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 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 is/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 the 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) so that the packer can group the containers directly into a bundle without the need to re-sort the containers (intended use step of the actual distribution; not given much patentable weight).
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
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hahn (US Pub 20120101628) 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).
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. However, 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.
It is noted that the latest filed amendment on 11/10/2025 referring to “so that the packer can group the containers directly into a bindle without the need to re-sort the containers” are intended use limitations of the claimed packer, which not given much patentable weight.
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.
Moreno is silent about the robot being multiple robots. However, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As set forth above the argued upon new added limitations of the packer generates the control signal “so that the packer can group the containers directly into a bundle without the need to re-sort the containers” are nothing more than an intended use limitation of the actual packer, which not given much patentable weight. It is noted that the phrase “so that” renders the claim indefinite since the resulting claim dos not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
In respect to applicant’s argument that the applied art of Hahn ‘628 uses different concept and/or aspect of the packer inlet, robot, and container inlet than the one suggested by the filed invention. For example, applicant argues that the filed application calling on a robot can feed the lanes of the packer inlet on the basis of the control signal generated by the packer in such a way that the pacer can produce the desired container bundles or handling units directly from the incoming containers, arguing that this “pre-sorting” by the robot eliminates the need to re-sort the container.
The Office reminds applicant that the claims are given the broadest reasonable meaning, while it appears that the made arguments are reading too much of the actual filed invention into the claimed language while given too much weight to the claimed invention. The Office continue to believe that whatever the intention of the claimed invention such as the pre-sorting by the robot to eliminates the need to “re-sort the container” is nothing more than an intended use of the actual claimed structures, which not given much patentable weight.
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights