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 .
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 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.
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:
“blank feeding assembly” in claims 1, 10, and 18;
“product conveyor assembly” in claims 1, 10, and 18; and
“blank engaging assembly” in claims 5, 13, and 21.
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 § 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 10, 11, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolfram (US 4,411,350 A).
Regarding claim 10, Wolfram discloses a product packaging system, the system comprising: a blank feeding assembly 8 defining a first machine direction; a product conveyor assembly 20 configured to move at least one product in a second machine direction, the second machine direction offset from the first machine direction; and a blank turning assembly, the blank turning assembly comprising a plurality of turning rails 16 for supporting a blank and following a curved path between the blank feeding assembly and the product conveyor assembly for moving a blank from a path along the first machine direction to a path along the second machine direction. See, e.g., Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 11, Wolfram discloses the product packaging system of claim 10, wherein the second machine direction is perpendicularly or obliquely disposed relative to the first machine direction. See, e.g., Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 18, Wolfram discloses a blank turning assembly for a product packaging system, the blank turning assembly comprising: a plurality of turning rails 16 following at least one of a curved path and an angled path, the plurality of turning rails being for being positioned between a blank feeding assembly 8 defining a first machine direction and a product conveyor assembly 20 defining a second machine direction offset from the first machine direction such that the plurality of turning rails are for supporting and moving a blank from a path along the first machine direction to a path along the second machine direction. See, e.g., Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 19, Wolfram discloses the blank turning assembly of claim 18, wherein the second machine direction is perpendicularly or obliquely disposed relative to the first machine direction. See, e.g., Fig. 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-4, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfram.
Regarding claim 1, Wolfram discloses a method comprising: positioning a book on a feeding assembly 8, the feeding assembly defining a first machine direction (col. 2, lines 19-24); advancing the book from the feeding assembly toward a product conveyor assembly 20 configured to move at least one product in a second machine direction, the second machine direction offset from the first machine direction; and moving the book along a book turning assembly, the book turning assembly comprising a plurality of turning rails 16 following at least one of a curved path and an angled path between the blank feeding assembly and the product conveyor assembly (col. 2, lines 29-44). Wolfram lacks the disclosure of moving blanks; rather, the products conveyed in Wolfram are books. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to convey blanks instead of books in the device of Wolfram, in order to convey blanks through a conveyor while changing their orientation, direction, and spacing.
Regarding claim 2, the method of Wolfram as modified above comprises the method of claim 1, wherein moving the blank along the blank turning assembly comprises moving the blank from a path along the first machine direction to a path along the second machine direction for being in registration with at least one product of the plurality of products. Col. 2, lines 29-44.
Regarding claim 3, the method of Wolfram as modified above comprises the method of claim 2, wherein the second machine direction is perpendicularly or obliquely disposed relative to the first machine direction. See, e.g., Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 4, the device of Wolfram comprises everything claimed, except Wolfram does not explicitly disclose that the second direction is at an angle of about 180 degrees relative to the first machine direction. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have the second direction be at an angle of about 180 degrees relative to the first machine direction, in the device of Wolfram, in order to change the direction of the products 180 degrees to correspond with a desired product flow direction.
Regarding claim 12, the device of Wolfram comprises everything claimed, except Wolfram does not explicitly disclose that the second direction is at an angle of about 180 degrees relative to the first machine direction. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have the second direction be at an angle of about 180 degrees relative to the first machine direction, in the device of Wolfram, in order to change the direction of the products 180 degrees to correspond with a desired product flow direction.
Regarding claim 20, the device of Wolfram comprises everything claimed, except Wolfram does not explicitly disclose that the second direction is at an angle of about 180 degrees relative to the first machine direction. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have the second direction be at an angle of about 180 degrees relative to the first machine direction, in the device of Wolfram, in order to change the direction of the products 180 degrees to correspond with a desired product flow direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9, 13-17, and 21-25 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 nearest prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. For example, Wolfram does not disclose everything claimed, including “wherein the blank turning assembly comprises a turning plate and a blank engaging assembly movably supported along the turning plate”, in combination with the rest of the claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Henn (US 5,456,178 A) discloses a sheet feeding device with a guiding surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeremy R. Severson, whose telephone number is (571)272-2209. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through 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, Duane Smith, can be reached at (571) 272-1166. 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.
/JEREMY R SEVERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759