DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-8, 12, 13, and 16) in the reply filed on 03/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the mentioned species are referring to the same technical feature in more and specific details, such as aspects of the digital printing apparatus with more specificity. This is not found persuasive because as set forth in the previous communication each mentioned group is referring to different technical features, such as scanning unit, outlet conveyors, and/or filling apparatus. Even though, the different groups might be referring to the printing apparatus in more specific details, yet each still referring to a completely different special technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: “control unit” 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 12, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roidl et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0182486) in view of Baechle et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,828,192).
The following listing of claims will replace all prior versions and listings of claims in this application.
Regarding claim 1: Roidl discloses a digital printing apparatus for a packaging machine producing packages comprising:
- a control unit for controlling the digital printing apparatus, see for example (paragraph 0047; “A control unit (not illustrated) of the planar drive system 14”, in the imprinting device 10);
- a conveying device (paragraph 0002; “inspected and transferred out” and/or movement device 18 with carrier 22); and
- a digital printing unit (via imprinting device 10);
wherein the digital printing unit (via 24) is arranged at a printing station (10);
wherein the control unit is configured to selectively control movement of the carriers (via 18/22) so as to selectively direct one or more carriers to the printing station (via 24) and afterwards to the outlet station (Fig. 2; via downstream direction to 30); and
wherein the digital printing unit is configured to print information and/or messages and/or decorations onto the packages directed to the printing station (via imprints in containers 12).
Roidl may not disclose the conveying device comprises a planar motor having a plurality of carriers configured to receive packages at an inlet station and to deliver the packages to an outlet station. However, Baechle discloses similar conveying and printing apparatus with the use of carriers to receive packages at an inlet station and to deliver them to an outlet station, see for example (Figs. 3-8; via carriers 20 conveying products 32 throughout the apparatus from an inlet to outlet stations and “The device comprises a linear motor having conveyed items”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Roidl’s apparatus, with the use of carriers configured to receive packages at an inlet station and to deliver the packages to an outlet station, in order to make it possible to convey the packages at the same speed and/or at different speeds and gain more control over the conveying mechanism (column 2, lines 39-53).
Regarding claim 2: Roidl discloses that each carrier is configured to receive a respective package (Figs. 1-2; via holders 22 on movement device 18) or wherein a plurality of carriers, preferably two carriers, jointly receives a package.
Regarding claim 3: Roidl further comprising a scanning unit (via “a laser scanner or an LED scanner”), the scanning unit being arranged adjacent to the planar motor (inherently there is a motor arranged to move the machine’s elements) at a scanning station and configured to scan the packages (it is noted that placing the scanner unit at a specific arrangement in respect to a motor would be nothing more than a design choice for re-arranging parts);
wherein the control unit is configured to selectively control movement of each one of the carriers (via “the planar drive system is configured (e.g. by means of a control unit)” and/or “A control unit… can control la power supply”) so as to selectively direct the carrier to the scanning station, then to the printing station and afterwards to the outlet conveyor (intended use limitations of the claimed “control unit”; not given much patentable weight); and
wherein the control unit is configured to control operation of the digital printing unit in dependence of the scanning results obtained by the scanning unit (paragraph 0055; “the first movement device 18 can be controlled especially by the planar drive system 14”).
Regarding claim 4: Roidl discloses that each carrier is configured to rotate the package around a rotation axis at the scanning station, see for example (Fig. 2; via “The movement devices 18, 20 can also be rotated with respect to the base element 16”).
Regarding claim 5: the control unit is configured to control movement of the carriers along three linear axes and around three rotational axes (paragraph 0047; via each device 18 is rotated about its own axis; “The movement devices 18, 20 can also be rotated with respect to the base element 16”).
Regarding claim 6: Roidl discloses that the control unit is configured to selectively move the carriers along a first path from the inlet station to the outlet station or along a second path from the inlet station to the printing station and from the printing station to the outlet station, see for example (Fig. 2; via controlled movement devices 18 moving carriers 22 along different stations from inlet to outlet).
Regarding claim 7: Roidl discloses a first imaginary line extending from the inlet station to the printing station and a second imaginary line from the printing station to the outlet station describe and/or define an angle different from 180 degrees or a multiple of 180°, see for example (Fig. 2; via the shown imaginary lines 38, 38A, 38B, 38C).
Regarding claim 8: Roidl discloses that the planar motor comprises a planar control module comprising a plurality of coils configured to generate local electromagnetic fields for selectively moving the carriers (paragraph 0047; “the base element 16 can have, for example, a plurality of electromagnets arranged in a distributed manner, e.g. electric coils.”);
wherein each carrier comprises at least one magnetic and/or ferromagnetic element;
wherein the planar control module extends along a first axis and a second axis;
wherein the control unit is configured to selective control movement of each carrier along the first axis and the second axis by controlling the interaction of the local electromagnetic fields with the at least one magnetic and/or ferromagnetic element of each carrier, see for example (paragraph 0047; “the planar drive system 14 can control a power supply to the electromagnets of the base element 16 in order to build up electromagnetic fields with a desired strength at a desired position of the base element 16.” Forward propulsion, rotation, inclination and/or a stroke of the movement devices”).
Regarding claim 12: Roidl discloses that the digital printing unit comprises a plurality of digital printers (paragraphs 0015-0019; via “imprints”).
Regarding claim 13: Roidl discloses that each carrier comprises a support surface configured to carry the respective package (Fig. 1; via base element 16).
Regarding claim 16: Roidl discloses two carriers jointly receive a package (paragraph 0053 - 0054; “the movement of the movement device 18 or 20 can comprise bypassing, preferably circling around, the respectively other movement device 20 or 18” and “The relative movement between the movement devices 18, 20 can be adapted to the individual shape and/or size (of containers) in such a manner that the container 12 is guided at a predetermined distance”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights