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.
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: feed mechanism, guide mechanism, tension traction mechanism, control mechanism and label sensing module in claim 1.
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.
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) 1-8, 11, 13-21, 25-26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Chen (US Patent 9,199,758).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a bench-top label dispenser for labels, comprising a housing, and a feeding mechanism, a guide mechanism, a tension traction mechanism, and a control mechanism 40 that are arranged on the housing, wherein a label release liner 201 on the feeding mechanism is connected to the tension traction mechanism through the guide mechanism; and the tension traction mechanism is controlled by the control mechanism 40 to pull the label release liner 201 to move; and the housing is provided with a label sensing module 50 electrically connected to the control mechanism 40; the guide mechanism comprises a label peeling plate 31; and labels located at a tail end of the label peeling plate 31 are within a sensing range of the label sensing module 50.
Applicant is reminded that expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. (See MPEP §2115). Therefore the concept of acousto-magnetic (AM) anti-theft labels has been fully considered, but is not given patentable weight in so far as it does not affect the structure of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the tension traction mechanism comprises a take-up spool 34 and a rotary drive assembly 343 controlled by the control mechanism 40; the rotary drive assembly 343 is provided inside the housing; and one end of the take-up spool 34 is connected to a rotating end of the rotary drive assembly 343.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses collecting the release on winding rod 34 (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Chen shows the liner at an angle to the peeling plate 31 (see Fig. 6). It is noted this angle is not specified or limited in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses press plate 32 which functions as a baffle plate.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses plate 32 with press portion 321 formed with a curved front edge 322. This configuration inherently reduced friction and thus forms a “soft” plate as claimed.
Regarding clam 7, Chen discloses: the top of the label pressing plate 32 is close to the feeding mechanism, and the bottom of the label pressing plate 32 is close to the tail end of the label peeling plate 31; and an angle is formed between the label pressing plate 32 and the label peeling plate 31.
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses guide stem or cylinder 33.
Regarding claim 11, the width of the label on the release liner is a work-piece dependent limitation and has been fully considered, but is not given patentable weight in so far as it does not affect the structure of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 13-16, Chen discloses reel shaft rod 20 which functions as a hanging rod and stopper 22 with the configuration claimed.
Regarding claims 17-20, 25 and 28, the details of the label and the release liner are work-piece dependent limitation and have been fully considered, but are not given patentable weight in so far as it does not affect the structure of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 21, Chen discloses the control mechanism 40 further comprises a control panel; and the control panel is provided on the housing.
Regarding claim 26, Chen discloses label peeling plate 31 and press plate 32 with the configuration and angle claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12, 22-24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US Patent 9,199,758).
Regarding claims 9-10, 12, 22-24 and 27, it is the examiner’s position that the specific sensor, sensor baseplate and label activator recited are well known in the prior art and would have been obvious to employ in the device of Chen based on the physical requirements of the labels being dispensed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D SELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1237. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
JAMES D. SELLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/JAMES D SELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745