DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 12/05/2025.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2-3 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1 and 4-19 are pending and examined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 11 and 15-18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “uniquely laterally disposed in unique positions … uniquely longitudinally disposed … uniquely aligned” renders claim 11 vague and indefinite because the term “uniquely” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “uniquely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase “wherein each inner-surface recessed feature is configured to store and capture liquid” renders claim 15 vague and indefinite because it appears to contradict claim 1. Claim 15 is dependent of claim 1, and claim 1 disclose the first door and the second door are configured for selective opening so the product and the residual liquid is configured to drop from a center of the door assembly. It is unclear how the door assembly is configured to both allow liquid to drop and store and capture the liquid. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “wherein each inner-surface recessed feature is configured to separate the liquid from the product”.
Claims 16-18 are dependent of claim 15 and include all the same limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Germunson et al. (6,000,200) in view of references De Vos (8,661,774), Elias (9,309,013), and Garlinghouse (3,414,312).
Regarding claim 1, Germunson et al. disclose a depositor apparatus (Figure 3) comprising:
a conveyor assembly (10) configured to move a plurality of product; and
a multi-chute assembly (see figure 3 below) coupled to the conveyor assembly (10),
wherein the multi-chute assembly (see figure 3 below) comprises a plurality of chute assemblies, and
wherein each chute assembly comprise a chute (14).
(Figure 3-4 and Column 1 lines 62-66, Column 2 lines 35-55)
[AltContent: textbox (Second Multi-Chute Assembly)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (First Multi-Chute Assembly)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Opening)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (Germunson et al.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
769
378
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Germunson et al. do not disclose an operator assembly, or a door assembly including a first door and a second door, wherein the first door and second door have gear teeth and a door actuator.
De Vos discloses a depositor apparatus (Figure 4) comprising:
an operator assembly (see figure 4 below) configured to receive an operator (4);
a conveyor assembly (30) coupled to the operator assembly (see figure 4 below) and configured to move a plurality of products; and
a package conveyor (13) coupled other conveyor assembly (30) and aligned with the operator assembly (see figure 4 below),
wherein the package conveyor (13) is on an opposing side of the conveyor assembly (30) from the operator assembly (see figure 4 below).
(Figure 4 and Column 4 lines 45-61)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Operator Assembly)][AltContent: textbox (Second Operator Assembly)][AltContent: rect][AltContent: rect][AltContent: textbox (De Vos)]
PNG
media_image2.png
483
772
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the depositor apparatus of Germunson et al. by incorporating the operator assembly as taught by De Vos, since column 3 line 67 through column 4 lines 1-2 of De Vos states such a modification would ensure proper transfer of product.
Elias discloses chute assembly comprising:
a chute (8); and
a door assembly (15, 16) coupled to the chute (8) and configured to selectively open and thereby drop a product into a single package (12) below the door assembly (15, 16),
wherein the door assembly (10) comprises: a first door (15); and a second door (16);
wherein the selective opening of the door assembly (10) is configured to open such that the first door (15) and the second door (16) swing down and outwards away from each other; and
wherein the first door (15) and the second door (16) are configured for selective opening so the product is able to drop from a center of the door assembly (10).
(Figure 2 and Column 5 lines 57-62, Column 6 lines 1-4)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the depositor apparatus of Germunson et al. by incorporating the chute assembly as taught by Elias, since column 3 lines 42-44 of Elias states such a modification would allow more controlled means of delivering the product to the package.
In an apparatus claim, a functional description is treated as a functional recitation. In other words, it is not a structural limitation, and the prior art is considered to meet the limitations of the apparatus claim as long as the prior art is fully capable of performing the functional recitation. When modifying Germunson et al. in view of Elias, the products are considered to drop from a center of the door assembly. Therefore, the door assembly is fully capable of having liquid drop form a center of the door assembly.
Garlinghouse disclose a door assembly (13, 14, 36) coupled to a chute (11),
wherein the door assembly (13, 14, 36) is configured to selectively open and thereby drop a product,
wherein the door assembly (13, 14, 36) comprises a first door (13) and a second door (14),
wherein the first door (13) comprises a first set of gear teeth (34),
wherein the second door (14) comprises a second set of gear teeth (35) configured to align and engage the first set of gear teeth,
wherein the door assembly (13, 14, 36) comprises a door actuator (36) coupled to at least the first door (13) or the second door (14), and
wherein the door actuator (36) is configured to perform the selective opening of the door assembly (13, 14, 36).
(Figure 3 and Column 2 lines 53-57, Column 3 lines 10-13)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the door assembly of Elias by incorporating the gear teeth and actuator as taught by Garlinghouse, since column 3 lines 10-13 of Garlinghouse states such a modification would ensure the both doors shift to an open position simultaneously.
Regarding claim 4, Elias discloses the chute (8) is lowered into the opening of the package. (Column 5 lines 63-67) In order for the chute to be lowered, the chute assembly must have actuating means to move the chute.
Therefore, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, and Garlinghouse is interpreted to disclose the multi-chute assembly (Germunson et al. – see figure 3 above) is coupled to a multi-chute assembly actuator configured to lower the multi-chute assembly (Germunson et al. – see figure 3 above) relative to a plurality of pouches.
Regarding claim 10, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, and Garlinghouse disclose the despositor apparatus (Germunson et al. – Figure 3) comprises an opening (Germunson et al. – see figure 3 above) between each chute (Germunson et al. – 14) and the conveyor assembly (Germunson et al. – 10), wherein the opening (Germunson et al. – see figure 3 above) is configured to receive the product. (Figure 3)
Regarding claim 12, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, and Garlinghouse disclose a second operator assembly (De Vos – see figure 4 above) and a second multi-chute assembly (Germunson et al. – see figure 3 above) aligned with the second operator assembly (De Vos – see figure 4 above). (Germunson et al. – Figure 3) (De Vos – Figure 4)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Germunson et al. (6,000,200) in view of references De Vos (8,661,774), Elias (9,309,013), and Garlinghouse (3,414,312) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of references Leizer et al. (2018/0036897) and Gibson et al. (11,319,096).
Regarding claim 5, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, and Garlinghouse disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a weight sensor and a light indicator.
Leizer et al. disclose a chute assembly (102) comprising: a weight sensor (pg 3 para 57) configured to sense an absence of the product in the chute assembly (102). (Page 3 paragraph 57)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the chute assembly of Germunson et al. by incorporating the weight sensor as taught by Leizer et al., since page 3 paragraph 57 of Leizer et al. states such a modification would allow the depositor apparatus to know when it is okay to continue operation.
Gibson et al. disclose packaging apparatus comprising:
a controller (1502); and
a warning light (1512),
wherein the warning light (1512) is configured to emit a light to the operator when the controller determines an error in operation.
(Column 8 lines 32-44)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the depositor apparatus of Germunson et al. by incorporating the warning light as taught by Gibson et al., since such a modification would provide the operator with information about the state of the depositor apparatus, thereby making the overall depositor apparatus more desirable.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Germunson et al. (6,000,200) in view of references De Vos (8,661,774), Elias (9,309,013), and Garlinghouse (3,414,312) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of reference Bacon et al. (6,119,438).
Regarding claim 6, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, and Garlinghouse disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a laser level sensor.
Bacon et al. disclose a chute assembly comprising:
a chute (103); and
a laser level sensor (105),
wherein the laser level sensor (105) is configured to sense an absence of the product in the chute (103).
(Figure 1a and Column 5 lines 65-67 through Column 6 lines 1, Column 7 lines 37-40)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the chute assembly of Germunson et al. by incorporating the laser level sensor as taught by Bacon et al., since column 3 lines 19-22 of Bacon et al. states such a modification would allow for speeder and more efficient operation.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Germunson et al. (6,000,200) in view of references De Vos (8,661,774), Elias (9,309,013), and Garlinghouse (3,414,312) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Haschke (2013/0255199).
Regarding claim 7, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, and Garlinghouse disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a non-stick surface.
Haschke discloses a chute assembly comprising a chute (144a, 144b), wherein the chute (144a, 144b) includes a highly polished surface. (Page 3 paragraph 45)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the chute assembly of Germunson et al. by incorporating the polished surface as taught by Haschke, since page 3 paragraph 45 of Haschke states such a modification would allow ease of sliding the product through the chute.
Regarding claim 8, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, Garlinghouse, and Haschke disclose the non-stick surface comprises at least one of polished surface or electro-coated surfaces. (Haschke – Page 3 paragraph 45)
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Germunson et al. (6,000,200) in view of references De Vos (8,661,774), Elias (9,309,013), and Garlinghouse (3,414,312) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Garacci (5,178,196).
Regarding claim 9, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, and Garlinghouse disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose wheels.
Garacci disclose an apparatus comprising three or more wheels (28), wherein the apparatus is configured to roll into and out of an operating position. (Figure 1 and Column 4 lines 44-46)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the depositor apparatus of Germunson et al. by incorporating the wheels as taught by Garacci, since column 2 lines 7-9 of Garacci states such a modification would allow for easy cleaning or reconfiguration.
Regarding claim 19, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, Garlinghouse, and Garacci disclose each multi-chute assembly (Germunson et al. – see figure 3 below) is configured to individually slide away from the conveyor assembly for cleaning. (Garacci – Column 2 lines 7-9, Column 4 lines 44-46)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Germunson et al. (6,000,200) in view of references De Vos (8,661,774), Elias (9,309,013), and Garlinghouse (3,414,312) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference McClelland et al. (2,626,094).
Regarding claim 13, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, and Garlinghouse disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a platform with steps.
McClelland et al. disclose a depositor apparatus comprising a platform (57) configured to support an operator, wherein the platform includes steps (56). (Figure 1 and Column 3 lines 68-75)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the depositor apparatus of De Vos by incorporating the platform and steps as taught by McClelland et al., since column 3 lines 68-75 of McClelland et al. states such a modification would allow for better access by the operator.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Germunson et al. (6,000,200) in view of references De Vos (8,661,774), Elias (9,309,013), Garlinghouse (3,414,312), and McClelland et al. (2,626,094) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of reference Hortig et al. (8,713,899).
Regarding claim 14, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, Garlinghouse, and McClelland et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the platform is adjustable.
Hortig et al. disclose an apparatus comprising an adjustable height platform. (Column 10 lines 30-32)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the platform of McClelland et al. by incorporating the height adjustability as taught by Hortig et al., since column 10 lines 30-32 of Hortig et al. states such a modification would allow for more comfort for the operator.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Germunson et al. (6,000,200) in view of references De Vos (8,661,774), Elias (9,309,013), and Garlinghouse (3,414,312) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Dunn et al. (2012/0247066).
Regarding claim 15, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, and Garlinghouse disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose an inner-surface recess feature.
Dunn et al. disclose a ramp (16) comprising a recessed feature (34), wherein the ramp is configured to guide a product and residual liquid to a particular location. (Figures 2-3 and Page 3 paragraph 27, 30)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the door assembly of Elias by incorporating the recessed feature as taught by Dunn et al., since page 1 paragraph 9 of Dunn et al. states such a modification would ensure any residual liquid is separated from the transferred product.
Regarding claim 16, Dunn et al. disclose the recess feature can have a variety of shapes. (Page 3 paragraph 30)
However, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, Garlinghouse, and Dunn et al. do not explicitly disclose the recessed feature is between 0.01 inches to 0.3 inches deep.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the recessed feature be between 0.01 inches to 0.3 inches deep, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int eh prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 14 paragraph 53 of the Specification, the anti-drip feature is disclosed to may be between 0.01 inches and 0.3 inches deep. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Germunson et al., De Vos, Elias, Garlinghouse, and Dunn et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 17, Dunn et al. disclose the recess feature can have a variety of shapes. (Page 3 paragraph 30)
However, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, Garlinghouse, and Dunn et al. do not explicitly disclose the recessed feature is at least 3 inches long.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the recessed feature be at least 3 inches long, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int eh prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 14 paragraph 53 of the Specification, the anti-drip feature is disclosed to may be at least 3 inches long. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Germunson et al., De Vos, Elias, Garlinghouse, and Dunn et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 18, Dunn et al. disclose the recess feature can have a variety of shapes. (Page 3 paragraph 30)
However, Germunson et al. modified by De Vos, Elias, Garlinghouse, and Dunn et al. do not explicitly disclose the recessed feature is between 0.05 inches to 1 inch wide.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have made the recessed feature be between 0.05 inches to 1 inch wide, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed int eh prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 14 paragraph 53 of the Specification, the anti-drip feature is disclosed to may be between 0.05 inches and 1 inch wide. The Specification as originally filed does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Germunson et al., De Vos, Elias, Garlinghouse, and Dunn et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 2-3 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1 and 4-19 are pending and examined below.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Germunson et al. (6,000,200) modified references De Vos (8,661,774) and Elias (9,309,013), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 103 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of reference Germunson et al. (6,000,200) modified by references De Vos (8,661,774), Elias (9,309,013), and Garlinghouse (3,414,312).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 April 1, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731