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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 02/02/20.
Claims 1-21 are pending and examined below.
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 13 and 21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “the actuator or the plurality of actuators” renders claim 13 to be vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 13 is dependent of claim 11, and claim 11 does not disclose a plurality of actuators. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “the actuator comprises”.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase “to convey it downstream” renders claim 21 vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is referred to by the term “it”. Prior to the quoted phrase, claim 21 discloses several features. It is unclear which of these features the term “it” is referring to. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “to convey the product downstream”.
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 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Yuyama et al. (7,934,356) in view of references Brinkman et al. (8,800,251) and Shenoha (4,073,117).
Regarding claim 1, Yuyama et al. disclose an apparatus for packaging products, wherein the apparatus comprises:
a conveyor (100) configured to move a product (11) in a conveying direction;
a gripper (30) comprising a clamping portion (32),
wherein the clamping portion (32) is configured to contact and hold a respective portion at an opening of a bag (13); and
a bag supplier (16) adapted to feed the bag (13) to the gripper (30) before gripper (30) holds open the opening of the bag (13),
wherein the gripper (30) is movable at least in a plane transverse to the conveying direction.
(Figure 1, 7, 13a-13f and Column 3 lines 36-49, Column 6 lines 50-63, Column 7 lines 37-44)
However, Yuyama et al. do not disclose a plurality of gripper elements, and do not disclose inducing the gripping elements reducing tension in the opening of the bag.
Brinkman et al. disclose a gripper (10) comprising a plurality of gripper elements (16), wherein the plurality of gripper elements (16) are configure to hold open the opening of a bag (30), wherein the gripper (10) is configured to induce tension in the opening of the bag (30), and wherein at least one of the plurality of gripper elements (16) moves in the plane transverse to a conveying direction to reduce the tension in the opening of the bag (30). (Figure 5 and Column 3 lines 28-37, Column 6 lines 7-22, Column 9 lines 37-40)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Yuyama et al. by incorporating a plurality of gripping elements as taught by Brinkman et al., since column 1 lines 39-41 of Brinkman et al. states such a modification would allow the accommodation of different bag widths.
Since Yuyama et al. disclose gripper element comprising a clamping portion and Brinkman et al. disclose a plurality of gripper elements, when modifying Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al., the gripper is interpreted to comprise a plurality of gripper elements, wherein each gripper element includes a clamping portion configured to contact and hold a respective portion at an opening of a bag.
In column 9 lines 28-31 of Brinkman et al., the plurality of gripper elements are disclosed to move out radially to engage and hold the interior surface of the bag. This is implies the plurality of gripper elements are configured to move in the plane transverse to a conveying direction to apply tension in the opening of the bag. In column 9 lines 37-40 of Brinkman et al., the plurality of gripper elements are disclosed to move in radially to release the loaded bag. This implies the plurality of gripper elements are configured to moves in the plane transverse to a conveying direction to reduce the tension in the opening of the bag.
Since Brinkman et al. disclose a gripper comprising a plurality of gripper elements configured to move in the plane transverse to a conveying direction to reduce the tension in the opening of the bag, the apparatus of Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. is interpreted to be fully capable of moving in the plane transverse to a conveying direction to reduce the tension in the opening of the bag in response to the product contacting a portion of the opening of the bag.
Shenoha discloses an apparatus comprising: a conveyor (12, 18) configured to move a product (P) in a conveying direction; a sensor (82, 84) configured to determine the product (P) approaching the opening of a bag (28), wherein the apparatus is configured to open the bag (28) when the product is determined to be at the opening of the bag (28). (Figure 4 and Column 3 lines 45-51, Column 5 lines 3-14)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Yuyama et al. by incorporating the sensor and the response to the sensor as taught by Shenoha, since column 5 lines 44-49 of Shenoha states such a modification would allow the apparatus to not open the bag when a product is not present.
Regarding claim 2, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. and Shenoha disclose each of the plurality of gripper elements (Yuyama et al. – 30) is movable between a closed configuration and an open configuration, wherein the respective clamping portion (Yuyama et al. – 32) is configured to contact an inner side and/or outer side of the bag (Yuyama et al. – 13) in the closed configuration, and wherein the clamping portion is configured to be spaced apart from the inner and/or outer sides of the bag (Yuyama et al. – 13) in the open configuration. (Yuyama et al. – Figure 7b, 8a and Column 7 lines 51-53)
Regarding claim 14, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. and Shenoha disclose a frame (Brinkman et al. – 12, 20) arranged at least in part around the conveying direction, wherein the plurality of gripping elements (Yuyama et al. – 30) being fixed to the frame (Brinkman et al. – 12, 20) and spaced apart to each other around the conveying direction, wherein the frame (Brinkman et al. – 12, 20) is configured to move in the place transverse to the conveying direction in response to a contact between the product (Yuyama et al. – 11) and at least one of the gripping elements (Yuyama et al. – 30) and/or in response to the product (Yuyama et al. – 11) contacting a portion of the opening of the bag (Yuyama et al. – 13) as the product (Yuyama et al. – 11) is received into the bag. (Brinkman et al. – Column 9 lines 28-40)
Regarding claim 15, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. and Shenoha disclose the gripper (Yuyama et al. – 30) comprises a control mechanism (Yuyama et al. – 59) coupled to the frame (Brinkman et al. – 12, 20) and configured to move the frame (Brinkman et al. – 12, 20) along the plane transverse to the conveying direction. (Yuyama et al. – Column 10 lines 41-45)
Regarding claim 16, Yuyama et al. disclose the conveyor (100) has a conveying surface configured to convey the product (11) along the conveying direction, wherein the conveyor (100) extends into the opening of the bag (13). (Figure 13c and Column 13 lines 2-8)
Brinkman et al. discloses the plurality of gripping elements are spaced around the opening of the bag. (Figure 5)
Since the conveyor extends into the bag, and since the plurality of gripping elements are spaced around the opening of the bag, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. and Shenoha are interpreted to disclose the plurality of gripping elements (Yuyama et al. – 30) comprises a lower gripping element and an upper gripping element, wherein the conveying surface being interposed at least in part between the lower gripping element and the upper gripping element.
Regarding claim 17, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. and Shenoha disclose the conveying surface is configured to pass at least in part through the opening of the bag (Yuyama et al. – 13) when the bag (Yuyama et al. – 13) is held by the plurality of gripping elements (Yuyama et al. – 30). (Yuyama et al. – Figure 13c and Column 13 lines 2-8)
Regarding claim 18, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. and Shenoha disclose a number of the plurality of gripping elements (Yuyama et al. – 30) is in a range between 3-6 gripping elements. (Brinkman et al. – Figure 5 and Column 9 lines 14-17)
Regarding claim 19, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. and Shenoha disclose the gripper is configured to conform the opening of the bag (Yuyama et al. – 13) into a polygonal shape, wherein the polygonal shape ahs 3-10 sides. (Brinkman et al. – Figures 21-22, 24, 26-35)
Regarding claim 20, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. and Shenoha disclose a pusher (Yuyama et al. – 38) is coupled with the conveyor (Yuyama et al. – 100), wherein the pusher (Yuyama et al. – 38) is movable along the conveying direction, and wherein the pusher (Yuyama et al. – 38) is configured to push the product (Yuyama et al. – 11) through the opening of the bag (Yuyama et al. – 13) when the bag (Yuyama et al. – 13) is held by the plurality of gripping elements (Yuyama et al. – 30). (Yuyama et al. – Figures 13a-13f and Column 13 lines 10-13)
Claims 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Yuyama et al. (7,934,356) in view of references Brinkman et al. (8,800,251) and Shenoha (4,073,117) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of reference Murray (7,584,593).
Regarding claim 3, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. and Shenoha disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose a first finger and a second finger rotatably coupled to each other.
Murray discloses a gripper (270) comprising a plurality of gripper elements (272), wherein each gripper element (272) includes a first finger (272b) and a second finger (272a) rotatably coupled to each other. (Figure 8 and Column 10 lines 48-56)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Yuyama et al. by incorporating the first finger and second finger as taught by Murray, since column 1 lines 45-48 of Murray states such a modification would ensure fully opening of bags.
Regarding claim 4, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al., Shenoha, and Murray disclose the first (Murray – 272b) and second (Murray – 272a) fingers define an interposed angle, wherein the interposed angle being smaller when the gripping element (Murray – 272) is in the closed configuration than when the gripping element (Murray – 272) is in the open configuration. (Murray – Figure 8, 10)
Regarding claim 5, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al., Shenoha, and Murray disclose the clamping portion (272a, 272b) comprises:
a first contact surface (Murray – 272c) and a second contact surface (Murray – 272c) that are defined at least in part respectively by the first (Murray – 272b) and second (Murray – 272a) fingers of the gripping element (Murray – 272),
wherein the first and second contact surfaces (Murray – 272c) are arranged to face each other,
wherein, when the gripping element (Murray – 270) moves from the closed configuration to the open configuration, the first and second contact surfaces (Murray – 272c) move away from each other, and
wherein, when the gripping element (Murray – 270) moves from the open configuration to the closed configuration, the first and second contact surfaces (Murray – 272c) approach each other.
(Murray – Figure 8, 10 and Column 15 lines 54-61)
Regarding claim 6, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al., Shenoha, and Murray disclose the first contact surface (Murray – 272c) is configured to contact the inner side of the bag (Yuyama et al. – 13), and wherein the second contact surface (Murray – 272c) is configured to contact the outer side of the bag (Yuyama et al. – 13). (Murray – Figure 8, 10 and Column 15 lines 54-61)
Regarding claim 7, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al., Shenoha, and Murray disclose the clamping portion (Murray – 272a, 272b) comprises a friction surface (Yuyama et al. – 36) defined at least in part by the first finger (Murray – 272b) and/or the second finger (Murray – 272a), the friction surface (Yuyama et al. – 36) being configured to increase friction between the bag (Yuyama et al. – 13) and the respective first finger (Murray – 272b) and/or the second finger (Murray – 272a) when the gripping element (Murray – 270) is in closed configuration. (Yuyama et al. – Column 7 lines 14-16) (Murray – Column 15 lines 54-61)
Regarding claim 8, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al., Shenoha, and Murray disclose the friction surface (Yuyama et al. – 36) is defined at least in part by the first contact surface (Murray – 272c) of the first finger (Murray – 272b) and/or at least in part by the second contact surface (Murray – 272c) of the second finger (Murray – 272a). (Yuyama et al. – Column 7 lines 14-16) (Murray – Column 15 lines 54-61)
Regarding claim 9, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al., Shenoha, and Murray disclose the friction surface (Yuyama et al. – 36) comprises a rubber material. (Yuyama et al. – Column 7 lines 14-16)
Regarding claim 10, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al., Shenoha, and Murray disclose the friction surface (Yuyama et al. – 36) comprises a rib (Brinkman et al. – 36) emerging from the first finger (Murray – 272b) and/or second finger (Murray – 272a). (Brinkman et al. – Column 8 lines 10-13)
Regarding claim 11, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al., Shenoha, and Murray disclose the gripper (Yuyama et al. – 30) comprises an actuator (Murray – 268) coupled to the gripping element (Murray – 270) of the plurality of gripping elements (Murray – 270), wherein the actuator (Murray – 268) is configured to move the gripping element (Murray – 270) between the open and closed configuration. (Murray – Column 15 lines 54-67)
Regarding claim 12, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al., Shenoha, and Murray disclose the gripper (Yuyama et al. – 30) comprises a plurality of actuators (Murray – 268), wherein the plurality of actuators (Murray – 268) are in signal communication with each other and are configured to move the plurality of gripping elements (Murray – 270) between the open and closed configuration substantially simultaneously. (Brinkman et al. – Column 6 lines 7-22) (Murray – Column 15 lines 54-67)
Regarding claim 13, Murray disclose the actuator (268) comprises a motor, a controller or other actuating linkage, or the like utilized mechanisms for performing the desired opening operation. (Column 15 lines 39-42)
However, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al., Shenoha, and Murray disclose do not explicitly disclose the actuator comprises a pneumatic cylinder.
Brinkman et al. disclose a motive device that comprises any appropriate type, such as a pneumatic cylinder, hydraulic cylinder, electromechanical device, or mechanical device. (Column 9 lines 9-12)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the actuator with the pneumatic cylinder as taught by Brinkman et al., since column 9 lines 9-12 of Brinkman et al. states a pneumatic cylinder would work equally well at causing the movement, thereby rendering the substitution to have predictable results.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Yuyama et al. (7,934,356) in view of references Brinkman et al. (8,800,251) and Shenoha (4,073,117) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Taylor (10,023,391).
Regarding claim 21, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. and Shenoha disclose the conveyor (Yuyama et al. – 100) comprises an inlet zone and an outlet zone, wherein the inlet zone is located upstream of the outlet zone along the conveying direction, wherein the gripper is interposed along the conveying direction between the inlet zone and the outlet zone of the conveyor (Yuyama et al. – 100), wherein the inlet zone is configured to receive the product (Yuyama et al. – 11) and to convey the product (Yuyama et al. – 11) downstream in the conveying direction, and wherein the outlet zone is configured to receive the product (Yuyama et al. – 11) inside the bag and to convey the product (Yuyama et al. – 11) downstream in the conveying direction. (Yuyama et al. – Figures 15a-15f and Column 14 lines 24-31)
However, Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. and Shenoha do not disclose a system comprising two apparatuses as claimed in claim 1.
Taylor disclose a system (10) comprising two apparatus (53), wherein each apparatus (53) comprises a conveyor with an inlet zone and outlet zone. (Figure 1 and Column 3 lines 58-63, Column 4 lines 34-38)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Yuyama et al. by having multiple apparatuses as taught by Taylor, since column 1 lines 40-44 of Taylor states such a modification would allow simultaneous filling of different sized bags.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 02/02/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-21 are pending and examined below.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
For at least the foregoing reasons, applicant submits that claims 5, 6, 13, 18, 20, and 21 are not indefinite.
Amendments to the claims do not address all of the 112(b) rejections. In particular, the amendments to address the 112(b) towards claims 13 and 21.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Yuyama et al. (7,934,356) modified by references Brinkman et al. (8,800,251) and Shenoha (4,073,117), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
The proposed combination of Yuyama, Brinkman, and Shenoha does not teach or suggest that, as a product is received into a bag, a gripping element moves to reduce the tension in the opening of the bag in response to the product contacting a portion of the opening of the bag to induce tension in the opening of the bag, as recited by claim 1.
In column 9 lines 28-31 of Brinkman et al., the plurality of gripper elements are disclosed to move out radially to engage and hold the interior surface of the bag. This implies the plurality of gripper elements are configured to move in the plane transverse to the conveying direction to apply tension in the opening of the bag. In column 9 lines 37-40 of Brinkman et al., the plurality of gripper elements are disclosed to move in radially to release the loaded bag. This implies the plurality of gripper elements are configured to moves in the plane transverse to the conveying direction to reduce the tension in the opening of the bag.
It should be pointed out that, in an apparatus claim, the function description is treated as a functional recitation. In other words, it is not a structural limitation, and the prior art is considered to meet the limitations of the apparatus claim as long as the prior art is fully capable of performing the functional recitation. [MPEP 2114(II)]
Since Brinkman et al. disclose a gripper comprising a plurality of gripper elements configured to move in the plane transverse to a conveying direction to reduce the tension in the opening of the bag, the apparatus of Yuyama et al. in view of Brinkman et al. is interpreted to be fully capable of moving in the plane transverse to a conveying direction to reduce the tension in the opening of the bag in response to the product contacting a portion of the opening of the bag. Therefore, Yuyama et al. modified by Brinkman et al. and Shenoha does disclose the apparatus of claim 1.
Furthermore, in column 2 lines 12-16 of Brinkman et al., it is understood in the bag filling art that there is a need to have a gripper system that provides a minimal tension “in order to avoid bag slippage during loading of a product into the bag”, while providing tension that “should not be so high that damage to the bag occurs during the opening and loading steps”. (emphasis added) This implies that gripper system, as taught by Brinkman et al., is configured to control the amount of tension on the bag during the loading process.
Conclusion
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 PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 June 4, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights