DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-21 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Drawings
Examiner’s Note: Figures 1 and 2 are designated by the legend “Known Art.” To the best of the examiner’s understanding, this is equivalent to the label “Prior Art.” See MPEP § 608.02(g).
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.
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 processing system in claim 1; a scanning system in claim 6; an x-ray system in claim 8; a conveyor system in claim 12; a roller system in claim 13; an auger system in claim 18; a ram system in claim 19; a compactor system in claim 20; and a conveyor system in claim 21. The processing system appears to be described at paragraph [0013]. The scanning system appears to be described at paragraph [0037]. The x-ray system appears to be described at paragraph [0038). The conveyor system appears to be described at paragraph [0032]. The roller system appears to be described at paragraph [0011]. The auger system appears to be described at paragraph [0030]). The ram system appears to be described at paragraph [0038]. The compactor system appears to be described at paragraph [0038]. The conveyor system appears to be described at paragraph [0011].
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 1-21 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 1, the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). In particular, claim 1 recites “a skid, pallet, or the like” at line 3. It is unclear what unidentified components or structures are covered by “the like.”
Claim 1 recites “a cardboard box” at line 1 and also “a cardboard box” at lines 3-4 and at line 7. It is unclear how many cardboard boxes are being described. Similar recitations are also made with respect to “a skid, pallet, or the like” in claim 1.
Claims 2-21 each depend from claim 1, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons presented above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “said system” at line 2. Claim 7 previously recites “said scanning system,” and claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, recites “a system” at line 1 and “a processing system” at line 7. It is unclear to which previously recited “system” claim 7 line 2 refers.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 19-20
Claims 1-5 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent 6,199,466 to Crawford et al. (hereinafter “Crawford”).
Regarding claim 1, Crawford discloses a system for separating a cardboard box from a skid, pallet, or the like, said system (see Fig. 13; Col. 11, lines 24-34 “the apparatus 510 could preferably comprise[sic] the apparatus 410 illustrated in FIGS. 71-12”) comprising: a support surface (at 425; see Fig. 7) adapted to receive a skid, pallet, or the like (415) on which a cardboard box is secured (413; containers may be cardboard boxes, see Col. 11, lines 56-61); a ram (440) adjacent to said support surface (see Fig. 7), said ram adapted to separate a cardboard box from a skid, pallet, or the like (see Col. 8, lines 28-35 and Col. 9, lines 29-34) that is positioned on said support surface (425); and a processing system (512, see Fig. 13 and Col. 11, lines 35-47) adapted to receive and process a cardboard box (413) that has been separated from a skid, pallet, or the like by said ram (440).
Regarding claim 2, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Crawford discloses that said support surface (425) is configured to keep a skid, pallet, or the like (415) in positioned on said support surface when said ram separates a cardboard box (see Col. 10, lines 10-29).
Regarding claim 3, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 2, and further Crawford discloses that said support surface (425) has at least one raised edge (458; see Fig. 7) to keep a skid, pallet, or the like in position on said support surface (425) when said ram separates a cardboard box (Col. 10, lines 10-29).
Regarding claim 4, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Crawford discloses that said ram (440) is hydraulic (apparatus may be powered by conventional hydraulic or pneumatic cylinders; see Col. 8, lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 5, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Crawford discloses further comprising a cover (container 413 passes through side of separating device 410 through side 420 at 416; see Fig. 8) through which a separated cardboard box (413) is adapted to pass before being received by said processing system (512).
Regarding claim 19, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Crawford discloses that said processing system (512) is a ram system (see Col. 11, lines 40-46; ram pushes the containers into system, fairly reading on the claimed ram system).
Regarding claim 20, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further Crawford discloses that said processing system (512) is a compactor system (see Col. 11, lines 43-46; containers are compacted in system 512).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0061997 to Behrens et al. (hereinafter “Behrens”).
Regarding claim 18, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Crawford Figures 7-13 does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that the processing system (512) is an auger system. However, Crawford teaches with respect to the embodiment of Figures 6A-6C that its pallet processing device may be provided with means for stacking and transporting away containers, which may include a conveyor (see Col. 7, lines 9-13). Further, Crawford asserts “it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that many other embodiments of the present invention are possible” and “many other orientations of the machine and means for moving and forcing the platens are possible” at Col. 7, lines 8-17.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Crawford as taught by Figures. 7-13 to include a conventional means for transporting away containers, such as with a conveyor as taught by Crawford with respect to Figures 6A-6C. (See MPEP 2143(A)). A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that providing a conveyor to move the container from the separating apparatus to the processing apparatus would allow the apparatus of Figures 7-13 to function in a predictable manner without modification of the principles of operation thereof. Crawford appears to invite a variety of larger apparatus configurations to control operation and movement within the apparatus (Col. 7, lines 8-17), such that providing different conventional moving components would be expected to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
The combination of Crawford Figures 7-13 and Crawford Figures 6A-6C does not fairly teach that the conveyor of the processing system is an auger system, however it is known in the art of palletized containers to move them using augers.
For example, Behrens teaches using augers (122, see paragraph [0036] and 126; see paragraph [0035]). Behrens teaches a palletized box (30) formed of a pallet (32) with a cardboard box (22’) attached thereto (paragraph [0031]). Behrens further teaches that materials may be transported using conveyors (126) which may include augers (see paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus taught by Crawford to use another and conventional conveyor apparatus, such a conveyor including an auger, as is known in the art and taught by Behrens. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). Crawford appears to invite a variety of larger apparatus configurations to control operation and movement within the apparatus (Col. 7, lines 8-17), such that providing different conventional moving components would be expected to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the conveyors taught by Crawford can have a variety of different configurations without departing from the teachings of Crawford, and further would reasonably understand that an auger could move components into the processing system.
Thus, the combination of Crawford and Behrens teaches the limitations of claim 18.
Claim 21
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crawford as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 21, Crawford discloses the limitations of claim 1, however Crawford Figures 7-13 does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach that the processing system (512) is a conveyor system.
However, Crawford teaches with respect to the embodiment of Figures 6A-6C that its pallet processing device may be provided with means for stacking and transporting away containers, which may include a conveyor (see Col. 7, lines 9-13). Further, Crawford asserts “it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that many other embodiments of the present invention are possible” and “many other orientations of the machine and means for moving and forcing the platens are possible” at Col. 7, lines 8-17.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Crawford as taught by Figures. 7-13 to include a conventional means for transporting away containers, such as with a conveyor as taught by Crawford with respect to Figures 6A-6C. (See MPEP 2143(1)(A)). A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that providing a conveyor to move the container from the separating apparatus to the processing apparatus would allow the apparatus of Figures 7-13 to function in a predictable manner without modification of the principles of operation thereof. Crawford appears to invite a variety of larger apparatus configurations to control operation and movement within the apparatus (Col. 7, lines 8-17), such that providing different conventional moving components would be expected to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, Crawford teaches the limitations of claim 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-17 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach comprising a scanning system adapted to sense metal materials or batteries in or on a carboard box or an associated skid, pallet, or the like in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. United States Patent 9,758,300 to Nakamura et al. teaches a container handling device (100) which may include multiple sensors (1201,1202), however the sensors are not described as being adapted to detect metal or batteries. There is no motivation within the art absent Applicant’s disclosure to modify the functionality of the sensors of Nakamura to perform the recited functions. The examiner interprets the term “adapted” to mean the sensor is capable of performing the function following the term without modification.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art of record does not explicitly disclose or fairly teach comprising a ram home sensor adapted to sense that said ram is back in a home position after separating a carboard box from a skid, pallet, or the like in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. Crawford teaches that its ram may return home (see Col. 6, lines 11-14) after separating a container, however does not fairly teach or suggest the use of a sensor. United States Patent 9,758,300 to Nakamura et al. teaches a container handling device (100) which may include multiple sensors (1201,1202), however the sensors are not adapted to sense that the ram is in a home position after separating cardboard from the skid or pallet. Nakamura teaches a sensor that may be a visual or optical sensor (1201), however Nakamura teaches that its camera may be used to detect image information of the object being processed (see Col. 8, lines 6-10), not a ram. There is no motivation within the art absent Applicant’s own disclosure to modify the functionality of the sensors of Nakamura to perform the recited functions. The examiner interprets the term “adapted” to mean the sensor is capable of performing the function following the term without modification.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
United States Patent 6,154,955 to Beane teaches a pallet disassembly apparatus (see Title).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARRELL C. FORD whose telephone number is (313)446-6515. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM to 5:15 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Sunil K Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/DARRELL C FORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3726