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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helbach (US 5,271,706) in view of Behringer (US 2020/0338755).
With respect to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10, Helbach discloses an arrangement for handling one or more stacks of sheets, the arrangement comprising;
a support surface 24, 38 being arranged to support a stack of sheets 36 and being provided with a plurality of openings 42 (FIG. 4) for supplying a gas underneath one sheet,
a maneuver unit 34, 70 being moveable relative to a support surface and comprising two side clamping devices 76, 76, two side clamping devices being arranged at a distance from each other along a longitudinal direction and being configured to interact with two opposing sides of a stack, and
wherein two side clamping devices and a top clamping device are partly independently maneuverable thereby allowing arrangement to maneuver a stack and also to maneuver a plurality of stacks of sheets arranged in a row one after another along a longitudinal direction between two side clamping devices.
Helbach does not disclose a top clamping device that includes vacuum functionality. Behringer discloses robotic arm supported arrangement for handling stacks that includes a top clamping device 19 which can be raised/lowered via thrust rod 28 and bearing block 29 and includes vacuum functionality via two top clamping devices 20, 20. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Helbach to include a top clamping device that includes vacuum functionality, as taught by Behringer, thereby keeping a stack from losing its shape.
With respect to claim 12, Applicant is respectfully reminded that the material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Assuming arguendo claim 12 included limitations directed to clamp structure that enabled 2-stack handling Helbach two side clamping devices could move two stacks simultaneously depending on individual widths of the stacks. Helbach's side clamps 76, 76 can move stacks "from 12 to 68 inches wide". In other words, side clamps 76, 76 can move a single stack 68" or any stack having a width less than 68". Helbach's side clamps could move two 34" W stacks because the combination of two 34" stacks does not exceed the max width of 68".
With respect to claim 14, Helbach discloses two side clamping devices 76, 76 comprise planar surfaces 86, 86 (or 76, 76 depending on interpretation of planar surface) that extend along a normal direction, e.g. 90 degrees, to a support surface 24, 38.
With respect to claim 15, Helbach does not disclose that a top clamping device is moveable in and out of contact with a stack of sheets along a direction normal to a support surface. Behringer discloses a top clamp 19 that moves vertically via adjusting apparatus 25, e.g. actuator, to move up and down or up, into and out of contact with a stack. And, comparing FIGS. 5 & 6 adjusting device 25 moves top clamp 19 along a direction normal to a support surface (indicated generally as the bottom of housing 22). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Helbach to move a top clamping device in and out of contact with a stack of sheets along a direction normal to a support surface, as taught by Behringer, thereby keeping a stack from losing its shape.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helbach in view of Behringer and further in view of Keller (US 7,168,910).
Helbach does not disclose independently movable side clamping devices. Keller discloses two side clamping devices 14, 15 that are independently moveable via respective piston-cylinder units "assigned to each clamping jaw 14, 15" (C3/L51-62) along a longitudinal direction in relation to a maneuver unit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Helbach to include independently moveable side clamping devices, as taught by Keller, which allows for secure clamping when moving a stack.
Claim(s) 4 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helbach in view of Behringer and further in view of Lampe (US 4,387,890).
Interpretative note with respect to new claim 11: "Balanced" in line 3 is interpreted as the amount of gas discharged from openings such that a stack contacts a top clamp, whereupon a top clamp moves a stack "without defacing and/or otherwise damaging the sheets, and within short intervals of time." (See Lampe column 1, line 45.)
With respect to claim 4, Helbach does not disclose that a gas is supplied at a pressure being balanced in relation to a downward pressure from a top clamping device such that there is formed a gas cushion underneath a stack of sheets. Lampe discloses a top clamping device 7 for handling a stack 1 supported on a support surface 6 having openings 9 which supply air underneath stack 1. Lampe teaches "means for yieldably biasing the device upwardly, and a linkage with a pusher or analogous means for moving the device downwardly against the opposition of the biasing means. In order to ensure gentle treatment of the sheets as well as to reduce the likelihood of angular displacement of the device relative to the sheets of the stack therebelow while the stack is lifted by pneumatic means." Lampe adds that " The valves can be opened during the last stage of movement of the orientation changing device to its lower end position but the streamlets of compressed air are capable of lifting the stack off the support only when the orientation changing device is lifted above and away from its lower end position to an intermediate position in which the lowermost sheet of the stack below the orientation changing device continues to maintain the valves in at least partly open positions so that the streamlets of air can cause the stack to "float" above the support even though its lowermost sheet may remain in contact with the spherical valving elements. This does not entail any undesirable shifting of the lowermost sheet with reference to the neighboring sheet or sheets of the stack because the frictional engagement between the apieces of spherical valving elements and the underside of the lowermost sheet is negligible and, furthermore, the valving elements can rotate in their ports since they are at least slightly remote from their seats." (C3/L18-38) In other words, top clamp 7 applies enough downward pressure on stack 1 lifted by the gas underneath to move stack 1 without sheets in the stack from becoming misaligned. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Helbach to balance gas pressure in relation to downward pressure from a top clamping device, as taught by Lampe, to prevent sheets in a stack from becoming misaligned.
With respect to claim 11, Helbach does not disclose that a gas supplied through a plurality of openings and a downward pressure from a top clamping device are balanced to provide a stack of sheet in a hovering state above a support surface while being clamped between a gas cushion formed by a gas and a top clamping device. Lampe discloses a support surface 6 with discharge ports 9, e.g. openings, and a top clamp 7 used to both clamp a stack against support surface 6 and, after air is discharged through openings, is used to rotate a stack 1 about a vertical axis. Lampe discusses the operation of the gas cushion formed by air discharged from ports 9 and top clamp 7 starting at column 8, line 18:
The streamlets of compressed air which issue from the chambers 8 via ports 9 from an air cushion which extends between the lowermost sheet of the stack 1 and the upper sides of the top walls 8a whereby the cushion practically eliminates friction between the underside of the lowermost sheet of the stack and the support 6 and/or valves 109 while urging the uppermost sheet of the stack against the ribs 68 of the turntable 7. The cam 43 is preferably arrested for a given interval of time, or its peripheral surface is configurated in such a way that the roller 61 dwells at a predetermined level in which the turntable 7 is held in an intermediate position such that the lowermost sheet of the stack 1 therebelow maintains the valves 109 in slightly open positions so that the escaping compressed air can form the aforediscussed cushion. During such interval of retention of turntable 7 at a predetermined level at which the valves 109 are slightly open, the motor 62 causes the crank unit of the indexing means 63 to pivot the crank arm 41 about the axis of the shaft 37 which rotates through 90 degrees and causes a corresponding angular displacement of the turntable 7 with the suspended stack 1 therebelow. This results in such change of orientation of the stack 1 that the shorter sides of its sheets are parallel with the direction which is indicated by the arrow 72 so that one of such shorter sides can be coated with adhesive while the reoriented stack 1 moves away from the station 4.
In other words, clamp 7 is at a height above stack 1 such that when air is discharged from openings 9 stack is essentially lifted to move stack 1 is urged against clamp 7 and a cushion has formed between the stack and support surface 6. Lampe teaches that a "balance" between gas discharged to raise a stack and downward pressure of a top clamp is necessary when moving stacks of sheets "without defacing and/or otherwise damaging the sheets, and within short intervals of time." (See Lampe column 1, line 45.) It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Helbach to balance a supply of gas through a plurality of openings with pressure from a top clamping device to provide a stacks of sheet in a hovering state above a support surface while being clamped between a gas cushion formed by a gas and a top clamping device, as taught by Lampe, "without defacing and/or otherwise damaging the sheets, and within short intervals of time."
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Helbach in view of Behringer and further in view of Frick (DE 10 2020 111 448) (English translation included with copy of reference).
Helbach discloses that "once jogged and aerated the stack will then be conveyed to a sheet-feeding printing press, laminator, die cutter, embosser, or other apparatus collectively referred to herein as "converting equipment" or "sheet treating apparatus". (C1/L22) Helbach does not explicitly disclose that an arrangement is configured to position a stack of sheets for cutting by a cutting machine. Frick discloses an arrangement 26, 38, 48, 50 configured to position a stack 128 of sheets for cutting by a cutting machine 10. Under KSR Helbach does not explicitly disclose a cutting machine, whereas Frick does. Since, all of the component parts are known in Helbach and Frick, the only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by adding a cutting machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Helbach to include the structure from Frick since the operation of the Helbach is in no way dependent on the operation of the cutting machine, and a cutting machine could be used to achieve the predictable result of manipulation of a stack to downstream processes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed Jan. 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. New claims 11-15 have been added to the rejection above.
Claim 1. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose two gripper arms that move independently.
The examiner does not agree with Applicants interpretation of the claims or cited prior art. The issue is to what element or elements are the two clamping devices movable independent of? To each other? The stack? The support surface? The limitation Applicant appears to arguing is:
PNG
media_image1.png
54
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Helbach's two clamping arms 76, 76 comprise the gripping assembly 34 move independently of support surface 24, 38. Nowhere in claim 1 is there further limitation of the element or elements the clamping jaws are moving independent of. Applicants arguments read into the limitation that the jaws move independent of each other. However, claim 1 merely requires two clamping arms that move independent of another feature of the apparatus such as a stack or a support surface. In other words, they can move simultaneously yet independently of any other structure of the apparatus and read on the limitation. Behringer follows similarly. Behringer's top clamp 19 moves independent of side clamps 12, 13 as well as relative to stack FSS and support surface 22.
Claim 1. Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose moving a plurality of stacks of sheets arranged in a row.
The examiner does not agree with Applicants interpretation of the claims or cited prior art. Claim 1 recites handling "one or more stacks of sheets" where the word "or" requires the cited prior art disclose either one stack or more stacks. Claim 12 recites "two stacks" which was addressed in the rejection of claim 12 above. And, Helbach explicitly discloses moving one stack.
Claim 1. Applicant argues that the combination of Helbach in view of Behringer results in an apparatus where "the gripper arms would grip the stack on the edges of the papers in the stack before the suction apparatus from Behringer is brought into contact with the stack. This is a direct contradiction to gripping and maneuvering a plurality of stacks of sheets arranged in a row, one after the other, along the longitudinal direction between the two side clamping devices."
The examiner does not agree with Applicants interpretation of the claims or cited prior art. As stated in the response immediately above the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 does not require the cited prior art disclose gripping and maneuvering a plurality of stacks arranged in a longitudinal direction. However, new claim 12 recites handling two stacks simultaneously, and Applicant is respectfully reminded that the material or article worked upon by the apparatus does not limit apparatus claims. See MPEP 2115. Assuming arguendo claim 12 included limitations directed to clamp structure that enabled 2-stack handling Helbach two side clamping devices could move two stacks simultaneously depending on individual widths of the stacks. Helbach's side clamps 76, 76 can move stacks "from 12 to 68 inches wide". In other words, side clamps 76, 76 can move a single stack 68" or any stack having a width less than 68". Helbach's side clamps could move two 34" W stacks because the combination of two 34" stacks does not exceed the max width of 68".
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY W ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8101. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/GREGORY W ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit