DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 November 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “47” has been used to designate different elements in figs. 2 and 3. In particular, fig. 3 does not appear to have the arrow for 47 pointing to anything in particular. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites, “an additional drive gear, wherein the conveyor belt is an endless conveyor belt extending between the first-named drive gear and the additional drive gear”. The Office understands that the intention of the claim in using the term “the first-named drive gear” is to refer to the “drive gear” of claim 1. However, the Office notes that names for claimed elements need to be consistent between dependent claims. As such, the it is recommended that the drive gear of claim 1 be changed to “a first drive gear” and that this term be consistently applied throughout the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scherz et al. (2019/0216097 A1) hereinafter referred to as Scherz or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scherz (2019/0216097 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Scherz discloses an apparatus (fig. 1; #10) for use with a plurality of empty packages (22) with respective mouths (24) to package a plurality of fragile goods (20; figs. 2 and 10), comprising a conveyor (fig. 1; #300; paragraph 0040 – “In some embodiments, the product guide engagement mechanism is one or more guide rails that move the guide portions 210A, 210B into the enclosed position as the product guides 210 are conveyed through the processing line 300”; paragraph 0041 – “main conveyor 300”) with a conveyor belt having a length (see chain of 300 in figs. 1 and 5), a series of stacking towers (202, 210, 211; paragraph 0040) spaced along the length of the conveyor belt and secured to the conveyor belt (paragraph 0041 – “each product guide 210 may be connected to a main conveyor 300”; figs. 1 and 10-12), each of the stacking towers having a chamber (space between 211) adapted for receiving fragile goods (paragraph 0040), a drive gear (see gears for #300 in figs. 1, 5 and 10) coupled to the conveyor belt for advancing (paragraphs 0040-0042) the stacking tower with goods in the chamber to a baler (500; paragraph 0048 – “mechanical arm… motors or actuators”), the baler configured to place a mouth of one of the plurality of empty packages over the stacking tower with goods in the chamber (paragraph 0048), and the conveyor configured so that further advancement of the conveyor belt by the drive gear causes the stacking tower to tilt so that the goods slide into the package and the package slides off the stacking tower, in each case under the force of gravity (510; paragraphs 0042, 0049-0052; figs. 11-13).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the drive gear is not explicitly shown, the Office alternatively rejects under 35 USC 103 and takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Scherz to have the conveyor belt coupled to and driven by a drive gear. Scherz already appears to show such a feature in figs. 1, 5 and 10, and having gears connected to a conveyor to drive it was a notoriously well-known in the art because it provides a strong and reliable mechanical means to drive a conveyor at a desired velocity and with a desired shape and structure for the conveyor.
Regarding claim 2, Scherz discloses an additional drive gear (see gears for #300 in figs. 1, 5 and 10), wherein the conveyor belt is an endless conveyor belt (300) extending between the first-named drive gear and the additional drive gear (fig. 1).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the additional drive gear is not explicitly shown, the Office alternatively rejects under 35 USC 103 and takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Scherz to have the conveyor belt coupled to and driven by an additional drive gear. Scherz already appears to show such a feature in figs. 1, 5 and 10, and having gears connected to a conveyor to drive it was a notoriously well-known in the art because it provides a strong and reliable mechanical means to drive a conveyor at a desired velocity and with a desired shape and structure for the conveyor.
Regarding claim 9, Scherz discloses wherein the baler (500; paragraph 0048 – “mechanical arm… motors or actuators”) is configured to veil the entire stacking tower entirely with the empty package (paragraph 0048 – “packaging 22 (e.g., a bag, sleeve, wrapper, or box) is placed over the stack of cut tortillas 20 and the product guide 210 such that the stack of cut tortillas 20 is enclosed by the packaging 22 to become a packaged stack 21”).
Regarding claim 10, Scherz discloses wherein each of the series of stacking towers is fixed to the conveyor belt at an inclination angle ranging from 30° to 89° (fig. 1 shows a variety of angles within the cited ranges for the stacking towers 202, 210, 211).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the exact range is not disclosed, the Office alternatively rejects under 35 USC 103 and takes official notice that it would have been obvious to fix the stacking towers to the conveyor belt at an inclination angle ranging from 30° to 89°. Depending on the orientation of the conveyor belt relative to the ground, it would be desirable to have the stacking towers oriented in such a way that they maintained the products in their proper orientation. Thus a range of inclination from 30° to 89° would have been obvious to try. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Regarding claim 18, Scherz discloses an apparatus (fig. 1; #10) for use with a plurality of empty packages (22) with respective openings (24) to package a plurality of fragile goods (20; figs. 2 and 10), comprising a movable conveyor belt (fig. 1; #300; paragraph 0040 – “In some embodiments, the product guide engagement mechanism is one or more guide rails that move the guide portions 210A, 210B into the enclosed position as the product guides 210 are conveyed through the processing line 300”; paragraph 0041 – “main conveyor 300”) having a length, a plurality of containers (202, 210, 211; paragraph 0040) spaced along the length of the conveyor belt and secured to the conveyor belt (paragraph 0041 – “each product guide 210 may be connected to a main conveyor 300”; figs. 1 and 10-12), each of the plurality of containers adapted to receive one or more fragile goods (paragraph 0040), a baler (500; paragraph 0048 – “mechanical arm… motors or actuators”) configured to place an opening of one of the plurality of empty packages over each of the plurality of containers with one or more fragile goods (paragraph 0048), and the conveyor belt configured so that further advancement of the conveyor belt causes each of the plurality of containers with one or more fragile goods to tilt so that the one or more fragile goods slide into the respective package and the respective package slides off the container, in each case under the force of gravity (510; paragraphs 0042, 0049-0052; figs. 11-13).
Regarding claim 19, Scherz discloses wherein the each of the plurality of containers has a chamber (space between 211) for receiving the one or more fragile goods.
Regarding claim 20, Scherz discloses a drive gear (see gears for #300 in figs. 1, 5 and 10) coupled to the conveyor belt for advancing (paragraphs 0040-0042) each of the plurality of containers with one or more fragile goods to the baler (500; paragraph 0048 – “mechanical arm… motors or actuators”).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the drive gear is not explicitly shown, the Office alternatively rejects under 35 USC 103 and takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Scherz to have the conveyor belt coupled to and driven by a drive gear. Scherz already appears to show such a feature in figs. 1, 5 and 10, and having gears connected to a conveyor to drive it was a notoriously well-known in the art because it provides a strong and reliable mechanical means to drive a conveyor at a desired velocity and with a desired shape and structure for the conveyor.
Regarding claim 21, Scherz discloses a gear (see gears for #300 in figs. 1, 5 and 10), wherein the conveyor belt is coupled to the gear and tilts as it extends at least partially around the gear (fig. 1).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the drive gear is not explicitly shown, the Office alternatively rejects under 35 USC 103 and takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Scherz to have the conveyor belt coupled to and driven by a drive gear. Scherz already appears to show such a feature in figs. 1, 5 and 10, and having gears connected to a conveyor to drive it was a notoriously well-known in the art because it provides a strong and reliable mechanical means to drive a conveyor at a desired velocity and with a desired shape and structure for the conveyor.
Regarding claim 22, Scherz discloses wherein the conveyor belt is an endless conveyor belt (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Scherz discloses wherein each of the plurality of containers is fixed to the conveyor belt at an inclination angle ranging from 30° to 89° (fig. 1 shows a variety of angles within the cited ranges for the stacking towers 202, 210, 211).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the exact range is not disclosed, the Office alternatively rejects under 35 USC 103 and takes official notice that it would have been obvious to fix the stacking towers to the conveyor belt at an inclination angle ranging from 30° to 89°. Depending on the orientation of the conveyor belt relative to the ground, it would be desirable to have the stacking towers oriented in such a way that they maintained the products in their proper orientation. Thus a range of inclination from 30° to 89° would have been obvious to try. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherz (2019/0216097 A1) in view of Yamagata et al. (JP 2013-82480 A) hereinafter referred to as Yamagata in view of Nagasaki (JP 59-43306 U).
Regarding claim 3, Scherz discloses wherein the baler (500; paragraph 0048 – “mechanical arm… motors or actuators”) includes a supply (paragraph 0048 – “a supply of packaging 22”) for storing a plurality of empty packages (22), a package picking mechanism (paragraph 0048 – “a mechanical arm that contains a supply of packaging 22 and includes motors or actuators in order to open the packaging 22 and place the packaging 22 over the stack of cut tortillas 20”) for removing one of the plurality of packages from the supply and placement of the package over the stacking tower.
Scherz fails to disclose wherein the supply is a tray and the package picking mechanism delivering the package to a tweezer and a package mouth opening mechanism that blows air through the mouth of the package to expand the package before placement of the package over the stacking tower.
However, Yamagata teaches wherein the baler includes a stacked supply (210) for storing a plurality of empty packages, a package picking mechanism (220, 230) for removing one of the plurality of packages from the stacked supply and delivering the package to a tweezer (251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256) and a package mouth opening mechanism (257, 258) that blows air through the mouth of the package to expand the package before placement of the package over the stacking tower (fig. 15).
Given the teachings of Yamagata, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Scherz to include the stacked supply for storing a plurality of empty packages, a package picking mechanism and a tweezer and a package mouth opening mechanism with the invention of Yamagata. Scherz is already concerned with the problem of placing the empty packages over the stacking towers with a mechanical arm. Yamagata teaches how it was known to use, a picking mechanism for a stacked supply of packages and to provide those packages to a tweezer and bag opening mechanism. Doing so would allow the bag to be easily opened and placed down around the cylindrical product.
Scherz in view of Yamagata teaches a stacked supply for storing a plurality of empty packages, but doesn’t disclose a tray.
However, Nagasaki teaches a stacked supply for storing a plurality of empty packages (2) comprising a tray (“bag feed box” – Applicant provided translation; G; fig. 3).
Given the teachings of Nagasaki, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Scherz in view of Yamagata with the tray of Nagasaki. Scherz in view of Yamagata is already concerned with having a supply of packages in a stacked configuration. Providing a tray would help to ensure the supply remain in stacked configuration.
Regarding claim 4, Scherz in view of Yamagata discloses wherein the package picking mechanism (220, 230) includes a suction cup on an end of a pneumatic arm (Yamagata - 221, 222; fig. 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731