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 of Invention I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 5 March 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14-22 are deemed withdrawn as being directed toward a non-elected invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 22-23 of the claim it reads, “moving the bag filler in the lateral direction relative to and away the bottom wall of the first bag”. This is deemed to be a typographical error and should read, “moving the bag filler in the lateral direction relative to and away from the bottom wall of the first bag”. Appropriate correction is required
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 2-3 of the claim it reads, “after the first bag has is in the expanded configuration”. This is deemed to be a typographical error and should read, “after the first bag is in the expanded configuration”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dispensing outlet" in line 24 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This limitation is understood to be the previously mentioned “outlet opening” which is defined by the “dispense nozzle”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a flow-surface wall that extends between and interconnects the upper end and the lower end, and wherein the throat opening is defined between the flow surface of the flow-surface wall and the rear wall" in lines 3-6 of the claim. This language is not readily understood. It appears to introduce a second flow-surface which is not found in the disclosure. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is being treated as the same “flow-surface wall” that is already introduced.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the conveyor" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 2-13, each of these claims are dependent on a rejected base claim and are deemed to contain the same indefinite subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen (US 2020/0047932 A1) in view of Inman et al. (US Patent 5,140,802) hereinafter referred to as Inman.
Regarding claim 1, Cullen discloses a method comprising
providing a first bag (paragraph 0045 – “a bag may be fitted and is shown by arrow 101 in FIG. 2”; paragraph 0094 – “cylindrical bag”) including
a variable-length expansible sleeve (paragraph 0046 – “The bag may expand rearward as the silage is fed into it… As the chassis 108 moves forward, the end of the bag remains in place, expanding the bag longitudinally”; paragraphs 0091 and 0094) having a first end and a second end formed to include an inlet port that opens to the interior region (paragraph 0046 – “A bag (not shown) is fitted about the tunnel assembly 106 and receives the packed silage. The bag may expand rearward as the silage is fed into it”; paragraph 0094 – “cylindrical bag”);
providing a bag filler including
a hopper trolley (108) configured to move in a lateral direction along the ground (paragraph 0046 – “the chassis 108 moves forward at a desired rate thereby controlling the density of the packed silage. As the chassis 108 moves forward, the end of the bag remains in place, expanding the bag longitudinally”), and
a hopper (118 in fig. 1 and 102 in fig. 2) coupled to the hopper trolley for movement therewith (paragraph 0046 – “The chassis 108 mounts the feed bin 102, packing assembly 104, and tunnel assembly 106, enabling them to be moved as a single unit.”; fig. 2), the hopper formed to include a bin (104, 118) that defines a material-storage region (104, 118; paragraphs 0046-0048) and a dispense nozzle (106, 110) coupled to the bin that defines an outlet opening in fluid communication with the material-storage region (paragraph 0049);
coupling the second end of the variable-length expansible sleeve to the dispense nozzle while the first bag is in a contracted configuration (paragraphs 0090-0091) associated with an empty mode of the first bag in which the interior region of the variable-length expansible sleeve of the first bag is free of material (paragraph 0092 – “The bag is then ready to be packed with silage or other fill material”. This means that until it is coupled to the nozzle, it is not ready to have material);
adding a flowable material to the material-storage region of the bin to begin filling the variable-length expansible sleeve of the first bag so that the bottom of the first bag is held in a stationary position on the ground (paragraph 0092 – “The bag is then ready to be packed with silage or other fill material”; paragraph 0046 – “During the packing of silage into the tunnel 110, the chassis 108 moves forward at a desired rate thereby controlling the density of the packed silage. As the chassis 108 moves forward, the end of the bag remains in place, expanding the bag longitudinally.”); and
moving the bag filler in the lateral direction relative to and away the first end of the first bag to cause the bag filler to dispense more of the material from the material-storage region of the bin (paragraph 0046 – “During the packing of silage into the tunnel 110, the chassis 108 moves forward at a desired rate thereby controlling the density of the packed silage. As the chassis 108 moves forward, the end of the bag remains in place, expanding the bag longitudinally.”) under gravity (paragraph 0047 – “…silage could be fed directly into a gravity feed system”) through the dispensing outlet and the inlet port into the interior region of the variable-length expansible sleeve of the first bag to continue to fill the variable-length expansible sleeve of the first bag so that a length of the variable-length expansible sleeve continuously increases as the bag filler is moved in the lateral direction relative to and away from the bottom wall of the first bag until the variable-length expansible sleeve is in an expanded configuration associated with a filled mode of the first bag in which the variable-length expansible sleeve has attained a desired volume or length (paragraph 0046 – “During the packing of silage into the tunnel 110, the chassis 108 moves forward at a desired rate thereby controlling the density of the packed silage.”; paragraph 0003 – “The bagging machine moves forward at a controlled rate leaving the packed bag behind.”).
Cullen discloses a first bag (paragraph 0045; paragraph 0094 – “cylindrical bag”) including a first end and a variable-length expansible sleeve, but does not specifically disclose a bottom wall.
However, Inman teaches a first bag (10) including a bottom wall (30 – “bag bottom”), and a variable-length expansible sleeve (col. 3 lines 10-12 – “gathered or folded condition”) having a first end (left side in fig. 2) coupled to the bottom wall of the first bag to block accumulated material from flowing out of an interior region (col. 3 lines 12-18) of the variable-length expansible sleeve through the first end and a second end (portion fit over 26; fig. 2; col. 3 lines 10-12) formed to include an inlet port that opens to the interior region (col. 3 lines 10-18); moving the bag filler in the lateral direction relative to and away the bottom wall of the first bag to cause the bag filler to dispense more of the material from the material-storage region of the bin under gravity (col. 3 lines 10-18) through the dispensing outlet (26) and the inlet port into the interior region of the variable-length expansible sleeve of the first bag to continue to fill the variable-length expansible sleeve of the first bag so that a length of the variable-length expansible sleeve continuously increases as the bag filler is moved in the lateral direction relative to and away from the bottom wall of the first bag until the variable-length expansible sleeve is in an expanded configuration associated with a filled mode of the first bag in which the variable-length expansible sleeve has attained a desired volume or length (col. 3 lines 10-18; col. 3 lines 45-60; claim 14).
Given the teachings of Inman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the cylindrical bag of Cullen to have a bottom wall as in Inman. Both are concerned with the problem of packaging silage in a variable-length expansible bag. Inman teaches the benefits of having a bottom wall that would serve as a means of preventing the silage from exiting out the end of bag during filling and further prevent rearward sliding of the bag.
Regarding claim 2, Cullen discloses adding more of the flowable material to the material-storage region (104, 118) of the bin after moving the bag filler in the lateral direction and moving the bag filler in the lateral direction after adding more of the flowable material to the material-storage region of the bin (paragraph 0046 – “The feed bin 102 feeds the silage into the packing assembly 104 which packs the silage into a tunnel 110 of the tunnel assembly 106… The bag may expand rearward as the silage is fed into it. The chassis 108 mounts the feed bin 102, packing assembly 104, and tunnel assembly 106, enabling them to be moved as a single unit. During the packing of silage into the tunnel 110, the chassis 108 moves forward at a desired rate thereby controlling the density of the packed silage.”; paragraph 0047 – “The feed bin 102 is configured to receive silage and may store silage prior to feeding it into the packing assembly 104.”).
Regarding claim 3, Cullen as modified by Inman discloses removing the second end of the first bag from the dispense nozzle after the first bag has is in the expanded configuration associated with the filled mode (Inman - col. 2 lines 28-32);
Coupling the second end of a second bag (Cullen - paragraph 0050 – “Having a variable cross section allows the tunnel assembly 106 to advantageously be used for different bag sizes without requiring different equipment”; paragraph 0056 – “tunnel sizes and may have more or less than four distinct operating positions”; paragraph 0066) to the dispense nozzle (Cullen - paragraphs 0090-0091) of the hopper; and
repeating the steps of adding the material to the material-storage region of the bin and moving the bag filler in the lateral direction relative to and away the bottom wall of the second bag to cause the bag filler to dispense more of the flowable material from the material-storage region of the bin under gravity (Cullen – paragraphs 0046-0048; Inman – col. 3 lines 10-19, col. 4 lines 39-45) through the inlet port into the interior region of the second bag.
Given the teachings of Inman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to incorporate the step of removing the filled bag from the dispensing nozzle because the amount of bagging material is finite and a user will only want the bag to be of a certain length so that it may fit within a desired boundary such as their property.
Cullen is deemed to disclose repeating these steps as it denotes setting the bag-filler for bags of different sizes. Wherein the Applicant may argue that the steps of repeating are not disclosed, the Office alternatively takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to incorporate repeating the aforementioned steps. The steps are already disclosed in Cullen in view of Inman. Repeating already known steps is a notoriously well-known method of any packaging art and designed to make repeated use of existing equipment so that costs are saved by not having such equipment used only once.
Regarding claim 11, Cullen discloses a conveyor (122) coupled to the hopper trolley (108) for movement therewith (paragraph 0046) and configured to transport the flowable material to the material-storage region of the bin (paragraph 0047).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen (US 2020/0047932 A1) in view of Inman (US Patent 5,140,802) in view of Farm Tech Canada (“Silage Bagger in Action – Corn Silage”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM0P3MosNeI ; 6 October 2018) and Sioux Automation Center (“Bagging with RotoPress”; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlNhSCYXld0&t=13s ; 12 August 2021) hereinafter referred to as NPL ’01 and NPL ’02 respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Cullen discloses adding flowable material to the material-storage region of the bin (104, 118; paragraphs 0046-0047), but does not specifically denote the feeding as continuous.
However, NPL ’01 and NPL ’02 each independently disclose a similar method of bagging with a bag filler wherein adding flowable material to the material-storage region of the bin is continuous (NPL ’01 – at least time 0:06-0:37; NPL ’02 – at least times 16:45, 16:57 and 17:10).
Given the teachings of NPL ’01 and NPL ’02 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the method of Cullen such that the flowable material was added to the material-storage region of the bin continuously. Doing so would reduce the time it would take to fill the bag by having a steady stream of material directed toward the bag.
Claim(s) 5-10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen (US 2020/0047932 A1) in view of Inman (US Patent 5,140,802) in view of Martinez (US 2010/0037569 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Cullen discloses a bin (104, 118) with walls, but fails to disclose wherein the bin of the hopper comprises: a pair of side walls located in spaced apart relation to each other, a rear wall that extends between and interconnects the side walls, and a flow-surface wall that extends between and interconnects the side walls, wherein the pair of side walls, the rear wall, and the flow-surface wall define the material-storage region of the bin and the flow-surface wall is spaced apart from the rear wall to define a throat opening of the material-storage region.
However, Martinez teaches wherein the bin (3) of the hopper (3) comprises: a pair of side walls (see fig. 2 below; walls facing viewer in fig. 3) located in spaced apart relation to each other, a rear wall (see fig. 2 below; right side fig. 3) that extends between and interconnects the side walls, and a flow-surface wall (see fig. 2 below; left side fig. 3; flow surface can be either or both of the indicated wall of #3 and #9) that extends between and interconnects the side walls, wherein the pair of side walls, the rear wall, and the flow-surface wall define the material-storage region of the bin and the flow-surface wall is spaced apart from the rear wall to define a throat opening of the material-storage region (see fig. 2 below; throat opening also seen in fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
730
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
569
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Given the teachings of Martinez (paragraphs 0016-0017), it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the bin of Cullen such that it incorporated the side wall arrangement of Martinez. Doing so would provide an inner slanted wall arranged so that the material would better flow downward toward the exit dispense nozzle / tunnel.
Regarding claim 6, Cullen as modified by Martinez discloses wherein the flow-surface wall extends at an angle (Martinez - fig. 3) relative to the ground so that the flowable material in the material-storage region moves through the throat opening and out the outlet opening (Cullen - 106, 110; Martinez - 5) of the dispense nozzle as the bag filler is moved in the lateral direction (Cullen – paragraphs 0046-0047; Martinez – paragraphs 0016-0017, 0047).
Regarding claim 7, Cullen as modified by Martinez discloses wherein the angle of the flow-surface wall is about 40 degrees (Martinez – see fig. 3 above).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the angle of the flow-surface wall is not specifically denoted as about 40 degrees, the Office further points to Inman which teaches the angle of a flow-surface wall is about 40 degrees (Inman – col. 3 lines 32-37 – “A preferred angle for the wall 40 is within an angular range of about 45 degrees to 65 degrees”).
Given the teachings of Inman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the flow-surface wall angle be about 40 degrees. Doing so would allow the bin to be more easily and completely emptied.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the angle of the flow-surface wall be about 40 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05 I, II). Doing so would allow a user to achieve a desired rate of gravity flow into the bottom of the bin as is contemplated in the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Cullen as modified by Martinez discloses wherein the flow-surface wall is shaped to include an upper end (Martinez – top of fig. 3), a lower end (Martinez – Flow side wall toward bottom of fig. 3 and adjacent #9; alternatively the bottom of #9) spaced apart from the upper end that defines a portion of the outlet opening (Martinez – throat opening into #5), and a flow-surface wall that extends between and interconnects the upper end and the lower end (Martinez – fig. 3; see 35 USC 112b rejection above), and wherein the throat opening is defined between the flow surface of the flow-surface wall and the rear wall (Martinez – fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 9, Cullen as modified by Martinez discloses wherein the rear wall extends at an angle relative to the ground (Martinez – see fig. 3 above).
Regarding claim 10, Cullen as modified by Martinez discloses wherein the angle of the rear wall is about 68 degrees (Martinez – see fig. 3 above).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the angle of the rear wall is not specifically denoted as about 68 degrees, the Office further points to Inman which teaches the angle of a bin wall is about 68 degrees (Inman – col. 3 lines 32-37 – “A preferred angle for the wall 40 is within an angular range of about 45 degrees to 65 degrees”).
Given the teachings of Inman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the rear wall angle be about 68 degrees. Doing so would allow the bin to be more easily and completely emptied.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the angle of the rear wall be about 68 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; MPEP 2144.05 I, II). Doing so would allow a user to achieve a desired rate of gravity flow into the bottom of the bin as is contemplated in the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Cullen as modified by Martinez discloses wherein the conveyor (Cullen - 122) extends between and interconnects a base of the hopper trolley (Cullen - 108) and a flow-surface wall (Martinez – see figs. 2-3 above) of the bin (Cullen – 104, 118; Martinez - 3) included in the hopper.
Regarding claim 13, Cullen as modified discloses wherein the hopper trolley (Cullen – 108; Martinez – 6, fig. 3) includes a wheeled base (Cullen – 108, fig. 2; Martinez – 7, 7’, fig. 3) that extends laterally between a first end having a first wheel assembly coupled thereto and a second end having a second wheel assembly coupled thereto (Cullen – 108, figs. 1-2, front and back sets of wheels; Martinez – 7, 7’, fig. 3) and a support structure arranged to extend between and interconnect the hopper to the wheeled base (Cullen – chassis 108 along with frame seen in figs. 1-2, 10-11; paragraph 0046; ; Martinez – 31, 32, fig. 3).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Cullen does not explicitly disclose a support structure, the Office alternatively points to Martinez which teaches a support structure. Doing so would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing so that the hopper was properly mounted and oriented on the chassis while it was being pulled along.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited. The art not relied upon generally pertains to silage bagging machines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731