DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 8/26/2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 8/26/2025 has been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
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 limitations are:
“cap applicator devices configured to apply at least one cap to each package” in claim 11, which is being interpreted to encompass any cap applying device.
“a package forming apparatus for forming the packages and filling the packages with the pourable product” in claim 12, which is being interpreted to encompass any package forming apparatus capable of forming and filling packages.
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 1-12 and 15 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.
In claims 1, 2, and 5, “the control units” lack sufficient antecedent basis, since only “a control unit” was claimed in claim 1.
In claim 4, “the leading package” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
In claim 10, “the distance between the seats” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
“cap applicator devices” in claim 11 invokes 112(f) but is indefinite because no specific type of cap applicator devices are specified in the disclosure.
“a package forming apparatus for forming the packages and filling the packages with the pourable product” in claim 12 invokes 112(f) but is indefinite because no specific type of package forming apparatus is specified in the disclosure.
In the claim 15 preamble, “The method for applying caps” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims dependent on the above claims are therefore also rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morselli et al. EP 3135613 in view of Cordia et al. US 5,341,915.
Regarding claim 1:
Morselli teaches a conveying apparatus (1) for conveying a succession of packages (C) of a pourable product ([0003], last sentence) along at least an advancement path (F); the conveying apparatus comprising: at least a belt conveying system (6, 7, 8) configured to advance the packages along a portion of the advancement path and between an inlet station (2) at which the belt conveying system receives the packages and an outlet station (8) at which the belt conveying system releases the packages; and
a control unit configured to control operation of the belt conveying system ([0062]-[0063]); wherein the belt conveying system comprises two conveyor belts (9) spaced apart from each other, advancing along respective paths and being configured to engage the packages advancing along the portion of the advancement path from opposite lateral sides thereof (see FIG. 2); at least a first sensor device configured to detect at a first detection station (L1) positioned between the inlet station and the outlet station a presence of a package and to generate a first signal associated with the presence of the detected package ([0062]-[0063]); wherein the conveying apparatus comprises a second sensor device arranged at a second detection station (L2) and configured to detect a presence of a package to generate a second signal associated with the presence of the package at the second detection station ([0071]-[0074]).
Morselli does not teach the control units configured to accelerate and/or decelerate the conveyor belts on the basis of the first signal; and the second sensor device configured to detect a presence of a package about to be released at the outlet station and to generate a second signal associated with the presence of the package at the outlet station.
Cordia teaches an alternative conveyor system to precisely feed articles (abstract), having at least a first sensor device (P2) configured to detect at a first detection station (see FIG. 5b) positioned between the inlet station and the outlet station a presence of a package and to generate a first signal associated with the presence of the detected package (col. 10, lines 48-51); wherein the control unit (60) is configured to accelerate and/or decelerate the conveyor belts on the basis of the first signal (col. 10, lines 51-54), wherein, the conveying apparatus comprises a second sensor device (P1) arranged at a second detection station (see FIG. 2) and configured to detect a presence of a package about to be released at the outlet station and to generate a second signal associated with the presence of the package at the outlet station (col. 8, line 64 through col. 9, line 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sensor arrangement and control of Morselli’s apparatus by providing speed control of the conveyor based on the signals of first and second sensors arranged as claimed, as taught by Cordia, since this would lead to a precisely controlled feeding of the packages based on their actual positions.
Regarding claim 2:
The combination of Morselli and Cordia teaches the conveying apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the control units configured to accelerate and/or decelerate the conveyor belts such that the detected package is released at the outlet station at a predetermined speed (Cordia, col. 4, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination of Morselli and Cordia teaches the conveying apparatus according to claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the predetermined speed is the same for each one of the packages of said succession, which are detected by the first sensor device (Cordia, col. 8, line 64 through col. 9, line 10).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Morselli and Cordia teaches the conveying apparatus according to claim 3, as discussed above, wherein the leading package is subject to only one step of accelerating and one step of decelerating (Cordia, col. 4, lines 49-55).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Morselli and Cordia teaches the conveying apparatus according to claim 2, as discussed above, wherein the belt conveying system comprises one or more motors (Cordia, 54, 58) configured to advance the conveyor belts along the respective paths; wherein the control units configured to control the one or more motors such that, in use, the one or more motors advance the conveyor belts in a manner that each package is released at the outlet station at the predetermined speed and/or that each package is subject to at least one step of accelerating and one step of decelerating (col. 4, lines 45-55).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Morselli and Cordia teaches the conveying apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the second detection station substantially coincides with the outlet station (i.e., it is downstream of the first detection station, thus coinciding with the outlet).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Morselli and Cordia teaches the conveying apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising the packages of said succession, wherein each package has a predetermined length along the advancement path; wherein a distance between the first detection station and the outlet station is greater than the predetermined length of each package (see FIG. 5c).
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Morselli and Cordia teaches a method for conveying a succession of packages of a pourable product along at least an advancement path, the method comprising the steps of: advancing the packages along a portion of the advancement path and between an inlet station and an outlet station by means of two conveyor belts spaced apart from each other and engaging the packages from opposite lateral sides thereof; detecting at a first detection station between the inlet station and the outlet station a presence of a package at the first detection station; and generating a first signal associated with the presence of a detected package at the first detection station; controlling, on the basis of at least the first signal, the conveyor belts; releasing the packages at the outlet station, further comprising the following steps: detecting a presence of a package about to be released at the outlet station, and generating a second signal associated with the presence of the package at the outlet station (all addressed in claim 1 rejection above), wherein the conveyor belts are controlled also as a function of the second signal (Cordia, col. 8, line 64 through col. 9, line 2).
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Morselli and Cordia teaches the method according to claim 13, as discussed above, wherein the conveyor belts are controlled so as to release each package at the outlet station at a predetermined speed (Cordia, col. 4, lines 60-65).
Claims 8-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Morselli and Cordia, as applied above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”).
Regarding claims 8-10, and 15:
The combination of Morselli and Cordia teaches the conveying apparatus according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the conveying apparatus comprises an auxiliary conveyor having a plurality of seats, each seat being configured to host at least one respective package, and being configured to advance the seats along an auxiliary path; wherein the belt conveying system is configured to align the packages with respect to the seats such that each package being released at the outlet station is fed to a respective seat; wherein the control unit is configured to accelerate and/or decelerate the conveyor belts such that the detected package is released at the outlet station at a predetermined speed, wherein the auxiliary conveyor is configured to advance the seats at a defined advancement speed; wherein the belt conveying system is configured such that the predetermined speed substantially corresponds to the defined advancement speed; wherein each package is released relative to one another at a distance which is equal to a distance or a multiple of the distance between the seats.
However, AAPA teaches “the belt conveying system generally feeds the packages to an auxiliary conveyor having a plurality of seats and configured to convey the packages within at least one treatment apparatus comprising at least one treatment device, e.g. cap applicator, arranged along a path defined by the auxiliary conveyor. In particular, the belt conveying system is configured to feed the packages to the auxiliary conveyor such that each package is correctly positioned and fed into a respective seat” (see Background Art section of the submitted specification).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of the combination of Morselli and Cordia, by providing an auxiliary conveyor having a plurality of seats, each seat being configured to host at least one respective package, and being configured to advance the seats along an auxiliary path; wherein the belt conveying system is configured to align the packages with respect to the seats such that each package being released at the outlet station is fed to a respective seat, as taught by AAPA, in order to further process the packages. It would have further been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to ensure the control unit is configured to accelerate and/or decelerate the conveyor belts such that the detected package is properly released at the outlet station at a predetermined speed, wherein the auxiliary conveyor is configured to advance the seats at a defined advancement speed; wherein the belt conveying system is configured such that the predetermined speed substantially corresponds to the defined advancement speed; wherein each package is released relative to one another at a distance which is equal to a distance or a multiple of the distance between the seats, in order to ensure the packages are properly released, received, and conveyed by the apparatus.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Morselli and Cordia teaches a conveying apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
The combination of Morselli and Cordia does not teach a capping machine for applying caps on packages filled with a pourable product, the capping machine comprises: a cap applicator device configured to apply at least one cap to each package; wherein the one or more cap applicator devices is arranged downstream from the belt conveying system.
However, AAPA teaches “a treatment machine may be arranged in a position operatively downstream from the filling machine and configured to execute one or more additional treatments on the packages. For example, the treatment machine may comprise a cap applicator for applying caps on the packages” (page 3 of the submitted specification).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the apparatus of the combination of Morselli and Cordia, by providing a downstream capping machine with a cap applicator device, as taught by AAPA, to apply caps to the stream of packages for use by a consumer.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Morselli, Cordia, and AAPA teaches a packaging plant for producing packages filled with a pourable product, the packaging plant comprising: a package forming apparatus for forming the packages and filling the packages with the pourable product (see Background Art section of the submitted specification: “Packages formed from the afore-described multilayer packaging material are normally produced in fully automatic packaging plants, which at least form the packages from the multilayer packaging material and fill the packages with the pourable food product”); at least one capping machine according to claim 11 (see claim 11 rejection above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: for example, see sensors 30 and 31 in Brizzi et al. US 5,473,862 and sensors 35 in FIG. 4 of Crawford et al. US 4,921,092.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights