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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-12, drawn to a strapping machine having four compression sensors in a specific arrangement between the load support frame and the machine frame, classified in B65B 13/20.
II. Claims 13-19, drawn to a strapping machine having a floating load supporter and compression sensor mounts defining movement restricting indentation, classified in B65B 13/183.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require a “floating” load supporter and compression sensor mounts defining movement restricting indentation of the subcombination. The subcombination has separate utility such as one that has compression sensors arranged under both of a machine frame and a load supporter frame due to its floating arrangement.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their recognized divergent subject matter and the inventions require a different field of search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Adam Masia on December 03, 2025, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-19 have been withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
An action on the merits of the elected claims 1-12 follows.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc.
Therefore, the phrase, “Various embodiments of the present disclosure provide (line 1)” should be deleted.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Termanas et al. (hereinafter “Termanas”) (US 2020/0139657 A1) in view of Waite et al. (hereinafter “Waite”) (US 2019/0224935 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Termanas discloses a strapping machine (10) for compressing and strapping a load (L), the strapping machine comprising:
a machine frame (140, 150);
one of more compression sensors configured sense compressive force (see “force sensor” for measuring a compressive force in para. 44 and 55);
a load supporter (200) comprising a conveyor (see para. 20, the last 2 lines);
a platen (300) supported by the machine frame and movable toward and away from the load supporter (200) (fig. 4A-D);
a strapping head (500); and
a controller (800) configured to:
control the platen (300) to move toward the load supporter (200) and a load (L) positioned on the conveyor and beneath the platen (see para. 46 and fig. 4A-B);
determine an applied compressive force the platen applies to the load based on feedback from the one or more compression sensors (see portion (2) of para. 56); and
responsive to the applied compressive force reaching a target compressive force (see para. 40), stop moving the platen toward the load supporter (see para. 40) and control the strapping head to strap the load (para. 40).
Termanas does not expressly disclose the load supporter mounted to the one or more compression sensors.
Waite can be applied to teach a baler having a load supporter (80) for supporting a load, and four load sensors (82 or 182 (see para. 73) mounted to the load supporter (fig. 2), each of the load sensors are mounted at each corner (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Termanas with a plurality of sensors, with each sensor mounted to the load supporter at each corner, as taught by Waite, to ensure accurate measurements and even load distribution.
Regarding claim 2, the strapping machine of claim 1, Termanas discloses wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine a combined compressive force based on the feedback from the one or more compression sensors (see para. 44 of Termanas); and
determine the applied compressive force based on a weight of the load supporter, a weight of the load, and the combined compressive force (see para. 34 section 2, which discloses the controller 800 determines an applied compression force applied to the load. Para. 44 also discloses a load cell (which measures a weight of the load supporter and the load) is used to measure the compression force applied to the load. Therefore, the determination of the applied compressive force inherently based on a weight of the load supporter, a weight of the load, and the combined compressive force).
Regarding claim 4, the strapping machine of claim 2, as to the controller is further configured to, before the platen contacts the load, determine at least one of the weight of the load supporter and the weight of the load based on feedback from the one or more compression sensors, Termanas discloses the compression sensor measures the compression force of the platen applied to the load (para. 44). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the compression sensor of Termanas must first register the weight of the load itself (tare weight) before the platen applies a force on the load for accurate compression; otherwise, the recorded force would be artificially high, mixing the material's inherent properties with the system's initial weight, which is critical for determining true compressive strength and deformation.
Regarding claim 5, the strapping machine of claim 1, as to the controller is further configured to, before the platen contacts the load, zero the one or more compression sensors such that the feedback from the one or more compression sensors represents the applied compressive force, Termanas discloses the compression sensor measures the compression force of the platen applied to the load (para. 44). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the compression sensor of Termanas must first register the weight of the load itself (tare or zero weight) before the platen applies a force on the load for accurate compression; otherwise, the recorded force would be artificially high, mixing the material's inherent properties with the system's initial weight, which is critical for determining true compressive strength and deformation.
Regarding claim 6, the strapping machine of claim 1, as to the one or more compression sensors mounted between the machine frame and the load supporter, Termanas does not expressly disclose the compression sensors mounted between the machine frame and the load supporter.
Waite can also be applied to teach each of a plurality of sensors (182) mounted in a plane between a machine frame (200) and a load supporter (81) (see fig. 2 and 16-18).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount each of the plurality of sensors of Termanas in a plane between the machine frame and the load supporter, as taught by Waite, to achieve accuracy in measuring the weight being transferred.
Regarding claim 7, the strapping machine of claim 6, modified Termanas discloses wherein the load supporter further comprises a load-supporter frame (200 in fig. 1 of Termanas) to which the conveyor (fig. 1) is mounted, wherein the one or more compression sensors are mounted between the machine frame and the load-supporter frame (see fig. 2 of Waite, the modification of Termanas in view of Waite would make the one or more compression sensors mounted between the machine frame and the load-supporter frame, as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 above).
Regarding claim 8, the strapping machine of claim 7, modified Termanas discloses wherein the one or more compression sensors comprise first, second, third, and fourth compression sensors (see para. 73 of Waite, which discloses four sensors) mounted between the machine frame and the load-supporter frame.
Regarding claim 9, the strapping machine of claim 8, modified Termanas discloses wherein the machine frame comprises first, second, third, and fourth compression-sensor mounts (see holes in the machine frame (200) in fig. 16 of Waite for mounting the sensor (182) thereon), wherein the load-supporter frame comprises first, second, third, and fourth compression-sensor mounts (see fig, 15 and 12 of Waite, which shows the machine frame (200) where the sensor (182) mounted thereon, the machine frame (200 is mounted to the load support frame (see fig. 12)), wherein the first compression sensor is mounted between the first compression-sensor mounts (see figs. 12, 15, and 16 of Waite), wherein the second compression sensor is mounted between the second compression-sensor mounts (see figs. 12, 15, and 16 of Waite), wherein the third compression sensor is mounted between the third compression-sensor mounts (see figs. 12, 15, and 16 of Waite), wherein the fourth compression sensor is mounted between the fourth compression-sensor mounts(see figs. 12, 15, and 16 of Waite) .
Regarding claim 10, the strapping machine of claim 9, modified Termanas discloses wherein the load-supporter frame (200 in fig. 1 of Termanas) is rectangular (fig. 1 of Termanas) and comprises four corners, wherein the first, second, third, and fourth compression-sensor mounts are each positioned adjacent a different one of the corners (see fig. 15 of Waite).
Regarding claim 11, the strapping machine of claim 1, modified Termanas discloses wherein the one or more compression sensors comprise one or more load cells (see “load cells” in para. 73 of Waite).
Regarding claim 12, the strapping machine of claim 1, modified Termanas wherein the load supporter is mounted to the one of more compression sensors such that the one or more compression sensors support the entire weight of the load supporter and the entire weight of the load and are subjected to the applied compressive force (see Figs. 2-3 of Waite, which shows the sensors (82) located below the load supporter and the load; therefore, compression sensors support the entire weight of the load supporter and the entire weight of the load and are subjected to the applied compressive force).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Termanas and Waite, in further view of JP 2016506802 A (hereinafter “’ JP”).
Regarding claim 3, the strapping machine of claim 2, modified Termanas discloses the determination of the applied compressive force as set forth above. Termanas does not expressly disclose the determination of the applied compressive force is by determining the difference between the combined compressive force and the combined weights of the load supporter and the load.
JP discloses the determination of the applied compressive force by an actuator (3) is equal to the difference between a combined compressive force and a combined weights of a frame (130) (see page 7, lines 11-12 of the English translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the applied compressive force of Termanas is determined by a difference between a combined compressive force and a combined weights of the load supporter (i.e. a frame of the machine), as taught by JP, in order to ensure the machine can withstand a real load without failing by excluding the weight of load and the load supporter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2012/0247347 A1 to Harris et al. discloses a strapping system having an amount of compression that is applied based upon a weight of a transfer conveyor (20) (see fig. 20).
KR 20170128895 A discloses a grain weight system a load cell (320) positioned under each corner of a load supporter (fig. 7).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725