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 wrapping assembly” in claim 13 (interpreted to be a frame, a first roller, a second roller, a third roller, and an endless belt wrapped around the three rollers, see Para. 0007 of Applicant’s specification) and “a napkin delivery assembly” in claim 18 (interpreted to be a fan, see Para. 0032 of Applicant’s specification).
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “operatively connected the at least one base” should be “operatively connected to the at least one base”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chaganos (US 2014/0054205).
Regarding claim 1, Chaganos discloses a utensil picker (Fig. 1, item A) for picking up at least one utensil (Fig. 2, item 23, 24, 25) from at least one utensil magazine (Fig. 2, item B) storing a plurality of utensils (Fig. 2, item 21, 22), the utensil picker comprising:
at least one movable arm (Fig. 1, item 5);
at least one base (Fig. 1, item 6) connected to the at least one movable arm (Fig. 1); and
at least two fingers (Fig. 6) connected to each base of the at least one base (Fig. 1, grasping mechanism 9 is connected to base 6), each finger of the at least two fingers comprising:
a fingertip (Fig. 6, fingertip is the structure extending upward toward base 6 and connected to housing 30, 31) operatively connected the at least one base (Fig. 1), the fingertip being configured to move vertically with respect to the at least one base (Para. 0065); and
an attachment (Fig. 6, item 30, 31, 32) (Fig. 7, item 33, 34) provided at an end of the fingertip (Fig. 6) for attaching one utensil of the at least one utensil to the finger (Para. 0065-0066).
Regarding claim 2, Chaganos discloses the utensil picker of claim 1, wherein the attachment is a permanent magnet (Para. 0066).
Regarding claim 3, Chaganos discloses the utensil picker of claim 1, wherein the attachment is an electro-magnet (Para. 0066).
Regarding claim 4, Chaganos discloses the utensil picker of claim 1, further comprising at least one track (Para. 0049), the at least one movable arm being movable along the at least one track (Para. 0049, arm 5 is moveable linearly along a predetermine path).
Regarding claim 5, Chaganos discloses the utensil picker of claim 1, wherein the at least two fingers are connected under the at least one base (Fig. 1, the fingers extending between base 6 and attachment 30, 31 are connected at the underside of base 6).
Regarding claim 8, Chaganos discloses the utensil picker of claim 1, wherein: each finger of the at least two fingers further comprises a housing (Fig. 7, item 30, 31) connected to the at least one base (Fig. 7); and for each finger, the fingertip (Fig. 7, item 33, 34) is at least partially housed in the housing (Fig. 7, lifting element 33 and lifting element holder 34 are located within housing 30, 31).
Regarding claim 9, Chaganos discloses the utensil picker of claim 8, wherein each housing has an open end (Fig. 7, lifting element 33 and lifting element holder 34 are located on the open bottom side of housing 30, 31) for receiving the fingertip (Fig. 7).
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaganos.
Regarding claim 11, Chaganos does not expressly disclose the utensil picker of claim 1, wherein the at least two fingers are at least three fingers arranged in a line.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include at least three fingers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 12, Chaganos does not expressly disclose the utensil picker of claim 11, wherein the at least three fingers are three or four fingers.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include three or four fingers, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaganos in view of Handsaeme (BE-1016123-A5, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 13, Chaganos discloses an apparatus (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) for wrapping a napkin around at least one utensil comprising:
at least one magazine (Fig. 2, item B, item 21, 22) for storing the at least one utensil (Para. 0059-0060);
the utensil picker (Fig. 1) of claim 1 for picking up the at least one utensil from the at least one magazine (Para. 0065-0067) and for bringing the at least one utensil (Para. 0065-0067) from the at least one magazine to the wrapping assembly (Para. 0065-0067).
Chaganos does not expressly disclose a wrapping assembly for wrapping the napkin around the at least one utensil.
However, Handsaeme teaches a wrapping assembly (Handsaeme, Fig. 2, item 1, rollers 2, 4, 5, frame surrounding rollers, belt 7) for wrapping the napkin around the at least one utensil.
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 Chaganos and Handsaeme to modify the apparatus of Chaganos to include the wrapping assembly of Handsaeme. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to fully enclose the product being wrapped (Handaeme, Machine Translation, page 1).
Regarding claim 14, Chaganos discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein:
each magazine (Chaganos, Fig. 2, item B) of the at least one magazine has a corresponding at least two fingers (Chaganos, Fig. 1, item 9) of the at least two fingers (Chaganos, Para. 0065-0067); and for each magazine the corresponding at least two fingers are configured to pick up at least one utensil (Chaganos, Para. 0065-0067) at a time from the magazine (Chaganos, Para. 0065-0067).
Regarding claim 15, Chaganos discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein for each magazine the corresponding at least two fingers are configured to pick up a single utensil (Chaganos, Para. 0065-0067) at a time from the magazine (Chaganos, Para. 0065-0067).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7, 10, and 16-20 are 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 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