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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: it is unclear what is intended by “the first belt overlaying at least a portion of a first belt device”; it is presumed to be intended that this limitation should read “the first belt overlaying at least a portion of a first shaft” and has been treated as such for purposes of examination
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7-10, and 28-29 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 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 being configured to apply pressure to a tube received in the tube-receiving cavity to open the tube (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 [0047-0048]).
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) and a first shaft (left drive pulley 23; see fig. 3), the first belt overlaying at least a portion of a first belt device (left side belt 20 overlays at least part of left drive pulley 23; see paragraph [0050] and fig. 3), the first shaft being in communication with the first belt drive the first shaft being configured to rotate the first belt drive in a first direction and also in a second direction different from 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 at 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 at 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]), a manual operation, or a combination of the automatic operation and the manual operation.
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) and a second shaft (right drive pulley 23; see fig. 3) in communication with the second belt drive (control and motor assembly 44 drives right drive pulley 23; see paragraph [0053]), the second belt 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), the second shaft being configured to rotate the second belt drive in a first direction and also in a second direction different from 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.
Taylor further discloses wherein the second belt system further includes a third belt drive disposed at 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 at 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]), a manual operation, or a combination of the automatic operation and the manual operation.
Regarding claim 28, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Taylor further discloses wherein the first and second belt systems are configured to apply a rolling pressure to the tube received in the tube-receiving cavity (left and right belts 20 are capable of applying pressure to tubular bag material 27 as left and right drive pulleys 23 rotate – thus, the pressure is a “rolling pressure”; see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 29, Taylor discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Taylor further discloses wherein the first and second belt systems are configured to apply the pressure to the tube received in the tube-receiving cavity in a first state by rotating the first belt system in a first direction and the second belt system in a second direction, in a second state that follows the first state by rotating both the first belt system and the second belt system in the first direction, in a third state that follows the second state by rotating both the first belt system and the second belt system in a second direction, and in a fourth state that follows the third state by rotating the first belt system in the second direction and the second belt system in the first direction (control and motor assembly 44 is configured to drive tubular bag material 27 in direction 16 and a direction opposite direction 16 – since control and motor assembly 44 is capable of reversing the direction of belts 20, it is interpreted that the device is capable of applying pressure to the workpiece in a first, second, third, and fourth state as recited; see paragraph [0053]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 10-17, filed 8/4/2026, with respect to the drawing objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections and 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) rejections of 3-4 and 8-9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-5 and 7-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the device of Taylor is not able to open a tube, Examiner respectfully disagrees (see pg. 17 of remarks). As previously noted, the limitations related to opening the weld of a tube are considered to be intended use of the device, and as best understood, the device of Taylor is capable of performing this function. Specifically, Applicant asserts that the device of Taylor would not apply a pressure to a tube (see pgs. 18-19 of remarks). However, Examiner notes that the device must be capable of applying pressure in order to transport tubular bag material 27 – if sub-assemblies 19 were unable to exert any pressure on the workpiece, the device would not be able to move tubular bag material 27.
Applicant further asserts that Taylor does not explicitly disclose the operation of the belt systems in a first, second, third, or fourth state (see pgs. 19-20 of remarks). As described in paragraph [0053] of Taylor, the control and motor assembly 44 is capable of causing the belts to rotate such that the workpiece is driven in direction 16 (specifically, belts 20 rotate in directions 26; see fig. 3). However, the control and motor assembly 44 is also able to reverse this direction so that the belts move in opposite directions to what is shown in fig. 3 (see paragraphs [0053, 0062]). Since the belts may rotate in either the clockwise or counterclockwise direction, it is interpreted that the device can be programmed to rotate the belt systems according to the first, second, third, and fourth states. Therefore, as best understood, the device of Taylor is capable of applying a pressure to open a tube.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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