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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “the latter” should be changed to “the vacuum feeder”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “the pealing means” should be changed to “the peeling means”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, “the runaway” should be changed to “the runway”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2-5 and 7-9 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 2 recites the limitation "the blowing direction" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be read as “a blowing direction”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the working surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be read as “a working surface”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the axis of rotation" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be read as “an axis of rotation”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the axis of the pressure roller" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be interpreted as “an axis of the pressure roller”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the mould" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be read as “the at least one mould”. This should be changed in line 8 as well.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the part forming the outer surface" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be read as “a part forming an outer surface”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the working direction" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be read as “a working direction”.
The term “thin” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, a thickness of plate required by the claim is not defined.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the working surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be read as “a working surface”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the working edge" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be read as “a working edge”.
The term “low” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As a result, the distance the working edge must be placed above .
Claim 5 recites “it” in line 5, but does not define whether this refers to the peeling means or the vacuum feeder.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the plane of the working surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be read as “a plane of a working surface”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the mechanism of the winder" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This will be read as “the winder”.
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.
The limitation “peeling means” in claim 8 recites the generic placeholder “means” coupled with the functional modifier “peeling” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the function claimed. This will be interpreted as: structure 20, shown in figure 3, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN (CN 113978871; citations to translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, CHEN teaches a label application apparatus comprising a dispenser that is connected to a vacuum feeder 8 that is connected to a winder, where the vacuum feeder includes a housing and a perforated tape 81 stretched over shafts connected to a drive 84, and the winder comprises a mold 51, pressure roller 71, and winder drive 63 (figs. 1 and 5-6; p. 3, last paragraph; p. 4, para. 3; p. 5, para. 2). CHEN does not explicitly teach the vacuum feeder comprises a vacuum generator, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a vacuum generator in the vacuum feeder to perform the vacuum function.
Regarding claim 5, CHEN teaches the dispenser comprises a first spool 31, second spool 32, plural rollers, a tensioner, and a thin plate peeling means parallel and above the working surface of the vacuum feeder (fig. 7). Chen does not explicitly describe a winding and unwinding drive, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include drives to drive the rollers in order to automate the process (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 6, CHEN does not explicitly teach a vacuum generator power control, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a means of initiating the suction and stopping the suction when operation is complete.
Regarding claim 8, CHEN teaches peeling a label above a working surface of a vacuum feeder, sucking the label to the surface of the vacuum feeder, placing a container on a mold of a winder, pressing and rotating the mold to press the container against a pressure roller, moving the label with the vacuum feeder from the dispenser to the winder, placing the label on the winder mechanism via the vacuum feeder, and gluing the label to the container by pressing them together with the pressure roller (p. 5, para. 2; figs. 5 and 7). CHEN does not explicitly disclose a winder drive, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a drive to perform the driving function disclosed.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHEN as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of HARTE (US 2007/0113965).
Regarding claim 2, CHEN does not teach that the vacuum generator comprises a fan mounted in a worktop under a working surface of the perforated tape. HARTE teaches another method of applying self-adhesive labels to containers utilizing a vacuum feeder, wherein the vacuum generator comprises plural fans 78 mounted in a worktop 70 below the tape feeder (para. 33; fig. 1) such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a fan in the worktop as the vacuum generator of CHEN because fans were common suction means in the web processing art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, CHEN does not teach that the housing extends below the working surface to form a trough with a side channel fan pneumatically connected to the housing. HARTE teaches the vacuum generator comprises a fan below the work surface para. 33; fig. 1, where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize a fan in the housing as a well-known means of vacuum generation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to move the fans to the side channel as there would have been a reasonable expectation of producing the same suction function (MPEP 2141).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, and 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest a device as claimed wherein the winder comprises a variable position head on which the mould is replaceably installed on the head, or wherein the winder comprises a runaway consisting of a flat surface and a proximity sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: DEMOLINO et al. (US 6,095,218), REED (US 4,475,969), AUSTERMEIER (US 2009/0020223), STERNBERG (US 2013/0175418), HORNG et al. (US 2006/0096999), CHAMBERLAIN et al. (US 5,614,278), HOLBROOK et al. (US 4,332,635), HOLLIS et al. (US 2007/0107187), YOSHIMI et al. (US 5,908,590), NEDBLAKE et al. (US 5,487,807), BUSSE et al. (US 2019/0185195), and VEGA et al. (US 11,254,461).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nickolas R Harm whose telephone number is (571)270-7605. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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.
/NICKOLAS R HARM/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights