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 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 feeding unit” in claim 1 and 17 (interpreted to be a chute or tube) and “a discharge apparatus” in claims 9 and 18 (interpreted to be a collection container).
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 7-8, 13, and 15-16 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.
Regarding claim 7, “the control unit” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, “the basis” and “the determined position” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, “the same side” and “the same edge region” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 15, “an environment” in claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear if “an environment” in claim 15 is the same as “an environment” in claim 1. For examination purposes, “an environment” in claim 15 is being interpreted to be “the environment”.
Regarding claim 16, “the fed closure elements” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ravn (US 3,623,594).
Regarding claim 1, Ravn discloses a feeding apparatus (Fig. 1) for feeding closure elements (Fig. 1, item 10) into an environment with restricted access, the feeding apparatus comprises a feeding unit (Fig. 1, item 20), a first vibrating plate (Fig. 1, item 50, 22) and a second vibrating plate (Fig. 1, item 52, 30), wherein the feeding unit is configured to feed the closure elements onto the first vibrating plate (Col. 2, lines 31-65), the first vibrating plate is configured to convey the closure elements onto the second vibrating plate (Col. 2, lines 31-65), and the second vibrating plate is configured to arrange the closure elements (Col. 2, lines 31-65) on the second vibrating plate in a defined position (Col. 2, lines 31-65).
Regarding claim 2, Ravn discloses the feeding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feeding unit is coupleable to a port system (Col. 2, lines 31-65) in order to feed the closure elements (Col. 2, lines 31-65).
Regarding claim 3, Ravn discloses the feeding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feeding unit comprises a chute (Fig. 1, item 20) or a tube, via which the closure elements can be fed onto the first vibrating plate.
Regarding claim 4, Ravn discloses the feeding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first vibrating plate comprises a first surface (Fig. 1, item 22) for conveying the closure elements (Col. 2, lines 31-65), the closure elements can be fed onto the first surface (Col. 2, lines 31-65) and conveyed on the first surface (Col. 2, lines 31-65), and the first surface is a flat surface (Fig. 1, discharge tray 22 is a flat surface) (Col. 2, lines 31-65).
Regarding claim 5, Ravn discloses the feeding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second vibrating plate comprises a second surface (Fig. 1, item 30, 34, 134), the closure elements can be conveyed from the first vibrating plate onto the second surface (Col. 2, lines 31-65) and can be arranged on the second surface in the defined position (Col. 2, lines 31-65), and the second surface comprises studs (Fig. 9, item 134) (Col. 3, line 30-55).
Regarding claim 6, Ravn discloses the feeding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feeding apparatus further comprises a control unit (Col. 4, lines 27-51) which is configured to control the first vibrating plate and the second vibrating plate (Col. 2, lines 31-65) (Col. 4, lines 27-51).
Regarding claim 9, Ravn discloses the feeding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feeding apparatus further comprises a discharge apparatus (Fig. 7, item 42, 44) for discharging closure elements (Col. 3, lines 31-56).
Regarding claim 10, Ravn discloses the feeding apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the discharge apparatus comprises a collection container (Fig. 7, item 42, 44) for collecting discharged closure elements (Col. 3, lines 31-56) (Col. 2, lines 31-65).
Regarding claim 11, Ravn discloses the feeding apparatus according to claim 9, wherein at least one of the first vibrating plate or the second vibrating plate is configured to convey the closure elements to the discharge apparatus (Col. 2, lines 31-65).
Regarding claim 12, Ravn discloses the feeding apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the second vibrating plate and the discharge apparatus are arranged on opposite sides of the first vibrating plate (Fig. 7, tray assembly 30 collects caps 10 on the right side of discharge tray 22 while accumulator section 42 collects caps 10 on the left side of discharge tray 22).
Regarding claim 13, Ravn discloses the feeding apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the second vibrating plate and the discharge apparatus are arranged on the same side of the first vibrating plate (Fig. 7, tray assembly 30 and accumulator section 42 are both on the bottom side of the discharge tray 22) or at the same edge region of the first vibrating plate.
Regarding claim 14, Ravn discloses the feeding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first vibrating plate is movable relative to the second vibrating plate (Col. 2, lines 31-65, discharge tray 22 is movable via vibration relative to tray assembly 30).
Regarding claim 15, Ravn discloses a barrier system (Fig. 1), wherein the barrier system comprises an environment (Fig. 1) with restricted access (Col. 2, lines 31-65, environment around apparatus is restricted because once caps 10 are distributed in supply 20, user access to caps 10 within the apparatus is limited) and the feeding apparatus according to claim 1, the feeding apparatus is arranged within the environment with restricted access (Col. 2, lines 31-65).
Regarding claim 17, Ravn discloses a method for feeding closure elements (Fig. 1, item 10) (Col. 2, lines 31-65) into an environment with restricted access, wherein a feeding apparatus (Fig. 1) is arranged within the environment with restricted access (Col. 2, lines 31-65), the feeding apparatus comprises a feeding unit (Fig. 1, item 20), a first vibrating plate (Fig. 1, item 50, 22) and a second vibrating plate (Fig. 1, item 52, 30), and the method comprises the steps of:
feeding the closure elements (Col. 2, lines 31-65) by means of the feeding unit onto the first vibrating plate (Col. 2, lines 31-65);
conveying the closure elements (Col. 2, lines 31-65) by means of the first vibrating plate (Col. 2, lines 31-65) onto the second vibrating plate (Col. 2, lines 31-65); and
arranging the closure elements (Col. 2, lines 31-65) by means of the second vibrating plate (Col. 2, lines 31-65) on the second vibrating plate in a defined position (Col. 2, lines 31-65).
Regarding claim 18, Ravn discloses the method according to claim 17, wherein the feeding apparatus further comprises a discharge apparatus (Fig. 7, item 42, 44) for discharging closure elements (Col. 3, lines 31-56) (Col. 2, lines 31-65), wherein the method further comprises the step of:
conveying the closure elements by means of the first vibrating plate (Col. 3, lines 31-56) (Col. 2, lines 31-65) to a discharge apparatus (Col. 3, lines 31-56) (Col. 2, lines 31-65).
Regarding claim 19, Ravn discloses the method according to claim 17, wherein the method further comprises the step of:
lowering the first vibrating plate (Col. 2, lines 31-65) relative to the second vibrating plate (Col. 2, lines 31-65, discharge tray 22 lowers during vibration).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 7-8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ravn in view of Ronchi (US 2022/0380077).
Regarding claim 7, Ravn is silent about the feeding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the feeding apparatus further comprises a camera system which is configured to capture at least one image of the closure elements on the second vibrating plate, and the camera system and/or the control unit are configured to determine the position of the closure elements on the second vibrating plate on the basis of the at least one captured image.
However, Ronchi teaches a feeding apparatus (Ronchi, Fig. 1) comprising a camera system (Ronchi, Para. 0120-0127) which is configured to capture at least one image (Ronchi, Para. 0120-0127) of the closure elements (Ronchi, Para. 0120-0127) on a plate (Ronchi, Fig. 2, item 20a), and the camera system and/or the control unit are configured to determine the position (Ronchi, Para. 0120-0127) of the closure elements (Ronchi, Fig. 2, item C) on the plate (Ronchi, Para. 0120-0127) on the basis of the at least one captured image (Ronchi, Para. 0120-0127).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Ravn and Ronchi to modify the feeding apparatus of Ravn to include the camera system of Ronchi. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to make the position information available to the control unit to efficiently and effectively control the operation of the apparatus (Ronchi, Para. 0121).
Regarding claim 8, as combined above, Ronchi teaches the feeding apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the control unit is configured to control the plate (Ronchi, Para. 0120-0127) on the basis of the determined position of the closure elements (Ronchi, Para. 0120-0127) such that at least one of the closure elements is arranged in the defined position (Ronchi, Para. 0120-0127).
Regarding claim 16, Ravn is silent about the barrier system according to claim 15, wherein the barrier system comprises a closing station for closing containers with the fed closure elements and a handling apparatus for transferring the closure elements from the second vibrating plate to the closing station.
However, Ronchi teaches a barrier system (Ronchi, Fig. 1) comprising a closing station (Ronchi, Fig. 1, item 70) for closing containers with the fed closure elements (Ronchi, Para. 0046-0048) and a handling apparatus (Ronchi, Fig. 1, item 40) for transferring the closure elements (Ronchi, Para. 0046-0048) from the plate to the closing station (Ronchi, Para. 0046-0048).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Ravn and Ronchi to modify the system of Ravn to include the closing station and handling apparatus of Ronchi. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to make the apparatus more versatile regarding variations in the volume and type of production required (Ronchi, Para. 0016).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731