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 .
It is noted that the instant application is a continuation of US Patent Application No. 17/865,053, filed July 14, 2022, issued as US Patent No. 12,202685. Any information considered in the parent application has been considered in the instant application.
The specification, abstract, drawings and claims of December 26, 2024 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was/were submitted on March 28, 2025. The submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura (USPN 8978873) in view of Schoenberger (USPN 10434699), Babbit et al. (USPN 8733146) and German Document (DE29724903U1, copy and machine translation attached, hereafter ‘903).
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Shimomura (USPN 8978873) teaches a method comprising: operating, by a controller (control means 14), a series of servo motors (M1-M5) synchronously within a series of modules (“units”), wherein each module of the series of modules includes a respective servo motor of the series of servo motors that rotates a corresponding turret (4-12) for passing articles through the series of modules or for modifying a shape of the articles; detecting, by the controller, an error condition within the series of modules [Col. 4:27-39, “in case an abnormality occurs in any unit”, “abnormality occurring in the filler 9 here means a case where the third servomotor M3 cannot be controlled”], and stopping, by the controller, the operating of the series of servo motors within the series of modules based on the detecting of the error condition by stopping each servo motor individually within the series of modules [Col. 4:58-63, “control means 14 output a control pulse for stopping the servomotors M1, M2, M4 and M5…while activated the third brake”]. Shimomura fails to teach the error condition being at least one servo motor of the series of servo motors exceeding a torque threshold, a position threshold, or a combination of the torque threshold and the position threshold, the error condition indicating damage to at least one of the articles, a jam of at least one of the articles in a corresponding turret of the at least one servo motor, or a combination thereof; and wherein each servo motor of the series of servo motors is mechanically connected to the corresponding turret within the corresponding module by one or more gears, and the one or more gears of adjacent modules are mechanically isolated from each other. Schoenberger (USPN 10434699) teaches a sensor device that detects a torque [Col. 6:53-67] and if the torque rises, indicating a jam, a servo drive is switched off [Col. 7:1-11]. This protects machine components from the “detrimental consequences” of jams. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Shimomura such that the error condition being at least one servo motor of the series of servo motors exceeding a torque threshold, a position threshold, or a combination of the torque threshold and the position threshold, the error condition indicating damage to at least one of the articles, a jam of at least one of the articles in a corresponding turret of the at least one servo motor, or a combination thereof as taught by Schoenberger. The machine components would then be protected from “detrimental consequences”. Babbit et al. (USPN 8733146) teaches a machine arrangement having modules (20) and teaches a motor (90) mechanically connected to a turret (60) through one or more gears (66, 94). ‘903 teaches turrets (1, 5, 6) having motors (M1, M5, M6, respectively) driving each respective turret, the motors being mechanically isolated from each other. This reduces noise, as gears between turrets are no longer needed. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimomura such that each servo motor of the series of servo motors is mechanically connected to the corresponding turret within the corresponding module by one or more gears, and the one or more gears of adjacent modules are mechanically isolated from each other to reduce noise. As gears between turret modules are no longer needed, the noise from those gears interacting is absent.
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Shimomura teaches disabling, by the controller, the at least one servo motor to allow manual rotation of the corresponding turret separate from the series of turrets [Col. 3:47-49, “servomotor M1 turns into a free running state”], yet fails to teach the error condition is the jam of the at least one article. Schoenberger teaches the error condition is the jam of at least one article (due to the rise in torque). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the error condition be the jam of at least one article. Detecting the jam would reduce damage to the components.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, Shimomura teaches disabling, by the controller, one or more adjacent servo motors of the at least one servo motor to allow manual rotation of corresponding turrets of the one or more adjacent servo motors separate from the series of turrets [Col. 4:40-44, “the drive shaft of the third servomotor M3 to turn into the free-running state”].
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Shimomura teaches the series of servo motors comes to a full stop in 4 seconds or less upon the stopping of the operating [Col. 3:57-63, “stop the star wheels…in about 1 second”].
Regarding Claim(s) 9, Shimomura teaches the series of servo motors comes to a full stop in 2.5 seconds or less upon the stopping of the operating [Col. 3:57-63, “stop the star wheels…in about 1 second”].
Regarding Claim(s) 11, Shimomura teaches one or more turrets within the series of modules have different moments of inertia (the wheels are illustrated in different sizes; therefore, the wheels would have different moments of inertia).
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimomura in view of Schoenberger, Babbit et al. and ‘903 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sorbi (USPN 10450179).
Regarding Claim(s) 3 and 5, Shimomura teaches the limitations described above, yet fails to teach aligning the series of servo motors amongst each other according to a virtual axis prior to the operating of the series of servo motors; and re-aligning, by the controller, the at least one servo motor with the virtual axis after the removing of the at least one container. Sorbi (USPN 10450179) teaches a synchronization system having rotating wheels (25, 29, 35, 39) and teaches a virtual axis (V), the physical axes of rotation of the wheels 35 and 39 being coupled to and tracking the axis [Col. 5:35-40]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to align and re-align the servo motor with a virtual axis. Aligning the servo motor to the virtual axis would reduce the time needed for synchronization [Col. 8:13-20].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,202,685. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant claims is fully encompassed by the subject matter of the patented claims.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, ‘685 teaches a method comprising: operating, by a controller, a series of servo motors synchronously within a series of modules, wherein each module of the series of modules includes a respective servo motor of the series of servo motors that rotates a corresponding turret for passing articles through the series of modules or for modifying a shape of the articles [Claim 1]; detecting, by the controller, an error condition within the series of modules, the error condition being at least one servo motor of the series of servo motors exceeding a torque threshold, a position threshold, or a combination of the torque threshold and the position threshold, the error condition indicating damage to at least one of the articles, a jam of at least one of the articles in a corresponding turret of the at least one servo motor, or a combination thereof [Claim 1]; and stopping, by the controller, the operating of the series of servo motors within the series of modules based on the detecting of the error condition by stopping each servo motor individually within the series of modules [Claim 1], wherein each servo motor of the series of servo motors is mechanically connected to the corresponding turret within the corresponding module by one or more gears, and the one or more gears of adjacent modules are mechanically isolated from each other [Claim 12].
Regarding Claim(s) 2, see claim 2 of ‘685.
Regarding Claim(s) 3, see claim 3 of ‘685.
Regarding Claim(s) 4, see claim 4 of ‘685.
Regarding Claim(s) 5, see claim 5 of ‘685.
Regarding Claim(s) 6, see claims 1 and 6 of ‘685.
Regarding Claim(s) 7, see claims 1 and 7 of ‘685.
Regarding Claim(s) 8, see claim 8 of ‘685.
Regarding Claim(s) 9, see claim 9 of ‘685.
Regarding Claim(s) 10, see claim 13 of ‘685.
Regarding Claim(s) 11, see claim 14 of ‘685.
Regarding Claim(s) 12, see claim 15 of ‘685.
Regarding Claim(s) 13, see claim 16 of ‘685.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 10434699 discloses monitoring the torque of a motor for a turret.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM RAY HARP whose telephone number is (571)270-5386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH can be reached on (571) 272-7805. 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.
/WILLIAM R HARP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights