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 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: “a pair of clamping units” in claim 1 and 5 (interpreted to be a cylinder, a rod, and a pusher, see for example Para. 0056 of Applicant’s specification).
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 § 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 2-4, 6-13 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.
Regarding claim 2, “the same height” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, “the packaging bag” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 4, “the pushers” and “the clamping units” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 6, “the packaging bag” and “the vertical direction reciprocation” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7, “the packaging bag” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, “the other one” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9, “the packaging bag” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is rejected because it depends from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 11, “the height” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 12, “the position”, “the discharge part end”, and “the packaging bag” lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 13, “the upper end” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bertolo (US 2001/0027822).
Regarding claim 1, Bertolo discloses an automatic packaging bag closing device (Fig. 1, item 10) comprising: a pair of clamping units (Fig. 3, item 50, 52, hydraulic cylinder 50 has a cylinder and a pison) installed in a horizontal direction (Fig. 3, clamping unit 50, 52 are located on horizontal sides of bag 12) on both sides near an inlet of a hopper (Fig. 3, item 14) and configured to pressurize and close a lower part (Fig. 3, item 17) (Para. 0028, clamping units 50, 52 apply pressure to the bag 12 and seal to the vacuum 40) of an empty packaging bag when raw material (Para. 0028) input into the hopper is completed (Para. 0028).
Regarding claim 2, Bertolo discloses the automatic packaging bag closing device according to claim 1, wherein the pair of clamping units is symmetrically disposed (Fig. 3, clamping units 50, 52 are disposed symmetrically on either side of the bag 12) around the inlet (Fig. 3, item 20) of the hopper at the same height (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Bertolo discloses the automatic packaging bag closing device according to claim 1, wherein each clamping unit of the pair of clamping units comprises a cylinder (Fig. 3, item 50), a rod (Fig. 3, hydraulic cylinder has a rod/piston) installed to be movable forward and backward on the cylinder (Fig. 2-3, rod is moved up and down), and a pusher (Fig. 3, item 52) connected to the rod and configured to pressurize the packaging bag (Para. 0024).
Regarding claim 4, Bertolo discloses the automatic packaging bag closing device according to claim 3, wherein the pushers of the clamping units of the pair of clamping units forms a pair of pushers (Fig. 3, item 52) is disposed to face each other (Fig. 3, pushers 52 face each other), and when the pushers move inward (Fig. 3) (Para. 0024, 0028) and are configured to pressurize both sides of the lower part of the packaging bag to be plastically deformed (Fig. 3) (Para. 0024, 0028) and thereby closed (Fig. 3) (Para. 0024, 0028).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagome (JP-2000296818-A, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 5, Nakagome discloses an automation device for packaging bag transport and input comprising:
a rail (Fig. 4, item 13 hoist crane) disposed at a height in a horizontal direction (Fig. 4, hoist crane moves in horizontal direction);
a hanger (Fig. 4, item 3) (Fig. 1, item 3) mounted on the rail (Fig. 4) and configured to reciprocate in the horizontal direction (Machine Translation, page 4), the hanger configured to reciprocate the packaging bag (Machine Translation, page 4) mounted at a lower end of the hanger in a vertical direction (Machine Translation, page 4);
a hopper (Fig. 4, item 22) disposed below the rail (Fig. 4) and configured to receive raw materials (Machine Translation, page 5) inside the packaging bag moved by the hanger (Machine Translation, page 5); and
a pair of clamping units (Fig. 8, items 21, 23, 24, 25, 26) installed in the horizontal direction (Machine Translation, page 5) on both sides near an inlet of the hopper(Machine Translation, page 5) and configured to pressurize and close a lower part (Machine Translation, page 5) of an empty packaging bag in when raw material input into the hopper is completed (Machine Translation, page 5).
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.
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.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagome in view of Bussey et al (US 6,035,606), hereinafter Bussey.
Regarding claim 6, Nakagome is silent about the automation device for packaging bag transport and input according to claim 5, further comprising; a hit post disposed near the inlet of the hopper and configured to hit the packaging bag by the vertical direction reciprocation of the hanger, thereby resolving an agglomeration of the raw material.
However, Bussey teaches a hit post (Bussey, Fig. 2, item 24) disposed near the inlet of the hopper (Bussey, Fig. 1, item 22) and configured to hit the packaging bag (Bussey, Col. 4, lines 49-57) by the vertical direction reciprocation of the hanger (Bussey, Col. 4, lines 49-57), thereby resolving an agglomeration of the raw material (Bussey, Col. 4, lines 49-57).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Nakagome and Bussey to modify the automation device of Nakagome to include the hit post of Bussey. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to prevent any clumps from forming within the packaging bag (Bussey, Col. 4, lines 49-57).
Regarding claim 13, as combined above, Bussey teaches the automation device for packaging bag transport and input according to claim 6, wherein the hit post comprises a support (Bussey, Fig. 1, support is the frame on the right side of hopper 22 that is located on the front side and back side of hopper 22) installed on both sides of the hopper (Bussey, Fig. 1), and a hitting plate (Bussey, Fig. 1, item 24) extending inwardly from the upper end of the support (Bussey, Col. 4, lines 49-57).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagome in view of Li (CN-215664363-U, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 7, Nakagome is silent about the automation device for packaging bag transport and input according to claim 5, wherein the hanger comprises an upper hanger mounted on the rail, a lower hanger disposed below the upper hanger, a wire installed between the upper hanger and the lower hanger, and at least one hook mounted on the lower hanger configured to hang the packaging bag.
However, Li teaches an automation device (Li, Fig. 1) for packaging bag transport and input, wherein the hanger comprises an upper hanger (Li, Fig. 1, item 31) mounted on the rail (Li, Fig. 1, item 36), a lower hanger (Li, Fig. 1, item 32, 33, 34) disposed below the upper hanger (Li, Fig. 1), a wire (Li, Fig. 1, item 35) installed between the upper hanger and the lower hanger, and at least one hook (Li, Fig. 1, item 34) mounted on the lower hanger configured to hang the packaging bag (Li, Fig. 1, bag 6 is hung from hooks 34).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Nakagome and Li to modify the automation device of Nakagome to include the hanger of Li. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to provide a package bag hanging system which produces a decreased amount of dust, this keeping the surrounding area clean (Li, Machine Translation, Page 2).
Regarding claim 9, as combined above, Li teaches the automation device for packaging bag transport and input according to claim 7, wherein the at least one hook includes a pair of hooks (Li, Fig. 2, item 34), wherein the pair of hooks is configured to grip a string-shaped sling bar (Li, Fig. 2, item 34) of the packaging bag at two points (Li, Machine Translation, page 5), and wherein the pair of hooks has a gap (Li, Fig. 2, hooks 34 are spaced apart from one another) so as to minimize a height of the packaging bag (Li, Machine Translation, page 5).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagome in view of Li further in view of Nolte (EP-2128052-A2, Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 10, Nakagome in view of Li is silent about the automation device for packaging bag transport and input according to claim 7, wherein the hanger further comprises load cells installed on two sides of the lower hanger.
However, Nolte teaches an automation device (Nolte, Fig. 1) for packaging bag transport and input wherein the hanger (Nolte, Machine Translation, page 9) further comprises load cells (Nolte, Fig. 3, item 13a) installed on two sides of the lower hanger (Nolte, Machine Translation, page 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Nakagome, Li, and Nolte to modify the automation device of Nakagome and Li to include the load cells of Nolte. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to effectively and efficiently transport heavy products within the packaging bag without damaging or harming the products (Nolte, Machine Translation, page 2).
Regarding claim 11, as combined above, Nolte teaches the automation device for packaging bag transport and input according to claim 10, wherein the hanger is configured to correct a tilt of the packaging bag (Nolte, Machine Translation, page 9) by sensing a weight deviation (Nolte, Machine Translation, page 9) on the load cells (Nolte, Machine Translation, page 9, hanger is capable of correcting the position of a bag based on the readings from the load cells 13a), the hanger being configured to adjust the height of the packaging bag (Nolte, Machine Translation, page 9) based on a weight change sensed by the load cells (Nolte, Machine Translation, page 9).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagome in view of Satnick (WO-2024178398-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Nakagome is silent about the automation device for packaging bag transport and input according to claim 5, wherein the hopper comprises upper and lower photo-electric sensors installed near the inlet in the vertical direction and configured to sense the position of the discharge part end of the packaging bag.
However, Satnick teaches a hopper (Satnick, Fig. 14, item 1504) comprising upper and lower photo-electric sensors (Satnick, Fig. 14, item 1524) installed near the inlet in the vertical direction (Satnick, Para. 0081) and configured to sense the position of the discharge part end of the packaging bag (Satnick, Para. 0081).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention having the teachings of Nakagome and Satnick to modify the automation device of Nakagome to include the sensors of Satnick. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such change in order to allow for a consistent flow of product into the packaging bag and to achieve an accurate weight of product (Satnick, Para. 0081).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERONICA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-6:00.
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, 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.
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731