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:
“a labeling unit for labeling the containers” in claim 1 wherein the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification (see page 10, line 16) is a rotary labeling device; and
“a testing device configured to test label rolls” in claims 2 and 17 and “a testing device” in claim 18 wherein the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification (see page 20, line 29) is a suitable sensor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 7-11 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 7 recites the limitation “the further roll receiving device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the further label tape” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 7 further recites the limitation “the further labeling unit” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 7 is intended to depend from claim 6. It is suggested to delete “The apparatus according to claim 5,” and insert therein - - The apparatus according to claim 6, - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation(s) for purposes of examination.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the further roll receiving device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 8 is intended to depend from claim 6. It is suggested to delete “The apparatus according to claim 5,” and insert therein - - The apparatus according to claim 6, - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the further roll receiving device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears claim 10 is intended to depend from claim 6. It is suggested to delete “The apparatus according to claim 5,” and insert therein - - The apparatus according to claim 6, - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 5, 10, 11, 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 transfer unit 12, shaft 7, and robotic arm 16 and not including and spaced from the labeling unit as depicted in the Figures) which is arranged at a distance from the labeling unit 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 taught by Ferri runs between the robot cell and the labeling unit (as shown in Figures 1 and 2a).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, at least one of the roll receiving device (and the further roll receiving device the limitation rejected in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above) has: - two roll receptacles (shafts 7); and - a connector (system for splicing) adapted to connect a tape end of a label roll from one of the two roll receptacles to a tape start of a label roll from the other of the two roll receptacles and wherein at least one of: at least one of the roll receiving device (and the further roll receiving device) has two roll receptacles that are one of vertically oriented (see 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 standing in the area manually loading 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 standing in the personnel movement area manually loading the roll receiving device with a label roll.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 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 a robot cell is delimited 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
Claim 6 is 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.
Claims 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten as suggested above 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:
Ferri teaches at least one labeling module (13) (Paragraph 0024) suggesting the labeling device has a second labeling module each labeling module comprising a labeling unit (comprising a drum 10 on carousel 5) configured for labeling the containers; and a respective supply device connected to the labeling unit for feeding label tape to the labeling unit, wherein the supply device has a robot cell which is arranged at a distance from the labeling unit and has: - a roll storage unit configured for storing label rolls; - a roll receiving device configured for receiving and unrolling at least one label roll to form the label tape for feeding to the labeling unit; and - a robot configured to automatically load the roll receiving device with label rolls from the roll storage unit, i.e. the second labeling module does not share the supply device having the robot cell including the roll storage unit and the robot with the first labeling module. The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest an apparatus for labeling containers as claimed and including wherein: the labeling device has a further labeling unit for labeling the containers; the supply device is connected to the further labeling unit for feeding a further label tape to the further labeling unit; the robot cell is arranged at a distance from the further labeling unit and further has a further roll receiving device for receiving and unrolling at least one further label roll to form the further label tape for feeding to the further labeling unit; and the robot is configured to automatically load the further roll receiving device with label rolls from the roll storage unit.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights