DETAILED ACTION
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: “a transfer mechanism” in claim 12.
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 1-20 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 the limitation "the support assembly" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should be recited as --the product support assembly--.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the force sensor" in lines 2 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should be recited as --the force sensor assembly--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the actuator assembly" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should be recited as --the actuator--.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the force sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should be recited as --the force sensor assembly--.
Regarding Claim 7, the second force sensor is recited as determining a force applied at “the retainer”. However, as per the specification, drawings and parent Claim 6, the second force sensor is opposite to the first force sensor and since each sensor is associated with a different retainer, it cannot be the same “the retainer”. Therefore, the metes and bounds are unclear.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "each arm" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should be recited as --each rotating arm--.
Regarding Claim 18, “a retaining tab” is recited twice, in lines 7 and 8. Since only one retaining tab is believed to be required at this point in the claim, proper antecedent basis should be used.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the actuator" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should be recited as --the actuator assembly--.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the retainer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that in making this correction, the issue of Claim 7 above should not be repeated.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the actuator" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should be recited as --the actuator assembly--.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the actuator" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this should be recited as --the actuator assembly--.
Claims 2, 4, 8-13 and 15-17 are rejected by dependency.
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.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moncrief et al. (US Patent No. 5,585,568).
Regarding Claim 18, Moncrief et al. discloses
receiving products at a loading end (i.e. right end, Fig. 1A) of a magazine (10);
arranging the products to form a stack of products in a storage area of the magazine (i.e. corresponding to the stack of 14 shown in the storage area in Fig. 1A);
applying a force (via 12) to the products to push the products through the storage area in a longitudinal direction (i.e. right to left) from the receiving end toward a dispensing end;
extending a retaining tab (i.e. two upper tabs 18) partially across a first product of the stack (Fig. 1B);
temporarily holding, with a retaining tab, a first product of the stack of products, located at the dispensing end, against the force applied by an actuator assembly;
measuring, in the longitudinal direction, a force applied to the retaining tab (i.e. the force is applied to 18 longitudinally via 12), with a load cell (42) extending in the longitudinal direction (i.e. has at least some dimension in the longitudinal direction, see Fig. 2) and attached to the retaining tab (i.e. at least via 20, 24, etc in Fig. 2); and
adjusting the actuator with a controller until the force equals a desired force (see Abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moncrief et al. (US Patent No. 5,585,568) in view of Fazzioli (EP 3747808).
Regarding Claim 19, Moncrief et al. discloses the measured force constitutes a first measure force but does not disclose a second measured force/sensor.
Fazzioli discloses
determining a second measured force applied by the products at the retainer with a second force sensor (i.e. wherein multiple tabs 4, 4a are shown, each disclosed to have its own thrust sensor, [0031]);
generating a second force signal representative of the second measured force ([0047]);
receiving the second force signal from the second force sensor ([0047]); and
controlling the force applied by the actuator based on the second measured force and the desired force ([0047]), for the purpose of correcting force/speed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Moncrief et al. by including the second force sensor
as disclosed by Fazzioli, for the purpose of correcting force/speed.
It is noted the claim merely requires the concept of providing a second force
sensor in conjunction with the first but requires no structural details or interactions.
Regarding Claim 20, Moncrief et al. does not explicitly disclose the conveyors
as claimed.
Fazzioli discloses
the actuator includes a first conveyor (6) and a second conveyor (6), said
method further comprising:
pushing a left side of the products with the first conveyor (Fig. 2);
pushing a right side of the products with the second conveyor (Fig. 2); and
adjusting a speed of the first conveyor, relative to the second conveyor, to adjust
an orientation of the products based the first and second measured forces ([0027]-
[0031]), for the purpose of varying pushing action such as to be kept at an optimum
value ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to modify the invention of Moncrief et al. by including the conveyors as
disclosed by Fazzioli, for the purpose of varying pushing action such as to be kept at an
optimum value ([0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-17 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASAD GOKHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-3543. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am - 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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/PRASAD V GOKHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights