Notice of 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
Claims 2-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “a production machine” which should read “the production machine”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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. Claim 207 are rejected as being dependent from rejected independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites “comet cone” and “comet-type ice creams” in lines 1,2,5 and 18. The term “comet” was not described in the specification, it appears this may be a typographical error and should read “cornet”, for examination purposes anywhere the term comet is written it will be interpreted as “cornet” appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7 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. Claims 2-7 depend from rejected claim 1.
Claim 1 recites:
“the cornet cone packages” in lines 2,6,8,10,15,and 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because line 1 recites “producing comet cone packages”
“comet” in lines 1,2,5,18 it is unclear if this is a typo and should read the word “cornet”.
“the backside” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, additionally it is unclear as to what backside is being referred to.
“pressing on the same” in line 9. It is unclear what the same is referring to.
“and pulls the same” in line 15. It is unclear what the same is referring to.
“with its back and forth”, the term “its” is indefinite as it is unclear what its refers to.
"the back surface" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“bring them into conical cone” the term “them is unclear as to what it refers to.
Claim 5 recites “such that it aligns” the term “it” is indefinite as it is unclear what it refers to.
Claim 7 recites “in an orderly manner” it is unclear the metes and bounds of this limitation as to what is defined by this limitation.
Further, the claimed machine repeatedly using intended use terms, such as “which”, It is noted that the claimed limitations followed intended use terms are not positively cited limitations, therefore not given much patentable weight.
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 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 at least one hose arm” in claim 1.
“means of the separator movement arm” in claim 1
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding Claim 1,
Sahin WO 2021/096452 discloses a production machine (A) which is used in producing cornet cone packages used in the packaging of cornet-type ice-creams and which provides for the cornet cone packages to be horizontally fed and brought into a cone shape by being crimped, the production machine comprising: a lower crimping head (20) and an upper crimping head (19) which crimp the cornet cone packages, a cone stacking unit (A) which is positioned opposite the lower crimping head and upper crimping head, and which stacks the conical cone packages within each other; and a cone conveyor belt (6) which pulls the conical cone packages into the cone stacking unit from the lower crimping head and upper crimping head (see claims 1-6; page 9).
AAPA (Ito Sadami) JP59167405 discloses to mechanize the conventional man-operated ice-cream loading work and at the same time to make the work more hygienic by attaching a cone sleeve taken out from a magazine one by one to a soft ice cream cone and automatically pushing and conveying them as they are combined together which consists of a separation part 3 which accommodates cone sleeves in the stacked form at one end of a machine frame 2 on a pair of machine table stands 1 and separates cone sleeves in a magazine 32 into a single piece, a cone sleeve supplying part 4 which places the thus separated cone sleeve to a space between the cones supplied through a supplying means, a conveying part 5 which conveys the cone and the cone sleeve, an attaching-and- stacking part 6 which stacks the cones, a merchandise discharge part 7, a sequencer part 8 which controls both the cone sleeve part 2 and the merchandise discharge part 7, and a driving part 9. And the cone, even after it is attached to a cone sleeve, is pushed and conveyed in the specified direction.
Ito USPN 6,200,406 discloses a method and apparatus of forming a cone roll (4) from a continuous material supply unit and conveying the material and cutting the material to form into cones and then stacking into a group using a pusher rod shown in fig.9a, col.1-2.
The subject matter of claim 1 differs from these prior art documents; a sled which extends forwards from the back surface of the axle fixing unit and carries the cornet cone packages pulled with the semicircle disk for the crimping procedure, and the lower crimping head and an upper crimping head crimp the cornet cone packages carried inside the sled and bring them into conical cone packages, having reverse rotational movements, a cone stacking unit which is positioned opposite the lower crimping head and upper crimping head, and which stacks the conical cone packages within each other.
Therefore it would not have been obvious to a person skilled in the art over the references above taken alone or in combination.
Once the 112(a) and (b) rejections are addressed, claims 1-7 would be considered allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY C HIBBERT-COPELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-0601. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 5712701926. 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.
/MARY C HIBBERT-COPELAND/ Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights