members (16 and 18) motorized independently of each other. (par 27, 35)
Langen does not expressly teach paddles are mounted on three flexible members.
Papsdorf discloses a cartoning machine including a paddle conveyor provided with a plurality of paddles controlled independently of each other and in that the paddles are mounted on three flexible members motorized independently of each other providing multiple speed flexible members for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 85, 139, 144-147)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the paddle conveyor of Langen to include three flexible members as taught by Papsdorf, since par 85, 139, 144-147 of Papsdorf suggests that such a modification provides multiple speed flexible members for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
PNG
media_image1.png
858
900
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2 Langen in view of Papsdorf teaches the invention as described above. Langen further discloses said paddles (42) are pairs of paddles (42). (Fig. 2)
Regarding Claim 3 Langen in view of Papsdorf teaches the invention as described above. Langen further discloses said flexible members (16 and 18) are chains motorized independently of each other. (par 27, 35)
Papsdorf further discloses flexible members are chains motorized independently of each other providing multiple speed flexible members for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 85, 139, 144-147)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the paddle conveyor of Langen to include three flexible members as taught by Papsdorf, since par 85, 139, 144-147 of Papsdorf suggests that such a modification provides multiple speed flexible members for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus
Regarding Claim 4 Langen in view of Papsdorf teaches the invention as described above. Langen further discloses each paddle (42) is formed by a support base, which can be fixed to one of said belts (16 and 18) and by at least one contact portion (annotated Fig. 2) intended to interact with the boxes (53), the support base (annotated Fig. 2) being provided with two appendices equipped with idle pins sliding in corresponding grooved guides provided by respective sides of said device (12). (par 36-37, 53; Figs. 5-8)
Papsdorf further discloses flexible members are chains motorized independently of each other providing multiple speed flexible members for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 85, 139, 144-147)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the paddle conveyor of Langen to include three flexible members as taught by Papsdorf, since par 85, 139, 144-147 of Papsdorf suggests that such a modification provides multiple speed flexible members for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus
Regarding Claim 9 Langen in view of Papsdorf teaches the invention as described above. Langen further discloses each pair of flexible members (16 and 18) supports two sets of paddles. (Fig. 6)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731