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 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.
Claim 1:
“Conveyance means” is considered to be any conveyor for containers such as a belt, turntable, carousel, or like device
“Connection means” are considered to be conduits or other fluid connection framework connecting a vacuum source to the suction area
“Suction means” is considered to be a vacuum pump or similar device
“Means of detection” does not invoke 112f because it is given structure by way of a sensor.
Claim 19:
“Signaling means” is an alert mechanism such as a light or sound emitter.
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.
Claim 16-30 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 16 is not clear and should be written in a way more consistent with US apparatus claims. This involves clearly introducing each element of the device so it is clear what parts of the device are being positively claimed. It is unclear if Applicant is claiming the connection means and suction means as part of the device or if they are not part of the device and only theoretically connectable to the suction ports. Since the means of detection detects pressure via a sensor in the connection means, wherein the pressure is derived from the suction means, it would appear the connection means and suction means are claimed as part of the device, since it is unclear how the labeling machine as claimed would operate without such elements, but Examiner requires clarification from the Applicant on this point.
Further in Claim 16, Examiner notes the “means of detection” and “detection means” are considered to be the same element in the claims. Applicant should use consistent claim terminology for clarity. Note language such as “being provided of presence of absence of the labels” is awkward and unusual, and something such as “detects the presence or absence of labels” is clearer and more conventional for what is being claimed.
Claim 20 states “with a lateral space occupation of said drum.” It is unclear what this means.
Claim 21 recites “a vacuum generator” without indicating any relationship to the suction means in Claim 16. Examiner assumes the vacuum generator must be the suction means, but this must be stated explicitly or it is unclear how the suction mean and vacuum generator are separately connected to the system. The claim also states the suction ports are in communication with a connecting opening defined on a face of the work drum. The suction ports were previously described as adhering labels via suction implemented by a suction means. It is unclear how the suction ports are not openings in the surface. Examiner requires clarification. Examiner notes Claim 21 appears to recite little more than a vacuum distribution unit on which the work drum rotates and which is in fluid connection with both the vacuum generator, i.e. suction means in Claim 16, and the suction ports, i.e. the openings in the drum surface. Applicant should simply and clarify this claim using the same language introduced in the independent claim.
Claim 28 does not depend from Claim 21 and thus “vacuum distribution unit” and “vacuum generator” do not have antecedent basis in this claim. Claim 29 and 30 have similar issues.
The remaining claims are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim.
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) 16, 17, and 19-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE2816424 (originally cited in IDS, wherein all textual citations are to the English machine translation provided).
Regarding Claim 16, DE2816424 teaches a labeling machine comprising conveyance means for containers to be labeled along an advancement path (See page 2, paragraphs [0003]-[0004], clearly indicating the labelling machines described therein have containers continuously conveyed through the machine for labelling, and thus implying a conveyance means as claimed for the labeling machine) and
at least one labeling assembly which is arranged along said advancement path of the containers, said labeling assembly comprising a work drum [10] which is configured to move in rotation about an axis thereof and has, on a lateral surface [102], suction ports [31] which are configured to be connected, by way of connection means [105], to suction means, in order to allow said work drum to receive so as to adhere, to the lateral surface, labels [101] to be transferred to the containers that transit on said conveyance means (See Figs. 1 and 4, and pages 6-7, paragraphs [0014]-[0017], teaching labels [101] are held via suction ports [31], powered by a vacuum pump suction means, on drums [10] and transferred to conveyed containers [16]),
means of detection being provided of presence or absence of the labels on said work drum, wherein said means of detection comprise at least one sensor [120] for detecting pressure in said connection means (See Fig. 4 and page 4, paragraph [0009], pages 7, paragraphs [0017] and page 9, paragraph [0021], wherein the presence or absence of a label is measure by detecting pressure via a piston [102] in the connection means [112],[115] that is compressed during lower pressure created by the label and expanded when the label is not present).
Regarding Claims 17 and 19, DE2816424 teaches a control unit [123] functionally connected to the sensor via magnet [121], and is configured to compare pressure values detected to an atmospheric reference (See pages 8-11, paragraphs [0019]-[0026], wherein the reed contact [123] effectively compares atmospheric pressure in connection [112] to the pressure in connection [111] to indicate label presence of a label if the pressures are different by lighting or not lighting an LED [136], thus acting as a control unit as claimed, wherein the LED acts as a signaling means as claimed).
Regarding Claims 20, Examiner submits the location of sensor [120] may be considered in an area of the work drum. Note the sensor [120] is clearly in vacuum lock [32], which may be considered part of the work drum, and any surface thereof being “on said work drum” and any space thereof being “a lateral space occupation.” See DE2816424, page 7, paragraph [0017] and Figs. 1-4, wherein it is clear the system of Fig. 4 including sensor [120] is in vacuum lock [23], which is considered part of the work drum.
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, DE2816424 teaches the connection means (i.e. fluid channels) have a vacuum distribution unit [32], on which the work drum [10] is mounted to rotate, at least one suction cavity [104],[108] in said vacuum distribution unit and connected to a vacuum generator, i.e. suction means, which in DE2816424 is a vacuum pump (See Fig. 3 and page 7, paragraphs [0016]-[0017], wherein the vacuum lock [32], connected to a vacuum pump through nozzle [34], and on which drum [10] is mounted for rotation, is a vacuum distribution unit as claimed). It is clear the cavities [104],[108] have openings directed toward the surface of the drum to create suction through holes [31] on plate [102]. The sensor [120] is clearly in, i.e. mounted on, this vacuum distribution area [32] in DE2816424 as described above. Examiner notes since Claims 20 and 23 do not depend from claim 21, there is no required distinction between the vacuum distribution unit and the work drum and thus both may be considered the work drum in these claims even though claims 21 makes them distinct.
Regarding Claim 24, the vacuum sensor [120] detects the label prior to transfer and thus may be considered “upstream” or transfer to some extent.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE2816424 as applied to Claim 16, and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US 5,489,360) and Giulliani (US 2022/0017253).
Regarding Claims 25-27, DE2816424 teaches the labelling machine of Claim 16 as described above. DE2816424 doesn’t specifically teach more than one pressure sensor in its labelling system. However, pressure sensors are known generally as being utilized to determine if the label is in position at a specific location on a labelling drum, such as to ensure proper transfer has occurred thereon (See, for example, Shimizu et al., col. 5, line 66 to col. 6, line 6, teaching a sensor determining a label has been secured into position after transfer to the drum may be a pressure sensor, such as in DE2816424, which determines a label is on the drum when lower pressure is detected). Examiner submits such sensors would have been obvious in any location in which label detection is desired in the prior art to ensure label placement or non-placement is known in desired locations. Giulliani teaches a labeling machine for adhering labels to containers utilizing three distinct label detection sensors: a sensor [17] to ensure initial positioning on the drum similar to in Shimizu et., a sensor [19’] to ensure the label [2] was properly transferred to the container [3], and a sensor [15] as a failsafe to shut shown the drum if a label is still attached following exposure to an extractor [18’] (See page 5, paragraphs [0108]-[0127] and Fig. 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to utilize more than one sensor, such as three sensors as in Giulliani. Doing so would have predictably provided label presence indications at various locations. Pressure sensors are known to indicate label placement at a given position, such as after transfer to drum and before placement on a label, after label transfer, and after an extractor [18’] as a failsafe. Thus, including such sensors in known labelling systems would have predictably informed an operator of successful label transfer to the drum, failed transfer to a bottle, and failed extraction via extractor after failed transfer (note such extractors, i.e. removal device as in Claim 26, are obvious to ensure labels that fail to transfer to containers do not interfere with new labels coming onto the drum, and Applicant describes them as well-known).
Regarding Claim 28-30, Examiner submits when using multiple sensors in various locations as in Giulliani and using pressure sensors, such as in DE2816424 and Shimizu, it would have been apparent the pressure sensors must be located so as to detect pressure changes in that location where label presence is desired to be known, e.g. after label transfer to the drum etc. Examiner submits communication openings associated with the vacuum distribution unit and in fluid communication with specific surface locations of the drum where label detection is desired (i.e. the fluid path to a specific point on the surface where label detection is desired) are the only way to detect local pressure changes. Examiner submits any cross-section of the fluid path in these regions are communication openings and thus are the first, second and third communication openings as claimed that feed each surface location. It is noted that those skilled in the art, having been taught the desirability of a certain modification (label detection via pressure sensor at specified locations), would recognize that other modifications were needed to accommodate the modification (i.e. the placement of the sensor to monitor pressure changes desired), and that one skilled in the art would be expected to have sufficient basic knowledge to construct such means, the structure of which appears to be simple. In re Bode et al., 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA 1977).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Although encoders are known generally for timing operations in labelling, including when correlated with a sensor detecting label placement, such operations are for continuous rotation to ensure alignment and timing (See Delmolino, WO99/03738, page 11, lines 2-21, wherein sensor [248] indicates transfer and is coordinated with an encoder [259] in the drum to ensure timing and alignment). This is generally inconsistent with pressure sensors, which are typically utilized in intermittent rotation to measure the presence of the label at that intermittent location. This generally obviates the need to measure angular position and account for timing, since such positions are always associated with one of the intermittent locations, wherein the intermittent movement does not create timing issues. Thus, it would not have been obvious to utilize a control unit to correlate a pressure sensor detecting the presence of a label via comparison to a reference pressure with a detector for determining angular position since pressure sensors generally detect pressure at their intermittent locations, which are predetermined.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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 Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746