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 .
Summary
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final Rejection on the merits.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are currently pending and considered below.
Drawings
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:
Numeral 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.
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.
The following element(s) is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1, “elongated wall elements… for loading… and… for unloading,” referring to longitudinal walls 112
Claim 1, “a holding element… for loading… and… for unloading,” referring to a holding element 111
Claim 1, “a pushing element… configured for displacement,” referring to a pushing element 113
Claim 12, “cam elements… arranged to receive,” see 112(b) rejection shown below.
Claim 13, “a conveyor means… configured for transporting,” referring to a conveyor 121
Claim 14, “elongated wall elements… for loading… and… for unloading,” referring to longitudinal walls 112
Claim 14, “a holding element… for loading… and… for unloading,” referring to a holding element 111
Claim 14, “a pushing element… configured for displacement,” referring to a pushing element 113
Claim 15, “elongated wall elements… for loading… and… for unloading,” referring to longitudinal walls 112
Claim 15, “a holding element… for loading… and… for unloading,” referring to a holding element 111
Claim 15, “a pushing element… configured for displacement,” referring to a pushing element 113
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, introduction of “flat baked products such as biscuits and cookies ” renders the claim indefinite because examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim, making it unclear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language (“for example,” “such as”). For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as mere example.
Regarding claim 1, introduction of “an infeed transport device, such as a conveyor belt” renders the claim indefinite because examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim, making it unclear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language (“for example,” “such as”). For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as intended scope of the claim, reading “an infeed transport device comprising a conveyor belt”
Claim limitation “cam elements… arranged to receive” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specification and Drawings as originally filed fail to disclose corresponding structure. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 12, introduction of “wherein said cam elements are preferably placed in groups of two elements” renders the claim indefinite because examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim, making it unclear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language (“for example,” “such as”). For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as a mere example.
Regarding claim 12, introduction of “wherein said cam elements are preferably placed in groups of two elements” renders the claim indefinite because, in addition to the rejections immediately above, the limitation fails to reference in what “two elements” the cam elements are preferably paced. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is disregarded as it is considered a mere example as analyzed above.
Regarding claim 13, introduction of “wherein cartridges are preferably configured for receiving said holding element of said gripper upon loading said group by said gripper and scooping said holding element under said leading or trailing product of said group in a respective cartridge.” renders the claim indefinite because examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim, making it unclear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language (“for example,” “such as”). For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as intended scope of the claim, omitting the term “preferably”.
Regarding claim 14, introduction of “flat baked products such as biscuits and cookies ” renders the claim indefinite because examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim, making it unclear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language (“for example,” “such as”). For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as mere example.
Regarding claim 15, introduction of “flat baked products such as biscuits and cookies ” renders the claim indefinite because examples and preferences lead to confusion over the intended scope of the claim, making it unclear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation. See MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language (“for example,” “such as”). For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted as mere example.
All dependent claims of the above claims inherit all of the limitations and thus are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claims in this application have been allowed because the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the claimed invention including the following features:
“a holding element, disposed at a 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 longitudinal end of said retainer, and configured for displacement of said pushing element in longitudinal direction into said retainer for compacting said group of staggered products into a slug.”.
Closest prior art of record, Straub to US 6,438,925 B1, discloses a similar handling system as claim 1; however, Straub fails to disclose above limitations. Other prior art of record (see PTO-892 mailed herewith) fails to remedy Straub’s deficiencies. Therefore, arriving at the claimed limitation without teachings or suggestions from prior art of record would be impermissible hind sight reconstruction of the applicant's invention.
The combination of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over the prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate or make obvious the Applicant's claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892 Notice of References Cited).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Himchan Song whose telephone number is (571)272-4142. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 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 at (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 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.
/HIMCHAN SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights