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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 11/25/2025.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 4 and 7 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-14 are pending and examined below.
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 1, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Colls et al. (9,925,694) in view of references Matye (9,010,382), Kelley et al. (5,400,837), and Stelliferi et al. (2008/0307755).
Regarding claim 1, Colls et al. disclose a filling mechanism comprising:
a first filling unit (872) configured to fill a product into a first bag;
a second filling unit (872) configured to fill the product into a second bag,
wherein the second filling unit (872) provides vacuuming; and
at least one guide (860) that enables selective feeding into at least one of the first filling unit (872) and the second filling unit (872),
wherein the product is filled into the first or second bag as desired.
(Figure 8a and Column 16 lines 60-62, Column 17 lines 1-5, 55-61)
However, Colls et al. do not disclose the first filling unit fills a big bag, and do not disclose the first filling unit comprises: a hanger; a first load cell; and a hydraulic piston configured to move hazelnut in the big bag.
Matye disclose a big bag filling unit (16) comprising:
a body (38);
a hanger (44);
a first load cell (55); and
a first carrier (20),
wherein the hanger (44) is situated on the body (38), wherein the hanger (44) is configured to grab the big bag (18),
wherein the first load cell is provided between the body (38) and the big bag (18),
wherein the first carrier (20) is configured to move the filled big bag away from the big bag filling unit (16).
(Figure 3 and Column 6 lines 32-34, Column 8 lines 32-40, 47-58, Column 9 lines 6-23)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the first filling unit of Colls et al. by incorporating the filling unit as taught by Matye, since column 5 lines 43-48 of Matye states such a modification would allow for automatic removable of the filled bag and ensure the weight of the filled bag.
In column 17 lines 22-25, Colls et al. disclose the first filling unit and the second filling unit can produce packages of various sizes. When modifying Colls et al. in view of Matye, the first filling unit is interpreted to fill big bags, and the second filling unit is interpreted to a bag with a dimension that is smaller than the big bag.
Kelley et al. disclose a big bag filling station (20) comprising a movement element (42), wherein the movement element (42) includes a hydraulic piston, and wherein the movement element (42) is configured to settling the material within the big bag (51). (Figure 1 and Column 9 lines 67-68 through Column 10 lines 1-12)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the first filling unit of Colls et al. by incorporating the movement element as taught by Kelley et al., since column 6 lines 6-14 of Kelley et al. states such a modification would allow for efficient filling of the big bag.
However, Colls et al. modified by Matye and Kelley et al. do not disclose feeding hazelnuts to the first and second filling unit.
Stelliferi et al. disclose a process of filling hazelnut (P) into at least one big bag (2). (Figure 3 and Page 2 paragraph 28, 34, 36)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the first filling unit of Colls et al. by incorporating the hazelnut and big bags as taught by Stelliferi et al., since page 1 paragraphs 3-4 of Stelliferi et al. states such a modification would fulfill the need of making bulk goods of hazelnuts.
When modifying Colls et al. in view of Stelliferi et al., the first and second filling unit are interpreted to be feed with hazelnuts.
Regarding claim 5, Colls et al. modified by Matye, Kelley et al., and Stelliferi et al. disclose the first filling unit (Matye – 16) comprises at least one first carrier (Matye – 20). (Matye – Column 9 lines 20-23)
Regarding claim 12, Colls et al. modified by Matye, Kelley et al., and Stelliferi et al. disclose a vacuum element is provided on the second filling unit. (Colls et al. – Column 17 lines 55-61)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Colls et al. (9,925,694) in view of references Matye (9,010,382), Kelley et al. (5,400,837), and Stelliferi et al. (2008/0307755) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Townsend (10,995,041).
Regarding claim 2, Colls et al. modified by Matye, Kelley et al., and Stelliferi et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a first magnetic detector and a second magnetic detector.
Townsend disclose a method of processing product to be packaged, wherein said method comprises the step of using a magnetic detector. (Column 8 lines 26-28)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the first and second filling units of Colls et al. by incorporating the magnetic detector as taught by Townsend, since column 8 lines 26-28 of Townsend states such a modification would allow the removal and detection of ferrous and non-ferrous materials.
Since Colls et al. disclose a first filling unit and a second filling unit, Colls et al. modified by Townsend is interpreted to disclose a first magnetic detector in the first filling unit, and a second magnetic detector in the second filling unit.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Colls et al. (9,925,694) in view of references Matye (9,010,382), Kelley et al. (5,400,837), and Stelliferi et al. (2008/0307755) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Dietrich, Jr. (2011/0258967).
Regarding claim 3, Colls et al. modified by Matye, Kelley et al., and Stelliferi et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a sampling unit.
Dietrich, Jr. disclose an apparatus comprising: a sampling unit (58); a body (10); a load cell (52); and a carrier (8). (Figure 48a, 49 and Page 2 paragraph 31, Page 3 paragraph 39, Page 4 paragraph 60, 64)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the first filling station of Colls et al. by incorporating the sampling unit as taught by Dietrich, Jr., since page 1 paragraph 1 of Dietrich, Jr. states such a modification would remove the need to fill the packages in a clean room.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Colls et al. (9,925,694) in view of references Matye (9,010,382), Kelley et al. (5,400,837), and Stelliferi et al. (2008/0307755) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Waters (2,159,835).
Regarding claim 6, Colls et al. modified by Matye, Kelley et al., and Stelliferi et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a pellet feeder.
Waters disclose a method of filling a bag, said method comprising the step of feeding a pellet into the bag. (Page 1 column 2 lines 53-60)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Colls et al. by incorporating the step of feeding a pellet as taught by Waters, since page 1 column 1 lines 6-9 of Waters states such a modification would help absorb moisture and prevent the formation of mold.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Colls et al. (9,925,694) in view of references Matye (9,010,382), Kelley et al. (5,400,837), and Stelliferi et al. (2008/0307755) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Price et al. (2008/0230557).
Regarding claim 8, Colls et al. modified by Matye, Kelley et al., and Stelliferi et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a collecting band and a lift.
Price et al. disclose a conveyor system (10) comprising: a silo (11); a collecting band (80); and a lift (82), wherein the collecting band (80) receives material from the silo (11), wherein the lift (82) carries the material to a processing machine (72). (Figure 6 and Page 2 paragraph 31, Page 3 paragraph 41)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the second filling unit of Colls et al. by incorporating the silo, the collecting band, and the lift as taught by Price et al., since page 3 paragraph 41 of Price et al. state such a modification would not require the silo to be situated a great height while allowing the second filing unit to hold a large quantity of product.
Regarding claim 9, Colls et al. modified by Matye, Kelley et al., Stelliferi et al., and Price et al. disclose at least one filling silo (Price et al. – 11) is provided on the second filling unit (Colls et al. – 872). (Price et al. – Figure 6 and Page 3 paragraph 41)
Claims 10-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Colls et al. (9,925,694) in view of references Matye (9,010,382), Kelley et al. (5,400,837), and Stelliferi et al. (2008/0307755) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Vollenkemper et al. (10,625,890).
Regarding claim 10, Colls et al. modified by Matye, Kelley et al., and Stelliferi et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a second load cell in the second filling unit.
Vollenkemper et al. disclose a method of filling a product into a bag (3) at a filling unit (12), where the filling unit (12) includes: a load cell (7); a dosing section (82); a vibration table (col 11 ln 55); and carrier (10). (Figure 1, 8 and Column 5 lines 21-30, 58-63, Column 6 lines 1-4, 14-16, Column 7 lines 28-33, Column 11 lines 55-59)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the second filling station of Colls et al. incorporating the filling station as taught by Vollenkemper et al., since column 1 lines 6-11 of Vollenkemper et al. states such a modification would allow a filling of bulk goods into smaller bags.
Regarding claim 11, Colls et al. modified by Matye, Kelley et al., Stelliferi et al., and Vollenkemper et al. disclose a dosing section (Vollenkemper et al. – 82) is provided on the second filling unit (Vollenkemper et al. – 12). (Vollenkemper et al. – Column 6 lines 14-16)
Regarding claim 13, Colls et al. modified by Matye, Kelley et al., Stelliferi et al., and Vollenkemper et al. disclose a vibration table is provided on the second filling unit (Vollenkemper et al. – 12). (Vollenkemper et al. – Column 11 liens 55-59)
Regarding claim 14, Colls et al. modified by Matye, Kelley et al., Stelliferi et al., and Vollenkemper et al. disclose at least one second carrier (Vollenkemper et al. – 10) is provided on the second filling unit (Vollenkemper et al. – 12). (Vollenkemper et al. – Figure 1 and Column 6 lines 1-4)
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 11/25/2025 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 4 and 7 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-14 are pending and examined below.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Colls et al. (9,925,694) modified by references Matye (9,010,382) and Stelliferi et al. (2008/0307755), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of reference Kelley et al. (5,400,837).
Applicant states:
But incorporating the teachings of Stelliferi would render Colls unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as Stelliferi’s vacuum-enclosure big-bag workflow is incompatible with Colls’ continuous, open-conduit pellet routing and small-bag sealing.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Stelliferi et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of vacuum-enclosing big-bags. Stelliferi et al. is relied upon for the teaching of filling hazelnut into big bags.
In column 26 lines 4-17 of Colls et al., modifications can be made to the disclosed invention without deviating from disclosed aspects for performing the same functions. Colls et al. do not disclose the incorporating of hazelnut product would render the disclosed invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
On page 1 paragraph 3 of Stelliferi et al., hazelnut products are disclosed to be well known in the art to be a product that are placed into containers by filling units. Stelliferi et al. do not disclose that hazelnut product can only be used in the disclosed filling unit.
Since Applicant does not provide evidence to support the assertion that the person of ordinary skill in the art would never modify Colls et al. to package hazelnuts, the assertion is mere speculation. “An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”. [MPEP 2145 (I)] Therefore, in view of Applicant not providing support for the assertion, and in view of neither Colls et al. nor Stelliferi et al. teaching away from such a modification, Applicant’s argument is rendered moot.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Colls et al. (9,925,694) modified by references Matye (9,010,382), Stelliferi et al. (2008/0307755), and Townsend (10,995,041), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
However, while Townsend teaches a magnetic detector in a general packaging context, Townsend does not disclose or suggest the need for two separate magnetic detectors, each specifically located on a distinct filling units (one for bulk/big bag, one for vacuum/small package).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Townsend is not relied upon for the teaching of a first filling unit and a second filling unit. Townsend is relied upon for the teaching of a magnetic detector. Colls et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a first filling unit and a second filling unit. When modifying Colls et al. in view of Townsend, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a first magnetic detector at the first filling unit and a second magnetic detector at the second filling unit in order for both the first and second filling units would have the benefit of detecting and removing ferrous and non-ferrous materials.
Therefore, Colls et al. in view of Townsend do disclose at least one first magnetic detector and at least one second magnetic detector respectively provided on the at least one first filling unit and the at least one second filling unit.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Colls et al. (9,925,694) modified by references Matye (9,010,382), Stelliferi et al. (2008/0307755), and Vollenkemper et al. (10,625,890), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
There is no disclosure in Vollenkemper of a dosing section, which is necessarily used to dose the packaging with a correct amount, as the name indicates and is described by the specification.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., to dose the packaging with a correct amount) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 11 discloses at least one dosing section is provided on the at least one second filling unit. Claim 11 does not discloses the dosing section is configured to dose the packaging with a correct amount.
In column 6 lines 34-37 of Vollenkemper et al., the filling turbine (82) is driven by a motor (81) to deliver the intended bulk goods for filling a bag (3). This implies the filling turbine doses the intended goods, i.e. the intended amount of goods, to the bag. Therefore, the filling turbine of Vollenkemper et al. is interrupted as a dosing section provided in a filling unit.
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 PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 March 4, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights