DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/28/2026.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 5, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferri et al. (EP 3760550).
Regarding claim 1, Ferri discloses an apparatus (1 denotes in its entirety a labelling machine) configured for labeling containers (4 as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus), having: a labeling device with a labeling unit (comprising a carousel 5 and drum 10 of a rotary labeling device) configured for labeling the containers (of a rotary labeling device and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a rotary labeling device); and a supply device connected to the labeling unit configured for feeding (as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus) label tape (strip 3) to the labeling unit, wherein the supply device has a robot cell (delimited by the space defined by the apparatus structure 1 comprising the robot/robotic arm 16 operating between transfer unit 12 and shaft 7 and bounded by the rear area of the apparatus 1) which is arranged at a distance from the labeling unit (the robot cell delimited by the space defined by the apparatus structure 1 comprising the robot/robotic arm 16 operating between transfer unit 12 and shaft 7 and bounded by the rear area of the apparatus 1 does not include and is spaced from the labeling unit wherein the labeling unit is set back on a separate platform from the robot cell as depicted in the Figures wherein the labeling unit comprising the carousel 5 and drum 10 of the rotary labeling device is set back on a separate raised platform and spaced from the robot cell at the rear of the apparatus within which the robot/robotic arm operates with the formed label tape 3 running therebetween and in the space, including over a first half of the raised platform, between the robot cell and labeling unit at a second half of the raised platform) and has: - a roll storage unit (transfer unit 12) configured for storing (as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus) label rolls; - a (first) roll receiving device (a first shaft 7) configured for receiving and unrolling at least one label roll to form the label tape for feeding to the labeling unit; - a robot (robotic arm 16) configured to automatically load the roll receiving device with label rolls from the roll storage unit (Figures 1-3 and Paragraphs 0024-0026 and 0032-0034).
Regarding claim 5, at least one of: a running or travel path for the label tape (3) taught by Ferri runs between the robot cell and the labeling unit (as shown in Figures 1 and 2a).
Regarding claim 15, wherein one of: the robot taught by Ferri is a stationary robot (see Figures 1 and 2a).
Regarding claim 16, the roll receiving device taught by Ferri can be manually loaded with a label roll (Paragraph 0055); and the robot cell further has a personnel movement area arranged between the roll storage unit and the roll receiving device (and considered the area of the apparatus between the roll storage unit/transfer unit 12 and roll receiving device/shaft 7) configured for an operator to manually load the roll receiving device with a label roll (such as by an operator moving in the area to manually load the roll receiving device with a label roll) it being noted the claims are directed to an apparatus. Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115). Further, a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on (see MPEP 2114). Ferri teaches all of the structural limitations of the claims as set forth above which structure is configured “for an operator to manually load the roll receiving device with a label roll” such as by an operator moving in the personnel movement area manually loading the roll receiving device with a label roll.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferri in view of Wimmer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0233206).
Regarding claim 2, Ferri is described above in full detail. Ferri teaches the labeling device includes a rotary labeling device, the robot is at least one of an articulated arm robot, the robot is movable within the robot cell (between the roll storage unit and the roll receiving device).
As to the limitation in claim 2 of “the robot cell includes a testing device configured to test label rolls” and the limitations in claims 17 and 18, Ferri does not expressly teach the robot cell includes a testing device configured to test label rolls. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art of a robot configured to automatically load a roll receiving device (installation positions EB1 and EB2 wherein while in one of the positions a previously loaded roll is unwound the other position is loaded with the roll so that the other position is a roll buffer) with rolls (5) from a roll storage unit (pallet 9) the robot (such as is a multi-axis robot handling device 7) includes a testing device (camera 21 and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a suitable sensor) configured to test rolls with respect to at least a winding direction and the robot is further configured to turn a roll depending on a winding direction of one of the roll previously detected via a testing device by turning the roll from the roll storage unit to the roll receiving device when the tested winding direction is the appropriate direction of rotation to turning the roll to the appropriate direction of rotation when the tested winding direction is not the appropriate direction and then turning the roll to the roll receiving device as taught by Wimmer (Figures 2, 3, 6, and 7 and Paragraphs 0025, 0031, 0072, 0084, and 0094). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the robot taught by Ferri includes a testing device (i.e. the robot cell includes the robot is at least one of a multi-axis robot and an articulated arm robot and a testing device configured to test label rolls and regarding claim 17 the robot cell further has: a testing device configured to test label rolls with respect to at least one of: - a winding direction and including a label roll buffer of a second roll receiving device, a second shaft 7, for the intermediate storage of tested label rolls while a roll on the first roll receiving device is being unwound and regarding claim 18 wherein at least one of: the robot is configured to turn a label roll depending on a winding direction of one of the label roll previously detected via a testing device) as taught by Wimmer to automatically load the roll receiving device with rolls from the roll storage unit in the appropriate direction of rotation.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferri in view of Matteo (IT 2021000012035 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ferri is described above in full detail. Ferri does not expressly teach a label tape buffer and a tape guide bridge. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art the supply device further has: a label tape buffer (15) connected to the roll receiving device (storage portion 8) configured for receiving the label tape (strip 4) from the roll receiving device and to the labeling unit (label transfer device 11) configured for feeding the label tape to the labeling unit, wherein the label tape buffer is designed to buffer the received label tape and to dispense the buffered label tape for feeding to the labeling unit to control the tension of the label tape during the labeling process and further including a tape guide bridge (track 16) which connects the supply device and the labeling unit configured for guiding the label tape to the labeling unit in the proper feed path as taught by Matteo (Figure 1 and Pages 5 and 6 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the supply device taught by Ferri further has: a label tape buffer connected to the roll receiving device configured for receiving the label tape from the roll receiving device and to the labeling unit configured for feeding the label tape to the labeling unit, wherein the label tape buffer is designed to buffer the received label tape and to dispense the buffered label tape for feeding to the labeling unit to control the tension of the label tape during the labeling process as taught by Matteo and the apparatus further including a tape guide bridge which connects the supply device and the labeling unit configured for guiding the label tape to the labeling unit in the proper feed path as also taught by Matteo.
Claims 12, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferri in view of Ross et al. (U.S. Patent 4,652,205).
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 20, Ferri is described above in full detail. Ferri does not expressly teach the robot cell further has at least one of: a system for generating at least one signal curtain for delimiting the robot cell. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to delimit a robot cell by a system for generating at least one signal curtain wherein at least one of: the system is for generating one of at least one light curtain so that the robot cell further has: a detection device (a detector of the at least one signal curtain) configured to detect an intrusion of a user into the robot cell, and when the intrusion is detected: - to stop the robot to safeguard personnel and/or machinery as taught by Ross (Abstract and Column 1, lines 5-10 and Column 2, lines 23-35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the robot cell taught by Ferri further has at least one of: a system for generating at least one signal curtain for delimiting the robot cell wherein at least one of: the system is for generating one of at least one light curtain so that the robot cell further has: a detection device (detector/at least one signal curtain) configured to detect an intrusion of a user into the robot cell, and when the intrusion is detected: - to stop the robot (and - to allow the roll receiving device to continue running as only the robot is stopped) to safeguard personnel and/or machinery as taught by Ross.
Claims 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferri in view of Rizk (EP 2464884).
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Ferri is described above in full detail. Ferri does not expressly teach the robot cell further has: a tool changing station, wherein: the robot is configured to perform an automatic tool change at the tool change station. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art robots are configured to perform an automatic tool change such as to repair or replace the manipulator as evidenced by Rizk (Paragraphs 0001 and 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the robot cell taught by Ferri further has: a tool changing station comprising a second gripping member (20)/manipulator (it being noted the particular location of the tool changing station is nothing more than a rearrangement of parts not modifying the operation of the device see MPEP 2144.04 and “C. Rearrangement of Parts” so long as the tool changing station/second gripping member is within reach of the robot), wherein: the robot is configured to perform an automatic tool change at the tool change station to repair or replace the manipulator as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Rizk (and thus, regarding claim 19 at least one of; the robot is configured to carry out an automatic tool change between different handling tools of a broken and/or used gripping member and a new/second gripping member at a tool changing station within the robot cell, the different handling tools having at least one roll inner layer gripper as the gripping member comprises suction holes for gripping inner layers of the roll wherein as the material or article worked upon by the apparatus is a roll having inner layers corresponding with the suction holes).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims are allowable for the reasons set forth in paragraph 20 of the Office action mailed on 5/1/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendments filed on 7/28/2026 the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections set forth in the Office action mailed on 5/1/2026 are withdrawn.
Applicants argue, “There is thus no spacing whatsoever between the alleged robot cell and the labeling unit. They are portions of one integrated labelling machine 1 (Ferri [0020], [0024]).”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein claim 1 does not preclude the labeling device with a labeling unit and the supply device having the robot cell from being integrated into a labelling machine see claim 1 wherein the “apparatus for labeling containers, having” both the “labeling device with a labeling unit” and the “supply device has a robot cell” and including as expressly set forth the “supply device connected to the labeling unit”. Claim 1 sets forth “a labeling device” is “with a labeling unit for labeling the containers” wherein Ferri teaches a labeling device with a labeling unit (comprising a carousel 5 and drum 10 of a rotary labeling device) configured for labeling the containers (of a rotary labeling device and considered the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof of a rotary labeling device). Claim 1 further sets forth “a supply device” having “a robot cell” that “has: a roll storage unit for storing label rolls; - a roll receiving device for receiving and unrolling at least one label roll to form the label tape for feeding to the labelling unit; - a robot configured to automatically load the roll receiving device with label rolls from the roll storage unit” wherein Ferri teaches a supply device having a robot cell (delimited by the space defined by the apparatus structure 1 comprising the robot/robotic arm 16 operating between transfer unit 12 and shaft 7 and bounded by the rear area of the apparatus 1) and has: - a roll storage unit (transfer unit 12) configured for storing (as a material or article worked upon by the apparatus) label rolls; - a (first) roll receiving device (a first shaft 7) configured for receiving and unrolling at least one label roll to form the label tape for feeding to the labeling unit; - a robot (robotic arm 16) configured to automatically load the roll receiving device with label rolls from the roll storage unit. The supply device having the robot cell (delimited by the space defined by the apparatus structure 1 comprising the robot/robotic arm 16 operating between transfer unit 12 and shaft 7 and bounded by the rear area of the apparatus 1) taught by Ferri is connected to the labeling unit and arranged at a distance from the labeling unit wherein the labeling unit is set back on a separate platform, as shown in the Figures, and arranged at a distance, i.e. spaced or separated, from the robot cell with the unrolled formed label tape running therebetween the same as in the instant invention (see for example Figure 2a and specifically reference character (3) the line therefrom expressly to the label tape running in the space/distance between the supply device having the robot cell, delimited by the space defined by the apparatus structure 1 comprising the robot/robotic arm 16 operating between transfer unit 12 and shaft 7 and bounded by the rear area of the apparatus 1, and the labeling device with the labeling unit, comprising a carousel 5 and drum 10 of a rotary labeling device, wherein the supply device is connected to the labeling unit forming the apparatus 1).
Applicants further argue, “Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are construed in light of the specification and in a manner that is not unreasonable, and every limitation must be given effect (MPEP §§ 2111, 2111.01). The specification gives “at a distance” concrete meaning: the robot cell is sufficiently remote that the labeling unit can be uncoupled and moved away, a minimum distance (e.g., ≥ 1 m) is present, or a walking or driving path runs between the robot cell and the labeling unit (see Specification and Claim 5).”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein the specification does not clearly set forth a different definition of “at a distance” (see MPEP 2111.01) other than its ordinary and customary meaning given by those of ordinary skill in the art of a space or separation between the robot cell and the labeling unit (taught by Ferri as set forth above). If applicants intend “at a distance” in claim 1 to require “the robot cell is sufficiently remote that the labeling unit can be uncoupled and moved away, a minimum distance (e.g., ≥ 1 m) is present, or a walking or driving path runs between the robot cell and the labeling unit” it is suggested claim 1 is amended to expressly and positively require these limitations.
Applicants further argue, “The Examiner defines the robot cell as a notional “space” comprising the transfer unit 12, a shaft 7, and the robotic arm 16 that is “not including and spaced from” the labeling unit. Ferri provides no basis for any such boundary. The identified components are simply portions of the single, integrated labelling machine 1 (Ferri: [0020], [0024], [0032]).”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein the robot cell is defined in the rejection as set forth in claim 1 as “has: a roll storage unit for storing label rolls; - a roll receiving device for receiving and unrolling at least one label roll to form the label tape for feeding to the labelling unit; - a robot configured to automatically load the roll receiving device with label rolls from the roll storage unit”. Claim 1 does not preclude a single, integrated machine see claim 1 wherein the “apparatus for labeling containers, having” both the “labeling device” and the “supply device” and including as expressly claimed the “supply device connected to the labeling unit”. Further, as to the boundary/space/distance between the robot cell and labeling unit see for example Figure 2a and specifically reference character (3) the line therefrom expressly to the label tape running in the boundary/space/distance between the supply device having the robot cell, delimited by the space defined by the apparatus structure 1 comprising the robot/robotic arm 16 operating between transfer unit 12 and shaft 7 and bounded by the rear area of the apparatus 1, and the labeling device with the labeling unit, comprising a carousel 5 and drum 10 of a rotary labeling device, wherein the supply device is connected to the labeling unit forming the apparatus 1.
Applicants further argue, “The Examiner maps the labeling unit to the drum 10 and the roll receiving device to a shaft 7, yet Ferri recites both the drum 10 and the shafts 7 as components of the same labelling module 13 (Ferri: [0026] - The labelling module 13 comprises essentially: at least one shaft 7, (...); a transfer device, in particular a vacuum drum 10 for transferring the labels 2 (...)). The rejection thus artificially dissects a single, integrated module into two purportedly spaced-apart units.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein Ferri as set forth in the rejection is commensurate with claim 1 as directed to an apparatus, i.e. a single, integrated module, including a labeling device with a labeling unit and a supply device connected to the labeling unit having a robot cell which is arranged at a distance from the labeling unit, i.e. the apparatus dissected into two spaced-apart units.
Applicants further argue, “Claim 1 requires a roll receiving device “for receiving and unrolling at least one label roll to form the label tape for feeding to the labeling unit”-i.e., the label tape is formed at the roll receiving device (within the distanced robot cell) and then fed to the labeling unit. In Ferri, the strip 3 is unwound on a shaft 7 that is part of the labelling module 13 and passes, within that module, to the cutting blade 9 and vacuum drum 10 (Ferri: [0008], [0011], [0026]). No label tape is formed in, and fed from, a separate distanced cell to the labeling unit. Ferri’s transfer unit 12 conveys reels 6, not a formed label tape delivered over a distance (Ferri: [0032]-[0033]). The recited feeding arrangement is therefore not met.”.
This argument is not persuasive wherein claim 1 recites the limitation “a roll receiving device for receiving and unrolling at least one label roll to form the label tape for feeding to the labeling unit” wherein Ferri teaches a (first) roll receiving device (a first shaft 7) configured for receiving and unrolling at least one label roll to form the label tape (3) for feeding to the labeling unit (see shaft 7 unrolling the received label roll 6 to form the label tape 3 fed to the labeling unit comprising carousel 5 and drum 10 including the label tape 3 traverses the distance between the robot cell, delimited by the space defined by the apparatus structure 1 comprising the robot/robotic arm 16 operating between transfer unit 12 and shaft 7 and bounded by the rear area of the apparatus 1, and the labeling unit set back on the separate platform as shown in Figures 1 and 2a).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
