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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues on pages 4-6 of the Remarks that some limitations in claim 1 should not be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Such limitations are as follows:
a transfer unit
a cutting unit
a discharge unit
a plurality of swing units
a length adjustment unit
a grip unit, now amended as “a gripper”
The Applicant argues that the above limitations (or elements) are modified by sufficient structure to perform the claimed function (functions such as transferring, cutting, discharging, swinging, adjusting or gripping); however, neither the current claim amendments, such as “a cutting unit adapted to cut” nor the specification, recite sufficient structure to performed the claimed function.
Therefore, the claims will continue to be 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 Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the Remarks that White only discloses a single bag holder and not a plurality of swing units and that prior art White teaches away from multiple length adjustment units.
As previously explained, it would have been obvious to duplicate White’s swing unit with length adjustment unit (44) and grip unit (45) to have any number of a plurality of swing units with length adjustment units and grip units, to increase the throughput of bulk bag emptying through the device, since it was been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
The Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that White teaches away from requiring a gripper provided on an inward end of each length adjustment unit and adapted to directly grip the corner region of the bag, each swing unit adapted to independently shake that bulk bag.
However, this argument is not persuasive. White discloses a gripper (45) on an inward end of a length adjustment unit (44) to directly grip the bulk bag (at straps 46) (col. 3, lines 45-46) located at the corners (vertex regions), the swing unit shaking (via vibrator) and emptying the contents remaining in the bulk bag. (col. 3, lines 60-61)
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.
Claim limitations replacing the word “means” with the word “unit” does not change the interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The term “unit” is considered a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White (U.S. Pat. 5,649,801).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, White discloses a bulk bag opening device with a swing unit (32), the device comprising a transfer unit (42) coupled to a frame structure (78) that transfers a bulk bag of polygonal shape (“cube”, col. 4, lines 48-49), a cutting unit (70, 71, 72) that cuts the bulk bag (21) transferred by the transfer unit, and a discharge unit that discharges contents of the bulk bag to a hopper (22),
the swing unit comprising length adjustment unit (44) provided outside the bulk bag (outer vicinity) to be horizontally spaced apart therefrom by a predetermined distance and extending in a radially inward direction toward a corresponding vertex region (corner) of the bag (seen in Fig. 1) and accessing to the bulk bag, and grip means (gripper 45) provided on an inward end of the length adjustment unit to directly grip the bulk bag (at straps 46) (col. 3, lines 45-46) located at the corners (vertex regions), the swing unit shaking (via vibrator) and emptying the contents remaining in the bulk bag. (col. 3, lines 60-61)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to duplicate the swing units to have any number of a plurality of swing units, such as four swing units, with respective length adjustment units and grip units, to independently shake each bulk bag to increase the throughput of bulk bag emptying through the device, since it was been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
White discloses that the swing unit is equipped with a vibrator. (col. 3, lines 40-45)
White discloses that the length adjustment unit is an actuator operated by a motor (41).
Regarding claim 4, White discloses that the swing unit comprises moving unit (41) connected to the length adjustment unit to be movable along a side of the bulk bag.
Regarding claim 6, White discloses wherein the transfer unit moves the bulk bag down (col. 3, line 53) to seat the bulk bag on an upper portion of the hopper of the discharge unit, the cutting unit cuts the bulk bag, and then a lifting speed is adjusted by the transfer unit so that the contents in the bulk bag naturally flow and are transferred to the hopper (col. 3, lines 61-65), thus minimizing dust generation, and the swing unit grips and swings the bulk bag lifted to a certain height.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt, et al. (“Schmidt”) (U.S. Pat. 6,293,318).
Regarding claim 5, White discloses a cutting unit with blades (70, 71, 72) but does not disclose that the blades are arranged in four directions from a center so that diagonal lines of a lower surface of the bulk bag moving downward are cut across each other.
Schmidt discloses a bulk bag opening device with blades (4a) arranged in four directions from a center (4b) so that diagonal lines of a lower surface of a bulk bag (10) moving downward are cut across each other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute White’s cutting unit with Schmidt’s cutting unit, arranged in four directions from a center so that diagonal lines of a lower surface of a bulk bag moving downward are cut across each other, since doing so would be a mere substitution of one known cutting unit for another known cutting unit with the expected results that the substituted cutting unit would cut open the bulk bag (see MPEP 2143 I B).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/MJM/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 April 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights