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 Status
This office action is in response to the filing of 11/12/2024. Claims 1-16 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 11/15/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 10-16 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 10 recites “a control signal” in lines 5 and 10, wherein the examiner is unable to determine if the control signals are the same control signal or different control signals, as such, the examiner is unable to clearly determine what the applicant is claiming.
In order to advance prosecution of the application, the office will interpret the control signals as the same control signal with line 10 being, the control signal.
Claims 11-16 are rejected due to dependency on a rejected parent claim.
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.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hahn (US Pub 20120101628).
Regarding Claim 10, Hahn discloses a method for producing container bundles (abstract), comprising the steps of:
providing containers (Fig. 1, containers 5a-5c) containing product on a container inlet (Fig. 1, lines 17a and 17b),
detecting the containers (Fig. 1, device 9d detects containers 5a-5c) and outputting a detection signal based upon the detected containers (paragraph [0018], inspection unit detects container type and inputs signal controller),
distributing the containers (Fig. 1, device 9 distributes containers 5a-5c to lanes 9a-9c), on the basis of the detection signal and a control signal (device 15 controls device 9 via control signals), to one or more inlet lanes of a packer inlet (9a-9c of Fig. 1), and
producing a container bundle from a plurality of containers (Figs. 2-7, illustrates various arrangements of container 5 formed into arrangements 3), on the basis of a predetermined pattern (paragraph [0045], unit 19 determines the arrangement of containers at carrier 7), from the containers guided on the packer inlet,
wherein the distribution of the containers to the one or more inlet lanes of the packer inlet is carried out on the basis of a control signal which indicates which containers are required on which inlet lane of the packer inlet (Fig. 1, units 15 and 19 control unit 9 to distribute containers to lanes 9a-9c).
Regarding Claim 11, Hahn discloses further comprising the step of:
identify damaged, incorrectly printed, and/or incorrectly filled containers (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 16, Hahn disclose wherein the method further comprises sorting out these containers (Fig. 1, containers 5a-5c are sorted to lanes 9a-9c).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn (US Pub 20120101628) and further in view of Moreno (US Pub 20220297958).
Regarding Claim 1, Hahn discloses an apparatus (1-Fig. 1) for producing container bundles (Fig. 2), comprising:
a container inlet (9-Fig. 1) for transporting containers containing product (Fig. 1, unit 9 moves containers to lanes 9a-9c),
an inspection apparatus (9d-Fig. 1) for individually detecting the containers (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0040, device 9d detects containers 5c- 5c), wherein the inspection apparatus is configured, based upon the detected containers, to output a detection signal (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0045], device 5d must communicate with control device 15 and unit 19 to sort containers 5a-5c),
a packer inlet (Fig. 1, 9a-9c) with one or more inlet lanes (Fig. 1),
a packer (11-Fig. 1) which is configured to produce, on the basis of a predetermined pattern (Fig. 1 and paragraph [0045], unit 19 determines the arrangement of container types 5a-5c), a container bundle (Figs. 2-7, the various arrangements of containers) comprising a plurality of containers from the containers guided on the packer inlet (Fig. 1, unit 11 takes containers 5a-5c from lanes 9a-9c).
However, Hahn is silent regarding:
a robot which is configured to move the containers, entering via the container inlet, to the one or more inlet lanes of the packer inlet on the basis of the detection signal and a control signal,
wherein the robot is arranged between the container inlet and the packer inlet, and
wherein the packer generates the control signal for the robot, which indicates which containers are required on which inlet lane of the packer inlet.
Moreno teaches:
a container inlet (429-Fig. 4B) for transporting containers containing product (Fig. 4b, items in chute 429),
a robot (426-Fig. 4B) which is configured to move the containers, entering via the container inlet (429-Fig. 4B), to one or more inlet lanes of a packer inlet (427 and 428-Fig. 4b) on the basis of the detection signal and a control signal (Fig. 4B and paragraph [0136], computer 440 determines to conveyor 427-428 the items are placed on by robot 426),
wherein the robot is arranged between the container inlet and the packer inlet (Fig. 4b, robot 426 is in between chute 429 and conveyors 427-428), and
wherein the packer generates the control signal for the robot, which indicates which containers are required on which inlet lane of the packer inlet (Fig. 4B and paragraph [0136], computer 440 determines to conveyor 427-428 the items are placed on by robot 426).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have modified the container inlet as disclosed by Hahn, to have incorporated the container inlet as taught by Moreno, so to sort and input items onto a corresponding conveyor, in order to fulfill a designed item request from a control system.
Regarding Claim 2, Hahn and as modified by Moreno in the parent claim, Hahn discloses wherein the inspection apparatus is further configured to identify damaged, incorrectly printed, and/or incorrectly filled containers (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hahn and as modified by Moreno in the parent claim, Hahn discloses wherein the container bundle comprises containers with at least two different types of product (paragraph [0037], 5a-5c are different container types).
Regarding Claim 6, Hahn and as modified by Moreno in the parent claim, Moreno teaches wherein the container inlet is a mass inlet (Fig. 4b, chute 429 is a mass inlet), a single-lane inlet, or a multi-lane inlet.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn (US Pub 20120101628) and as modified by Moreno (US Pub 20220297958) in the parent claim, and further in view of Grupp (US Pub 20210008597)
Regarding claim 7, Hahn and as modified by Moreno in the parent claim, Moreno teaches wherein the robot is arranged between the container inlet and the packer inlet,
wherein the robot is configured as a robot unit, and
wherein the robot unit is configured to move the containers, entering via the container inlet, to the one or more inlet lanes of the packer inlet on the basis of the detection signal and the control signal in the parent claim.
However, Moreno is silent about the robot being multiple robots.
Grupp teaches a container inlet (206-Fig. 2) with multiple robots (234-Fig. 2) moving containers (220-Fig. 2) to various packer inlets (214-Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention, to have modified the container inlet and robot as taught by Moreno, to have incorporated the multiple robots as taught by Grupp, so to allow the apparatus to process a greater number of containers, in order to increase the productivity of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 8-9 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.
Claim 12-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if amended to overcome the 112(b) rejections above and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to Notice of Reference Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT HOWELL whose telephone number is (571)270-5945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 0800 - 1500.
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, Thanh Truong can be reached at 571-272-4472. 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.
/SCOTT A HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights