DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
A replacement Sheet for new Figs. 14a-b and 15a-b was received on March 18, 2026. These drawings are acceptable. The Drawing Objection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed March 18, 2026, with respect to Claims 1, 5, 12, and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-12, filed March 18, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of Claims 1-18 have been fully considered but they are only partially persuasive:
With regard to the 35 USC 103 rejection of Claims 1-15, Applicant argues that JP ‘152 does not teach a connecting device that moves, and therefore fails to teach the claimed limitation “the connecting device is suitable and formed to effect an essentially coplanar length compensation”, (See Applicant’s Response, page 9), this limitation now amended to “length reciprocation”. Upon further review of the JP ‘152 reference, the Examiner agrees that the connector (20/21) does not move.
Applicant further argues that [while] “JP ‘795 discloses quite a similar structure used for length compensation. However, JP ‘795 relates to a different technical field and show a specific air removal system.” (See Applicant’s Response, page 10.) While it is true that JP ‘795 discloses a length compensation for a vacuum system, it is maintained that this reference is reasonably
pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, and therefore, can be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the problem to be addressed is how to provide an air flow, under either a positive or negative pressure, to component that moves.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (See Applicant’s Response, pages 11-12), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, the 35 USC 103 rejection of Claims 1-15 is maintained, with modifications to address the incorrect characterization of JP ‘152.
With regard to the 35 USC 103 rejection of Claims 16-18, Applicant relies upon the arguments directed to independent Claims 1 and 15, from which these claims depend. Because the rejections of Claims 1 and 15 is maintained, this rejection is also maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlers et al., US 2015/0307292, in view of JPH 07330152 (“JP ‘152”; cited by Applicant; English translation from the EPO provided which will be referenced below since this version provides paragraph numbers for each paragraph) and JPH 0492795 (“JP ‘795”; cited by Applicant).
With regard to Claim 1, Ahlers discloses a depositing table for a palletizing device for palletizing sacks (200, Figs. 1-8, [0034]-[0043]), comprising:
at least one depositing device (114, Figs. 1-3, 8) ,
at least one displacing device (Figs. 1 and 3 show that sliding table (114) has two sections which are moved apart as indicated by the arrows pointing in opposite directions, wherein a displacing device would be inherent in order to allow the two sections of the depositing table to move apart); and
at least one air feeding device ([0012], [0038]);
wherein the depositing device is formed such that it can be moved by means of the displacing device at least between a closed position and an open position (Figs. 1, 3, [0034]-[0036]);
wherein an upper side of the depositing device comprises at least one depositing surface for receiving at least one sack layer (Figs. 1, 3);
wherein the depositing device is formed such that air is flown through at least in sections ([0012], [0038]); and
wherein the depositing surface has at least one air discharging opening ([0012], [0038]).
Ahlers fails to teach specific structures used to provide air to the depositing device and the spatial and/or operational details of these structures.
JP ‘152 discloses a depositing table (A, B, C, D, F, Figs. 1-10, [0001]-[0034]) that includes a depositing device (2, 3, Figs. 2, 5, [0003], [0017]), a displacing device (4, 6, 7, 8, 9, [0003]), and an air feeding device (19, 20, 21, 22, [0005], [0018]), wherein:
the air feeding device comprises at least one air guiding element with at least one air outlet opening (the structure (21) disposed between blower (19) and movable connector (20) as shown in Fig. 1) and at least one connecting device (20, Figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6a-6b, 7a-7b, 8a-8b),
the connecting device (20) is arranged between the air outlet opening of the air guiding element (the structure (21) disposed between blower (19) and movable connector (20) as shown in Fig. 1) and the air feeding opening of the depositing device (the openings in end face plate (16), as shown in Figs. 2, 5),
with regard to Claim 4, the connecting device (20) is present in a plane parallel to the depositing device (Figs. 1, 3),
with regard to Claim 14, at least one blower device is connected to the air inlet of the air guiding element (19, Figs. 1, 3).
JP ‘795 discloses a suction transfer device that includes a movable body (3, Figs. 1-2; 53, Figs. 6-7) having:
an air feeding opening located on a first, lower side of the movable body (3, 53, wherein the air enters at the suction cups (12A, 12B) and passes through chamber (11) and pipe (13), which, as shown in Figs. 1-2, is on a first, bottom side of the movable body (3); the air enters through suction cups (58) and pipe (59), which, as shown in Figs. 6-7, is also located on the same first side of movable body (53)),
the movable body (3, 53) also has an air discharging opening (the opening located at (5b), Figs. 1-2; the opening located at (54c), Figs. 6-7) located on a second, opposite, upper side of the movable body,
the movable body (3, 53) is pneumatically connected to a connecting device (5, 5a/5b/5c, Figs. 1-2; 54, 54a/54b/54c, Figs. 6-7), an air guiding element (2, 7, Figs. 1-2; 52, 56, Figs. 6-7), and an air feeding device (9, Figs. 1-2 ),
the movable body is displaced by a displacing device (4, 14, Figs. 1-2; 50, Fig. 6-7),
the connecting device (5, Figs. 1-2; 54, Figs. 6-7) is suitable and formed to effect an essentially coplanar length compensation between the air guiding element (2, 7, Figs. 1-2; 52, 56, Figs. 6-7) and the movable body (3, Figs. 1-2; 53, Figs. 6-7) when the movable body is moved by the displacing device (4, 14, Figs. 1-2; 50, Fig. 6-7; wherein the connecting device stays in the same horizontal plane but expands and contracts to accommodate the difference in distances between the “one” and “other” positions as described in the “Prior Art”, “Problem to be solved”, “Means for solving the problem”, and Action and effects” sections of the English translation),
with regard to Claim 2, the connecting device (54, Figs. 6-7) is formed in a telescopable manner at least in sections (54a, 54b, 54c, “Prior art” section of the translation),
with regard to Claim 3, the air guiding element (2, 7, Figs. 1-2; 52, 56, Figs. 6-7) is stationary (“Prior art” and “Examples” section of the translation),
with regard to Claim 4, the connecting device (5, Figs. 1-2; 54, Figs. 6-7) is present in a plane parallel to the depositing device (Figs. 2, 7),
with regard to Claim 5, the connecting device (5, Figs. 1-2; 54, Figs. 6-7), is rotatably connected to the air guiding element (“Prior art” and “Examples” section of the translation),
with regard to Claim 6, the connecting device (5, Figs. 1-2; 54, Figs. 6-7) is arranged transversely to the moving direction of the depositing device (3, 53, Figs. 1, 6),
with regard to Claim 7, the air outlet opening of the air guiding element (the opening at (2,3) as shown in Fig. 1; the opening at (52) as shown in Fig. 6) is spaced apart equally from the air feeding opening to the depositing device (the opening associated with (5b) that is adjacent movable body (3) as shown in Fig. 1; the opening associated with (5c) that is adjacent movable body (53) as shown in Fig. 6) in the closed/one and open/other positions (Figs. 1, 6, which show the air outlet opening of the air guiding element as being positioned approximately equidistant from the sides of the device, thereby making the distances from the air guiding element to the end of the connecting device where it enters the depositing device/movable body equidistant),
with regard to Claims 8 and 9, the connecting device has a maximum extension when the depositing device/movable body is in the closed/one or open/other positions and at a minimum position when between the closed/one or open/other positions (Figs. 1, 6, which show the air outlet opening of the air guiding element as being positioned approximately equidistant from the sides of the device, thereby making the distances from the air guiding element to the end of the connecting device where it enters the depositing device/movable body equidistant when the depositing device/movable body is in the closed/one and open/other positions at its maximum value and conversely at its minimum value when in between these two positions),
with regard to Claims 10-11, the connecting device comprises at least one pipe-in-pipe system that is not fluid tight (54a, 54b, 54c, Figs. 6-7, “Prior art” and “Problem to be solved” sections of the translation),
with regard to Claim 12, the connecting device comprises at least one bellows (5c, Figs. 1-5, “Examples” section of the translation)
with regard to Claim 13, the connecting device comprises at least one carrier device (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, Figs. 3-5, “Examples” section of the translation),
with regard to Claim 14, at least one blower is connected to the air inlet of the air guiding element (6, Fig. 1; 55, Fig. 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of Applicant's invention,:
To modify the Ahler’s depositing table to include a connecting device similar to that taught by the combination of JP ‘152 because it would provide a compact, low-profile air feeding device that is that is connected to the moving depositing device, as taught/shown by JP ‘152.
To modify the Ahler’s/JP ‘152 depositing table to use an air feeding device that includes a movable connecting device and an air guiding element similar to those disclosed in JP ‘795 because this type of air feeding device is more compact than the air feeding device of JP ‘152 since it uses an extendable/retractable connecting device. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to modify the stationary connecting device of JP ‘152 to be a movable connecting device similar to that as taught by JP ‘495 using known methods and the modification would yield only predictable results. Although JP ‘795 is directed to a suction device that operates to lift objects, the ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that basic pneumatic components of this device can be easily modified to provide compressed air instead of a suction using known methods and the modification would yield only predictable results.
To modify the Ahler’s depositing table to include a blower because the use of a blower to provide compressed air is well known and often used in the material handling field (as evidenced by their use in JP ‘152 and JP ‘795), and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make this modification using known methods and the modification would yield only predictable results.
To modify the Ahler’s/JP ‘152/JP ‘795 depositing table to make other portions of the air feeding device stationary because it would make the air feeding device more secure and reliable since the stationary portions would not be subject to degradation that can result from movement and vibration.
To modify Ahler’s/JP ‘152/JP ‘795 depositing table to position an air feeding opening on a first side of the depositing device/movable body and an air discharging opening on a second, opposite side of the depositing device/movable body, as shown by JP ‘795, because this type of opposed sides/spatial orientation of feeding and discharging openings in an air cushion plate is well known and often used in pneumatic systems (e.g., see US 3,300,065, US 5,800,118, and US 5,868,549), and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make this modification using known methods and the modification would yield only predictable results.
To modify the Ahler’s/JP ‘152/JP ‘795 depositing table to use a pneumatic rotary feedthrough device to supply air between the air guiding element and the connecting device and/or the connecting device and the depositing device because pneumatic rotary feedthrough devices are well-known devices used to transfer gaseous media between two components that are rotating relative to one another (see e.g., US 6,857,457 and US 9,649,893) and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make this modification using known methods and the modification would yield only predictable results.
To modify the Ahler’s/JP ‘152/JP ‘795 depositing table to use a connecting device that is expandable and retractable through the use of pipe-in-pipe system, bellows, or a carrier device because all of structures were well known and often used in the material handling field (as evidenced in their use in JP ‘795) to change the length of a structure, and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make this modification using known methods and the modification would yield only predictable results.
With regard to the limitations directed to the distance between the air guiding element and the end of the connecting device, and the maximum and minimum lengths of the connecting device, rearranging parts of an invention (so as to affect these distances and lengths) involves only routine skill in the art and a motivation for doing so would be make the overall device as compact as possible. The compactness of a device can be achieved by making the maximum distances of a component used in the device equidistant and located at the edges of the device, as shown by JP ‘795. (See MPEP 2144.04.VI)
With regard to Claim 15, Ahlers discloses a palletizing device (100, Figs. 1-3) that includes at least one conveying device (10) with at least one conveying element (20) for conveying piece goods (210) and a depositing table (see Claim 1 above).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahlers in view of JP ‘152 and JP ‘795, as applied to Claim 15, and further in view of Kwauka et al., US 4,614,473. While Ahlers discloses the use of a conveying device/elements (10, 20, Figs. 2-3), and the combination of Ahlers, JP ‘152, and JP ‘795 teach a depositing table having a depositing device and an air feeding device that includes a connecting device and an air guiding element (as described above for Claim 1), the combination fails to teach the depositing device and its associated air feeding device that includes the connecting device and the air guiding element, being arranged between the upper and lower runs of conveyor elements. Kwauka discloses a palletizing device for palletizing piece goods (15, Figs. 1-10, C2, L37 – C8, L62) that includes at least one conveying device (10,20, Figs. 1-3) having an upper run (3) and a lower run (4), and a depositing device/intermediate plate (5) that receives the piece goods from the conveying device/elements, the depositing device being displaceable between the upper run and the lower run of the conveying element (Figs. 2A-2D). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of Applicant's invention, to modify the Ahlers/JP ‘152/JP ‘795 depositing device, connecting device, and air guiding element such that these components in configured to fit between the upper and lower runs of a conveying device/elements, similar to Kwauka’s depositing device and configuration, because it would allow the depositing table to be more compact and take up less space, as taught by Kwauka (C2, L6-9). In Ahlers, the depositing table is essentially “L” shaped (see Figs. 2-3), which takes up space in both the length and the width directions. In addition, Ahler’s depositing device also takes up additional space in the length direction when the two sections of the depositing device (114) move apart as shown by the arrows in Fig. 3. As such, Ahler’s depositing table creates a larger footprint than Kwauka’s depositing table because there would no additional extension in the length direction to accommodate the expanding depositing device (114). and the extension in the width direction would be minimal because the space between the upper and lower runs could be configured to accommodate the width of the combined depositing device, connecting device, and air guiding element, similarly to as shown in Kwauka (Fig. 2C, C3, L15-20). The ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated by the teachings of Kwauka to configure the moving connecting device such that it also could fit between the upper and lower runs of the conveying elements, and to locate the stationary air guiding element out of the way of the movable depositing device and connecting device (e.g., see Fig. 3 and C3, L29-40, which shows/describes the displacing device for the depositing device (60, 5) being located out of the way but present in a compact space). The ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make these modifications using known methods and the modification would yield only predictable results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights