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 .
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:
an assembly for feeding containers in claim 18;
a labeling assembly in claim 18;
an assembly for unwinding a labeling ribbon in claim 18;
a cutting device in claims 18 and 34;
an adhesive application device in claim 19;
a device for cutting the labeling ribbon in claim 23;
a device for the transfer of cut labels to the transfer drum in claim 23;
a device for detecting the containers to be labeled in claim 31; and
a device for controlling the synchronization speeds of the containers to be labeled and the labeling ribbon in claim 32.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” and but are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Such claim limitations are:
transfer means in claims 18 and 34;
removal means in claim 18;
means for forced air extraction (i.e., extraction means) in claim 24;
means for interrupting the effect of the extraction means in claim 24;
blower means in claims 26 and 27; and
control and actuation means in claim 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.
The corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function is as follows:
an assembly for feeding containers in claim 18 – a rotary feeder such as a carousel or a feeding star conveyor (FIG. 1, 4:4-6 of the specification);
a labeling assembly in claim 18 – an assembly comprising the unwinding assembly and cutting device (4:7-11 of the specification);
an assembly for unwinding a labeling ribbon in claim 18 (i.e., the unwinding assembly) – an unwinding roller (1:16-17 of the specification);
a cutting device in claims 18 and 34 – a cutting drum including a cutting element (1:18-19 of the specification);
an adhesive application device in claim 19 – an adhesive roller, sprayer or atomizer (4:21-24 of the specification);
a device for cutting the labeling ribbon in claim 23 - a cutting drum including a cutting element (1:18-19 of the specification);
a device for the transfer of cut labels to the transfer drum in claim 23 - no corresponding structure described;
a device for detecting the containers to be labeled in claim 31 - no corresponding structure described;
a device for controlling the synchronization speeds of the containers to be labeled and the labeling ribbon in claim 32 - no corresponding structure described;
transfer means in claims 18 and 34 – a transfer drum (1:21-22 of the specification);
removal means in claim 18 – the interrupting means alone or in combination with a blower and/or a suction extractor (5:21-24, 6:4-5 and 6:17-19 of the specification);
means for forced air extraction (i.e., extraction means) in claim 24 - no corresponding structure described;
means for interrupting the effect of the extraction means (i.e., interrupting means) in claim 24 - no corresponding structure described;
blower means in claims 26 and 27 - a blower (6:4-5 of the specification); and
control and actuation means in claim 30 – no corresponding structure described.
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 § 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.
Claims 23-28 and 30-33 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 following claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
a device for the transfer of cut labels to the transfer drum in claim 23;
a device for detecting the containers to be labeled in claim 31;
a device for controlling the synchronization speeds of the containers to be labeled and the labeling ribbon in claim 32;
means for forced air extraction (i.e., extraction means) in claim 24;
means for interrupting the effect of the extraction means (i.e., interrupting means) in claim 24; and
control and actuation means in claim 30.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. No description of the corresponding structure is provided in the specification for these limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 24-28 depend from claim 23. Claim 26 depends from claim 24. Claims 31-33 depend from claim 30. These dependent claims are therefore also indefinite for the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 23, 24 and 30.
Claims 19 and 21-29 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “said adhesive application device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 does not previous recite an adhesive application device. For purposes of examination, “said adhesive application device” is being construed as “an adhesive application device”.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “said transfer device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 21 does not previous recite “a transfer device. For purposes of examination, “said transfer device” is being construed as “said transfer means”. Claims 22-28 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 21 and are therefore also indefinite for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 21.
Claim 29 recites the limitation “said transfer drum” in lines 1-2 and in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 29 does not previous recite “a transfer drum”. For purposes of examination, “said transfer drum” in lines 1-2 is being construed as “said transfer means” and “said transfer drum” in line 3 is being construed as “a transfer drum”.
Claim 29 also recites the limitation “said application device” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 29 does not previous recite “an application device”. For purposes of examination, “said application device” is being construed as “said adhesive application device”.
Claim 23 recites “a device for cutting said labeling ribbon” in line 2. Claim 18, however, from which claim 23 depends also recites a cutting device configured to cut the labelling ribbon. It is therefore unclear whether the cutting device of claim 23 is the same as that of claim 18. For purposes of examination, the cutting device of claim 23 is being construed as the same cutting device as that of claim 18. Claims 24-28 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 21 and are therefore also indefinite for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 21.
Claim 25 recites that the cutting device and the transfer means are formed at a cutting and transfer drum in lines 1-2 (i.e., that the two devices are integral). Claim 21, however, from which claim 25 depends, recites that the transfer means is downstream of the cutting device (i.e., that the two devices are separate). The claim is therefore indefinite. For purposes of examination, claim 25 is being construed as depending from claim 18. Claim 27 depends from claim 25 and are therefore also indefinite for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 25.
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.
Claims 18-24, 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baumgartner et al. (German Patent Publication No. DE 20 2018 107 275 U1, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 18, Baumgartner discloses a machine for labeling containers ([0001] of Baumgartner, labeling device for containers), comprising an assembly for feeding containers to be labeled to a labeling assembly (FIG. 1, [0037] of Baumgartner, labeling device includes a carousel #109 for feeding containers to the labeling device), said labeling assembly comprising an assembly for unwinding a labeling ribbon which comprises, along an extension thereof, a plurality of labels ([0047] of Baumgartner, labels provided in a roll form; FIG. 1, [0048] of Baumgartner, labels provided to machine on a label tape #130; label tape would necessarily be unrolled or unwound using an unwinding roller), a cutting device arranged downstream of said unwinding assembly and configured to cut said labeling ribbon at respective separation portions so as to obtain said labels (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, cutting cylinder #111), downstream of said cutting device there being transfer means adapted to move the respective labels separated after cutting into contact with corresponding containers at a transfer region (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, transfer cylinder #102), and further comprising removal means, which can be activated on command, for removing at least one label from a flow of labels, said removal means being arranged upstream of said transfer region (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, either of extraction systems #104 or #105 which are upstream of the region where the labels are transferred to the containers; [0012], [0026] of Baumgartner, extraction systems #104 or #105 can be attached and removed from device to remove the leading 5 to 20 labels that accumulate during label changes to be removed as rejects; labels can therefore be removed “on command”).
Regarding claim 19, Baumgartner discloses that said removal means are arranged upstream of said adhesive application device (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, extraction systems #104 or #105 located upstream of gluing device #108).
Regarding claim 20, Baumgartner discloses that said transfer means face an adhesive application device which is configured to apply at least one adhesive to at least one portion of said labels prior to a transfer of said labels to the corresponding container (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, surface of transfer cylinder #102 faces gluing device #108 which is located upstream of where labels are transferred to the containers).
Regarding claim 21, Baumgartner discloses that said cutting device comprises a cutting drum arranged downstream of said unwinding assembly (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, cutting cylinder #111 cuts labels from unrolled label tape #130 and would therefore necessarily be downstream of unrolling device), downstream of said cutting drum there being said transfer device, which comprises a transfer drum adapted to move the respective labels separated after cutting into contact with corresponding containers (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, transfer cylinder #102 located downstream of cutting cylinder #111), said transfer drum facing said adhesive application device (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, surface of transfer cylinder #102 faces gluing device #108).
Regarding claim 22, Baumgartner discloses that said removal means are arranged at said cutting drum, in order to remove at least one label from the flow of labels fed to the transfer drum (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, extraction system #104 located arranged at cutting cylinder #111).
Regarding claim 23, Baumgartner discloses that said cutting drum is associated with a device for cutting said labeling ribbon (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, cutting cylinder #111 associated with cutting element #112), and with a device for the transfer of the cut labels to said transfer drum (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, labels transferred from cutting cylinder #111 to transfer cylinder #102), said removal means being arranged at a removal region which is arranged at said cutting drum between said cutting device and said transfer device along the advancement direction of the flow of labels (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, extraction system #104 located arranged at cutting cylinder #111 between cutting element #112 and transfer cylinder #102).
Regarding claim 24, Baumgartner discloses that said cutting drum has a lateral surface which has a plurality of holes connected to means for forced air extraction, so that the labels are kept in adhesion against said lateral surface ([0047] of Baumgartner, vacuum holds labels to cutting cylinder #111; [0059] of Baumgartner, cutting cylinder has vacuum openings that hold the label), said removal means comprising means for interrupting the effect of said extraction means at a portion of said lateral surface of said cutting drum which faces said removal region ([0059] of Baumgartner, negative pressure holding label to cutting cylinder switched off during movement of label past extraction system).
Regarding claim 26, Baumgartner discloses that said removal means comprise blower means which are adapted to generate on command a flow of air which passes through said holes of said lateral surface from the inside of said cutting drum toward the outside of said cutting drum at said portion of said lateral surface of said cutting drum that faces said removal region in order to facilitate the removal of said labels from the flow of the labels ([0059] of Baumgartner, overpressure can be applied to labels originating from the cutting cylinder to actively blow the label away from the cutting cylinder).
Regarding claim 28, Baumgartner discloses that said removal means comprise an extractor provided with a suction inlet which is arranged so as to face said removal region (FIG. 2, [0059] of Baumgartner, extraction means #104 includes an extraction opening #271 directed toward the cutting cylinder).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner in view of Meissner (European Patent Application Publication No. EP 3875381 A1, cited in IDS submitted December 2, 2024, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 25, while Baumgartner discloses the cutting drum having a lateral surface which is provided with a plurality of holes connected to means for forced air extraction so that the labels are kept in adhesion against said lateral surface ([0059] of Baumgartner, cutting cylinder has vacuum openings that hold the label), said removal means comprising means for interrupting the effect of said extraction means at a portion of said lateral surface of said cutting and transfer drum which faces said removal region ([0059] of Baumgartner, negative pressure holding label to cutting cylinder switched off during movement of label past extraction system), Baumgartner does not specifically disclose that said cutting device and said transfer means are formed at a cutting and transfer drum. Moreover, in Baumgartner the transfer cylinder is separate from the cutting cylinder (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner). Meissner, however, discloses a labeling device for containers wherein the cutting device and the transfer means are formed at a cutting and transfer drum (FIG. 1 of Meissner, vacuum cylinder #111). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the vacuum cylinder of Meissner for the cutting and transfer cylinders of Baumgartner since Meissner establishes that such arrangements were known for use with container labeling machines. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I B). As evidenced by Baumgartner, the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components. In addition, as also evidenced by Baumgartner and Meissner, the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could also have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 27, Baumgartner discloses that said removal means comprise blower means which are adapted to generate on command a flow of air which passes through said holes of said lateral surface from the inside of said cutting and transfer drum toward the outside of said cutting and transfer drum at said portion of said lateral surface of said cutting and transfer drum that faces said removal region in order to facilitate the removal of said labels from the flow of the labels ([0059] of Baumgartner, overpressure can be applied to labels originating from the cutting cylinder to actively blow the label away from the cutting cylinder).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner in view of Di Pinto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0073229 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Baumgartner does not specifically disclose that said transfer drum comprises a plurality of adhesive bonding portions, which are arranged so as to be angularly spaced around an axis of said transfer drum and are designed to receive by resting contact at least one longitudinal end of said labels in order to allow, in cooperation with said application device, the application of at least one respective strip of adhesive. Di Pinto, however, discloses a labeling machine comprising a transfer drum which comprises an initial shoe #81 and a final shoe #82 (i.e., adhesive bonding portions) configured to retain the ends of the label on the drum and wherein the initial and final shoes are angularly spaced around the axis of the transfer drum (FIGS. 3-4, claims 1 and 14 of Di Pinto). According to Di Pinto, the shoes allow the for the ends of the label to be overlapped and fixed to the container and to one another (claim 15 of Di Pinto). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Baumgartner with angularly spaced initial and final shoes as taught by Di Pinto. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow the for the ends of the label to be overlapped and fixed to the container and to one another as taught by Di Pinto (claim 15 of Di Pinto).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner in view of Vignali et al. (European Patent Publication No. EP 3 822 186 A1, cited in IDS submitted December 2, 2024, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 30, Baumgartner does not specifically disclose the labeling machine further comprising control and actuation means adapted to actuate said removal means. Vignali, however, discloses a labeling machine for applying labels onto items such as containers comprising a rotatable carousel for conveying the items, a labelling apparatus for applying labels to the items and extracting means for selectively extracting labels from the flow of labels (Abstract, [0001]-[0002] of Vignali). According to Vignali, the labeling machine also includes a control unit #20 configured to activate extracting means ([0028] of Vignali). Also according to Vignali, the labeling machines have increased flexibility and higher productivity ([0010] of Vignali). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the labeling device of Baumgartner with control and actuation means adapted to actuate said removal means. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide the labeling machine with increased flexibility and higher productivity as taught by Vignali ([0010] of Vignali).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner in view of Vignali as applied to claim 30 above and further in view of Solomon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 3,783,058).
Regarding claim 31, Baumgartner does not specifically disclose that said control and actuation means are functionally associated with a device for detecting the containers to be labeled which are fed to said feeding assembly. Solomon, however, discloses a labeling machine for containers comprising a control system that is activated when a bottle sensor detects the presence of the incoming bottle to be labeled (Abstract, 7:25-27 of Solomon). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate the control system in the modified apparatus with a device for detecting the containers to be labeled which are fed to said feeding assembly since Solomon establishes that it was known to provide control systems for container labeling devices with such control means. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner in view of Vignali as applied to claim 30 above and further in view of Hafner et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0186493 A1) and Bardini (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0132244 A1).
Regarding claim 32, Baumgartner does not specifically disclose that said control and actuation means are functionally associated with a device for controlling a synchronization between speeds of said containers to be labeled and of said labeling ribbon. Hafner, however, discloses a device for labeling containers wherein the rotational speed of the vacuum transfer cylinder is synchronized with the transport speed of the containers so that a label is transferred to each container (Abstract, [0046] of Hafner). Bardini discloses a labeling machine wherein the label ribbon is fed into the transfer drum at the speed that is the same as the peripheral speed of the transfer drum so that cutting and movement of the label ribbon can be synchronized (Abstract, [0075] of Bardini). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate the control system in the modified apparatus with a device for controlling a synchronization between speeds of said containers to be labeled and of said labeling ribbon since Hafner and Bardini establishes that it was known to synchronize such speeds in a container labeling apparatus. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner in view of Vignali as applied to claim 30 above and further in view of Fefin (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0211173 A1) and Yang (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0096261 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Baumgartner does not specifically disclose that said control and actuation means are configured to manage, during transients adapted to bring said labeling machine to a working condition, said cutting device and said removal means in order to reject labels of nonconforming length which therefore cannot be associated with a container. Fefin, however, discloses a labeling system wherein incorrect or faulty labels are discarded and thereby prevented from being applied to containers (Abstract, [0001] of Fefin). Fefin discloses that the faulty labels are “wrong labels” generally ([0005] of Fefin). Yang disclosers a labeling machine which prevents labels of incorrect length from being applied to containers (Abstract of Yang). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the controller in the modified apparatus to remove labels of nonconforming length since Fefin and Yang establish that it was known to configure labeling machines to remove such nonconforming labels. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baumgartner in view of Fefin and Yang.
Regarding claim 34, Baumgartner discloses a method for labeling containers (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, labels being applied to containers using a labeling device), comprising the steps of feeding, by means of an unwinding assembly, a labeling ribbon to a cutting device ([0047] of Baumgartner, labels provided in a roll form; FIG. 1, [0048] of Baumgartner, labels provided to machine on a label tape #130 and fed to cutting cylinder #111; label tape would necessarily be unrolled or unwound using an unwinding roller), cutting said labeling ribbon at said cutting device in order to obtain a flow of labels (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, labels cut on cutting cylinder #111 by cutting element #112), sending said flow of labels to transfer means (FIG. 1, [0042] of Baumgartner, flow of labels sent from cutting cylinder #111 to transfer cylinder #102), applying and transferring said labels to a corresponding container to be labeled (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, cut labels transferred to containers #191), and further comprising a removal step, which can be activated on command and is adapted to remove at least one nonconforming label from the flow of labels upstream of a transfer region for the transfer of said labels to said containers (FIG. 1 of Baumgartner, either of extraction systems #104 or #105 which are upstream of the region where the labels are transferred to the containers; [0012], [0026] of Baumgartner, extraction systems #104 or #105 can be attached and removed from device to remove the leading 5 to 20 labels that accumulate during label changes to be removed as rejects; labels can therefore be removed “on command”).
Baumgartner does not specifically disclose that the nonconforming label is a label of nonconforming length. Fefin, however, discloses a labeling system wherein incorrect or faulty labels are discarded and thereby prevented from being applied to containers (Abstract, [0001] of Fefin). Fefin discloses that the faulty labels are “wrong labels” generally ([0005] of Fefin). Yang disclosers a labeling machine which prevents labels of incorrect length from being applied to containers (Abstract of Yang). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove labels of nonconforming length in the method of Baumgartner since Fefin and Yang establish that it was known to remove such nonconforming labels in container labeling methods. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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 (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights