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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 02/28/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 21-40 are pending for examination.
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of an Information Disclosure Statement, filed 02/28/2025, which has been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed and dated copy of the PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to this Office action.
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:
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;
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
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.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21-24 and 28-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Osswald et al. (US 20220185598 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Osswald discloses a method for controlling a movement of an operating assembly (20, 23) of an apparatus (1) for the automatic processing of articles (5), comprising:
defining a movement trajectory ([0049]; “rotational movement about an axis of rotation 10” i.e. trajectory of rotation of drum 2) of said operating assembly (20, 21, 23) configured to perform a processing on an article of said articles (5),
defining, for at least one segment of said movement trajectory ([0049]; “rotational movement about an axis of rotation 10” i.e. trajectory of rotation of drum 2), a deviation (28) of said operating assembly (21) from said movement trajectory (rotational movement about an axis of rotation 10 of the drum 2 i.e. trajectory of rotation of drum 2), such that said operating assembly can be moved in safe conditions (Fig. 1),
defining, in said at least one segment of said movement trajectory, a safety trajectory (trajectory of 54) alongside said movement trajectory (trajectory of rotation of drum 2) at a distance substantially equal to said deviation (28; See Fig. 1 @unloading position, 16),
configuring an electric motor (39; [0059]) to move said operating assembly (20, 21, 23) along at least a portion of said movement trajectory (via movement of drum 2),
arranging an auxiliary guide element (54) at said safety trajectory (trajectory of 54),
moving said operating assembly (20, 21, 23) by said electric motor (39; [0059]) along at least a portion of said movement trajectory (via movement of drum 2), and
abutting said operating assembly with said auxiliary guide element to control the movement of said operating assembly by guiding it along said safety trajectory by said auxiliary guide element if, along said at least one segment of said movement trajectory, said operating assembly moves away from said movement trajectory by a distance equal to said deviation (Note; Applicant is claiming a fail state as part of the claimed invention implying that “if” an event should happen then another subsequent action should follow- The disclosure of Osswald will inherently result in the claimed failed state because if the distance of 28 moves a distance larger than 28 at the unloading position, then a portion of the operating assembly (e.g. 20 or 23) will inherently abut a portion of the guide element (outer surface of 54)).
Osswald further discloses:
Regarding claim 22, wherein said deviation (28) is variable based on a position of said operating assembly along said at least one segment of the movement trajectory (28; See Fig. 1 @unloading position, 16 and loading position shows different degree of extension).
Regarding claim 23, wherein said deviation (28) is variable based on a direction of deviation (28) of said operating assembly from said movement trajectory (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, further comprising: detecting when said operating assembly is abutted by said auxiliary guide element.
Regarding claim 28, wherein said operating assembly (20, 21, 23) is mounted on an equipment (20, 42, and/or 40) of said apparatus (1), said equipment (42, and/or 40) being movable with respect to a load-bearing structure (25) of said apparatus (1), and said method further comprises: moving said equipment (20, 42, and/or 40) along a main trajectory (see arrow in Fig. 1 proximate 41), and moving said operating assembly in relation to said equipment (42, and/or 40) while moving said equipment along said main trajectory ([0070]-[0073]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 29, wherein said main trajectory is circular (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 30, wherein said operating assembly (20, 21, 23) is moved in relation to said equipment by a translation movement (via movement of 21).
Regarding claim 31, Osswald discloses an apparatus (fig. 1) for automatic processing of articles (5), comprising: an operating assembly (20, 23) configured to interact with an article of said articles and to perform said processing ([0049]), and movable along a predefined movement trajectory ([0049]; “rotational movement about an axis of rotation 10” i.e. trajectory of rotation of drum 2),
an electric motor (39; [0059]) configured to move said operating assembly along at least a portion of said movement trajectory (via movement of drum 2),
an auxiliary guide element (54) alongside said movement trajectory ([0049]; “rotational movement about an axis of rotation 10” i.e. trajectory of rotation of drum 2) at least one segment of said movement trajectory, wherein said auxiliary guide (54) element is:
spaced from said movement trajectory by a distance equal to a deviation (28; See Fig. 1 @unloading position, 16) of said operating assembly from said movement trajectory such that said operating assembly can be moved in safe conditions (Fig. 1; [0052]-[0054]), and
configured to abut said operating assembly (20, 23) when said operating assembly moves away from said movement trajectory by a distance equal to said deviation, and to guide said operating assembly along a safety trajectory (Note; Applicant is claiming a fail state as part of the claimed invention implying that “when” an event should happen then another subsequent action should follow- The disclosure of Osswald will inherently result in the claimed failed state because if the distance of 28 moves a distance larger than 28 at the unloading position, then a portion of the operating assembly (e.g. 20 or 23) will inherently abut a portion of the guide element (outer surface of 54)).
. Regarding claim 32, wherein said operating assembly (20, 21, 23) is mounted on an equipment of said apparatus (Fig. 1), said equipment being movable with respect to a load- bearing structure (25) of said apparatus (Fig. 1).
. Regarding claim 33, wherein said load-bearing structure (25) is fixed and said equipment (42, and/or 40) rotates about a fixed rotation axis passing through said load-bearing structure (25).
Regarding claim 34, wherein a plurality of equipment (42) is mounted on said load-bearing structure (25), each equipment (42) provided with a respective operating assembly (20, 21).
Regarding claim 35, wherein said auxiliary guide element (52) is integral with said load-bearing structure (25; [0058]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-27 and 36-40 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited. Those references not relied upon are directed mainly toward an apparatus and method for controlling a movement of an operating assembly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS IGBOKWE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731