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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1 “or associable” is confusing. It is suggested Applicant delete this portion of the claim on lines 2-3 and on line 5. Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 and 10-14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “wherein the movable support moves along the closed path continuously”, and the claim also recites “preferably at a constant speed” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the … pickup lines" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 discloses, “at least one feed station associated with at least one respective feed line for feeding articles and equipped with a feed transfer device, at least one pickup station associated with at least one respective removal line for removing articles and equipped with a pickup transfer device, and a movable support provided with a plurality of receiving seats for receiving single articles” on lines 2-6. However, these limitations were disclosed on lines 2-6 of claim 1 and claim 11 depends from claim 1. Thus, it is not clear whether these are new components or the same components as being claimed in claim 1. Likewise, “a closed path” on line 10 of claim 11 is disclosed and on line 7 of claim 1. Also, “a filled condition” is disclosed on line 13 of claim 11 and “a filled condition” on line 11 of claim 1. Also, “a logic of driving the transfer devices” is disclosed on line 10 of claim 11 and on line 14 of claim 1. Also, “a function of current capacity values” is disclosed on lines 14-15 of claim 11 and on line 13 of claim 1. Lastly, Applicant discloses, “a function of the receiving seats” is disclosed on lines 16-17 of claim 11 and “a function of the filled conditions” in lines 16-17 of claim 1. Are these the same components?
Claims 12-14 depend from claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: independent claim 1 discloses, “connected to the transfer devices and configured to drive the transfer devices as a function of current capacity values of the feed line and of the removal line” which, in combination with the rest of the claim language, teaches an apparatus that is novel over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 2-7 and 9 are allowable but depend from claim 1 which has been objected to.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COLLINS whose telephone number is (571)272-8970. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Jacob Scott can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
M.K.C.
9/29/2026
/MICHAEL COLLINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
