DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 4/9/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search for the subject matter of Group I would overlap the search for the subject matter of Group II, thus there is no serious search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because as described in the election/restriction requirement mailed 2/13/2026, the combination (Group II) does not require the particulars of the subcombination (Group I) – that is, the subcombination requires that the first and second belt systems apply pressure to a tube received in the tube-receiving cavity, and the combination does not. Since the combination does not require this interaction, a wider variety of devices is encompassed by the combination, for example, a device wherein the first and second belt systems do not directly interact with the workpiece.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the first support block disposed between the first belt drive and the tube-receiving cavity (see at least claim 3)
the second belt drive disposed on a first end of the first support block and a third belt drive disposed on an opposing second end of the first support block (see at least claim 4)
the second support block disposed between the second belt drive and the tube-receiving cavity (see at least claim 8)
the third belt drive disposed on a first end of the second support block and a fourth belt drive disposed on an opposing second end of the second support block (see at least claim 9)
the fourth belt drive (see at least claim 9)
If the fourth belt drive is shown in the drawings, then the fourth belt drive should be indicated with a reference character(s) to make clear that this feature is illustrated (see MPEP 608.01(o), explaining that in mechanical cases the meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: at paragraph [0081], “the first and second belt drives 364, 365” should be amended to read “the first and second belt drives 354, 355” since it appears that elements 364, 365 refer to the first and second belt drives of the second belt system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,2, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: at the last line, “receive” should be amended to read “received”
Claim 2:
it is unclear whether the claim is intended to mean that the first belt system includes a first belt that overlays the first belt drive and the first shaft, or if the first belt system simply includes the first shaft as a separate element that is not overlaid by the first belt (at least claim 7 requires similar corrections with respect to the second belt system)
at the last line, “form” should be amended to read “from” (at least claim 7 requires similar corrections)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. First, there is no written description supporting that the first support block is located between the first belt drive and the tube-receiving cavity, or that the second support block is located between the second belt drive and the tube-receiving cavity. Second, the second and third belt drives are not sufficiently described as being disposed “on” the first support block, and are not located at opposing ends of the first support block (likewise, the third and fourth belt drives are also not described as being “on” the second support block, and are not at opposing ends of the second support block). Lastly, there is a lack of written description for the fourth belt drive, as it is only recited once in the specification (see paragraph [0015] of instant specification). Thus, it is not known what structure in the figures corresponds to the fourth belt drive or how it interacts with other structural elements.
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 9 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 9, since the fourth belt drive does not appear to be shown in the drawings and is not sufficiently described in the specification, it is unclear what structure is disposed on the second end of the second support block. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim as it pertains to the fourth belt drive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taylor (US 20150135653).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses a tube opening device (the device is capable of opening a tube since it is configured to apply pressure to either side of the tube and rotate; see paragraphs [0048-0049, 0053]) comprising: a body (drive assembly 17; see fig. 3) having a first side (left side including left sub-assembly 19; see paragraph [0048] and fig. 3) and a second side (right side including right sub-assembly 19; see paragraph [0048] and fig. 3) and including a tube-receiving cavity (gap in between sub-assemblies 19; see fig. 3), the first side of the body including a first belt system disposed on a first side of the tube-receiving cavity (left side sub-assembly 19 is on a first, left side of the tube-receiving cavity; see fig. 3) and a second belt system disposed on a second side of the tube-receiving cavity (right side sub-assembly 19 is on a second, right side of the tube-receiving cavity; see fig. 3), the first and second belt systems configured to apply pressure to a tube receive in the tube-receiving cavity (both sub-assemblies 19 engage tubular bag material 27 (which is interpreted as a tube) in order to pull tubular bag material 27 along direction 16; see paragraphs [0047-0038]).
Regarding claim 2, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Taylor further discloses wherein the first belt system includes a first belt (left side belt 20; see fig. 3) overlaying at least a portion of a first belt drive (left side belt 20 overlays at least part of left drive pulley 23; see paragraph [0050] and fig. 3) and a first shaft in communication with the first belt drive (control and motor assembly 44 drives left drive pulley 23; see paragraph [0053]), the first shaft being configured to rotate the first belt drive in a first direction and also in a second direction different form the first direction (control and motor assembly 44 is configured to drive tubular bag material 27 in direction 16 and in a direction opposite direction 16; see paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 3, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Taylor further discloses wherein the first belt system further includes a first support block disposed between the first belt drive and the tube-receiving cavity (left element 38 is located between left drive pulley 23 and the tube-receiving cavity; see fig. 2), the first support block being configured to maintain contact between the first belt and the tube as disposed in the tube-receiving cavity between the first and second belt systems (left element 38 appears to maintain contact between left belt portion 24 of left belt 20 and tubular bag material 27 during operation; see figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Taylor further discloses wherein the first belt system further includes a second belt drive disposed on a first end of the first support block (left idler roller 21 is located on a first end of left element 38; see fig. 2) and a third belt drive disposed on an opposing second end of the first support block (left idler roller 22 is located on an opposite end of left element 38; see fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Taylor further discloses wherein the first shaft is configured to be moved in the first and second directions using an automatic operation (control and motor assembly 44 includes a computer-controlled servo motor; see paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 7, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Taylor further discloses wherein the second belt system includes a second belt (right side belt 20; see fig. 3) overlaying at least a portion of a second belt drive (right side belt 20 overlays at least part of right drive pulley 23; see paragraph [0050] and fig. 3) and a second shaft in communication with the second belt drive (control and motor assembly 44 drives right drive pulley 23; see paragraph [0053]), the second shaft being configured to rotate the second belt drive in a first direction and also in a second direction different form the first direction (control and motor assembly 44 is configured to drive tubular bag material 27 in direction 16 and in a direction opposite direction 16; see paragraph [0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Taylor further discloses wherein the second belt system further includes a second support block disposed between the second belt drive and the tube-receiving cavity (right element 38 is located between right drive pulley 23 and the tube-receiving cavity; see fig. 2), the second support block being configured to maintain contact between the second belt and the tube as disposed in the tube-receiving cavity between the first and second belt systems (right element 38 appears to maintain contact between right belt portion 24 of right belt 20 and tubular bag material 27 during operation; see figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 9, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
As best understood, Taylor further discloses wherein the second belt system further includes a third belt drive disposed on a first end of the second support block (right idler roller 21 is located on a first end of right element 38; see fig. 2) and a fourth belt drive disposed on an opposing second end of the second support block (right idler roller 22 is located on an opposite end of right element 38; see figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Taylor further discloses wherein the second shaft is configured to be moved in the first and second directions using an automatic operation (control and motor assembly 44 includes a computer-controlled servo motor; see paragraph [0053]).
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.
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.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 20150135653).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 2 as described in the rejection above.
Taylor does not explicitly disclose wherein the first shaft is configured to be moved in the first and second directions using a manual operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Taylor to use a manual operation to move the first shaft since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192). In the instant case, the reverse is true – that is, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to perform the operation of moving the first shaft by hand.
Regarding claim 11, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Taylor does not explicitly disclose wherein the second shaft is configured to be moved in the first and second directions using a manual operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Taylor to use a manual operation to move the second shaft since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192). In the instant case, the reverse is true – that is, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to perform the operation of moving the second shaft by hand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights