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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 10/14/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 16-35 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of an Information Disclosure Statement, filed 10/14/2025, which has been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed and dated copy of the PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to this Office 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 “a transport element” of claim 16 corresponding to conveyor belt, conveyor chain or belt conveyor.
the “product carriers” of claim 16 corresponding to transport rods or fingers.
the “application unit” of claim 16 corresponding to first drive disk, second drive disk, and tool plate.
the “blank carrier system” of claim 16 corresponding to two loop-like elements arranged on both sides of the transport direction, and two deflection devices.
the “feed element” of claim 16 corresponding to a conveyor belt, conveyor chain or belt conveyor.
the “separation unit” of claim 19 corresponding to flat extraction unit or as a rotating suction unit..
the “separating device” of claim 32 The structure of this element is insufficiently described in the specification, since there is no recited structure for performing the claimed function other than a simple recitation of the function that this element performs.
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(b)
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 16-35 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites that, “a blank carrier system for providing the separated material blank at the application unit in a positionally accurate manner.” (emphasis added). However, the term “positionally accurate manner” a relative/subjective term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How accurate? And relative to what tolerance? The claim nor the specification provides a standard for what would constitute a “positionally accurate manner” or what would constitute positionally inaccurate manner. As such, the metes and bounds of the term cannot be fully ascertained and it is deemed to be indefinite.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites that, “the packaging system is configured to continuously feed the separated material blank along the feed path to the blank carrier system in such a way that the separated material blank crosses the circulation path of the product carriers at an intersection point without collision” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite because the “without collision” does not identify the colliding structure, and it is unclear whether “without collision” requires only that the blank and a product carrier not occupy the intersection point simultaneously, or whether the blank must also clear the transport element itself, as distinct from the discreet product carriers mounted on it. Indeed, it is unclear if the without collision requires the blank to clear other structure of the transport element at that crossing. Clarification is required. For purpose of examination, the limitation is construed as: “the packaging system is configured to continuously feed the separated material blank along the feed path to the blank carrier system in such a way that the separated material blank crosses the circulation path of the product carriers at an intersection point without collision with the product carriers.
Regarding claims 16-34, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence upon rejected claim 16.
Claim limitation “separating device” of claim 32 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the section above, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performed the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 34, the claim recites that, “at least one of the product carriers circulating along the circulating path, borders, during a complete circulation along the circulating path, a surface perpendicular to the transport plane and parallel to the transport direction, a circumference of which surface is formed by the circulating path, and wherein, viewed in a plan view of this surface, the feed path extends along a first section of the feed path outside the bordered surface and the feed path extends from the intersection point along a second section of the feed path within the bordered surface”. The metes and bounds of this limitation cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Firstly, the claim does not identify what portion of the carrier “borders” the surface, whether the surface is generated by one carrier or by the full set of carriers, or whether “borders’ means lies on, sweeps, or merely approaches the surface. A person of ordinary skill cannot determine how the claimed surface from the motion of “at least one” product carrier. Secondly, the limitation “a circumference of which surface is formed by the circulating path,..” is unclear because the circulating path is a closed curve travelled by the product carriers. The claim does not explain how that curve “forms the circumference” of a surface, what “borders” means, or how one carrier over one revolution defines that surface. Additionally, the “surface” cannot be both perpendicular to plane and parallel to direction on any single, identified plane. The claim does not name the plane or the projection. Lastly, without a defined boundary, “outside” “within” in plan view have no objective meaning. They are defined only relative to “this surface”. Because the surface and its circumference are not objectively ascertainable, it is unclear where the first section of the feed path ends, and the second section begins. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 35, the claim recites that, “wherein the at least one of the separated material blanks is continuously fed to the blank carrier system along the feed path in such a way that the material blank crosses the circulation path of the product carriers at an intersection point without collision” (emphasis added) which renders the claim indefinite because the “without collision” does not identify the colliding structure, and it is unclear whether “without collision” requires only that the blank and a product carrier not occupy the intersection point simultaneously, or whether the blank must also clear the transport element itself, as distinct from the discreet product carriers mounted on it. Indeed, it is unclear if the without collision requires the blank to clear other structure of the transport element at that crossing point. Clarification is required. For purpose of examination, the limitation is construed as: “wherein the at least one of the separated material blanks is continuously fed to the blank carrier system along the feed path in such a way that the material blank crosses the circulation path of the product carriers at an intersection point without collision with the product carriers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, and to overcome the rejection(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Look et al. (US 20230331414 A1; WO 2022078789 A1 priority filing date of 04/21/2022 is relied upon), Look teaches a packaging system (28a) for packaging a container group including multiple containers ([0002]), a transport element (horizontal conveying element, Fig. 4a) an application unit (1a), a feed unit (32) but is silent regarding wherein the packaging system is configured to continuously feed the separated material blank along the feed path to the blank carrier system in such a way that the separated material blank crosses the circulation path of the product carriers at an intersection point without collision. The feed path doesn’t cross with the circulation path at an intersection point to where the blanks doesn’t collide with the product carriers.
Walker et al. (US 4231209 A), Walker teaches a packaging system (10) for packaging a container group (Fig. 9) including multiple containers (16), a transport element (22), an application unit (28), a feed unit (24) but is silent regarding wherein the packaging system is configured to continuously feed the separated material blank along the feed path to the blank carrier system in such a way that the separated material blank crosses the circulation path of the product carriers at an intersection point without collision. The feed path doesn’t cross with the circulation path at an intersection point to where the blanks doesn’t collide with the product carriers.
Edwards et al. (US 20210053704 A1), Edwards teaches container carrier application system 10 comprising a conveyor 14, a container positioning device 16, and an application device 18 but is silent regarding wherein the packaging system is configured to continuously feed the separated material blank along the feed path to the blank carrier system in such a way that the separated material blank crosses the circulation path of the product carriers at an intersection point without collision. The feed path doesn’t cross with the circulation path at an intersection point to where the blanks doesn’t collide with the product carriers.
Culpepper (US 3977150 A) teaches the general state of the art but doesn’t teach the feed path doesn’t cross with the circulation path at an intersection point to where the blanks doesn’t collide with the product carriers.
PAPSDORF (US 20160362208 A1) teaches Motion between the infeed carrier apparatus 102, grouping apparatus 104, transfer apparatus 106, and outfeed carrier apparatus 108 may be synchronized in order to avoid collisions between system components and to enable desired operation timing of the article grouping system 100. However, it is not clear how Papsdorf would reasonably be modified to combine with either Look or Walker without engaging in impermissible hindsight since it would require a significant redesign of Look or even Papsdorf.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
