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 .
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks received on December 31, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has amended independent claims 1-11 to include limitations from previously presented claim 9. Claim 9 was rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over the combined disclosures of LICHTENBERG et al. (US 8,066,044) in view of LANDAN et al. (US 6,155,322).
Applicant first argues that page 10 of the office action mailed on October 2, 2025 fails to reference where the primary disclosure of LICHTENBERG et al. discloses a control system in the 35 USC 103 rejection. However, claim 9 depends from claims 1 and 8; wherein claim 1 introduces the limitation of a control system. Page 6 of the October 2, 2025 rejection references controller 210 as shown in figure 1 (Diagram I of office action) of LICHTENBERG et al. It is understood in the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 9 that the limitations of claim 1, to include controller 210, would also apply in the rejection of claim 9. Column 5 lines 7-9 of LICHTENBERG et al. states “…controller 210 receives signals from various sensors to control the speed and rotational position of turret 200.”
On pages 12-13 of the pending remarks, Applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of LANDAN et al. (US 6,155,322) with the disclosed system of LICHTENBERG et al.. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.1
In this case, column 5 lines 7-9 of LICHTENBERG et al. broadly discloses the provision of sensors in communication with the controller 210 for the purpose of synchronizing the speed of the rotary arm 10 of turret 200 with the linear speed of conveyor 100 without specifying what type of sensor is in communication with the controller. LANDAN et al. teaches a system wherein operation of an arm is synchronized with the linear speed of a conveyor 23 through communication of a photo sensor with a controller of the arm. Thus, Examiner is merely relying on the teachings of LANDAN et al. for the knowledge in the packaging art to provide/utilize a photo sensor to synchronize operation of a linear conveyor with an adjacent distributing element (arm), whereby the broad recitation of LICHTENBERG et al. to rely on various sensors could reasonably encompass that of a photo sensor. Essentially, the sensor of LICHTENBERG et al. would be replaced with a photo sensor, not provided in addition to any element such that there would be no redundancy as suggested by Applicant’s pending remarks.
With respect to claim 12, Applicant has argued that LICHTENBERG et al. fails to disclose a hang tab as the article fed by the rotary arm applicator. It has been held that recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed product from a prior art product satisfying the claimed structural limitations.2 Whether the system of LICHTENBERG et al. utilizes the rotary arm of the applicator to feed a label or a hang tab is of no consequence to the structural configuration of Applicant’s claimed invention.
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.
Claims 12-14, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by over LICHTENBERG et al. (US 8,066,044).
Regarding claim 12, LICHTENBERG et al. discloses a system (figure 1) comprising: an applicator 200 including a placement head 18 attached (figure 4) to a rotary arm 10, the rotary arm 10 configured to rotate in a rotation plane between a first position (figure 1) and a second position (figure 6) to release an attachment onto an object; and a control system configured to control operation of the applicator 210.
With respect to claim 13, LICHTENBERG et al. further discloses the placement head as a vacuum placement head, wherein the control system is configured to apply negative pressure to the placement head when the placement head is in the first position and to release the negative pressure in the second position (abstract; column 4 lines 35-42).
Regarding claim 14, LICHTENBERG et al. further discloses the placement head to be spring 10a loaded (figures 5 & 6)
With respect to claim 17, LICHTENBERG et al. further discloses the system to include an encoder (column 1 lines 50-62) configured to transmit a signal indicative of a linear speed of a conveyor 100, such that the control system 210 is configured to time (synchronize) the rotation of the rotary arm 10 from the first position to the second position based on the linear speed (column 5 lines 16-22) of the conveyor 100.
In reference to claims 19 and 20, LICHTENBERG et al. discloses a control system 210 configured to actuate a rotary applicator 200 supporting a plurality (figures 1, 4, 6 and 7) of rotary arms 10 to sequentially apply an adhesive product to a series of sequentially transported articles on a conveyor 100. The claimed limitations are drawn to a product capable of being used with the system of LICHTENBERG et al. In particular, LICHTENBERG et al. discloses the product intended for use with the system as produce which are known to have varying heights/diameters, thereby effecting the spacing of the objects between one another and the spacing between the object and the placement head in the second position.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LICHTENBERG et al. (US 8,066,044) in view of LANDAN et al. (US 6,155,322).
In reference to claim 1, LICHTENBERG et al. discloses a system (figure 1) comprising: an applicator 200 including a placement head 18 attached (figure 4) to a rotary arm 10, the rotary arm 10 configured to rotate between a first position (figure 1) configured to receive an attachment and a second position (figure 6) to release the attachment onto an object transported on a conveyor 100; and a control system 210 configured to control operation of the applicator (Column 5 lines 7-9).
Although column 5 lines 7-22 of LICHTENBERG et al. discloses a system comprising: a control system 210 configured to receive signals from a sensor to synchronize the speed of rotary arm 10 with the linear speed of the conveyor 100, LICHTENBERG et al. does not specifically disclose the sensor as a photo sensor. LANDAN et al. teaches a system comprising: a photo sensor 61 (column 7 lines 36-37) positioned adjacent a conveyor 23; the photo sensor 61 in communication with a control system 60 to send a detection signal of product position on the conveyor (column 7 lines 26-43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the system of LICHTENBERG et al. to include a photo sensor positioned adjacent to the conveyor since column 7 lines 26-43 of LANDAN et al. suggest such a sensor is known in the art of packaging to monitor product on a conveyor for the purpose of effectively transferring an object onto the product.
Regarding claim 2, LICHTENBERG et al. further discloses a supply reel 250, wherein the control system is configured to control advancement of the supply reel (column 5 lines 28-32, 38-44; column 6 lines 19-30).
With respect to claim 3, LICHTENBERG et al. further discloses the rotary arm 10 rotable in a rotation plane, and a supply reel 250 configured to feed an attachment along a feed path that is perpendicular to the rotation plane (see Diagram I below).
PNG
media_image1.png
540
769
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram I
In reference to claim 4, LICHTENBERG et al. further discloses the placement head as a vacuum placement head, wherein the control system is configured to apply negative pressure to the placement head when the placement head is in the first position and to release the negative pressure in the second position (abstract; column 4 lines 35-42).
Regarding claim 5, LICHTENBERG et al. further discloses the placement head to be spring 10a loaded (figures 5 & 6)
With respect to claim 8, LICHTENBERG et al. further discloses the system to include an encoder (column 1 lines 50-62) configured to transmit a signal indicative of a linear speed of a conveyor 100.
Regarding claim 9, column 5 lines 16-22 of LICHTENBERG et al. discloses the control system 210 configured to time the rotation of the rotary arm 10 from the first position to the second position based on the linear speed of the conveyor 100.
In reference to claims 10 and 11, the claimed limitation are drawn to a product capable of being used with the system of LICHTENBERG et al. However, LICHTENBERG et al. discloses the product intended for use with the system as produce which are known to have varying heights/diameters, thereby effecting the spacing of the objects between one another and the spacing between the object and the placement head in the second position.
With respect to claim 18, column 5 lines 7-22 of LICHTENBERG et al. discloses a control system 210 configured to receive signals from a sensor to synchronize the speed of rotary arm 10 with the linear speed of the conveyor 100, but does not specifically disclose the sensor as a photo sensor. LANDAN et al. teaches a system comprising: a photo sensor 61 (column 7 lines 36-37) positioned adjacent a conveyor 23; the photo sensor 61 in communication with a control system 60 to send a detection signal of product position on the conveyor (column 7 lines 26-43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the system of LICHTENBERG et al. to include a photo sensor positioned adjacent to the conveyor since column 7 lines 26-43 of LANDAN et al. suggest such a sensor is known in the art of packaging to monitor product on a conveyor for the purpose of effectively transferring an object onto the product.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LICHTENBERG et al. (US 8,066,044) in view of in view of LANDAN et al. (US 6,155,322) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SOSNIK et al. (US 5,540,032).
Regarding claim 7, LICHTENBERG et al. discloses an applicator 200 including a placement head 18 attached (figure 4) to a rotary arm 10, the rotary arm 10 configured to rotate between a first position (figure 1) configured to receive an attachment and a second position (figure 6) to release the attachment onto an object; wherein the first position is at approximately a 2 o’clock position and the second position is at 6 o’clock position.
SOSNIK et al. teaches a system comprising: an applicator including a placement head 35 that rotates from a first position at 12 o’clock for the purpose of receiving an object 40 to a second position at 6 o’clock position for the purpose of depositing the object on a product. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the first position of LICHTENBERG et al. to be at 12 o’clock or 2 o’clock since the disclosures of LICHTENBERG et al. and SOSNIK et al. suggests the selection of either orientation would be equally sufficient for the purpose of transferring an object to the placement head of a rotary applicator.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LICHTENBERG et al. (US 8,066,044) in view of SOSNIK et al. (US 5,540,032).
With respect to claim 16, LICHTENBERG et al. discloses an applicator 200 including a placement head 18 attached (figure 4) to a rotary arm 10, the rotary arm 10 configured to rotate between a first position (figure 1) configured to receive an attachment and a second position (figure 6) to release the attachment onto an object; wherein the first position is at approximately a 2 o’clock position and the second position is at 6 o’clock position.
SOSNIK et al. teaches a system comprising: an applicator including a placement head 35 that rotates from a first position at 12 o’clock for the purpose of receiving an object 40 to a second position at 6 o’clock position for the purpose of depositing the object on a product. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the first position of LICHTENBERG et al. to be at 12 o’clock or 2 o’clock since the disclosures of LICHTENBERG et al. and SOSNIK et al. suggests the selection of either orientation would be equally sufficient for the purpose of transferring an object to the placement head of a rotary applicator.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 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 21 is allowed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 GLORIA R WEEKS whose telephone number is (571)272-4473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-2pm & 5pm-7pm EST.
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, Shelley 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.
Other helpful telephone numbers are listed for applicant's benefit:
Allowed Files & Publication (888) 786-0101
Assignment Branch (800) 972-6382
Certificates of Correction (703) 305-8309
Fee Questions (571) 272-6400
Inventor Assistance Center (800) PTO-9199
Petitions/special Programs (571) 272-3282
Information Help line 1-800-786-9199
/GLORIA R WEEKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
September 29, 2025
1 See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
2 Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Prosecution Insights