DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites, “…wherein the first manipulator forms layers are made up of…” which appears to contain a grammatical error. It is recommended that the claim is amended to recite, “…wherein the first manipulator forms layers made up of…” or some variation thereof to overcome this objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC §112f
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 elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Regarding claim 8, “means for picking and handling both bagged and unbagged batches” (because A – “means for” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “for picking and handling bagged and unbagged batches” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body. A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is a double manipulator, comprising two independent devices (4P) (see page 7, lines 31-32) or equivalent.
If the 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(b)
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.
Claims 8-14 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 8, the claim first recites a first manipulator comprising “means for picking and handling…” but later recites that the first manipulator comprises “one or more devices for picking up and handling…”. It is unclear if these are the same elements or separate elements, rendering the boundaries of the claim indefinite. If they are intended to be the same structural element, consistent terminology must be used to avoid rendering the boundaries of the claim indefinite.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, both claims introduce the phrase “the bagged or unbagged lots”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Independent claim 8 only provides antecedent basis for “batches,” not “lots.” This creates ambiguity regarding whether a “lot” is a distinct component from a “batch.” To overcome this rejection, applicants should amend the claims to provide proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites, “…an elevator on which area arranged guides adjustable in width and is configured to delimit… a space.” Due to the syntactical structure and subject-verb disagreement (the plural “guides” versus the singular “is configured”), it is unclear whether the elevator is configured to delimit the space, or if the guides are configured to delimit the space. Applicants should amend the claim to clarify which structural element performs the delimiting function.
Regarding claims 10 and 13-14, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence upon rejected claims indicated above.
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 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 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gatteschi (EP 1550610).
Regarding claim 8, Gatteschi discloses a processing and palletizing unit (10) for packaged products, comprising: a first section (See section with devices (20) and (31)) for forming and bagging product batches (Described in paragraph [0016]) and a second palletizing section (See section (30) with device (32)), wherein, in the first section, there are arranged a device (20) for forming batches (12) each formed by a predetermined number (See paragraphs [0016] & [0017]) of packages (11) containing a predetermined number of items (See paragraph [0016] - "rolls"), a bagging tunnel (Within device (20); see further paragraph [0018]) in which the batches (12) can be bagged (Described in paragraph [0018]) and a first manipulator (31) comprising means for picking and handling both (See paragraph [0020]) bagged and unbagged batches (12), wherein the first manipulator (31) forms layers (15) are made up of bagged or unbagged batches (See paragraph [0021]) oriented according to a pre-established order (Described in paragraph [0023]), wherein in the second section a second manipulator (32) is arranged for picking up (See paragraph [0023]) the layers (15) and positioning them on a pallet (17), wherein the first manipulator (31) comprises one or more devices (See paragraph [0020] wherein "grippers" are described; the tools for gripping are even disclosed in plural, i.e. even "more devices" are disclosed) for picking up and handling bagged or unbagged batches (12), which devices ("grippers") are bounded to a structure arranged in a fixed position at the exit of the bagging tunnel in said first section (shown in figures; device (31) which can handle bagged or unbagged batches (12), which means the first manipulator is located, at a fixed position, at the exit of the "bagging tunnel". See further paragraph [0020]) for forming the batches (Described in paragraph [0021] - [0023]).
Regarding claim 10, Gatteschi further discloses wherein the first manipulator comprises a single device for picking up and handling the bagged or unbagged batches (See paragraph [0020] - "at least one robot or manipulator 31...". Figure 1 further shows that the unit can operate when fed with only one row of batches, utilizing one gripping robot).
Regarding claim 11, Gatteschi further discloses wherein the first manipulator comprises two independent devices for picking up and handling the bagged or unbagged lots (Figure 1 shows that the bagging machine (20) supplies two rows of batches of products (12) to the same number of robots (31)).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
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.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatteschi in view of Heston (WO 2018/064259 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Gatteschi does not specifically teach wherein the structure to which the devices for picking up and handling the bagged or unbagged batches are connected is a beam oriented along an exit direction of the bagged or unbagged lots from the bagging tunnel.
Heston teaches wherein the structure to which the devices for picking up and handling the bagged or unbagged batches are connected is a beam oriented along an exit direction of the bagged or unbagged lots from the bagging tunnel (Figures 1 and 7A illustrate a structure with multiple beams (18-23) on which the manipulators are attached).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gatteschi to incorporate the teachings of Heston to include the manipulators arranged on beams with the motivation of providing a structure wherein the manipulators can be articulated for movement with the articles as they travel downstream, as recognized by Heston in paragraphs [0069] – [0071].
Regarding claim 14, Gatteschi does not specifically teach wherein each device for picking up and handling the batches comprises a two-jaw gripper with a first actuator which controls the opening and closing of the jaws and a second actuator which controls the rotation of the gripper around a respective axis of rotation.
Heston teaches wherein each device for picking up and handling the batches comprises a two-jaw gripper with a first actuator which controls the opening and closing of the jaws and a second actuator which controls the rotation of the gripper around a respective axis of rotation (Described in paragraphs [0071] & [0078], and is shown in figures 1 and 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gatteschi to incorporate the teachings of Heston to include the manipulators having multiple actuation directions (open/closing and rotation) with the motivation of providing a structure by which the manipulators can individually grip articles during transportation for interleaving or staggering articles as per a desired build pattern, as recognized by Heston in paragraphs [0078] – [0079].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gatteschi in view of Chase (US 2005/0126123 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Gatteschi does not specifically teach wherein guides adjustable in width are provided in the bagging tunnel and configured to delimit, on two opposite sides, a space for the batches that is centered with respect to a center line of the processing and palletizing unit.
Chase teaches wherein guides adjustable in width are provided in the bagging tunnel and configured to delimit, on two opposite sides, a space for the batches that is centered with respect to a center line of the processing and palletizing unit (Described in paragraph [0033] - "...The mechanism 120 used in this embodiment has a series of rollers 121 which are mounted to extend toward and away from the effective centerline of the machine to square the case relative to the conveyor centerline and direction of movement." This mechanism is also shown in figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gatteschi to incorporate the teachings of Chase to include adjustable guides with the motivation of providing a mechanism to square the objects relative to the centerline of the conveying mechanism and direction of movement, as recognized by Chase in ¶ [0033]. Doing so would ensure the products are placed accordingly for accurate palletizing by the manipulators disclosed by Gatteschi.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are overcome, claim 12 would be 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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 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.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
