DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The “industrial robot having a mechanical type gripper”, as recited in Claim 1;
The “trays”, as recited in Claim 1;
The “industrial robot having a suction cup type vacuum gripper as end effector”, as recited in Claims 2 and 12;
The “vision system, arranged for picking products in a random disorderly pattern from said infeed transport device, and placing said picked products on further products on said infeed transport device in a staggered manner”, as recited in Claims 2 and 12;
The “formation device, comprising a mechanical formation unit arranged for receiving products from said infeed transport device in a random disorderly pattern, and outputting said products on said infeed transport device in a staggered manner”, as recited in Claim 3;
The “cam elements being arranged to receive a first product of said group of staggered products for maintaining said first product in an inclined manner”, as recited in Claim 12; and
The “transporting cartridges, each being arranged to receive a group of staggered products”, as recited in Claim 13.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“105” and “106, as shown in Fig. 1;
“114”, as shown in Figs. 3A-3C .
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 18, lines 29-33, the reference character “120” is used with both the “conveyor” and the “packing device”.
On page 21, Lines 9-19, the name “holding element” is used with both reference characters “111” and “115”
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
The “infeed transport device, such as a conveyor belt, arranged for infeed of said flat baked products”, as recited in Claim 1 (Note: The phrase “such as a conveyor belt” is construed to be optional language as discussed below in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, and because this language is optional, it does not provide the required structure to take the “infeed transport device” out of the 35 USC 112f analysis);
The “holding element, disposed at a first longitudinal end of said retainer, and configured for an open position for loading said group of staggered products, and a closed position for unloading said slug”, as recited in Claims 1, 14, and 15;
The “pushing element, disposed at a second, longitudinal end of said retainer, opposite of said first end, and configured for displacement of said pushing element in longitudinal direction into said retainer for compacting said group of staggered products into a slug”, as recited in Claims 1, 14, and 15;
The “vision system, arranged for picking products in a random disorderly pattern from said infeed transport device, and placing said picked products on further products on said infeed transport device in a staggered manner”, as recited in Claims 2 and 12;
The “formation device, comprising a mechanical formation unit arranged for receiving products from said infeed transport device in a random disorderly pattern, and outputting said products on said infeed transport device in a staggered manner”, as recited in Claim 3;
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 § 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 1-15 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 1 recites, “A handling system for forming and handling slugs of flat baked products such as biscuits and cookies from a feed of said flat baked products, said system comprising:
an infeed transport device, such as a conveyor belt, arranged for infeed of said flat baked products;
a slug gripper device, comprising at least one industrial robot having a mechanical type gripper as end-effector, arranged for loading a group of products in a staggered orientation from said infeed transport device, and unloading said loaded group on to;
an outfeed transport device, comprising a conveyor belt, chain conveyor or a flight bar, said outfeed transport device being arranged for outfeed of trays loaded with said slugs;
wherein said gripper of said slug gripper device is arranged to load said group of staggered products, form a slug from said group, and unload said slug into said outfeed transport device, said gripper comprising:
a longitudinal retainer comprising elongated wall elements extending along a longitudinal direction of said gripper and configured for an open position for loading said group of staggered products, and a closed position for unloading said slug into a tray transported by said outfeed transport device, wherein said wall elements can be displaced as a jaw type gripper, moving in transverse direction, away from each other into said open position and towards each other into said closed position;
a holding element, disposed at a first longitudinal end of said retainer, and configured for an open position for loading said group of staggered products, and a closed position for unloading said slug;
a pushing element, disposed at a second, longitudinal end of said retainer, opposite of said first end, and configured for displacement of said pushing element in longitudinal direction into said retainer for compacting said group of staggered products into a slug.”
Claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
The phrase "such as" renders Claim 1 indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “mechanical type” gripper renders Claim 1 indefinite because it is unclear as to what the word “type” adds to the scope of “mechanical”. For example, most end effectors can be classified as “electro-mechanical” in nature since there are both mechanical and electrical components in the end effecter. It is unclear whether an end effector having both mechanical and electrical components would be encompassed by the phrase “mechanical type gripper”.
Claims 14 and 15 are indefinite for the same reasons as identified above for claim 1. More specifically claims 14 and 15 recite the same “such as” and the “mechanical type”. Claims 14 and 15 are also indefinite because while these claims are directed to a different subject matter (i.e., claim 14 is directed to a “slug gripper device” and claim 15 is directed to a “a gripper device according to claim 14”), the scope of the body of the claims is the same. More particularly, both claims 14 and 15 recite “a longitudinal retainer”, “a holding element”, and “a pushing element”, with the details of each of these three recited elements being the same in Claims 1, 14, and 15. As such because claim 14 depends on claim 1, it is unclear whether claim 14 is attempting to recite additional elements, i.e., another ” longitudinal retainer”, “a holding element”, and “a pushing element”. Similarly, because claim 15 depends on claim 14 it is unclear whether claim 15 is also attempting to recite additional elements.
Claim 2 recites, “The handling system according to claim 1, wherein said products are infeed in a random disorderly pattern, and said system comprising: a formation device, comprising at least one industrial robot having a suction cup type vacuum gripper as end-effector, and a vision system, arranged for picking products in a random disorderly pattern from said infeed transport device, and placing said picked products on further products on said infeed transport device in a staggered manner, forming a group of staggered products.” The term “suction cup type vacuum gripper” is indefinite because it is unclear as to what the word “type” adds to the scope of “suction cup”. In addition the use of both “suction” and “vacuum” is ambiguous since these two terms are considered to be synonymous with each other. In addition, it is unclear how a vision system is capable of both picking products and placing products since a vision system is not a gripper.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. As noted above in the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, while claims 14 and 15 are directed to different subject matter, the body of claims 14 and 15 is exactly the same as claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1-15 of copending Application No. 19/080,023, published as US 2025/0289145 (referred to as the “US ‘023 application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims have one independent claim 1 which is directed to a handling system for forming and handling slugs of flat baked products. The only difference between claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of the US ‘023 application is that the “holding element” is disposed at a first longitudinal end of the retainer, the pushing element is disposed at a second longitudinal end of the retainer and “opposite of said first end”, where the underlying terms are omitted from the US ‘023 application. The document titled “Comparison of the claims in related applications 19/079, 578 and 19/080, 023”, attached to this office action provides a summary of the changes. Many of the dependent claims in the present application similarly omit the words/phrase “first”, “second”, and “opposite of the first end”, and replace the words “1st” and “2nd” with the phrase “leading or trailing”. As such, the claims of the present application have substantially the same scope as the claims of the US ‘023 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims Claim 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,397,950, issued to inventor Buitenhuis (referred to as the “US ‘950 patent), in view of Finkowski et al., US 8,407,973. US ‘950 discloses a gripper for a handling device arranged for forming slugs of flat baked products that includes a longitudinal retainer comprising elongated wall elements, a loading element, wherein the gripper is configured for attaching to a robot. US ‘950 also includes claims directed to a handling device arranged for forming slugs of flat baked products that includes one or more robots having a gripper, and infeed for products from a conveyor and an outfeed where slugs of products are unloaded onto a conveyor of a packing device, the device also including vision means for determining a position of each of the products, and a controller for controlling the robot. Finkowski discloses a handling system for food products that includes a formation device (69, Figs. 3-5) and a gripper device, the gripper device (175, Fig. 6) having a longitudinal retainer having elongated wall elements (184, 185, Fig. 6), a holding element (182), and a pushing element (181, C6, L6 – C7, L12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of Applicant's invention, to modify US ‘950 to include a formation device and a pushing element because these structures will allow a slug of products to be compactly formed and placed in packaging that minimizes the spacing between products, as taught by Finkowski (C6, L63 -C7, L12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references disclose one or more of the claimed features: US 5, 095, 684; US 6, 438, 925; and US 2012/0000748.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN E SCHWENNING whose telephone number is (313)446-4861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5 pm EST.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571) 272 -7097. 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.
/LYNN E SCHWENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652