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 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “any” should be deleted. 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 8-10 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the actuator” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, does not recite “an actuator”. For purposes of examination, claim 8 is being construed as reciting “an actuator”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the asymmetric cross-section” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, does not recite “an asymmetric cross-section”. For purposes of examination, claim 8 is being construed as depending from claim 3 which recites “an asymmetric cross-section”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the rotating belt” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, does not recite “a rotating belt”. For purposes of examination, claim 9 is being construed as depending from claim 5 which does recite a rotating belt.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the rotating belt” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, does not recite “a rotating belt”. For purposes of examination, claim 10 is being construed as depending from claim 5 which does recite a rotating belt.
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 1, 2, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bevilacqua (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0197995 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bevilacqua discloses a system for applying a label to an object (Abstract of Bevilacqua, machine for applying labels to containers), the system comprising: a conveyor system comprising a shuttle controllably moveable along a track ([0039] of Bevilacqua, LC shuttle #46 movable about the LC track), the shuttle comprising: a mount for holding an object to have the label applied to, the object having a longitudinal axis ([0039]-[0040] of Bevilacqua, LC shuttle includes container engagement platform #50 configured to engage the bottom of container; container necessarily has a longitudinal axis); and a rotation mechanism for rotating the object around the longitudinal axis ([0006] of Bevilacqua, container engagement platform in operative connection with a drive to rotate the platform); a label dispenser arranged adjacent the track in order to affix a first portion of a label dispensed onto the object on the shuttle ([0052] of Bevilacqua, device may include a label dispenser); and an applicator arranged opposite a surface of the object having the label affixed to, the applicator contacting the label as the object is rotated in order to affix the label to the surface of the object (FIG. 2, [0051] of Bevilacqua, device includes an applicator #108 arranged opposite a surface of the container; [0055] of Bevilacqua, applicator pushes label against container while container is rotated to wrap label around container).
Regarding claim 2, Bevilacqua discloses that the applicator is moveable to match a speed of the shuttle or a speed of the object at a contact location between the object and the applicator ([0051] of Bevilacqua, applicator #108 movable horizontally along the direction in which the containers travel).
Regarding claim 14, Bevilacqua discloses that the rotation mechanism comprises: a motor for rotating the object around the longitudinal axis; and a power source for operating the motor (FIG. 10, [0072] of Bevilacqua, servo motor with power source).
Regarding claim 18, Bevilacqua discloses that the rotation mechanism comprises a mechanical rotation mechanism (FIG. 10, [0072] of Bevilacqua, servo motor which is an electromechanical device,).
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.
Claims 3, 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevilacqua in view of Good, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 5,188,696).
Regarding claim 3, Bevilacqua does not disclose that the object has an asymmetric cross section about the longitudinal axis. Good, however, discloses a wrap around labeling machine for asymmetric containers (Abstract, 1:8-12 of Good). According to Good, it is convenient to apply a single wrap around label to asymmetric containers rather than separate back and front labels (1:18-20 of Good). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Bevilacqua to apply wrap around labels to asymmetric containers. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so since it is more convenient to apply a single wrap around label to asymmetric containers rather than separate back and front labels as taught by Good (1:18-20 of Good).
Regarding claim 4, Good discloses that the applicator comprises a tamping pad and Bevilacqua suggests that the tamping pad that is mounted to an actuator that moves the tamping pad parallel to the shuttle and matching the shuttle speed while contacting the label being applied to object in an application zone ([0051] of Bevilacqua, applicator #108 movable horizontally along the direction in which the containers travel; speed of applicator would necessarily have to match that of container to allow label to be applied during travel of container along track).
Regarding claim 8, Good discloses that the actuator can be moved towards and away from the surface of the object to account for the asymmetric cross-section of the object as it is rotated (FIG. 13 of Good, tapered guide bar #61).
Claims 5-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevilacqua in view of Kouda, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 5,904,804).
Regarding claim 5, Bevilacqua does not disclose that the applicator comprises a rotating belt. Kouda, however, discloses an apparatus for wrapping labels around items wherein the applicator comprises a rotating belt (Abstract, FIG. 1 of Kouda, label holder flat belt #11). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rotating belt of Kouda to apply labels in the device of Bevilacqua since Kouda establishes that it was known to apply wrap around labels using a rotating belt. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I A). The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art also would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, Bevilacqua suggests that the rotating belt is mounted to an actuator that moves the rotating belt parallel to the shuttle matching a shuttle speed while contacting the label being applied to object in an application zone ([0051] of Bevilacqua, applicator #108 movable horizontally along the direction in which the containers travel; speed of modified applicator would necessarily have to match that of container to allow label to be applied during travel of container along track).
Regarding claim 7, Kouda discloses that the rotating belt rotates at a speed to account for one or more of: the rotation of the object; and the shuttle speed (6:29-31 of Kouda, belt running at label wrapping speed which necessarily corresponds to the rotation speed of the object being wrapped; claim only requires one of the recited alternatives).
Regarding claim 9, Kouda discloses that a speed of the rotating belt is adjustable (FIG. 4 of Kouda, system including rotating label holder flat belt #11 driven by speed adjusting motor #24).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11-13, 15-17, 19 and 20 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.
Regarding claims 10, 11, 15 and 19, the closest prior art is to Bevilacqua. Neither Bevilacqua nor any of the other prior art references of record teach or reasonably suggest: a system as recited in claim 10 wherein the shuttle holds a plurality of objects, wherein a spacing between the plurality of objects on the shuttle allows respective objects to rotate a sufficient amount such that a surface of a subsequent object to contact the rotating belt is an equal distance from the rotating belt as a surface of the preceding object; a system as recited in claim 11 wherein the applicator is mounted on the shuttle; a system as recited in claim 15 wherein the mount holds a plurality of objects to be labeled; or a system as recited in claim 19 wherein the mechanical rotation mechanism comprises: a movable support coupled to the shuttle, the movable support comprising: a bearing secured to the moveable support in a fixed relative position; and a screw and nut arranged to translate relative linear movement between the screw and nut into rotational movement of the mount, wherein the system further comprises: a cam plate having a profile that the bearing contacts and causes relative linear movement between the screw and nut as the shuttle moves along the track.
Claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 11 and are therefore directed to allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 11. Claims 16 and 17 depend either directly or indirectly from claim 15 and are therefore directed to allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 11. Claim 20 depends from claim 19 and is therefore directed to allowable subject matter for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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 Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
