The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/25 has been entered.
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 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahl et al (US 2,729,885) in view of Shorthouse (US 3,3,94,827), both previously cited).
Re claim 13, Wahl discloses a product unpackaging system comprising:
a process conveyor 1-3 configured for supporting a target container A and moving the target container into a cutting zone (Fig. 1) over the process conveyor;
the cutting zone comprising two cutting gates 11 positioned opposite each other and on opposite sides of the process conveyor;
the process conveyor being configured to convey the target container supported on the process conveyor into the cutting zone and through the two cutting gates on opposite sides of the process conveyor with the two cutting gates being configured to cut through the target container along a perimeter edge and on only two opposite sidewalls of the target container as the process conveyor conveys the target container through the two cutting gates (col. 2:62-70);
the process conveyor also being configured to convey the target container supported on the process conveyor into the cutting zone and through the cutting gates with the two cutting gates being configured to cut through the target container along the perimeter edge and on only two remaining uncut sidewalls of the target container (col. 2:71 to col. 3:12) separating the target container into a “dome” A1 (as broadly recited) of the target container containing target products and a detached bottom A2 of the target container beneath the dome of the target container and the target products (Figs. 4-6).
Wahl does not explicitly disclose the cutting gates being configured to cut through the target container along perimeter bottom edges thereof, although the vertical position of the cutting plane relative to the container is adjustable (col. 2:21-22).
As noted in the previous Office action, Shorthouse a generally similar product unpackaging system for removing target product 32 from inside a target container 18, comprising: a means 19 to positionally locate a target container, said target container comprising a generally flat bottom surface and a dome, and said target container containing a target product within said target container, a conveyor 12 to move said target container into an unpackaging work cell (cutting zone: Fig. 3); a means 25 to cut the bottom surface separably apart from the dome of said target container; a means 30 to slidably move the dome of said target container, together with the target product still securely encapsulated inside the dome, out of said unpackaging work cell; a means 31 to remove and dispose of said dome of said target container; and a means 29 to remove and dispose of said bottom surface of said target container.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Wahl by configuring the (vertically adjustable) cutting gates to cut through the target container along the perimeter bottom edges thereof, as suggested by Shorthouse, to enable a separation of the target product from the dome and the bottom of the container, which would have neither required undue experimentation nor produced unexpected results.
Re claim 15, Wahl discloses that the container is turned 90 degrees in the portion of the process conveyor between the first pair of cutting elements 13/13a which cut the first two sides of the container and the second pair of cutting elements 18/18a which cut the remaining two sides of the container. Absent any structural limitations, the roller elements 3 of this portion of the conveyor are considered to comprise a “passive rotation device” positioned adjacent to the process conveyor and being configured for rotating a target container on the passive rotation device.
Re claims 16 and 17, Wahl does not disclose separate entrance and exit conveyors positioned adjacent to the process conveyor, with the entrance conveyor being configured to convey a target container supported on the entrance conveyor to the process conveyor and transfer the target container from the entrance conveyor to the process conveyor, and the exit conveyor being configured to receive a target container from the process container and convey the target container supported on the exit conveyor from the process conveyor.
However, Shorthouse discloses separate entrance 12 and exit 33 conveyors adjacent to process conveyor 30, with the entrance conveyor being configured to convey a target container supported on the entrance conveyor to the process conveyor and transfer the target container from the entrance conveyor to the process conveyor, and the exit conveyor being configured to receive a target container from the process container and convey the target container supported on the exit conveyor from the process conveyor.
It would have been obvious to have included such features in the apparatus of Wahl when modified as above, to provide a convenient means of bringing containers to and removing containers from the cutting zone of the process conveyor.
Re claim 18, Wahl discloses that the process conveyor is a first process conveyor (the portion of conveyor adjacent cutting elements 13/13a), and further discloses a second process conveyor (the portion of conveyor adjacent cutting elements 18/18a) “separate from” (as broadly recited) the first process conveyor, the second process conveyor being positioned adjacent to the first process conveyor, the second process conveyor being configured to receive a target container conveyed by the first process conveyor and transferred to the second process conveyor (Fig. 1).
Re claim 19, Wahl shows that the first process conveyor and the second process conveyor are linearly aligned, and a “passive rotation device” (as broadly claimed; i.e., between the first and second sets of cutting elements 13/18 the container is turned 90 degrees) is positioned between the first process conveyor and the second process conveyor.
Re claim 20, Wahl shows the two cutting gates to comprise two first cutting gates 13/13a positioned opposite each other and fixed stationary on opposite sides of the first process conveyor, and two second cutting gates 18/18a positioned opposite each other and fixed stationary on opposite sides of the second process conveyor (Fig. 1).
Claims 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shorthouse in view of Wahl et al.
Re claim 9, Shorthouse discloses a method for unpackaging target product 32 from inside a target container comprising: positionally locating a target container 18 (col. 2:4-6), said target container itself comprising a generally flat bottom surface and a dome, moving the target container into a desired position inside an unpackaging work cell (col. 2:2-4); cutting through the surface of the target container along a closed path that follows on or near the target container’s perimeter bottom edge near its sidewalls such that the target container’s flat bottom surface is separated from the dome of the target container (col. 2:6-10); moving the separated dome of the target container, together with its target product still encapsulated inside the dome, out of the unpackaging work cell and to a desired exit point (col. 3:47-51); removing said dome from the target product (col. 3:51-52); disposing of said dome into a desired disposal container (col. 2:10-12; implicit from “disposal feed path”); and disposing of said separated bottom surface into a desired disposal container (col. 3:40-43).
Shorthouse does not show that the cutting of the container is performed first through only two opposite sidewalls of the target container and then through only two remaining uncut sidewalls of the target container.
As noted above, Wahl teaches cutting a similar container by first cutting through only two opposite sidewalls of the target container and then cutting through only two remaining uncut sidewalls of the target container.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Shorthouse by performing the cutting of the container first through only two opposite sidewalls of the target container and then through only two remaining uncut sidewalls of the target container, as taught by Wahl, to lessen the potential of damaging the product inside the container.
Re claim 11, Shorthouse shows that the moving of the target container is enabled by a powered conveyor 12. Wahl also teaches that the conveyor may optionally be powered (col. 2:4-7).
Re claim 12, when modified as above, the method of Shorthouse would comprise: moving the target container, said target container itself comprising a generally flat bottom surface and a dome, into a desired position inside an unpackaging work cell (col. 2:2-4); continuing to move the target container while cutting through the surface of the target container along a closed path that follows on or near the target container’s perimeter bottom edge near its sidewalls first through only two opposite sidewalls of the target container and then through only two remaining uncut sidewalls of the target container such that the target container’s flat bottom surface is separated from the dome of the target container (col. 2:6-10 and col. 3:34-40); moving the separated dome of the target container, together with its target product still encapsulated inside the dome, out of the unpackaging work cell and to a desired exit point (col. 3:44-46); removing said dome from the target product (col. 3:47-52); disposing of said dome into a desired disposal container (col. 2:10-12; implicit from “disposal feed path”); and disposing of said separated bottom surface into a desired disposal container (col. 3:40-43).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shorthouse in view of Wahl et al, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lisso et al (US 9,547,474) and Ravi (US 2022/0063121), both previously cited.
Shorthouse and Wahl both show moving the container to be enabled by a conveyor rather than a robot, and the cutting of the target container to be enabled by a mechanical blade rather than a laser. The examiner notes both references are quite old, before robots and lasers were commonplace.
Lisso explicitly teaches the use of a laser as an alternative to a cutting blade in the same field of endeavor (opening cardboard boxes) as Shorthouse and Wahl (col. 8:15-21 and 31-36).
Ravi discloses a container cutting apparatus wherein a container can be cut either by moving a cutting blade 114 relative to a stationary container, or by moving a container relative to a stationary blade (par. [0004]), wherein a robotic mechanism 112 can be used instead of a conveyor as the means of moving the container past the blade (par. [0032]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Shorthouse by utilizing a laser instead of a cutting blade to cut the container, as explicitly taught by Lisso, as this type of cutting means would not need to be periodically sharpened and/or replaced, and by utilizing a robot instead of a conveyor to move the target container past such a laser during a cutting operation, as this is explicitly taught by Ravi as an alternate equivalent means of moving a container past a stationary cutting blade, the use of which in the method of Shorthouse would have required no undue experimentation and produced no unexpected results, especially since lasers and robots are now commonly used in general industry.
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
Claim 14 is 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 9, 12 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Keenan whose telephone number is (571)272-6925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ernesto Suarez can be reached on 571-270-5565. 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.
/James Keenan/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3652
02/11/26