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 Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 3/4/2026. Claims 1-6 are currently pending. Claims 1-6 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “transport unit” of claim 1 corresponding to element 10;
the “first loading unit” of claim 1 corresponding to element 21;
the “second loading unit” of claim 1 corresponding to element 22;
the “discharge unit” of claim 1 corresponding to element 24;
the “control unit” of claim 1 corresponding to element 40;
the “third loading unit” of claim 2 corresponding to element 23;
the “bundling unit” of claim 3 corresponding to element 30; and
the above claim limitations recited in claims 4-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP (JP S4812267 B1) in view of Tsutsumi (JP 2001247250 A). Note that for convenience, citations to the written description of Tsutsumi refer to the attached translation.
Regarding claim 1, JP discloses an apparatus comprising: a transport unit (24 – Fig. 1) configured to transport bags (19 – Fig. 1) in a transport direction (from right to left in Fig. 1) in a plurality of lines (as can be seen in Fig. 1 after 23 severs 10, 2 bags are created and transported in a line; since there are two bags, there are two lines); a first loading unit (the left half of 25 – Fig. 1) configured to load the bags of a first line (the left line of 19 – Fig. 1) transported by the transport unit (since the bags are dropped on 25, the bags are interpreted to be loaded by the left half of 25); and a second loading unit (the right half of 25 – Fig. 1) configured to load the bags of a second line (the right line of 19 – Fig. 1) transported by the transport unit (since the bags are dropped on 25, the bags are interpreted to be loaded by the right half of 25), wherein each bag includes an opening (at 26 – Fig. 3) and a bottom (at the side opposite 26 – Fig. 3), wherein the thickness of the bottom is larger than the opening thickness (although not expressly disclosed, this is necessarily true since the seal at the bottom of a bag extends across the entire width of the bag while the opening is extends between two sides of the bag; the sides are not very thick but have a thickness nonetheless and thus prevents the opening from extending across the entire width of the bag), and wherein the transport unit is controlled such that orientations of the opening and the bottom of the bags of the first line are different from the orientations of the opening and bottom of the bags of the second line in a width direction (as can be seen in Figs. 1 and 3, the openings of the bags of the two lines face away from each other and the bottoms of the bags of the two lines face towards each other, hence the bags of the first line have a different orientation in the width direction than the bags of the second line).
However, JP does not disclose a discharge unit.
Tsutsumi discloses an apparatus comprising a transport unit (17 – Fig. 7), a first loading unit (the left half of 20 – Fig. 7) configured to load a plurality of items (31 – Fig. 7) of a first line (the line formed by the transport of 31 – Fig. 7); a second loading unit (the right half of 20 – Fig. 7) configured to load a plurality of items (31’ – Fig. 7) of a second line (the line formed by the transport of 31’ – Fig. 7); a discharge unit (55 – Fig. 7) arranged below the first loading unit and the second loading unit (as can be seen in Fig. 8); and a control unit (110 – Fig. 9) configured to control the apparatus (pg. 4, lines 41-49), wherein the control unit controls the transport unit, the first loading unit to drop the plurality of items of the first line from the first loading unit onto the discharge unit (pg. 6, lines 23-25 and see Fig. 7 which shows that 55 moves back and forth in the direction of the two-sided arrow and stacks from 31 clearly loaded onto 55), controls the discharge unit to move the plurality of items of the first line dropped onto the discharge unit to an area under the plurality of bags of the second line loaded on the second loading unit (pg. 6, lines 42-45 and see Fig. 7 which shows that 55 move back and forth in the direction of the two-sided arrow), and controls the second loading unit to drop the plurality of items of the second line from the second loading unit onto the plurality of items of the first line (pg. 6, lines 42-45 and see Fig. 7 which stacks from 31’ clearly loaded on 55). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Tsutsumi, would have recognized that the discharge unit of Tsutsumi may also be used to stack bags in two lines as disclosed by JP.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of JP to include a discharge device and associated control unit along with the capability to drop items from the loading units as taught by Tsutsumi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the bags of JP to be neatly stacked to facilitate transportation, thereby lowering operator involvement and reducing the potential for mistakes.
Regarding claim 4, each of the limitations map to a limitation in claim 1. Thus, claim 4 is rejected in the same manner as claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, applicant argues that the combination of JP and Tsutsumi set forth above does not teach that the bags have an opening thickness and a bottom thickness, wherein the bottom thickness is larger than the opening thickness or that the control unit controls the transport unit such that the orientation of the openings and bottoms of the bags of the first line is different than the orientation of the openings and bottoms of the bags in the second line in a width direction. JP does not address the thickness of the bags or a specific control feature of arranging bags in different orientations.
However, as noted above in the rejection of claim 1, JP discloses that the openings and bottoms of the bags have different thicknesses. In this case, thickness is interpreted to be the distance from one side of the bag to the other. Furthermore, it is noted that claims do not require the control unit to control the transport unit to do any actual turning or other orientating operations of the bags. It just requires the transport unit to be controlled by the control unit. Since Tsutsumi teaches controlling the transport unit with a control unit, the combination of JP and Tsutsumi results in a transport unit controlled by the control unit. Since the orientations are already taught in JP, a control unit can just operate the transport unit in the same general operation as already disclosed by JP. Therefore, applicant’s argument is found to be not persuasive.
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 THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
3/19/2026