DETAILED ACTION
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:
The “lifting device for lifting the bales having the straps:, as recited in at least Claim 1;
The “gripping unit with at least a first gripping element and a second gripping element for picking up a respective bale between said first and second gripping elements”, as recited in at least Claim 1;
The “detection device for detecting an orientation of a strap of the bales”, as recited in at least Claim 6;
The “detection device configured for detecting an outer contour of a bale to be picked up in order to determine a desired contact point for the respective said gripping element on the bale”, as recited in at least Claim 8.
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 2 and 9-14 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.
Claim 2 recites, “The device according to claim 1, wherein said gripping unit is configured to be driven at least one of translationally or rotationally for pivoting the in the picked- up position.” The object to be pivoted is missing, but it is believed that this limitation di directed to the pivoting of the bale.
Claim 9 recites, “An arrangement for transporting bales, the arrangement comprising:
a device for transferring bales according to claim 1;
an input-side conveyor and at least one output-side conveyor for transporting the bales to and away from said device for transferring the bales;
said device for transferring the bales being configured for at least one of aligning the bales in a predetermined transport direction or aligning the bales for a predetermined alignment of a strap of the bales.”
The device according to Claim 1 had previously introduced “a conveyor for conveying the bales”. As such, the “conveyor” recited in Claim 1 encompasses both the input-side conveyor and the output-side conveyor, thereby making the second limitation in Claim 9 redundant/duplicative to the generic “conveyor” recited in Claim 1. In addition, the use of the indefinite articles (i.e., “an” and “at least one”) to introduce the input-side conveyor and the output side conveyor in Claim 9 introduces ambiguity because the use of the indefinite articles in combination with the “input-side conveyor” and the “output side conveyor” can be construed to mean that the conveyors in Claim 9 are different structures from the “conveyor” introduced in Claim 1. However, as best understood from the disclosure, the input-side conveyor and the output side conveyor are subcomponents to the generic “conveyor” recited in Claim 1.
Claim 10 recites, “A method for aligning bales that are provided with straps, the method comprising:
providing a device for transferring bales according to claim 1;
detecting an outer contour of a respective bale;
determining a bale position of the bale;
detecting an alignment of straps of the bale;
controlling the gripping elements of the device for transferring bales to pick up the bale from the input-side conveyor on two mutually opposite sides of the bale;
lifting the bale depending on the alignment of the straps of the bale;
selectively moving the bale in translation and/or in rotation; and
depositing the bale with a predetermined orientation on an output-side conveyor.”
There is no antecedent basis for “the input-side conveyor” because Claim 1 previously introduced only “a conveyor for conveying the bales”.
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 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/145053 (“WO ‘053”; cited by Applicant; English translation of the Description provided with this Office Action).
With regard to Claims 1 and 7, WO ‘053 discloses a device (100, Figs. 9, 11, P9-P14) for transferring square objects (W, Figs. 1-21; Note: With regard to the limitations in the preamble being directed to the bales being comprised of fiber material for fiber processing, and the bales being bound with straps, these limitations are directed to the article being worked upon by the claimed device/apparatus, and the article worked upon by an apparatus does not limit apparatus claims; see MPEP 2115), the device comprising:
a conveyor (5, Figs, 9, 11) for conveying the objects (W) and
a lifting device (4) for lifting the objects;
said lifting device having a gripping unit (2, 3, 23a, 23b, 24, Figs. 1-3) with at least a first gripping element (1a) and a second gripping element (1b) for picking up a respective object between said first and second gripping elements;
said gripping elements being movable relative to one another (via linkage (23a, 23b, 24); As shown in Fig. 1, the gripping elements (1a, 1b) are closer to each other than they are as shown in Fig. 2) and being movable vertically (42, Fig. 9; 90, Fig. 11) and
a rotary drive for rotationally driving said gripping elements for tilting the respective bale in a picked-up position (Fig. 11 shows that gripping unit as a whole can rotate around a vertical axis as denoted by the curved arrow directly above (2), and that each gripping element can rotate around a horizontal axis as denoted by the curved arrows directly above (1a, 1b); given these rotational capabilities of the gripping unit of WO ‘053, a rotary drive would be inherent in order to provide these capabilities).
With regard to Claim 2, WO ‘053 discloses wherein said gripping unit is configured to be driven at least one of translationally (as denoted by the straight arrows that extend in the X and Y directions as shown in Figs. 9 and 11) or rotationally (as denoted by the curved arrow directly above (2), and the curved arrows directly above (1a, 1b) in Figs. 9, 11) for pivoting the object in the picked- up position (Figs. 7-11, P9-P14).
With regard to Claim 3, WO ‘053 discloses wherein said gripping unit is configured to pivot an object that has been picked up by said gripping elements by at least 90° about a vertical axis of rotation (Fig. 11 shows that gripping unit as a whole can rotate around a vertical axis as denoted by the curved arrow directly above (2)).
With regard to Claims 4 and 5, WO ‘053 discloses wherein said gripping unit is configured to pivot an object bale that has been picked up by said gripping elements by at least 90° or 120° (because each gripping element (1a, 1b) can rotate around a horizontal axis as denoted by the curved arrows directly above (1a, 1b), it would be possible to rotate the object up to 360°. Fig. 11 describes an articulated robot (90, P9) that would also capable of rotating the object around either a vertical or horizontal axis at least 120° and likely up to 360°. See also Figs. 7-8 which show that the object will pivot based on where the gripping elements contact the object, and would allow pivoting of the object up to 180° without any drive located at the gripping elements).
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.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘053 in view of Peters et al, US 7,152,634 (cited by Applicant) and JP 2019131304 (“JP ‘304”; cited by Applicant; English translation of the Description provided with this Office Action). Claims 1-5 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO ‘053 in view of Peters and JP ‘304.
With regard to Claims 1-5 and 9, WO ‘053 fails to teach the use of the transferring device for transferring bales of fiber material that are bound with straps. Peters discloses a transfer device (Figs. 1-4, C3, L65 – C6, L67) that includes a lifting and positioning device (4, Fig. 1) that lifts and positions bales (1) having straps (2) that can be cut and removed from the bale (via devices 6/7/8 and 9/9’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify WO ‘053 such that the WO ‘053 device was also capable of being used with fiber material bales having straps (e.g., by adding the cutting and removing devices (9/9’) and (6/7/8), and/or by including detection devices for locating the straps (5)) because it would allow the object-rotating advantages of the WO ‘053 device to be also used with fiber material, strapped bales thereby making the WO ‘053 more useful across more industries and fields.
With regard to Claims 6 and 8, WO ‘053 fails to teach detection devices. Peters discloses a detection device (5, 10) that detects the orientation of a strap on the bale (C4, L27-31) and the outer contour of the bale (C4, L34-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify WO “053 to include detection devices that can determine the orientation of the straps and outer contour of the bale because it would allow the bales to be accurately positioned for the cutting of the straps, as taught by Peters. The ordinarily skilled artisan would recognize that these detection devices could also be used to determine the location of the straps and bale so as to determine where the bale gripping elements should make contact with the bale and how to orient the bale for subsequent operations (such as cutting the straps in a different location), and the ordinarily skilled artisan would be able to make these modifications using known methods and the modification would yield only predictable results.
With regard to Claim 7, WO ‘053 fails to teach a rotary drive for each gripping element, where the term “drive” is being construed to require some type of actuator that creates the rotary movement (instead of a system that allows passive movement such as the bearing mounted gripping elements (1a, 1b) of WO ‘053). JP ‘304 discloses a transfer device (1, Figs. 1-12, P5 – P9) that includes a lifting device (B) and a gripping unit (2, Figs. 1-4)) having two arms (3) that are movable towards and away from each other (P5-P6), each arm having a gripping element (5) that can be rotated by a motor (60, P7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to modify WO ‘053 to include gripping elements that are actively rotated by a rotary drive because it would allow the object/bale to be rotated through 360°, thereby increasing the capabilities and efficiency of the transfer device.
With further regard to Claim 9 , WO ‘053 also discloses an input-side conveyor (5, Figs. 9, 11) and at least one output-side conveyor (11). In addition, because WO ‘053 teaches the use of an articulated robot (90) that is capable of reorienting the object in any configuration (as shown by the directional arrows in Fig. 11), the WO ‘053 device is capable of aligning the objects/bales in a predetermined transport direction or aligning the object/bales for a predetermined alignment of a strap of the bales.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-14 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references disclose one or more of the claimed features:
US 5,689,934
US 5,799,466
US 8,226,140
US 8,777,552
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN E SCHWENNING whose telephone number is (313)446-4861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5 pm 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, 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.
/LYNN E SCHWENNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652