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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9 October 2025 has been entered.
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 text of those sections of referring to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action (see 13 January 2025).
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.
The following claimed limitations are deemed to invoke 35 USC 112f:
“means for measuring a density of said food product” (claim 13)
“means for measuring a driving torque of said motor means” (claim 14)
“means for adjusting a position of said abutment element” (claim 22)
Drawings
The amendment to the drawings filed 9 October 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The density measuring means physically associated with the chamber 2 when the original disclosure does not set forth a clear physical association or location for the density measuring means
The means for measuring a density of said food product (claim 13) noted as #30 in the instant amended drawings, is described and claimed in the original specification and claims as “comprising means for measuring a driving torque of said motor means” (claim 14; noted as #31 in the instant amended drawings). However, these are depicted as separate elements (30, 31) in the drawings and not the first (30) being comprised of the second (31). As such, this depiction is deemed to be new matter.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “means for measuring a density of said food product” (claim 13) and “means for measuring a driving torque of said motor means” (claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 13 June 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The amendments add reference characters 30 and 31 which are new matter as they identify objects which are being objected to for being new matter themselves per the drawing objection above.
Additionally, the inclusion of “measuring the torque of the motor means 9 with a torque measuring means” is deemed to be new matter as this language was not part of the original disclosure and implies a separate element from the “means for measuring a density” which is not supported by the original disclosure. Applicant’s arguments note that the “torque measuring means” is now disclosed generically as an element that is arranged outside of the motor. This would also be deemed to be new matter because the location (i.e. inside or outside) is not disclosed in the original specification.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 recites “means for measuring a density of said food products” which invokes 35 USC 112f with regards to the “means” language.
A review of the original Specification shows that the “means for measuring a density of said food products” is “an algorithm (software). With regard to computer-implemented functional claims, the Applicant’s specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing (see MPEP 2161.01 I). The Office has determined that the original specification does not meet these criteria with respect to the cited amended limitations above. As such, the Applicant is not deemed to have been in possession of the claimed invention at the time of effective filing.
Claim 14 recites “means for measuring a driving torque of said motor means” which invokes 35 USC 112f with regards to the “means” language.
A review of the original Specification shows that the “means for measuring a driving torque of said motor means” is an algorithm. With regard to computer-implemented functional claims, the Applicant’s specification must disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing (see MPEP 2161.01 I). The Office has determined that the original specification does not meet these criteria with respect to the cited amended limitations above. As such, the Applicant is not deemed to have been in possession of the claimed invention at the time of effective filing.
Claims 14-23 are rejected for containing the same rejected subject matter as independent claim 13.
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 13-23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “means for measuring a density of said food products” which invokes 35 USC 112f with regards to the “means” language. However, after turning toward the Specification to establish the meets and bounds of this limitation, it is discovered that this means is merely described as an “algorithm” without any other physical or tangible structure. Furthermore, the original specification makes no disclosure about what said “algorithm” is (see MPEP 2181 II B). As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be fully ascertained as it is unclear how this function is being achieved.
Claim 14 recites “means for measuring a driving torque of said motor means” which invokes 35 USC 112f. However, after turning toward the Specification to establish the meets and bounds of this limitation, it is discovered that this means is merely described as an “algorithm” without any other physical or tangible structure. Furthermore, the original specification makes no disclosure about what said “algorithm” is (see MPEP 2181 II B). As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be fully ascertained as it is unclear how this function is being achieved.
Claims 14-23 are rejected for containing the same indefinite subject matter as their respective parent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 13, 16, 19-21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonati et al. (US 2018/0312281 A1) hereinafter referred to as Bonati alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonati (US 2018/0312281 A1) in view of Longo (CA 942996 A).
Regarding claim 13, Bonati discloses a filling machine (10) for food products in cans (limitation of intended use; #30), comprising a supporting frame (fig. 1) which forms a chamber (18) and a feeding tunnel (13) which is adapted to convey a food product (17) into said chamber; said chamber being provided with a plunger (16) which can move along said chamber (paragraph 0035), along a predefined compression direction (vertical arrow fig. 1 in #16), between a bottom dead center position (PMI) (paragraph 0042 – “Such output signal can be used to set the stroke of the plunger 16, including its initial (bottom) end point…”), in which said chamber is free from said plunger in order to feed said food product into said chamber (paragraph 0034), and a top dead center position (PMS) (paragraph 0042 – “…and end (top) point set point”), in which said plunger occupies at least partially said chamber (paragraphs 0034-0035) for a compression of said food product into at least one preset shape (fig. 1; cylindrical shape of #24; paragraph 0035); said chamber being provided with at least one expulsion piston (28) which is configured to move transversely with respect to said compression direction for an expulsion of said at least one preset shape in a direction of a station for canning said food product (fig. 1; paragraph 0035); motor means (paragraphs 0012, 0046) being further provided which are associated (via 50, 54, 58 and other connected components) with said plunger for a movement thereof along said compression direction (fig. 1; paragraph 0036); and further comprising means for measuring (paragraphs 0042, 0044) a density of said food product compressed in said chamber by the plunger in order to control a driving torque of said motor means as a function of an achievement of a predetermined density value (paragraph 0044), thrust of the motor means being stopped (paragraph 0044 – “Such amount of fish is set so that at the end of the fill cycle, the plunger 16 always stops at the same elevation or location relative to the compression chamber 18”) when the predetermined density value has been reached (paragraph 0044 – “Such amount of fish is set so that at the end of the fill cycle, the plunger 16 always stops at the same elevation or location relative to the compression chamber 18. The amount of fish placed within the containers by the apparatus 10 is always the same (determined by the fish volume times the fish density)”), locking and maintaining the plunger in position (paragraph 0044 – “Such amount of fish is set so that at the end of the fill cycle, the plunger 16 always stops at the same elevation or location relative to the compression chamber 18”).
Alternatively, wherein the Applicant may argue that means for measuring a density of said food product compressed in said chamber by the plunger in order to control a driving torque of said motor means as a function of an achievement of a predetermined density value, thrust of the motor means being stopped when the predetermined density value has been reached, locking and maintaining the plunger in position is not disclosed, the Office further points to Longo.
Longo teaches means for measuring a density of said food product compressed in said chamber by the plunger in order to control a driving torque of said motor means as a function of an achievement of a predetermined density value, thrust of the motor means being stopped when the predetermined density value has been reached, locking and maintaining the plunger in position (pg. 7 lines 20-27; pg. 17 lines 1-20; claim 10).
Given the teachings of Longo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bonati with the density measuring means of Longo. Doing so would properly ensure that the contents were packed to a desired density as different products can be crushed to different degrees and still be desirable for sale.
Regarding claim 16, Bonati discloses wherein said motor means are associated with said plunger by virtue of a first rod (50, 54)-and-crank (56, 58, 60) mechanism.
Regarding claim 19, Bonati discloses wherein said feeding tunnel (13) has a longitudinal extension that is substantially perpendicular to said compression direction (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Bonati discloses wherein said chamber (18) is delimited, on an opposite side with respect to said plunger proximate to said top dead center, by an abutment element (20, 26, 28) which is contoured, on a side directed toward an inside of said chamber, with a geometric profile which reproduces in negative form a portion of said at least one preset shape (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 21, Bonati discloses wherein said abutment element (20, 26, 28) is shaped to form at least two predefined shapes (fig. 1; paragraph 0035); said at least one expulsion piston comprising at least two expulsion pistons (28; fig. 1) which correspond to said geometric profile of said abutment element.
Regarding claim 24, Bonati discloses a method for the filling of food products (17) in metallic boxes, cans (30), comprising the steps of:
feeding a food product (17) to a chamber (18) provided with a plunger (16) which is configured to move along said chamber (paragraph 0035), along a predefined compression direction (vertical arrow fig. 1 in #16), between a bottom dead center position (PMI) (paragraph 0042 – “Such output signal can be used to set the stroke of the plunger 16, including its initial (bottom) end point…”), in which said chamber is free from said plunger in order to feed said food product into said chamber (paragraph 0034), and a top dead center position (PMS) (paragraph 0042 – “…and end (top) point set point”), in which said plunger occupies at least partially said chamber (paragraphs 0034-0035) for a compression of said food product into at least one preset shape (fig. 1; cylindrical shape of #24; paragraph 0035);
setting up a predetermined density value of said food product (paragraph 0042);
compressing (fig. 1; paragraph 0036) said food product by means of said plunger;
measuring (paragraph 0042) a density of said food product compressed by said plunger in said chamber;
actively controlling (paragraph 0044), during the compression of each single compression cycle, a driving torque of the motor means adapted to move said plunger, said driving torque being controlled by detecting a density of the food product compressed and adjusting said driving torque in order to achieve said predetermined density value of said food product;
upon achieving said predetermined density value of said food product stopping (paragraph 0044 – “Such amount of fish is set so that at the end of the fill cycle, the plunger 16 always stops at the same elevation or location relative to the compression chamber 18”) a stroke of said plunger in a position that corresponds to said predetermined density value (paragraph 0044 – “Such amount of fish is set so that at the end of the fill cycle, the plunger 16 always stops at the same elevation or location relative to the compression chamber 18”) and maintaining the plunger in the position, thus avoiding compressing further said food product (paragraph 0044 – “Such amount of fish is set so that at the end of the fill cycle, the plunger 16 always stops at the same elevation or location relative to the compression chamber 18”)
Alternatively, wherein the Applicant may argue that upon achieving said predetermined density value of said food product stopping a stroke of said plunger in a position that corresponds to said predetermined density value and maintaining the plunger in the position, thus avoiding compressing further said food product is not disclosed, the Office further points to Longo.
Longo teaches setting up a predetermined density value of said food product; measuring a density of said food product compressed by said plunger in said chamber; actively controlling, during the compression of each single compression cycle, a driving torque of the motor means adapted to move said plunger, said driving torque being controlled by detecting a density of the food product compressed and adjusting said driving torque in order to achieve said predetermined density value of said food product; and upon achieving said predetermined density value of said food product stopping a stroke of said plunger in a position that corresponds to said predetermined density value and maintaining the plunger in the position, thus avoiding compressing further said food product (pg. 4 lines 1-15; pg. 7 lines 20-27; pg. 17 lines 1-20; claim 10).
Given the teachings of Longo, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bonati with the density measuring means of Longo. Doing so would properly ensure that the contents were packed to a desired density as different products can be crushed to different degrees and still be desirable for sale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonati (US 2018/0312281 A1) in view of Longo (CA 942996 A) in view of Oropeza (US 8,485,232 B1).
Regarding claim 14, Bonati discloses means for measuring the density of said food product compressed in said chamber, but doesn’t disclose wherein said means for measuring the density of said food product compressed in said chamber comprise means for measuring a driving torque of said motor means.
However, Oropeza teaches wherein said means for measuring the density of said food product compressed in said chamber comprise means for measuring a driving torque of said motor means (col. 6 lines 53-63).
Given the teachings of Oropeza, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to incorporate the measuring means of Oropeza with those of Bonati. Both are concerned about compressing a food product to a desired density and controlling and therefore measuring for the torque of the motor is an obvious way to do this as the torque of the motor is proportional to the compressive force on the food and for different products it will be desired to have different densities of packages.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonati (US 2018/0312281 A1) in view of Longo (CA 942996 A) in view of May et al. (US 8,950,574 B2) hereinafter referred to as May.
Regarding claim 15, Bonati fails to disclose wherein said motor means comprise a mechatronic system constituted by a control unit, a rotary servo motor of the brushless type provided with an encoder, and a speed reduction unit.
However, May teaches wherein said motor means (120, 313) comprise a mechatronic system constituted by a control unit (col. 7 lines 61-62), a rotary (col. 10 lines 7-13; col. 16 line 52 – col. 17 line 9) servo motor (col. 7 lines 60-61) of the brushless type (col. 17 lines 3-6) provided with an encoder (col. 7 lines 64-65), and a speed reduction unit (col. 9 line 53 – col. 10 line 13; col. 17 lines 9-11).
Given the teachings of May, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bonati with the motor elements of May. Servo motors, control units and encoders were all well-known elements used for ensuring a motor was driven at a desired speed and power. Having these elements would ensure the motor means was operated within specified parameters.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonati (US 2018/0312281 A1) in view of Longo (CA 942996 A) in view of Parisini et al. (US 2010/0166927 A1) hereinafter referred to as Parisini.
Regarding claim 17, Bonati discloses an infeed conveyor belt (13), but fails to disclose wherein said feeding tunnel comprises a plurality of conveyor belts which are oriented parallel to each other so as to form a passage channel interposed between said conveyor belts; said conveyor belts comprising an upper conveyor belt, a lower conveyor belt, and two lateral conveyor belts.
However, Parisini teaches wherein said feeding tunnel comprises a plurality of conveyor belts (3a-c) which are oriented parallel to each other so as to form a passage channel interposed between said conveyor belts (figs. 1-2); said conveyor belts comprising an upper conveyor belt (3c), a lower conveyor belt (3a), and two lateral conveyor belts (3b left and right).
Given the teachings of Parisini, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bonati to have the feeding tunnel comprising the plurality of belts of Parisini. Doing so would help to definitively feed the food product into the chamber by bounding the food on all sides.
Regarding claim 18, Bonati discloses an infeed conveyor belt (13) creating a feeding tunnel, wherein said feeding tunnel comprises a plurality of skimming elements which are arranged at an inlet of said chamber for an optimum conveyance of said food product into said chamber (fig. 1 – see plate elements channeling food 17 into the apparatus 10).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Bonati does not explicitly disclose such skimming elements, Parisini further teaches a feeding tunnel, wherein said feeding tunnel comprises a plurality of skimming elements (figs. 3-4) which are arranged at an inlet of said chamber (fig. 2) for an optimum conveyance of said food product into said chamber.
Given the teachings of Parisini, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Bonati to have the skimming elements of Parisini. Doing so would help to definitively feed the food product into the chamber by bounding the food on all sides.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonati (US 2018/0312281 A1) in view of Longo (CA 942996 A).
Regarding claim 22, Bonati discloses adjustment means (rods and cranks shown connected to 20, 26 and 28 in fig. 1) for adjusting a position of said abutment element (20, 26, 28) along said compression direction. Wherein the Applicant may argue that an adjustment means is not explicitly shown, the Office further notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have an adjustment means since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 V D). Do so would allow the final food products to have a different desired size and shape.
Regarding claim 23, Bonati discloses wherein said adjustment means comprise a servomotor which is associated with said abutment element by means of a second rod-and-crank mechanism (rods and cranks shown connected to 20, 26 and 28 in fig. 1) in a cascade arrangement with respect to a guiding and adjustment device.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that a servomotor is not explicitly disclosed, the Office previously took official notice in the Office Action of 13 January 2025 that servomotors were notoriously well-known in the art prior to effective filing as a means for driving the shown rod and crank mechanism in Bonati. Doing so would allow the abutment element to be driven and placed at desired positions at desired times without the need to drive them manually. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (see MPEP 2144.03 C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The formality rejections regarding the drawing and specifications are maintained for the reasons detailed in the action above.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 112a/b rejections are maintained for the reasons provided above. In short, the cited language invokes 35 USC 112f and does not meet the requirements under 35 USC 112a/b for the reasons detailed in MPEP 2161.01 I and see MPEP 2181 II B respectively.
With regards to the prior art rejections, the Applicant argues that Bonati does not disclose controlling for density because it only controls for quantity and that this does not directly relate to the density. The Office maintains that Bonati controls for product quantity in a closed and predefined volume. Density is understood to be a measure of quantity per unit of volume. Given that Bonati controls an amount of product that is placed into a fixed and predefined volume, it therefore controls for density within that predefined and fixed space. The Applicant argues that air might be trapped in some areas of the product. This hypothetical does not obliviate the plain reading of Bonati (paragraph 0044) in which “The amount of fish placed within the containers by the apparatus 10 is always the same”. An “amount” would be understood to be a mass of the fish product. This does not include air. The “same amount” (i.e. same mass) in a fixed volume, is a system that controls for density. Bonati is still deemed to read on the independent claims as written as there is no clear distinction recited in the claims to exclude the Office’s interpretation of the prior art.
Applicant argues that Longo does not cure the deficiencies of Bonati as it “does not control the density, since Longo does not control how much material is input”. The Office notes that Longo’s teachings are directed toward a means for measuring the density of a product. Such a means is explicitly taught by Longo in the cited passages (pg. 7 lines 20-27; pg. 17 lines 1-20; claim 10). Both references are concerned about the problem of compacting a product into a fixed volume container. Longo further teaches how the density of that product can be measured so as to control and stop the driving motor. As such, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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 at (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 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731