Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “n” in line 16 of claim 30 should be changed to -- on --. 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.
3. 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: 1) “gripping device” in claims 16, 24-25, 27-28 and 30.
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 § 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.
4. Claims 16-25, 27, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Publication No. 1-288562 (hereinafter “JP’562”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0082044 (Gendron et al.) (hereinafter “Gendron”).
Regarding claim 16, Figs. 1-3(f) of JP’562 disclose a method for forming sheet stacks (D), in a dispensing region of a sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising the following steps:
a) stacking sheets (sheets in stack D) by means of a stacker wheel (13) of the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1) onto a sheet stack (D) located on a lifting platform (22) (See Fig. 3(b) or 3(c)),
b) introducing a deposition platform (21) into the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1), wherein the deposition platform (21) is introduced such that the deposition platform (21) is arranged in a position which is underneath the stacker wheel (13) and lies above the uppermost sheet of the sheet stack (D) formed on the lifting platform (22) (See Fig. 3(d)),
c) stacking further sheets (B) by the stacker wheel (13) onto the deposition platform (21) arranged underneath the stacker wheel (13), in order to form a further sheet stack on the deposition platform (21) (See Fig. 3(e)),
d) introducing a device (23) into the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus, in order to take up, by the device (23), the sheet stack formed on the lifting platform (22) (See Fig. 3(e)),
e) removing, by the device (23), the sheet stack (D) formed on the lifting platform (22) from the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1), and after the removal of the sheet stack (D) (See Fig. 3(f)):
f) raising the lifting platform (22) up to the deposition platform (21) (See Fig. 3(a)), and
g) transferring the further sheet stack formed on the deposition platform (21) onto the lifting platform (22) located on the deposition platform (21) and moving the deposition platform (21) away out of the dispensing region. (See Figs. 3(a) and 3(b)). JP’562 teaches most of the limitations of this claim including introducing a device (23) into the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus, in order to take up, by the device (23), the sheet stack formed on the lifting platform, and removing, by the device (23), the sheet stack formed on the lifting platform from the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus, but JP’562 doesn’t explicitly show that the device (23) is a gripping device, as claimed.
Gendron teaches that it is well-known in the art to utilize a gripping device (robotic grips or fingers) to take up and remove a sheet stack from a lifting platform (38), for the purpose of taking away a completed sheet stack. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apparatus of JP’562 with a gripper device, for the purpose of taking away a completed sheet stack, as taught by Gendron. See numbered paragraph [0064] of Gendron.
Regarding claim 17, Figs. 1-3(f) of JP’562 disclose that, after step g), steps a)-g) are repeated.
Regarding claim 18, Figs. 1-3(f) of JP’562 disclose that the stacking of sheets by the stacker wheel (13) onto the sheet stack (D) formed on the lifting platform (22) is interrupted (e.g., interrupted by element 19 in Fig. 3(c)) before the introduction of the deposition platform (21), and, after the introduction of the deposition platform (21), the stacking of the further sheets by the stacker wheel (13) onto the deposition platform (21) arranged underneath the stacker wheel is started (Figs. 3(d) – 3(e)), in order to form the further sheet stack on the deposition platform (21).
Regarding claim 19, Figs. 1-3(f) of JP’562 disclose that, during and/or after the stacking of the sheets on the lifting platform (22), the lifting platform (22) is lowered downward, while the stacker wheel (13) deposits sheets on the sheet stack (D).
Regarding claim 20, Figs. 1-3(f) of JP’562 disclose that, while the stacking is interrupted, the lifting platform (22) is lowered downward, wherein the lifting platform (22) is lowered downward until an introduction condition is met and, once the introduction condition is met, the deposition platform (21) is introduced as per step b) into the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1) and then, as per step c), the further sheets are stacked by the stacker wheel (13) onto the deposition platform (21) arranged underneath the stacker wheel (13), in order to form the further sheet stack on the deposition platform (21).
Regarding claim 21, Figs. 1-3(f) of JP’562 disclose that the rear boundary of the dispensing region has one or more openings (14), which complement/s the deposition platform (21). See, e.g., Fig. 2.
Regarding claim 22, Figs. 1-3(f) of JP’562 disclose that in step g) the further sheet stack is transferred onto the lifting platform (22) by moving the deposition platform (21) away, wherein the sheet stack located on the deposition platform (21) is stripped off at a rear boundary of the dispensing region, in order to transfer the further sheet stack (B) onto the lifting platform (22).
Regarding claim 23, Figs. 1-3(f) of JP’562 disclose that the deposition platform (21) and the lifting platform (22) have mutually complementary, rake-like forms (Fig. 2), and in step g) the further sheet stack is transferred from the deposition platform (21) onto the lifting platform (22) by way of an upwardly directed movement of the lifting platform (22) along the stacking direction (up or down).
Regarding claim 24, JP’562 in view of Gendron discloses that, when the gripping device (robotic grips or fingers in numbered paragraph [0064] of Gendron) is being introduced in step d), the gripping device (robotic grips or fingers in numbered paragraph [0064] of Gendron) takes up the sheet stack between two gripping elements (fingers) of the gripping device (robotic grips or fingers in numbered paragraph [0064] of Gendron) and compresses the taken-up sheet stack counter to the stacking direction (up or down).
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, Fig. 3(d) of JP562 discloses that, before the introduction of the gripping device into the dispensing region as per step d), in a step d0) the sheet stack (D) deposited on the lifting platform (22) is precompressed counter to the stacking direction between the lifting platform (22) and the deposition platform (21), and during the precompressing operation the sheet stack (D) deposited on the lifting platform (22) is clamped and possibly pressed together between the lifting platform (22) and the deposition platform (21).
Regarding claim 27, as best understood, Fig. 3(e) of JP’562 discloses that, before the introduction of the gripping device as per step d), the stacking of further sheets by the stacker wheel (13) onto the further sheet stack (B) located on the deposition platform (21), as per step c), is started.
Regarding claim 30, Figs. 1-3(f) of JP’562 show a sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1), for forming sheet stacks (D), in a dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising a stacker wheel (13), a lifting platform (22), a deposition platform (21), a control device (structure that performs “organic operations” in SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION of machine translation of JP’562 is inherently a control device) and a device (23),
wherein the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1) is set up for the stacker wheel (13) to stack sheets processed by the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1) onto a sheet stack (D) which is located on the lifting platform (22) and underneath the stacker wheel (13) in the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1), and
the control device (structure that performs “organic operations” in SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION of machine translation of JP’562 is inherently a control device) is set up to cause, at a point in time while the stacking by the stacker wheel (13) is interrupted (e.g., interrupted by element 19 in Fig. 3(c)), the deposition platform (21) to be introduced into the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1) such that the deposition platform (21) is arranged in a position which is underneath the stacker wheel (13) and lies above the uppermost sheet of the sheet stack (D) formed on the lifting platform (22),
the sheet processing apparatus is set up to stack, after the introduction of the deposition platform (21) into the dispensing region, further sheets processed by the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1) onto the deposition platform (21) arranged underneath the stacker wheel (13), in order to form a further sheet stack (B) on the deposition platform (21),
the control device (structure that performs “organic operations” in SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION of machine translation of JP’562 is inherently a control device) is set up to cause
the device (23) to be introduced into the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1), to take up the sheet stack (D) formed on the lifting platform (22) and to remove this sheet stack from the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus (Fig. 1), and,
after the removal of the sheet stack (D) formed on the lifting platform (22), the lifting platform (22) to be raised up to the deposition platform (21), and
the deposition platform (21) to be moved away out of the dispensing region, and
the further sheet stack (D) formed on the deposition platform (21) to be transferred onto the lifting platform (22) located on the deposition platform (21). JP’562 teaches most of the limitations of this claim including the control device (structure that performs “organic operations” in SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION of machine translation of JP’562 is inherently a control device) being set up to cause the device (23) to be introduced into the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus, to take up the sheet stack formed on the lifting platform and to remove this sheet stack from the dispensing region of the sheet processing apparatus, but JP’562 doesn’t explicitly show that the device (23) is a gripping device, as claimed.
Gendron teaches that it is well-known in the art to utilize a gripping device (robotic grips or fingers) to take up and remove a sheet stack from a lifting platform (38), for the purpose of taking away a completed sheet stack. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the apparatus of JP’562 with a gripper device, for the purpose of taking away a completed sheet stack, as taught by Gendron. See numbered paragraph [0064] of Gendron.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 26 and 28-29 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.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7221. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Mike McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/THOMAS A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights