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 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.
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) 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atanasoff et al. USP 3,316,401.
See the previously attached two annotated drawing sheets of Atanasoff et al. depicting the previously rejected claim features. Also please note that two new annotated drawings have been attached to this action depicting the apertures 14, which act as hoppers (claim 1) RE claim 3, Atanasoff et al do not teach a pivot axis of the filler element being arranged completely perpendicular to the sliding direction, but instead a little less than perpendicular. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice as to what type of known device can feed packages into a packing bag from a chute in a perpendicular configuration, the mere claiming of a chute over an aperture and the configuration of such does not provide a patentable departure over the device of Atanasoff et al. since the Atanasoff et al. patent can perform the stated functions just as the applicant’s device does.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atanasoff et al. USP 3,136,401. In view of CN 210884128 (both references were cited by applicant).
Atanasoff et al. teach the claimed features as outlined above. Atanasoff et al. fail to disclose the use of sensors for detecting a filling level. CN 210884128 utilizes sensors for monitoring the items being delivered on their chute to their packaging box. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the sensors as taught by CN 210884128 in the device of Atanasoff et al. in order to effectively monitor the items being conveyed along the chute to the packaging bag/box.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DOUGLAS A HESS whose telephone number is (571)272-6915. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8-6.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/DOUGLAS A HESS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651
DAH
February 26, 2026