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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant amendment received on 09/15/2025:
Amendments of Claims 1 and 8 are acknowledged.
New Claims 15 to 17 are acknowledged.
New Figures 9 and 10 are acknowledged.
Amendments to the Specification to add references to the new drawing and correct some minor issues are acknowledged.
Drawings
The new drawings were received on 9/15/2025. These new drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Claim reads “wherein control units have each at least two connecting ports to operatively connect them in series and to connect one of the control units connected in series to the main controller”; and the Examiner considers it should read – wherein the control units have each at least two connecting ports to operatively connect them in series and to connect one of the control units in series to the main controller.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 10 to 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto (US 2019/0233152) in view of Walter (US 2017/0320683).
Regarding Claims 1 and 15:
Nakamoto discloses a packaging machine, comprising: a track defining a closed path; a number of carriage assemblies moveable along the track (Figure 1, packaging machine 10 comprising transfer device 11 that includes a rail member 12 which determines an endless transfer route R that will be considered a track defining a closed path and gripper pairs 14, formed by two grippers 13 will be considered the carriage assemblies driven by linear motor drives);
a main controller in electrical communication with the track and the carriage assemblies for the independent but coordinated movement of the carriage assemblies (Figure 4 shows electromagnets 15 on rail 12, Paragraphs 0035 and 0036 a current is supplied from a drive control device to the coil of electromagnets 15 to generate the magnet force from the iron core, to each individual gripper 13; a permanent magnet 16 is provided in each gripper 13, and a transfer speed is adjusted according to a current supplied to the electromagnets 15. That is, the gripper 13 receives a magnet force from the electromagnet 15 by the permanent magnet 16 to generate a driving force toward a transfer direction, and the transfer speed is adjusted by the strength of the magnet force, paragraph 0045, transfer device 11, that will be considered the main controller, sequentially moves the gripper pair 14 to sequentially transfer the bag 100 to the plurality of stations),
said carriage assemblies being configured to grip a pouch so that, each carriage assembly, or cooperatively a number of successive carriage assemblies, is able to hold in a suspended fashion a flexible pouch and to convey it along at least a section of the track (Figure 4 shows a Grippers pair 14 holding a bag 100 in a suspended way);
a series of processing modules engaged with a common supporting rail, the processing modules having configurable tools able to perform an operation on the conveyed pouches (Figure 1, Paragraphs 0045, 0046 bag processing devices 22 to 28 are arranged on respective stations and each perform a function on the bags, filling, sealing, printing… along rail member 12, that will be considered a supporting rail);
a corresponding series of control units, each control unit to control the configurable tools of a processing module or the configurable tools of a set of functionally-related processing modules (Paragraphs 0015, 0045, 0066 and 0068, the processing devices follow the bags being synchronized with a transfer speed of the bag; each gripper pair 14 and bag processing device is controlled individually but at the same time relative to each other, (0044) a distance between the pair of grippers 13 can be reduced or increased during the transfer or after the gripper 13 is stopped; no control unit number is disclosed but “each bag processing device is controlled and the transfer device 11 controls a transfer state of the gripper pair 14 by using the linear motor drive so that a following relation is established in combinations of the devices; (0068) More specifically, the bag opening device 24, the liquid filling device 25, and the transfer device 11 are controlled so that the number of processed bags 100 on which the bag processing is executed by the bag opening device 24 during the unit processing time of the liquid filling device 25 is the same as the number of processed bags 100 per filling processing of the liquid filling device 25; so it will be considered that each processing module comprise a corresponding control unit to start moving along the track and executing the corresponding bag processing operations while in synch with the individual grippers 13), the control units being engageable in a static frame to which the supporting rail of the processing modules is also solidly joined to (The control units of each processing device are not disclosed as being in movement relative to the packaging machine 10 so they are considered static relative to it, and they need to be supported in some way to the packaging machine 10, so the support to all the components of the packaging machine will be considered a “static frame” short of additional limitation, and connected to the respective bag processing device that is solidly connected to packaging machine 10, represented as a rectangle on Figures 1 to 3 same as the transfer device 11 and rail 12).
Nakamoto discloses the series of processing modules being moveably engaged with a common supporting rail (Paragraph 0075, entire size of processor can be simplified or miniaturized or the number of bag processing devices can be reduced, so if they can be removed, they are surely moveably engaged, same as indicated above, rail 12 is considered a common supporting rail), but does not specifically disclose the control units being moveably engageable relative to the static frame.
Walter teaches a modular transport line, similar to the track defining a closed path comprising a number of carriage assemblies moveable along the track having independent but coordinated movement, also driven by linear motor, and a series of processing modules engaged with a common supporting rail, (Figure 1, Paragraphs 0020 to 0022, long stator linear motor 1 defines the transport lines TS, transport unit Tx the carriage assembles that can operate independently of other transport units Tx, in direction, position, speed, and acceleration, and work stations AS the processing modules) the transport line is modular and each transport module TM1 to TMn is controlled by a control unit 9, the modular design allows for a flexible design that can be used to realize various transport lines with few different types, in a flexible manner, as the transport lines TS can change configuration, the position of the Work stations AS along those transport lines would also change.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to Nakamoto the teachings of Walter and make the transport of the packaging machine of a modular design, allowing for flexibility to change and adapt a design in a flexible manner, allowing for modifying the shape of the track by changing the position of the carriage assemblies and processing modules, so the control unit of each processing module is moveably engageable relative to the static frame.
Regarding Claim 4:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Nakamoto discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Nakamoto does not specifically disclose if connecting ports of various of the control units are identical.
The use of standard ports for communication, such as serial ports, parallel ports, Ethernet or the variety of USB ports is a common practice in the art, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use identical connecting ports for the control units.
Regarding Claim 10:
Nakamoto discloses that the track is arranged at a horizontal reference plane and wherein a supporting rail is arranged at a level above the horizontal reference plane (Figure 5, rail member 12 that defines the track is arranged on a horizontal plane and short of any additional limitation first roller group 131B will be considered a supporting rail).
Regarding Claim 11:
Nakamoto discloses that the static frame comprises removably connected sub-frames dimensioned so as to receive the moveably engagement of a plural number of control units (Figure 1, the static frame that holds the packaging machine 10 comprises subframes not numbered comprising each of the plurality of stations S1 to S9 that execute the bag processing, each one comprising its individual control unit and; Paragraph 0075, the entire size of processor is simplified or miniaturized or the number of bag processing devices are reduced) since they are removable if the packaging machine is simplified or miniaturized or the number of bag processing devices are reduced), so if the stations are removable then the control units can be considered as moveably engaged).
Regarding Claim 12:
As discussed for Claim 2 above, the modified invention of Nakamoto discloses the invention as claimed.
The modified invention of Nakamoto does not disclose if the control unit is arranged above and vertically aligned with a processing module whose configurable tools control.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the control unit arranged above and vertically aligned with a processing module whose configurable tools control since even though it could have some advantages, such as simplifying the connections and wiring length between the control units and the processing modules, no criticality is given to that limitation and probably the same advantages can be obtained having the control unit in another position also close to the processing module.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto (US 2019/0233152) in view of Walter (US 2017/0320683) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borghi (US 2021/0403246).
Regarding Claim 5:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Nakamoto discloses the invention as claimed, in particular Nakamoto includes instructions for the processing modules in regard to different kinds of bags, such as bags of different sizes or if operations are not required or if bags are rejected.
The modified invention of Nakamoto does not disclose if wherein the main controller is able to store instructions transmitted to the processing modules.
Borghi teaches a similar packaging machine including a linear motor and carriages that can be controlled individually, the main controller being a computer, that includes a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program comprising instructions for the computer to control the packaging machine and also storing data about faulty operation of the packaging process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Nakamoto the teachings of Borghi and use a computer including a non-transitory computer readable medium as the main controller to able to store the instructions to be transmitted to the processing modules and data about faulty operation of the packaging process.
Regarding Claim 7:
Both Nakamoto and Walter disclose that the carriages are stopped or not for processing on each of the processing modules by the main controller (Paragraphs 0050 to 0061), in particular, the bags can stop or not at the stations, or after printing inspection, if a defect is found, processing stop and the bag is dropped.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto (US 2019/0233152) in view of Walter (US 2017/0320683) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Von Birgelen (US 2020/0002040).
Regarding Claim 6:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Nakamoto discloses the invention as claimed, in particular both Nakamoto and Walter disclose that the carriages are stopped or not for processing on each of the processing modules by the main controller.
The modified invention of Nakamoto does not specifically disclose if an electronic identification is assigned to each carriage assembly; and wherein the main controller is able to generate instructions transmitted to the processing modules, via their associated control units, to automatically configurate or operate their tools as a function of the electronic identification of the carriage assembly, or carriage assemblies, passing through the processing modules.
Von Birgelen teaches a packaging machine comprising a similar linear motor with a transport rail and carriages that can be controlled individually (Figure 1b, transports 4, paragraph 0044, each individual transport slide preferably has an electromagnetically readable identifier. In addition, the transport rail has reading means to be able to read out the position of each transport slide and the identification of the transport slide. This means that each individual transport slide can be individually controlled by means of a suitable control of the transport rail).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Nakamoto the teachings of Von Birgelen and include an electronic identification assigned to each carriage assembly so that each individual transport slide can be identified and individually controlled by means of a suitable control of the transport rail to stop or not at the processing modules.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amendments to the Specification and Drawings explain satisfactorily how the flexible pouches are suspended to be conveyed and processed. The rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejections of Claims 1, 4 and 10 to 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamoto (US 2019/0233152) in view of Walter (US 2017/0320683) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Nakamoto as characterized as describing in Fig. 1 nowhere describes or suggests that the processing modules are engaged with a common supporting rail.
The Examiner has to disagree with this argument, actually Figure 1 shows the stations S1 to S9 engaged on rail 12 along the transfer route R defined by the rail 12. The stations engage the bags on the gripper pairs that are supported by the rail, and actually can move parallel to the transfer route synchronized with the grippers, so they are engaged with the rail, maybe not directly engaged, but engaged by means of the grippers and the bags being processed.
The Applicant argues that:
In the claimed invention, removing a processing module does not entail miniaturizing the machine, because the rail, being common to processing modules and sized to serve as a support for several processing modules, will remain in place. In the claimed invention, the rail is used to easily assemble and disassemble processing modules and/or to move them when a processing module is installed that occupies or requires a certain space, being able to choose the processing modules that are of interest according to the type of bag to be filled.
And this argument is used to indicate that Nakamoto fails to support the position that "if they can be removed, they are surely moveably engaged," because these are different conditions, not intrinsically related.
The Examiner neither agrees nor disagrees with the argument, but the mentioned limitations are not claimed. In particular the Examiner interpreted the limitation
“the control units being moveably engageable in a static frame to which the supporting rail of the processing modules is also solidly joined to”
as claiming that the control units could be reconfigured and changed of position in the static frame. Nakamura discloses that the stations, including their respective control units can be removed, so they are “moveably engageable” in reference to the static frame, but Nakamura does not explicitly disclose changing the position of a station within the static frame.
The teachings of Walter are used for a modular transport line that allows for reconfiguration and repositioning of the stations, and their respective control units, on the static frame, nothing else.
Regarding the rejection of Claim 2 the Examiner agrees with the Applicants arguments, Walter discusses the individual controllers for the transport line being connected in series, but not the control units of the stations, so the rejection of Claims 2 and 3 is withdrawn.
Upon review of the specification, the Examiner considers that when the Applicant claims a “static frame” it is maybe making reference to Static frame 101 on Figures 1 to 3. A better description of it would surely overcome the references on the record.
Also, on claim 10, “a supporting rail” is claimed that the Examiner is considering as another supporting rail different to the one of Claim 1, but probably that was not the intention of the Applicant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 2: The claim includes the limitation “the control units have each at least two connecting ports to operatively connect them in series and to connect one of the control units connected in series to the main controller”. No reference on the record teach such limitation, in general the control units of the workstations are connected to the main controller, in particular the main controller of Nakamoto makes the work stations and the carriages to work in synchronization, but no reference on the record mentions or provides a reasonable motivation to add two connecting ports to operatively connect the control units in series and to connect one of the control units in series to the main controller
Regarding Claims 8, 13, 16 and 17: The claims seem to be directed to the subject matter of Figure 4, showing the plurality of processing modules being supported by long supporting rails 12a and 12b. References such as Todd (US 2001/0009098) teach a packaging machine comprising workstations that “follow” the bag, same as Nakamoto, showing the tools of individual processing modules supported and moving along a couple of rails, such as the sealing station on Figure 4A, but the rails support only the tools of one processing module, not of a plurality of processing modules; Bauer (2017/005030332) on Figures 35-37 teaches a filling station moving along a rail, but again just one processing module on one rail; Sammons (US 2013/0152516) on Figure 7 show the tools of the workstations placed on rails, but each workstation separated from each other. No reference on the record teach placing a plurality of processing modules being supported by long supporting rails or there is no reasonable motivation to modify them in such way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, proper rejections of the independent claim could have been done using other references such as Todd (US 2001/0009098) or Von Birgelen (US 2020/0002040).
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 EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/STEPHEN F. GERRITY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731 3 December 2025