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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 9/25/2024 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato (JP 2002145225 A).
Kato discloses a raw material input automation device (fig.1-7) comprising: a hopper (14) configured to receive raw materials stored inside a bag (17); a cutter (3) disposed in an upper part of an inlet of the hopper and configured to cut a lower part of the bag (see fig.6); a box (8) disposed in the upper part of the hopper and configured to prevent external diffusion of dust; a guide (1) disposed above the box and configured to guide entry of the bag; and at least one pusher (7) installed on the guide and configured to tap the bag by variable tilting to promote a discharge of the raw materials from the bag into the hopper (see fig.6-7).
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 1-2, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (JP 2016055876 A) in view of Shunsaku Kido (JP H0513911U).
Regarding claim 1, Iwata discloses a raw material input automation device (fig.1-7) comprising: a hopper (17) configured to receive raw materials stored inside a bag (FC); a cutter (8) disposed in an upper part of an inlet of the hopper and configured to cut a lower part of the bag (see figs.1, 3, 5); a box configured to prevent external diffusion of dust (see attached translation, page 4, ll.22-25); a guide (15) disposed above the box and configured to guide entry of the bag (see also page 3, ll.36-38, guide 15 can have “two parts”); and at least one pusher (16) installed on the guide and configured to tap the bag by variable tilting to promote a discharge of the raw materials from the bag into the hopper (page 3, ll.29-32).
Iwata is silent in disclosing the location of the dust box being disposed in the upper part of the hopper. However, Shunsaku teaches the commonality of having a box (2) being disposed in the upper part of the hopper (3) and configured to prevent external diffusion of dust (see attached translation, page 2, ll.42-43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the dust box of Iwata to the one as taught by Shunsaku, in order to prevent any environmental contamination.
Regarding claim 2, Iwata discloses the cutter is configured to be raised or lowered by an air cylinder (via 12, page 3, ll.22-23).
Regarding claim 8, Iwata discloses the guide has a tapered structure whose width narrows downward, and wherein an inclination angle and a size of the guide are set such that sides of the bag contacts an inner surface of the guide first (see fig.3 and page 3, ll.36-38 via an option of the guide 15 to have “two parts”).
Regarding claim 10, Iwata discloses a rail (1) disposed at a height in a horizontal direction; and a hanger (3) mounted on the rail and configured to reciprocate in the horizontal direction, the hanger configured to reciprocate the bag mounted at a lower end of the hanger in a vertical direction (via 2, page 2, ll.34-38).
Regarding claim 11, Iwata discloses the hanger includes an upper hanger (upper frame shown in figs.1 and 3) mounted on the rail, a lower hanger (below 5) disposed below the upper hanger, a wire (2) installed between the upper hanger and the lower hanger, and at least one hook (5) mounted on the lower hanger to hang the bag (FC).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (JP 2016055876 A) in view of Shunsaku Kido (JP H0513911 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kato (JP 2002145225 A).
Regarding claim 3, Iwata discloses the cutter includes a pyramid-shaped knife (see shape of 8). Iwata and Shunsaku in combination are silent in disclosing a mesh disposed below the pyramid-shaped knife to filter foreign substances. However, Kato teaches the commonality of having a mesh (9) disposed below the pyramid-shaped knife (3) to filter foreign substances (see attached translation, page 6, ll.9-16). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add a mesh as taught by Kato to the box of the device of Iwata and Shunsaku in combination, in order to prevent any entanglement of the large particles in operation of the device (page 6, ll.9-16).
Regarding claim 4, Iwata and Shunsaku in combination are silent in disclosing the upper part of the box is sealed with the guide, and a lower part of the box is sealed with the inlet of the hopper. However, Kato teaches the commonality of having an upper part of the box (8) being sealed with the guide (1), and a lower part of the box being sealed with the inlet of the hopper (14, see fig.4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the location of the box of Iwata and Shunsaku in combination to a sealing condition as taught by, in order to prevent any spillage of particles.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (JP 2016055876 A) in view of Shunsaku Kido (JP H0513911 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 106393253 B).
Iwata and Shunsaku in combination are silent in disclosing the box is transparent and has a sealed structure. However, Chen teaches the obviousness of making a dust box (11) from a transparent sealed structure (see attached translation, page 5, ll.36-40). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to make the dust box of Iwata and Shunsaku in combination to a transparent one as taught by Chen, in order to observe the dust condition within the box (page 5, ll.36-40).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (JP 2016055876 A) in view of Shunsaku Kido (JP H0513911 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 216003338 U).
Iwata and Shunsaku in combination are silent in disclosing the box is a glove box mounted with a glove; and the box includes a main box equipped with a glove and a door for discharging scrap; and a scrap box disposed on a side of the main box. However, Chen teaches the commonality of having a dust box (1) as a glove box (4) mounted with a glove (see attached translation, page 3, ll.36-49); and the box includes a main box equipped with a glove and a door (5) for discharging scrap; and a scrap box disposed on a side of the main box (page 4, ll.36-39). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to make the dust box of Iwata and Shunsaku in combination to a glove box as taught by Chen, in order to protect manual operation of the device.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (JP 2016055876 A) in view of Shunsaku Kido (JP H0513911 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tamura (JP 2001253522 A)
Iwata and Shunsaku in combination are silent in disclosing a location hole is positioned on any one of the upper hanger and the lower hanger, and a location pin inserted into the location hole is positioned on the other one of the upper hanger and the lower hanger that does not include the location hole. However, Tamura teaches the commonality of having a location hole (on 2, see fig.1 and 4-5) positioned on any one of the upper hanger and the lower hanger, and a location pin inserted into the location hole is positioned on the other one of the upper hanger and the lower hanger that does not include the location hole (see fig.1-2, area of 3, 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the bag holding features of Iwata and Shunsaku in combination to the pin and hole as taught by Tamura, in order to offer a simple structure.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (JP 2016055876 A) in view of Shunsaku Kido (JP H0513911 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Watanabe (JP 2016005823 A).
Iwata and Shunsaku in combination are silent in disclosing Iwata and Shunsaku in combination are silent in disclosing the at least one hook includes a pair of hooks, wherein the pair of hooks is configured to grips a string-shaped sling bar of the bag at two points, and wherein the pair of hooks has a gap so as to minimizes a height of the bag. However, Watanabe teaches the obviousness of having at least one hook that includes a pair of hooks (see hooks in fig.1), wherein the pair of hooks is configured to grips a string-shaped sling bar of the bag at two points (2h), and wherein the pair of hooks has a gap so as to minimizes a height of the bag (see fig.1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to modify the hook of Iwata and Shunsaku in combination to two hooks as taught by Watanabe, in order to improve the sturdiness of the operation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (JP 2016055876 A) in view of Shunsaku Kido (JP H0513911 U) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mauchle (EP 1953098 A1).
Iwata and Shunsaku in combination are silent in disclosing the hanger further comprises load cells installed on both left and right sides of the lower hanger. However, Mauchle teaches the obviousness of a hanger to have load cells installed on both left and right sides of the lower hanger (load cells 76-1 and 76-2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to add a load cell as taught by Mauchle to the hanger of Iwata and Shunsaku in combination, in order to keep track of the content of the bag.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 15 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.
State of the Prior Arts
Regarding claim 1, the prior arts to Kato (JP 2002145225 A), Chen (CN 108357745 A), Iwata (JP 2016055876 A), Watanabe (JP 2016005823 A), Hesketh (US 2013/0181007), Uneco (US 5,405,053) and Taylor (US 6,138,443) as cited in PTO-892, either individually or in combination are disclosing/teaching significant pertinent structures or features to the applicant’s claimed invention with regard to a raw material input automation device having a hopper to receive raw materials stored inside a bag; a cutter disposed in an upper part of an inlet of the hopper to cut a lower part of the bag; a box disposed in the upper part of the hopper to prevent external diffusion of dust; a guide disposed above the box to guide entry of the bag; and at least one pusher installed on the guide to tap the bag by variable tilting to promote a discharge of the raw materials from the bag into the hopper. It appears that claim 1 does not provide any inventive concept over the cited prior arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bob Zadeh whose telephone number is (571)270-5201. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm E.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/BOB ZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754