Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Claim Status
Amended patent claims 1-20 are pending.
Improper Amendment
The amendment filed 26 August 2026 proposes amendments to the claims that do not comply with 37 CFR 1.173(c), which sets forth when an amendment to the claims is presented, there must be “an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.”
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 9 and 16 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.
Claims 9 and 16 both recite “the downholder element” which has no antecedent basis in either of claims 1 or 2 from which these claims depend.
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) 1-4, 8, 10, 11, 15, and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102010008367 to Beutl et al. (hereinafter Beutl ‘367) in view of US 7,891,484 to Ranger (hereinafter Ranger).
With respect to claims 1, 10, and 11, Beutl ‘367 teaches a method of sorting and transporting plastic bottle preforms and an apparatus 1 therefor, the apparatus having a sorting device 10 which is configured for sorting plastic preforms 2 and which transports the plastic preforms in a predetermined transport direction P, and having a transport device 20 arranged after the sorting device in the transport direction, wherein said transport device comprises a first support rail 21 for carrying the plastic preforms and a second support rail 22 for carrying the plastic preforms, and the plastic preforms are transportable between said first support rail and said second support rail, wherein said support rails extending in transport direction, wherein the sorting device having two rollers 11,12 which are spaced apart from one another (see gap 13) and between which
PNG
media_image1.png
436
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the plastic preforms can be guided. See translation page 4, discussion of “First embodiment.” Additionally, the rollers 11,12 of the sorting device 10 are adjustable with respect to each other, wherein the sorting device has a drive device for adjusting the rollers and an adjustment mechanism 15 for adjusting the rollers. See translation page 4, penultimate paragraph. Beutl ‘367 is silent as to an adjustment mechanism for adjusting the lateral spacing of the support rails 20,20.
Ranger, like Beutl ‘367, is directed to transporting plastic bottles. The apparatus of Ranger has an adjustment mechanism 106 configured for adjusting at least one lateral spacing of the support rails 98,100, wherein the adjustment mechanism comprises several adjustment units 10, which are arranged one behind the other along the transport direction (See Figure 5), wherein the adjustment units 10 each enable adjustment of the lateral spacing and wherein the adjustment units are mechanically coupled to one another such that the adjustment units can be adjusted together (col.5, line 65 to col.6, line 3), and also and an adjustment mechanism for adjusting the guide rails are coupled together by use of control rod 34 (col.6, lines 65-67), so that the distance between the two support rails is changed centrally. Thus, the control rod shifting mechanism 106 shifts the control rod 34, providing a means for centrally changing the spacing of the support rails. Ranger further discloses that a microcontroller may be used for central control of the actuating assemblies. See col.8, lines 28-38. See also, col.4, lines 34-38; col.4, line 63 to col.5, line 1.
It would have been obvious to modify Beutl ‘367 with the adjusting mechanism of Ranger as Ranger teaches that the adjustment mechanism enables “a variety of intermediate guideway widths” (col.6, lines 4-17) beyond that achieved by conventional adjustable guides and thus, enables guiding plastic bottles having a variety of intermediate neck sizes.
As to claims 2 and 3, the adjustment units of Ranger 10 are coupled to each other by rod 34 which is displaceable along the longitudinal direction. See col.4, lines 35-36.
With respect to claims 4 and 11, Ranger discloses a drive device (piston and housing), which are described as pneumatic, electric, or hydraulic. See col.3, lines 14-17.
As to claims 8 and 15, Beutl ‘367 teaches that the distance between rollers 11,12 is adjustable. For example, Beutl ‘367 discloses “a change of the arrangement of the first and second rollers 11,12 is implemented to teach other” and “realized by a drive device.” See page 4, fifth and sixth paragraph. See also, page 5, sixth paragraph, wherein Beutl ‘367 states “the first role [sic] 11 opposite the second roller 12…can be variably offset.”
With respect to claim 17, both Ranger and Beutl ‘367 disclose the use of a drive device for driving the adjustment units. See Ranger, col.2, lines 14-17; Beutl ‘367, translation page 4, penultimate paragraph.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beutl ‘367 and Ranger as applied to claims 1, 2, or 3 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admission of the Prior Art (AAPA).
The combination of Beutl ‘367 and Ranger does not expressly disclose a downholder element. However, AAPA in Figures 1a and b disclose downholder elements 186 locating below actuators 120 extending in the transport direction. See col.1, lines 14-26; col.9, lines 11-16. As downholder elements are a common addition to transport devices for adjustment of bottle height, it would have been obvious to add downholder elements to the system of Beutl ‘367 as modified by Ranger.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beutl ‘367 and Ranger as applied to claims 1, 2, or 3 above, and further in view of EP 2,604,411 to Beutl et al. (hereinafter Beutl ‘411).
PNG
media_image2.png
458
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The combination of Beutl ‘367 and Ranger does not explicitly teach guide elements or a downholder element for the preform bodies. Beutl ‘411 discloses a system for sorting preform bodies 10 which uses both downholder elements 32 and guide elements 22,24 for the preform bodies. See Figure 3. Beutl ‘411 teaches that the height of the downholder element and the lateral position of the guide elements are individually adjustable. See English translation page 6, description of Figure 3. Additionally, guide rails 2,4 are individually adjustable. See English translation page 5, description of Figure 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add adjustable guiding elements and downholder elements to the combination of Beutl ‘367 with Ranger, in order to guide the preforms through the system and enable use of the device to transport various sized preforms.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s comments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The claim amendments and new reissue declaration have overcome the previous rejection under 35 USC §251. However, the claims are now rejected under art asserted above.
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.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,712,833 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH L MCKANE whose telephone number is (571)272-1275. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 6:30a-4:30p 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, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660. 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.
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/LEE E SANDERSON/
Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991
