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 .
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.
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:
Application device in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 1 as a component 26 which may comprise of suckers;
First abutment body in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 5A as a component 7 with flat surface with an edge that a web of material may pass over;
Second abutment body in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 5A as a component 9 with a flat surface that a web of material may pass over;
Recirculation transmission in claim 1, disclosed in Fig. 6 as a roller 10 upon which a web passes around;
Third abutment body in claim 9, disclosed in Fig. 4 as a component 23 with a flat surface that a web of material may pass over.
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 § 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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carver et al. (US 20050274458) in view of.Dangami et al. (US 20080029221).
As to claim 1, Carver discloses a label applicator system for peeling and applying labels onto a desired item (Abstract; Fig. 7 below). Carver discloses that the device comprises of a label supply spool 710, a label applicator 100 downstream of the of the label supply, and waste rewind spool 730 downstream of said label applicator 100 (Id.) Carver discloses that the waste rewind spool is capable of winding up a carrier web and any labels that are not applied to a desired item (¶28). Carver fails to teach or disclose whether the device may have the recited set of deflections. Dangnami discloses a label manufacturing apparatus (Abstract). Dangnami discloses that it is known and conventional in the art to use collecting device 22 comprising a set of deflections in a label process/apparatus (Fig. 1, 3-6 below). Dangnami discloses that the set of reflections comprise of a first abutment body 17 and a second abutment body 18, which form a gap in which a continuous band may pass into to go around a recirculation transmission 21 and then back out of said gap to pass along said second abutment body, and a transfer device 30 for removing defective labels (Id.). Dangnami teaches that using said deflections is advantageous in that it allows for the removal of defective labels from the continuous band if needed (¶8). It would have been obvious to modify the apparatus of Carver to include the collecting device of Dangami and would have been motivated to do so because Dangami teaches that the device allows for the removal of defective labels from a carrier/continuous material.
PNG
media_image1.png
512
681
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
768
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
761
408
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969).
A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, the apparatus of the above references as combined contains all of the structural limitations of claim 1.
As to claims 2 and 3, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught a seen above. Dangami discloses that the first flat abutment surface is parallel to the second flat abutment surface and that the first and second edges are arranged transverse to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1, 3-6).
As to claim 4, the apparatus of claim 1 is taught a seen above. Dangami discloses that first abutment body and said second abutment body are joined to form a single body, and wherein said first flat abutment surface and said second flat abutment surface are separated by a slit, said slit being delimited by said first edge and said second edge and forming said passage gap (Id.).
As to claim 5, the apparatus of claim 4 is taught a seen above. Dangami discloses that a passage gap is open at least on one side to define a lateral access to the sliding path (Id.).
As to claim 6, the apparatus of claim 5 is taught as seen above. Dangami discloses that the peeling device of the set of deflections comprises a shutter 27 stably associated with the sliding path and movable to open and close said lateral access to the sliding path (Fig. 1, 3-6).
As to claims 7 and 8, the apparatus of claim 6 is taught as seen above. Dangami discloses that a third edge (the edge around 28A of Fig. 1) delimits downstream a second flat abutment surface and that said third edge is transverse to the longitudinal direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 9 recites that the apparatus has a third abutment body having a moving-away flat surface, wherein said third edge is parallel to a fourth edge delimiting upstream the moving-away flat surface, said fourth edge being adjacent to the third edge to form a further passage gap for the continuous band. The closest prior art of Carver et al. (US 20050274458) as modified by Dangami et al. (US 20080029221) fails to teach or disclose a third abutment body with a fourth edge opposite to the third edge to form a gap as currently claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET whose telephone number is (571)270-3968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, PHILLIP TUCKER can be reached at (571)272-1095. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C CAILLOUET/Examiner, Art Unit 1745
/GEORGE R KOCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
