DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 are pending as submitted on 08/05/25.
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: “NTMRM”, “processor”, “feeding mechanism”, “label detection sensor” in claim 1.
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 of this title, 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka et al., JP 2008-174247 (translation submitted by Applicants).
With regard to claims 1 & 6, Yoshioka teaches a known type of computer-controlled label applicator, comprising various label detection sensors (15/34/51) which signal to the controller (17) to advance labels on a liner, via drive motors (M1/M2/M3), past a peel plate for peeling & application of said labels to articles, and instructions to reverse the feed direction of the liner whenever an unpeeled label error is detected, such that the liner moves backwards by a predetermined amount, and is then re-fed over said peel plate to reattempt label peeling, whereupon detection of a properly peeled label signals for the liner to be advanced normally (throughout, e.g. abstract, [FIGS. 1-4]).
While this reference does not expressly state whether the controller comprises a ‘processor’ which executes these instructions from its ‘non-transitory machine readable memory’, it is believed that one of ordinary skill in the art would find these components to be implicit in the automated/computerized controller of the prior art, or otherwise obvious to try from the limited amount of common designs for such a ‘controller’.
With regard to claims 2-3, the prior art retracts the label liner by a predetermined interval in order to retry label feeding & peeling, and while the prior art appears to be silent as to whether the predetermined interval is determined via measurement of feed distance or time or liner markings or the like, each of these would at least have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try, as these species represent the limited possibilities for making such a determination from said controlled sensors/motors.
With regard to claims 4-5, the prior art does teach such label presence sensors disposed downstream along a media feed path [FIGS. 3, 4] or downstream along a liner return path [FIGS. 1, 2], any such location being an obvious variant for achieving the same peel detection function.
With regard to claim 7, the prior art sensor is also said to be of any well-known kind, such as a photoelectric ‘image’ light sensor or the like [Page 16], which is considered to meet the term “image” detection otherwise render it prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to try, as one of a limited group of conventional non-contact optical sensors, with the above known label peeler feeding/retracting/refeeding means, to better control the position of the fed web during these steps using only known designs with predictable success.
Examiner also notes US 2017/0320609, US 5,660,676, US 5,232,540
as relevant to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BLADES whose telephone number is (571)270-7661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 PST.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/JOHN BLADES/
Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights