S 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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation that the cutting means is arranged to cut the bag when the object is partially displaced through the aperture” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figure 2 shows an overall view of the apparatus and shows cutting means, 50, located at the end of conveyor 10, right after positioning means 40. Claim 3 would require that the cutting means is located after the surface, 61, in order to cut the bag after the object is partially displace through the aperture. This embodiment is described on page 21 of the specification but must be shown in the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In this instance the cutting means for cutting the bag, of claim 1, the positioning means for positioning the object, of claim 2, the displacing means for displacing the object, of claim 2, the position detection means of claim 10, the gripping means of claim 7, the position detection means of claim 10, the leak detection means of claim 11, are being interpreted in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The displacing means as claimed in claim 6, comprises a movable rod, and this is considered sufficient structure to overcome the 112(f) interpretation.
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 1-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant claims an apparatus for removing an object from with a bag, wherein the aperture is sized relative to an end of the object. The language of claim 1 attempts to claim the size of the aperture relative to an end of a specific object, and therefore the size of the aperture cannot be readily ascertained as it depends on the end of the object being received, which can be changed. See MPEP 2173.05(b) II.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "an/or the leak detection means" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4,-9, 14-17, 19, 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabusi (US 2021/0292033) in view of DE 102011080289.
Regarding claim 1, Gabusi teaches an apparatus for removing an object, A, from within a bag, B, comprising:
a surface, 6, with an aperture, 5, for receiving the object, A;
the surface and/or the object are arranged to be moved relative to one another, see figures 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 which shows the object A being moved relative to the surface;
and wherein the aperture is sized relative to an end of the object such that the surface separates the cut bag from the object as the object passes through the aperture, see figure 3 and 4 and 5 and 6, which show the object A moving through the aperture as the bag is separated from the object and the bag remains on the first side of the surface.
Gabusi teaches the bag is open by grippers pulling the bag open. Gabusi does not teach a cutting means for cutting the bag. DE ‘289 teaches an apparatus for removing an object, 2, from a bag, 3, comprising a cutting means, 5, for cutting the bag, wherein the cutting means is arranged to cut the bag, see figures 3 and 4.
Since both Gabusi and the DE ‘289 reference teaches an apparatus for removing an object from within a bag, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the gripper of Gabusi with the cutting means of DE ‘289 in order to achieve the predictable result of opening the bag to access the object to be removed.
Regarding claim 2, Gabusi teaches:
positioning means, 3 and 4, for positioning the object;
displacing means, 14, for displacing the object, see figures 5 and 6 and paragraph 0052; and
a controller for controlling the positioning, see paragraph 0047, and the displacing means, see paragraphs 0052-0054, wherein the positioning means is arranged to position the object in a first predetermined position relative to the aperture, see figure 1; and wherein the displacing means is arranged to move the object relative to the surface by displacing the object through the aperture, see figure 5 and 6.
DE ‘289 teaches a controller for controlling the cutting, see the cutting unit, 5, which controlled to cut, see figures 3 and 4.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Gabusi and DE ‘289 teaches, before the positioning means is arranged to position the object in the first predetermined position, the positioning means is arranged to position the object in a second predetermined position relative to the cutting means such that the bag cut is before the object is moved into the first predetermined position, see figures 1 and 2 and paragraph 0047, which teaches the bag is opened before moving into the first predetermined position.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Gabusi and DE ‘289 teaches, in the second predetermined position, the bag intersects a cutting region of the cutting means, see figure 1; and wherein, in the first predetermined position, an end of the object proximate to an edge of the bag that has been cut faces the aperture, see figure 2.
Regarding claim 6, Gabusi teaches the displacing means comprises a moveable rod, 14, and is arranged to displace the object through the aperture via the moveable rod.
Regarding claim 7, Gabusi teaches the positioning means, 3 and 4, comprises a gripping means that is arranged to releasably grasp the object, see paragraph 0057.
Regarding claim 8, Gabusi teaches the gripping means partially releases the object as it is displaced through the aperture, see paragraph 0058.
Regarding claim 9, Gabusi teaches an input conveyor that is arranged to receive and convey the object to the positioning means for positioning, see hanging conveyor of figure 1.
Regarding claim 14, Gabusi does not explicitly teaches that the positioning means is arranged to discard the separated bag. DE ‘289 teaches the apparatus where the positioning means, 6, is arranged to discard the separated bag, see garbage bin 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to discard the empty bag of Gabusi as taught by DE ‘289 in order to achieve the predictable result of removing waste from the positioning means.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gabusi and DE ‘289 teaches the displacing mechanism comprises a guard, see pushing face of displacing mechanism 14, that is arranged to discard the separated bag from the displacing mechanism if the positioning arm fails to discard the separated bag.
Gabusi taches displacing mechanism 14, pushes the bag, see figure 6. The Gabusi reference in combination with the DE ‘289 refence therefore teach the claimed guard, as the displacing mechanism pushes the bag and the DE ‘289 reference is relied upon to the discard of the bag.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Gabusi and DE ‘289 teaches the bag is arranged to be cut a predetermined distance from the end of the object, see figure 1 of Gabusi and figure 3 of DE ‘289 which shows the cutting means cutting the bag a predetermined distance from the object.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Gabusi and DE ‘289 teaches wherein the bag is arranged to be cut the predetermined distance by arranging the cutting means to cut the bag the predetermined distance from the end of the object and/or by arranging the positioning means to position the end of the object the predetermined distance from the cutting means, see figure 3 of DE ‘289 which shows the cutting means cutting the bag at the predetermined distance.
Regarding claim 19, Gabusi teaches the surface is a planar structure, see wall 6 in figure 1.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Gabusi and DE ‘289 teaches a method of removing an object, A, from within a bag, B, comprising the steps of:
positioning the object, A, in a first predetermined position relative to an aperture, 5, in a surface, 6, see Gabusi figure 1;
cutting the bag, using the cutting unit 5 of DE ‘289; and
moving the surface and/or the object relative to one another,
wherein the aperture is sized relative to an end of the object such that the surface separates the cut bag from the object as the object passes through the aperture, see figures 1, 2, and 5 and 6, of Gabusi.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method steps of claim 29 using the apparatus taught by the combination of Gabusi and DE ‘289 in its usual and expected fashion.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabusi in view of DE 102011080289 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Edwards et al (US 2020/0339298).
Regarding claim 10, neither Gabusi nor the DE ‘289 reference teach a position detection means, as claimed. Edwards et al. teaches a system for removing an object from packaging, the apparatus comprising a position detection means that is arranged to determine positional data of the object as the object is conveyed to the positioning means, wherein the positioning means is arranged to facilitate positioning of the object using the positional data, see figure 4 and paragraph 0076.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the position detection means of Edwards et al. with the apparatus taught by the combination of Gabusi and DE ‘289 in order to determine the cutting patterns based on the positional data.
Regarding claim 11, Edwards et al. further teaches a leak detection means that is arranged to determine whether fluid has leaked, see figure 3A and paragraphs 0050-0052. Edwards et al. teaches a computer vision can of the case or containers is made…that shows damages, see paragraph 0050. Edwards et al. further teaches the containers are bottles containing liquid, see figure 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed for the detection means of Edwards et al., which detects for damaged containers, to detect for leaks as part of routine damage detection.
Regarding claim 12, Edwards et al. further teaches the positioning means is arranged to discard the object if the leak detection means determines that fluid has leaked into the bag, see steps 306 and 308 shown in figure 3A.
Regarding claim 13, Edwards et al. teaches the position detection means and/or the leak detection means are implemented using a machine vision system, see paragraph 0050.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gabusi in view of DE 102011080289 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DE 102017012236.
Regarding claim 20, neither Gabusi nor DE ‘289 explicitly teach an output conveyor. DE ‘236 teaches an apparatus for removing an object from within a bag, comprising an output conveyor, 18, wherein the object is arranged to be received by the output conveyor after it passes through the aperture, see figure 11 and the following quote from the English translation
“In an alternative embodiment, it can also be provided that the stretching device 10 and the unfolding device 60 are arranged at a distance from one another and the transport device 18 is designed to transport the object 14 from the unfolding device 60 to the stretching device 10.
The separating device 108 has a cutting knife, a removal device and a disposal device. The cutting knife is arranged so that it can be moved perpendicular to the transport direction in order to cut off the protruding packaging section 16 and thus open the packaging 12. In an alternative embodiment of the invention, instead of the cutting knife, a laser, a gripping knife or a thermal separation process, such as a hot wire or hot air, can also be used to separate the protruding packaging section 16 from the packaging 12. The removal device is designed to remove the object 14 from the packaging 12, that is to say the removal device is designed to separate the object 14 and the packaging 12 from one another. Various methods for removing an object from an opened packaging are known in the prior art. For example, a holding device can hold the packaging and a gripping device can remove the object from the packaging. Alternatively, the object can be held with a holding device while a gripping device holds the packaging and pulls it off the object 14.
The disposal device is designed to dispose of the separated packaging section 16 and the rest of the packaging 12. The two separate packaging parts of the packaging 12 can be disposed of separately or together. For this purpose, the disposal device can, for example, have a further transport device, for example a conveyor belt, on which the packaging residues are placed and from which the packaging residues are transported away from the separating device 108.
The transport device can be designed to transport the unpacked object 14 from the separation device 108 into a clean room 124.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to combine the transport device of DE ‘236 with the apparatus taught by the combination of Gabusi and DE ‘289 in order to transport the separated object through the aperture and further along the processing line.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 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.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not teach that the displacing means is arranged to partially displace the object through the aperture before fully displacing the object through the aperture, and the cutting means is arranged to cut the bag when the object is partially displaced through the aperture.
Gabusi is considered to be the best prior art and teaches that the bag is opened prior to the object being displace through the aperture. It would not be obvious to modify Gabusi to teach this feature as the intent of the Gabusi reference is to separate a sealed bag from sterile objects within the bag, and therefore displacing the object within the bag through the aperture would contaminate to clean environment beyond the aperture and therefore teach away from the invention of Gabusi.
Kuhnle et al. (US 2024/0034506) is an additional example of the prior art which teaches an apparatus for removing an object from within a bag and includes a surface with an aperture and a cutting means for cutting the bag. As can be seen in figures 1 and 2, the object inside the bag is displaced to be lined up with the aperture, but is not partially displaced through the aperture before cutting the bag. Once again, it would not be obvious to modify the prior art to teach this arrangement as the intent of the Kuhnle et al. reference is to separate a sealed bag from sterile objects within the bag, and therefore displacing the object within the bag through the aperture would contaminate to clean environment beyond the aperture and therefore teach away from the invention of Kuhnle et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional prior art cited on the PTO-892 and not relied upon are included in the file to show additional examples of an apparatus for removing an object from within a bag, and to show the general state of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLIN S JOERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-6938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 (CST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at (571)272-7097. 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.
/KAITLIN S JOERGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652
7 January 2026