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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant's Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 23 June 2026.
Claims 1 – 15, 17 – 18, and 21 – 23 are pending. Claims 16 and 19 – 20 are also cancelled by applicant.
Since this Office action provides a new ground of rejection for independent claim 13, this Office action is non-final.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim ends with two periods. Remove the second period
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “place a sleeve around”, should read, “place the sleeve around”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwack (KR 10 2009 0035678 A) in view of Mercer (US 4 263 246 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
114
72
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kwack discloses a packaging system suitable for garlic bulbs, the packaging system comprising:
a sleeve (5, fig. 1) sized to receive an individual garlic bulb (Figure 1 shows a shrink film 5 sized to receive a watermelon. Watermelons come in different varieties wherein one variety of watermelon, Sugar Baby, is round shaped and 6 – 8 inches in diameter (See Martin, “10 Small Watermelon Varieties”). Likewise, garlic comes in different varieties wherein one variety of garlic, Elephant garlic, is 5 – 6 inches in diameter. Thus, the examiner deems the sleeve of Kwack sized and capable of receiving an individual garlic bulb such as Elephant garlic); and
placing a sleeve around the individual garlic bulb (Pg. 4, second to last line, describes the shrink film 5 placed over the side of the watermelon) (The claim is directed towards a packaging system suitable for garlic bulbs wherein the specification states while garlic is used in one embodiment of applicant’s invention, other produce may be used (see [0072]). Thus, the examiner interprets the limitation of placing the sleeve around the individual garlic bulb as an intended use of the packaging system. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, Kwack discloses placing the shrink film over the side of the watermelon There is no indication that this shrink film is not capable of being placed around the individual garlic bulb in the same manner),
applying heat to the sleeve on the individual garlic bulb to shrink the sleeve such that the sleeve covers a portion of the individual garlic bulb and two portions of the individual garlic bulb are exposed (Pg. 4, last line, describes heat or steam applied to shrink the shrink film) (The examiner interprets the limitation of applying heat to the sleeve on specifically the individual garlic bulb to shrink the sleeve such that the sleeve covers a portion of the individual garlic bulb and two portions of the individual garlic bulb are exposed as an intended use of the packaging system. In the instant case, Kwack applies heat or steam to shrink the shrink film such that the sleeve covers a portion of the watermelon and two portions of the watermelon are exposed as shown in figure 1. There is no indication that this application of heat to the sleeve is not capable of shrinking the sleeve on the individual garlic bulb in the same manner), the sleeve after shrinking defining a first opening (opening A, annotated fig. 1) at a first end and a second opening (opening B, annotated fig. 1) at a second end opposite the first end, the first opening and the second opening each exposing a respective portion of the individual garlic bulb to an external environment (The examiner interprets the limitation of the first opening and the second opening each exposing a respective portion of specifically the individual garlic bulb to an external environment as an intended use of the packaging system. Kwack discloses openings A and B exposing a respective portion of the watermelon to the external environment. There is no indication that these openings A and B are not capable of exposing the respective portion of the individual garlic bulb to the external environment) to permit the individual garlic bulb to respire through the first opening and the second opening (Please note, watermelons continue to respire after being picked thus these openings A and B would inherently permit the picked watermelon to respire. Please note, the examiner interprets the limitation of permitting the individual garlic bulb to respire through the first opening and the second opening as intended use of the packaging system. Kwack discloses the openings A and B exposing the respective portion of the watermelon to the external environment permitting the watermelon to respire through these openings A, B. There is no indication that these openings A and B are not capable of permitting the individual garlic bulb to also respire).
Kwack does not explicitly disclose the structure of the bander and the heat shrink unit that performs the function of placing a sleeve and applying heat to the sleeve to shrink the sleeve as described in Kwack.
However, Mercer, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches a bander (37, fig. 6) and a heat shrink unit (42, fig. 6) that performs the function of placing a sleeve (col. 4, ll. 47 – 60 and col. 5, ll. 2 - 10) and applying heat to the sleeve on the produce to shrink the sleeve (col. 5, ll. 14 – 17).
Mercer is evidence that the bander and the heat shrink unit was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the packaging system of Kwack to have the structures of the bander and the heat shrink unit of Mercer to perform the function of placing a sleeve around produce and applying heat to the sleeve on the produce to shrink the sleeve as described in Kwack. Moreover, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to have made such a modification because Kwack is silent regarding the structures that performs the function of placing a sleeve and applying heat to the sleeve to shrink the sleeve as described by Kwack and the one having ordinary skill in the art would look to Mercer for such structures.
Regarding claim 21, Kwack, as modified by Mercer, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Kwack discloses a singulation belt (2, fig. 1) configured to receive and singulate the garlic bulbs prior to the bander (Figure 6 shows a transfer conveyor line 2 receiving and singulating watermelon 1 in a single file prior to the application of the shrink film 5) (The examiner interprets the limitation of receiving and singulating specifically the garlic bulbs as intended use of the packaging system. In the instant case, Kwack discloses the transfer conveyor line 2 receiving and singulating watermelon 1 prior to the application of the shrink film 5. There is no indication that this transfer conveyor line 2 is not capable of receiving and singulating the garlic bulbs in the same manner).
Regarding claim 23, Kwack, as modified by Mercer, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Kwack discloses the sleeve (5, fig. 3) is a transparent shrink wrap material (Figure 3 shows the shrink film 5 as transparent in that the pattern of the watermelon can be seen through the shrink film 5).
Claims 2 – 3, 6 – 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwack (KR 10 2009 0035678 A), in view of Mercer (US 4 263 246 A), in further view of Briscoe (US 4 999 977 A).
Regarding claim 2, Kwack, as modified by Mercer, discloses the invention as recited in claim 21.
Kwack teaches the singulation belt (2, fig. 1).
The modified Kwack does not explicitly disclose the singulation belt comprising a moving belt extending along a longitudinal axis; and a roller assembly attached to the moving belt, the roller assembly including: a roller support configured to attach to the moving belt; a roller extending along a lateral axis, the roller having an hourglass shape with a first cross-sectional diameter at a first end and at a second end and a second cross-sectional diameter at a center, wherein the first cross-sectional diameter is larger than the second cross-sectional diameter; and a driver wheel for connecting the roller support and the roller.
However, Briscoe, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a singulation belt (14, fig. 3) comprising a moving belt (27, fig. 4) extending along a longitudinal axis; and a roller assembly (47, 51, 52, fig. 4) attached to the moving belt, the roller assembly including: a roller support (52, fig. 4) configured to attach to the moving belt; a roller (47, fig. 4) extending along a lateral axis; the roller having an hourglass shape with a first cross-sectional diameter at a first end and at a second end and a second cross-sectional diameter at a center, wherein the first cross-sectional diameter is larger than the second cross-sectional diameter (As shown in figs. 2, 44); and a driver wheel (51, fig. 2. Col. 3, ll. 34 – 37 describes cross-shafts 51 journaled at opposite ends in bushings 52. Since the cross-shafts 51 have a circular cross-section and are mounted to rotate (e.g., as an axle in a wheel-and-axle system), it can be functionally considered a “wheel” in that role) for connecting the roller support and the roller.
Briscoe is evidence that having the singulation belt comprising a moving belt extending along a longitudinal axis; and a roller assembly attached to the moving belt, the roller assembly including: a roller support configured to attach to the moving belt; a roller extending along a lateral axis, the roller having an hourglass shape with a first cross-sectional diameter at a first end and at a second end and a second cross-sectional diameter at a center, wherein the first cross-sectional diameter is larger than the second cross-sectional diameter; and a driver wheel for connecting the roller support and the roller was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the singulation belt of Kwack with these structures of the singulation belt of Briscoe. Moreover, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the singulation belt of Kwack with these structures of the singulation belt of Briscoe because while Kwack discloses the singulation belt, Kwack does not disclose any structures for the singulation belt and thus the one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to Briscoe for those structures.
Regarding claim 3, Kwack, as modified by Mercer, as further modified by Briscoe, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Kwack discloses the moving belt (Briscoe – 24, fig. 5) is a roller chain.
Regarding claim 6, Kwack, as modified by Mercer, as further modified by Briscoe, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Kwack discloses the roller (Briscoe – 47, fig. 4) has a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in figs. 2, 4).
The modified Kwack does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from 0.1 inch/inch to 1 inch/inch.
However, “the geometry of the rollers 47…is selected to afford a cradle of optimum size and shape for the particular article being handled” such that “an article once lodged in a cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run” (see Col. 3, ll. 61 – 65 of Briscoe). Thus, the slope, which is part of the geometry of the rollers, is a result effective variable that affects handling of the article so that the article in the cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run of the roller assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in the modified Kwack to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from 0.1 inch/inch to 1 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Kwack, as modified by Mercer, as further modified by Briscoe, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Kwack discloses the roller (Briscoe – 47, fig. 4) has a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in figs. 2, 4).
The modified Kwack does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from 0.1 inch/inch to 0.5 inch/inch.
However, “the geometry of the rollers 47…is selected to afford a cradle of optimum size and shape for the particular article being handled” such that “an article once lodged in a cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run” (see Col. 3, ll. 61 – 65 of Briscoe). Thus, the slope, which is part of the geometry of the rollers, is a result effective variable that affects handling of the article so that the article in the cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run of the roller assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in the modified Kwack to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from 0.1 inch/inch to 0.5 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Kwack, as modified by Mercer, as further modified by Briscoe, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Kwack discloses the roller (Briscoe – 47, fig. 4) has a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in figs. 2, 4).
The modified Kwack does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from 0.1 inch/inch to 0.3 inch/inch.
However, “the geometry of the rollers 47…is selected to afford a cradle of optimum size and shape for the particular article being handled” such that “an article once lodged in a cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run” (see Col. 3, ll. 61 – 65 of Briscoe). Thus, the slope, which is part of the geometry of the rollers, is a result effective variable that affects handling of the article so that the article in the cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run of the roller assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in the modified Briscoe to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from 0.1 inch/inch to 0.3 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)..
Regarding claim 12, Kwack, as modified by Mercer, as further modified by Briscoe, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2.
The modified Kwack discloses the roller (Briscoe – 47, fig. 4) is configured to move the individual garlic bulb to the center of the roller (As shown in fig. 4) (The examiner interprets the limitation of moving specifically the individual garlic bulb to the center of the roller as an intended use of the packaging system. In the instant case, Briscoe discloses the roller 47 moving individual articles 21 to the center of the roller as shown in fig. 4. There is no indication that this roller 47 is not capable of moving the individual garlic to the center of the roller in the same manner).
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwack (KR 10 2009 0035678 A), in view of Mercer (US 4 263 246 A), in further view of Mingotti (US 3 591 999 A).
Regarding claim 22, Kwack, as modified by Mercer, discloses the invention as recited in claim 21.
The modified Kwack does not explicitly disclose a feed control hopper; and a pre-singulation feed belt configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the feed control hopper, wherein the singulation belt is configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the pre-singulation feed belt.
However, Mingotti, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches a feed control hopper (1, fig. 1); and a pre-singulation feed belt (3, 4, 5, 6, fig. 1) configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the feed control hopper, wherein a singulation belt (7, 8, fig. 1) is configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the pre-singulation feed belt (The examiner interprets the limitation of receiving the garlic bulbs from the pre-singulation feed belt as an intended use of the packaging system. In the instant case, Mingotti discloses chains 7/roller 8 receiving spheroid products/lemons from pair of chains 3/shaft 4/sprockets 5/rollers 6. There is no indication that this chains 7/roller 8 is not capable of receiving individual garlic bulbs from the from pair of chains 3/shaft 4/sprockets 5/rollers 6 in the same manner).
Mingotti is evidence that the limitations, “the feed control hopper; and the pre-singulation feed belt configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the feed control hopper, wherein the singulation belt is configured to receive the garlic bulbs from the pre-singulation feed belt”, was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the packaging system of the modified Kwack with these limitations, as taught by Mingotti. Moreover, it would have been obvious to the one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the packaging system of the modified Kwack with these limitations, as taught by Mingotti, in order to provide a hopper, which acts as a buffer, enabling continuous, automated, and controlled feeding of fruit/vegetables into processing lines.
Claims 13 and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briscoe (US 4 999 977 A).
Regarding claim 13, Briscoe discloses a roller assembly for singulation and individual banding of garlic, the roller assembly comprising:
a roller support (52, fig. 4) configured to attach to a moving belt (27, fig. 4) configured to move along a longitudinal axis;
a roller (47, fig. 2) extending along a lateral axis, the roller having an hourglass shape with a first cross-sectional diameter at a first end and at a second end and a second cross- sectional diameter at a center, wherein the first cross-sectional diameter is larger than the second cross-sectional diameter (As shown in figs. 2, 4); and
a driver wheel (51, fig. 2. Col. 3, ll. 34 – 37 describes cross-shafts 51 journaled at opposite ends in bushings 52. Since the cross-shafts 51 have a circular cross-section and is mounted to rotate (e.g., as an axle in a wheel-and-axle system), it can be functionally considered a “wheel” in that role) for connecting the roller support and the roller.
Briscoe discloses the roller having a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in figure 3).
Briscoe does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch.
However, “the geometry of the rollers 47…is selected to afford a cradle of optimum size and shape for the particular article being handled” such that “an article once lodged in a cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run” (see Col. 3, ll. 61 – 65 of Briscoe). Thus, the slope, which is part of the geometry of the rollers, is a result effective variable that affects handling of the article so that the article in the cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run of the roller assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in Briscoe to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from 0.1 inch/inch to 1 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Briscoe discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
Briscoe discloses the roller (47, fig. 2) has a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in figs. 2, 4).
The modified Briscoe does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.5 inch/inch.
However, “the geometry of the rollers 47…is selected to afford a cradle of optimum size and shape for the particular article being handled” such that “an article once lodged in a cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run” (see Col. 3, ll. 61 – 65 of Briscoe). Thus, the slope, which is part of the geometry of the rollers, is a result effective variable that affects handling of the article so that the article in the cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run of the roller assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in the modified Briscoe to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.5 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Briscoe discloses the invention as recited in claim 13.
The modified Briscoe discloses the roller (47, fig. 2) has a slope as measured from the first end to the center (As shown in fig. 4).
The modified Briscoe does not explicitly disclose the roller has a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.3 inch/inch.
However, “the geometry of the rollers 47…is selected to afford a cradle of optimum size and shape for the particular article being handled” such that “an article once lodged in a cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run” (see Col. 3, ll. 61 – 65 of Briscoe). Thus, the slope, which is part of the geometry of the rollers, is a result effective variable that affects handling of the article so that the article in the cradle tends to remain therein through the entire upper run of the roller assembly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the slope of the roller in the modified Briscoe to have a slope as measured from the first end to the center from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.3 inch/inch because it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 – 5, 9 – 11, and 14 – 15 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 23 June 2026 with respect to the claim objections of claims 1, 12, and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 1, 12, and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 23 June 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 2 – 15 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 2 – 15 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 23 June 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn. However, new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kwack in view of Mercer.
Applicant argues:
The Examiner also treated the recitation of placing a sleeve around "an individual garlic bulb" as intended use, asserting that Mercer's bander is capable of performing this function because Mercer mentions that the sleeve could be applied to "fruits and vegetables such as oranges and tomatoes." Office Action at p. 11. Applicant respectfully submits that amended Claim 1 overcomes this characterization. The sleeve is now positively recited as a structural element of the system-"a sleeve sized to receive an individual garlic bulb"-and the heat shrink unit is defined by the structural result it produces: a sleeve with two defined openings at opposite ends. These are not statements of purpose applied to a generic structure; they are structural requirements that any anticipating or obviating reference must teach.
In response to applicant’s argument, the limitation, “a sleeve sized to receive an individual garlic bulb", is interpreted as a sleeve capable of receiving an individual garlic bulb. Kwack discloses a packaging system for watermelon. First, it is common sense that a sleeve of Kwack being sized to receive the watermelon would be capable of receiving an individual garlic bulb. Second, there are small varieties of watermelon that are comparably sized to the largest varieties of garlic bulbs such that these varieties of garlic bulbs could be used directly in Kwack. In either case, Kwack discloses the limitation.
Applicant further argues:
Moreover, the Examiner's assertion that garlic bulbs are equivalent to "fruits and vegetables such as oranges and tomatoes" (Office Action at p. 11) does not withstand scrutiny. Garlic bulbs are anatomically and physiologically distinct from oranges and tomatoes in ways that are directly relevant to the claimed invention. Oranges and tomatoes are smooth-skinned, generally spherical fruits with relatively uniform outer surfaces; garlic bulbs are irregularly shaped, multi-lobed structures covered with multiple layers of papery skin that flake and create debris ("feathers") during handling. See Application, paras. [0002]-[0003]. Critically, garlic bulbs continue to actively respire post-harvest through their neck and root ends, and full encapsulation traps moisture leading to condensation and mold. See Application, para. [0042]. Oranges and tomatoes do not share this post-harvest respiration profile or this sensitivity to enclosed moisture. Simply because Mercer mentions that its net could be applied to oranges or tomatoes does not establish that a person of ordinary skill would treat a garlic bulb-with its unique anatomy, multi-layered papery outer peel, and respiration requirements-as interchangeable with those products for packaging purposes. The packaging challenges presented by garlic are fundamentally different, and the claimed system addresses those challenges through the specific structural configuration of the sleeve with two openings to permit respiration.
In response to applicant argument, Mercer is now relied upon for the structure of the bander and the heat shrink unit. Please note, the bander and heat shrink unit of Mercer are capable of covering individual articles with a sleeve and heat shrinking that sleeve onto the individual articles wherein oranges and tomatoes are only exemplary examples (see Col. 1, ll. 61 – 66). Thus, applicant’s arguments that the bander and the heat shrink unit are unsuitable with garlic bulbs since the garlic bulb is structural different than oranges and tomatoes is irrelevant because Mercer does not state it is limited to “smooth-skinned, generally spherical fruits with relatively uniform outer surfaces”. In fact, Mercer provides other examples of differently shaped articles that are not smooth-skinned and generally spherical. To continue this line of argument, please specify the statements in Mercer that causes the bander and heat shrink unit of Mercer to be unsuitable with garlic bulbs.
Applicant further argues:
The Examiner relies on Kwack for teaching a shrink film placed over a watermelon such that the film covers a portion of the watermelon and two portions are exposed. Office Action at pp. 11-12. Even assuming Kwack discloses partial coverage of a watermelon, Kwack does not teach or suggest the specific structural and functional combination recited in amended Claim 1.
First, Kwack's exposed areas on a watermelon are not "openings" defined by the sleeve structure itself. Amended Claim 1 requires that the sleeve, after shrinking, defines a first opening at a first end and a second opening at a second end opposite the first end. This recites a specific sleeve geometry-a band or tube with openings at both ends-not merely a situation where a film fails to reach the extremities of an oversized object.
Second, Kwack does not teach or suggest that the exposed portions serve a respiration function. Watermelons have thick, waxy rinds that do not respire in the manner of garlic bulbs. Garlic is a living product that continues to respire post-harvest; if fully enclosed, trapped moisture causes condensation and mold growth that degrades the product. See Application, para. [0042]. The claimed openings are specifically configured to permit this respiration. Kwack provides no disclosure, teaching, or suggestion that its partially-wrapped watermelon configuration is designed to address respiration or moisture management, because watermelons do not require this.
Third, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Mercer and Kwack to arrive at the claimed invention. Mercer is directed to net sleeving of bottles-its disclosure of "oranges and tomatoes" is a passing reference to alternative articles that might be unitized in groups (see Mercer, col. 2, 11. 45-50; FIG. 3), not an invitation to develop a partial- coverage banding system for individual garlic bulbs with openings designed to permit respiration. Moreover, Kwack addresses watermelons-large, thick-skinned fruits that do not share the anatomical, size, or post-harvest respiration characteristics of garlic bulbs. A person of ordinary skill would not look to the shrink-wrapping of watermelons when designing a packaging system for individual garlic bulbs, because the two products present entirely different packaging challenges.
In response to applicant’s argument that Kwack's exposed areas on a watermelon are not "openings" defined by the sleeve structure itself, Kwack discloses a shrink sleeve that uses heat to shrink the shrink sleeve onto the watermelon. Figure 3 of Kwack clearly shows the shrink sleeve 5 covering “a portion of the watermelon and two portions are exposed” and the shrink sleeve 5 having “a first opening at a first end and a second opening at a second end opposite the first end” – as required by the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that Kwack does not teach or suggest that the exposed portions serve a respiration function, watermelons continue to respire after the watermelon has been picked. Thus, the first and second openings as shown in figure 3 of Kwack would inherently serve this respiration function.
In response to applicant’s argument that one having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Mercer and Kwack, in the current rejection the combination of Kwack and Mercer and the motivation associated with this combination has changed thus the argument is moot.
Applicant further argues:
The Examiner states that the motivation to combine Mercer and Kwack is "in order to provide packaging that protects the vegetable/garlic bulb while offering improved breathability and reducing condensation and decay compared to full encapsulation." Office Action at p. 12. Applicant submits that this motivation is improperly derived from Applicant's own disclosure rather than from the cited prior art. Neither Mercer nor Kwack identifies condensation, decay, or breathability as a concern, because neither reference addresses post-harvest respiration of garlic or similar produce. Mercer is concerned with bottle protection and preventing glass projectiles (Mercer, col. 2, 11. 20-35), and Kwack addresses shrink-wrapping watermelons for protection during transport. The articulated motivation to combine appears to rely on impermissible hindsight reconstruction of Applicant's own teaching regarding garlic respiration and condensation.
In response to applicant’s argument that the motivation is improperly derived from applicant's own disclosure rather than from the cited prior art., in the current rejection the combination of Kwack and Mercer and the motivation associated with this combination has changed thus the argument is moot.
Applicant further argues:
The Examiner rejected Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer in view of Kwack, in further view of Mingotti (US 3,591,999). Office Action at pp. 18- 20. Mingotti is cited for teaching a feed control hopper and a pre-singulation feed belt. However, Mingotti does not cure the deficiencies of Mercer and Kwack with respect to the base Claim 1 limitations-specifically, a sleeve sized to receive an individual garlic bulb that, after shrinking, defines a first opening and a second opening at opposite ends to permit the garlic bulb to respire. Because the Mercer/Kwack combination fails to render Claim 1 obvious for the reasons set forth above, the addition of Mingotti (which addresses only the feed control hopper and pre- singulation feed belt of Claim 22) cannot cure that deficiency. Accordingly, Claim 22 is patentable for at least the same reasons as Claim 1, and withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
The Examiner rejected Claims 2-4, 6-8, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mercer in view of Kwack, in further view of Odman (US 9,475,643 B1). Office Action at pp. 13-18. Odman is cited for teaching the singulation belt structures recited in these dependent claims, including the roller assembly, hourglass-shaped roller, driver wheel, and slope ranges. However, Odman does not cure the deficiencies of Mercer and Kwack with respect to the base Claim 1 limitations. As argued above in Sections III.A through III.C, the combination of Mercer and Kwack does not teach or suggest a sleeve that, after shrinking, defines a first opening at a first end and a second opening at a second end opposite the first end to permit the garlic bulb to respire. Odman, which is directed to a roller system for optical scanning of produce (not garlic banding or sleeve packaging), does nothing to address this deficiency.
In response to applicant’s argument that Mingotti and Odman does not disclose the limitations of claim 1, Mingotti and Odman are not relied upon for these limitations.
Applicant further argues:
The Examiner rejected Claims 13-14 and 17-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Odman (US 9,475,643 B1). The Examiner acknowledges that Odman does not explicitly disclose the claimed slope range, but asserts that modifying the slope to the claimed range would have been obvious as "routine optimization" of a "result effective variable," citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Office Action at pp. 7-9. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
As an initial matter, as discussed in Section II above, Claims 13, 17, and 18 have been amended to remove the term "about" from the slope ranges, thereby addressing the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
The routine optimization framework of In re Aller applies only "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art." A threshold requirement for applying this framework is that the prior art must recognize the parameter at issue as a result-effective variable-that is, the prior art must demonstrate that the parameter is a variable that achieves a recognized result. See In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B).
Odman does not disclose, discuss, or suggest the slope of its roller spindles as a variable, let alone a result-effective one. Odman's entire disclosure is directed to a roller system for sorting produce in which roller spindles rotate produce within a pocket to expose all surfaces to an optical scanner. See Odman, Abstract; col. 1, 11. 15-45. Odman does not discuss the taper or slope of the roller spindles, does not identify slope as affecting any performance parameter, and does not suggest optimizing slope to achieve any particular result. The Examiner's assertion that "different slopes for roller conveyors in fruit/vegetable processing optimize singulation by controlling speed, reducing damage, and enhancing alignment" (Office Action at p. 7) is not supported by any citation to Odman or to any other reference of record. This is a conclusory statement lacking evidentiary support.
Where, as here, neither the prior art reference nor any other evidence of record identifies the claimed parameter as a result-effective variable, the Examiner has not established the predicate for applying the routine optimization rationale. The rejection should be withdrawn on this basis alone.
In response to applicant’s argument that Odman does not disclose, discuss, or suggest the slope of its roller spindles as a result-effective one, the current rejection relies on Briscoe which discloses the slope as a result-effective variable.
Applicant further argues:
Even if the Examiner had established that slope is a result-effective variable in the prior art (which Applicant does not concede), the claimed ranges would not be obvious because they produce results that are unexpected in the context of the prior art. The claimed roller assembly is specifically designed for the singulation and individual banding of garlic-a product with unique physical characteristics that distinguish it from the produce handled in Odman.
Garlic bulbs are irregularly shaped, multi-lobed, and covered with layers of delicate papery skin. As disclosed in Applicant's specification, the slope of the roller is critical to the proper functioning of the garlic banding system: "If the slope of roller 78 is too large, garlic bulbs 80 will bounce off roller 78. If the slope of roller 78 is not large enough, garlic bulbs 80 will not move to center 110." Application, para. [0069]. This is not a simple speed or throughput optimization-it reflects a narrow operating window dictated by garlic's irregular geometry and fragile outer peel. A slope that is too steep causes the bulb to bounce due to the irregular lobed shape; a slope that is too gentle fails to center the bulb because the papery skin provides insufficient friction. The claimed range of 0.1 inch/inch to 1 inch/inch (and the narrower sub- ranges of Claims 17 and 18) represents the specific window within which garlic bulbs are reliably centered without bouncing or skin damage.
These results are unexpected in the context of the prior art because no prior art reference addresses the particular challenges of centering and singulating garlic bulbs on a roller conveyor. A person of ordinary skill working with Odman's cherry-sorting system would have no reason to expect that a specific slope range would be critical for garlic banding, because cherries and blueberries are smooth, uniformly shaped items that do not present the same centering challenges as irregularly shaped, multi-lobed garlic bulbs with fragile papery outer layers.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claimed ranges would not be obvious because they produce results that are unexpected in the context of the prior art, the current rejection relies on Briscoe which discloses the slope as a result-effective variable. In view of Briscoe, applicant’s specification does not show the slope as critical or as an unexpected result. First, applicant’s specification states the slope of the roller can be “from 0.1 inch/inch to about 1 inch/inch, from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.6 inch/inch, from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.4 inch/inch, or from about 0.1 inch/inch to about 0.3 inch/inch” (see [0068]) indicating the slope can be a variety of ranges and that no specific range is critical. Additionally, though applicant’s specification states, “[i]f the slope of roller 78 is too large, garlic bulbs 80 will bounce off roller 78. If the slope of roller 78 is not large enough, garlic bulbs 80 will not move to center 110”, Briscoe states, “the geometry of the rollers 47…is selected to afford a cradle of optimum size and shape for the particular article being handled” to hold a particular article (see Col. 3, ll. 61 – 65), indicating that changing the slope of the roller to hold a particular article is not an unexpected result, but a known variable in the prior art. Thus, the slope of the roller is not critical or an unexpected result.
Applicant further argues:
The Examiner's rejection implicitly treats garlic bulbs as equivalent to the produce processed by Odman's system. Odman identifies cherries, blueberries, berries, tomatoes, stone fruits, citrus fruits, potatoes, apples, kumquats, and nuts as suitable produce for its roller system. See Odman, col. 5, 11. 50-65. Notably, Odman does not mention garlic. This omission is significant because garlic bulbs are fundamentally different from every item on Odman's list. The produce identified in Odman is generally smooth-skinned, round or ovoid, and structurally uniform-characteristics that allow the produce to roll freely on spindles for optical scanning. Garlic bulbs, by contrast, are irregularly shaped with protruding lobes, have a multi-layered papery outer peel that is fragile and prone to flaking, and feature distinct anatomical zones (neck and root) that affect how the bulb interacts with mechanical handling equipment.
These physical differences are directly relevant to the claimed slope range. The specific slope is required precisely because garlic bulbs do not behave like smooth, round produce on a roller conveyor. A person of ordinary skill would recognize that the handling characteristics of garlic bulbs-including their tendency to bounce due to irregular shape and their susceptibility to skin damage-require a specifically tailored roller geometry that cannot be derived from a system designed for smooth-skinned cherries and blueberries.
In response to applicant’s argument that the examiner's rejection implicitly treats garlic bulbs as equivalent to produce, applicant’s specification states, “[w]hile garlic is used in the above examples, other produce, such as onions may also be used” (see [0072]) indicating that applicant treats garlic bulbs as equivalent to produce. Thus, if a reference recites that the reference processes produce, the examiner deems the reference as capable of processing garlic bulbs since the applicant’s specification gives this equivalency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is (571)272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
1 September 2026
Prosecution Insights