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 1 is objected to because of the following informality: “momentary” in line 14 should read “momentarily”.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informality: “varies” in line 2 should read “vary”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“of the stroke” in line 4 should read “of its stroke”.
“begins the stroke” in line 5 should read “begins its stroke”.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“articles, as” in line 1 should read “articles as”.
“momentary” in line 9 should read “momentarily”
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: “varies” in line 2 should read “vary”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality: “articles, as” in line 2 should read “articles as”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“of the stroke” in line 4 should read “of its stroke”.
“begins the stroke” in line 5 should read “begins its stroke”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality: “comprising” in line 1 should read “comprising:”.
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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the grippers" twice in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “the gripper” in both instances the limitation appears in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Robinson (US 5,671,587).
Regarding claim 15, Robinson discloses an applicator apparatus (120 in Figures 5, 26, and 30) for applying blanks (carriers 3 in Figures 26-28) to groups (groupings 5 in Figures 26-28) of articles (the “bottles” described throughout the specification of Robinson), as the articles (“bottles”) move along a travel path (Col. 6 lines 30-38), the applicator apparatus (120) comprising:
a plurality of first applicator tools (the leftmost block 122 and the rightmost block 122 in Figure 30) configured to press the blanks (carriers 3) onto alternating first ones of the groups (groupings 5) (clear when Figures 30 and 26 and Col. 15 lines 5-17 are considered together);
a plurality of second applicator tools (the topmost block 122 and the bottommost block 122 in Figure 30) configured to press the blanks (carriers 3) onto alternating second ones of the groups (groupings 5) (clear when Figures 30 and 26 and Col. 15 lines 5-17 are considered together); and
an applicator drive (124 in Figure 30; or the inherently-present actuator which causes 124 to rotate as described in Col. 15 lines 5-12 and Col. 14 lines 49-59) configured to rotate the first applicator tools (the leftmost block 122 and the rightmost block 122 in Figure 30) about a first axis (the axis of rotation of the leftmost and rightmost blocks 122 in Figure 30, which passes through the center of 124 and is perpendicular to the plane of Figure 30) and to rotate the second applicator tools (the topmost block 122 and the bottommost block 122 in Figure 30) about a second axis (the axis of rotation of the topmost and bottommost blocks 122 in Figure 30, which passes through the center of 124 and is perpendicular to the plane of Figure 30) (Col. 15 lines 5-12, Col. 14 lines 49-59).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowed.
Claim 14 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.
Claims 16-19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitations of claim 1 in combination with all the other limitations of claim 1:
“a feeder drive configured to rotate the grippers about an axis; and
a guide configured to position each one of the grippers along an orbital path during rotation about the axis such that each one of the grippers has at least two radial positions along the orbital path and that orbital motion of each one of the grippers along the orbital path is momentary paused at a first radial position to engage the blank”.
The prior art reference considered by the examiner to come closest to teaching the limitations of claim 1 is Robinson (US 5,671,587).
Robinson discloses a system (10 in Figure 5) for packaging articles (the “bottles” described throughout the specification of Robinson), the system (10) comprising:
a conveyor (112 in Figure 5) configured to convey groups (groupings 5 in Figures 26-28) of the articles (“bottles”) along a travel path (Col. 12 lines 38-41 and 56-63);
a feeder apparatus (100 in Figures 26 and 5) configured to transfer a blank (3 in Figures 26-28) to each one of the groups (groupings 5) as the articles (“bottles”) move along the travel path (Col. 6 lines 19-29); and
an applicator apparatus (120 in Figures 5, 26, and 30) configured to apply the blank (3) to each one of the groups (groupings 5) as the articles (“bottles”) move along the travel path (Col. 6 lines 30-38),
wherein:
the feeder apparatus (100) comprises a plurality of grippers (blocks 102 in Figure 26) configured to engage the blank (3) (Col. 6 lines 23-24, Col. 14 lines 8-10); and
the applicator apparatus (120) comprises:
a plurality of first applicator tools (the leftmost block 122 and the rightmost block 122 in Figure 30) configured to press the blank (3) onto alternating first ones of the groups (groupings 5) as the articles (“bottles”) move along the travel path (clear when Figures 30 and 26 and Col. 15 lines 5-17 are considered together);
a plurality of second applicator tools (the topmost block 122 and the bottommost block 122 in Figure 30) configured to press the blank (3) onto alternating second ones of the groups (groupings 5) as the articles (“bottles”) move along the travel path (clear when Figures 30 and 26 and Col. 15 lines 5-17 are considered together); and
an applicator drive (124 in Figure 30; or the inherently-present actuator which causes 124 to rotate as described in Col. 15 lines 5-12 and Col. 14 lines 49-59) configured to rotate the first applicator tools (the leftmost block 122 and the rightmost block 122 in Figure 30) about a first axis (the axis of rotation of the leftmost and rightmost blocks 122 in Figure 30, which passes through the center of 124 and is perpendicular to the plane of Figure 30) and to rotate the second applicator tools (the topmost block 122 and the bottommost block 122 in Figure 30) about a second axis (the axis of rotation of the topmost and bottommost blocks 122 in Figure 30, which passes through the center of 124 and is perpendicular to the plane of Figure 30) (Col. 15 lines 5-12, Col. 14 lines 49-59).
However, Robinson, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious the combination of limitations shown in quotation marks above.
Regarding claims 2-9, they are allowed solely because they depend from claim 1 which is allowed as explained above.
Regarding independent claim 10, the prior art taken alone or in combination fails to disclose or render obvious the following limitation of claim 10 in combination with all the other limitations of claim 10:
“orbital motion of the gripper along the orbital path is momentary paused at one of the radial positions to engage the blank; and
the gripper disengages the blank at another one of the radial positions to place the blank on the group”.
The prior art reference considered by the examiner to come closest to teaching the limitations of claim 10 is Mondani et al. (US 5,715,657), hereinafter Mondani.
Mondani discloses a feeder apparatus (11 in Figure 1) for transferring a blank (4 in Figure 1) to a group (rods 63 and 64 in Figure 1, collectively) of articles (rods 63 and 64), as the articles move along a travel path (clear from Figure 1), the feeder apparatus (11) comprising:
a gripper (25 in Figure 1) configured to engage and hold the blank (4) (as shown in Figure 1);
a feeder drive (27 in Figure 1) configured to rotate the gripper (25) about an axis (28 in Figure 1) (clear when Col. 3 lines 4-13 and Figure 1 are considered together); and
a guide (30 in Figure 1) configured to position the gripper (25) along an orbital path during rotation about the axis (28) such that the gripper (25) has at least two radial positions along the orbital path (clear when Col. 3 lines 31-46, Col. 4 line 62 – Col. 5 line 59, and Figure 1 are considered together).
However, Mondani, taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious the limitation shown in quotation marks above.
Regarding claims 11-14, they are allowed solely because they depend from claim 10 which is allowed as explained above.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, the closest prior art reference, Robinson (see 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 15 above), taken alone or in combination with the prior art as a whole and legal precedence, fails to teach or render obvious any of the limitations of these claims.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, they are indicated as being allowable solely because they depend from claim 17 which is allowable as explained above.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Richard (US 2017/0001740) also teaches a feeder apparatus (200 in Figures 1 and 2) comprising a gripper (210 in Figures 1 and 2), a feeder drive (220 in Figure 1), and a guide (230 in Figure 2) but fails to teach that orbital motion of the gripper along the orbital path is momentary paused at one of the radial positions to engage the blank.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights