DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application filed on 1/5/2025. An action on the merits follows.
Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Drawings
Figs. 1-15 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.83(I) because the lines do not “give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics.” They must be replaced so “Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction.”
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “first vertical plate" of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “guide rail" of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “transmission wheels" of claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “first hinge shaft" and “second hinge shaft” of claim 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “through slot" of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “a cutter groove" of claim 6 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “second vertical plate" of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation “a third hinge shaft" of claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the following as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
first vertical plate
second vertical plate
first guide rail
second guide rail
transmission wheels
first hinge shaft
second hinge shaft
third hinge shaft
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. No new matter should be added.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is longer than 150 words and it uses the phrase “The present invention relates to” which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “the rotating assembly (9) is inserted on the first vertical plate” should recite “the rotating assembly (9) is inserted into the first vertical plate”.
In claim 1, “both the two folding assemblies (13) are located below the edge sealing assembly” should recite “both of the two folding assemblies (13) are located below the edge sealing assembly”.
In claim 1, “An all-in-one machine for folding and boxing fresh-keeping bags, and comprising:” should recite “An all-in-one machine for folding and boxing fresh-keeping bags, the all-in-one machine comprising:”.
In claim 2, “the four suction cups (7) are symmetrically arranged at bottom portions of the mounting plate (17)” should recite “the four suction cups (7) are symmetrically arranged at a bottom portion of the mounting plate (17)”.
In claim 3, “both the transmission wheels” should recite “both of the transmission wheels”.
In claim 4, “a first hinge shaft and a second hinge shaft are respectively inserted on the first vertical plate” should recite “a first hinge shaft and a second hinge shaft are respectively inserted into the first vertical plate”.
In claim 5, “both the second racks (28) are in meshed connection to the second gears (29)” should recite “both of the second racks (28) are in meshed connection to the second gears (29)”.
In claim 7, “a controller” should recite “the controller”.
In claim 7, “a controller” should recite “the controller”.
Any remaining claims are objected to for depending on one of the above claims.
Appropriate corrections are required. No new matter should be added.
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 1-10 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 1, the limitation “an unwinding roller (1) rotationally arranged on the base,” in combination with “the traction mechanism (2) is arranged on the support frame (5) for pulling rolled fresh-keeping bags” is vague and unclear because it is unclear if the rolled fresh-keeping bags are the same as the fresh-keeping bags of the preamble. It is further unclear from what the rolled fresh-keeping bags are being pulled from. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner is interpreting the above limitations as “an unwinding roller (1) rotationally arranged on the base for holding rolled fresh-keeping bags” and “the traction mechanism (2) is arranged on the support frame (5) for pulling rolled fresh-keeping bags”.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “an electric push rod 48 (15)” and “the electric push rod 48 (15)” is vague and unclear because it is unclear if the number “48” further defines the push rod (i.e. 48 defines the dimension of the push rod, the force it applies or its speed etc.) or if it is a typographical error. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner assumes 48 is a typographical error.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the electric push rod 48 (15) is fixedly arranged on the support frame(5), an output end portion thereof is fixedly connected to the sliding block (16)” is vague and unclear because it is unclear what thereof refers to. Specifically, “thereof” can refer to either the electric push rod or the support frame. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner is interpreting the above limitation as “the electric push rod 48 (15) is fixedly arranged on the support frame(5), an output end portion of the electric push rod is fixedly connected to the sliding block (16)”
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “an output end portion of the long-axis cylinder (25) is fixedly connected to one of mounting blocks (27) away from the long-axis cylinder (25),” is vague and unclear because it is unclear how many mounting blocks are needed to anticipate the claim. Please note the claim recites mounting blocks while the output end portion of the long-axis cylinder is only connected a single mounting block. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner is interpreting the above limitation as “an output end portion of the long-axis cylinder (25) is fixedly connected to one of a plurality of mounting blocks (27) away from the long-axis cylinder (25),”.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “second racks (28) are fixedly provided at end portions of the mounting blocks (27) away from the long-axis cylinder (25), second gears (29) are rotationally provided at end portions of the support platform (14) close to top portions of the second racks(28), both the second racks (28) are in meshed connection to the second gears (29)” is vague and unclear because it is unclear how many second racks and second gears there are. The term “both” suggests there are two second racks (28) and second gears (29). However figures 2 and 6 suggest there is only one second rack and second gear. It appears that there is a long-axis cylinder 25 on one end of the mounting block (27) as shown in fig. 2 and a second rack (28) and second gear (29) on the other side of the mounting block (27). In order to prosecute the application, Examiner assumes there is only one second rack and second gear.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the servo motors (32) are fixedly arranged on outer walls of the support platform (14), output end portions thereof are fixedly connected to end portions of the rotating shafts (33)” is vague and unclear because it is unclear what thereof refers to. Specifically, “thereof” can refer to either the servo motors or the support platform. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner is interpreting the above limitation as “the servo motors (32) are fixedly arranged on outer walls of the support platform (14), output end portions of the servo motors are fixedly connected to end portions of the rotating shafts (33)”.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a reduction motor (41) is fixedly provided on an outer wall of the support platform (14)” of claim 10 in combination with limitation “the servo motors (32) are fixedly arranged on outer walls of the support platform (14),” of claim 7 (on which claim 10 also depends) make the claim vague and unclear. Specifically, it is unclear if the outer wall of claim 10 is the same or part of the outer walls of claim 7. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner assumes the outer wall of claim 10 is part of the outer walls of claim 7.
Any remaining claim are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, in combination with other limitations of the claim, is silent on “the traction mechanism (2) comprises a pushing assembly (6) and four suction cups (7), the pushing assembly (6) is arranged on the support frame (5), the four suction cups (7) are fixedly arranged on the pushing assembly (6)” in combination with “the loosening prevention mechanism (3) is arranged between the traction mechanism (2) and the folding mechanism to prevent the rolled fresh-keeping bags from loosening during transportation, and comprises a sliding assembly (8), a rotating assembly (9) and a top plate (10); on the base is provided a first vertical plate, the sliding assembly (8) is arranged on the first vertical plate, the rotating assembly (9) is inserted on the first vertical plate, the top plate (10) is sleeved on the rotating assembly (9)”. CN 216507046U of Yang teaches a base (bottom plate of machine in fig. 1), an unwinding roller (1), a traction mechanism (8), a folding mechanism (3), the folding mechanism having a cutting assembly (6), edge sealing assembly (19, 20) and folding assembly (10) and a controller for controlling the various assemblies. However, none of the references of record teach using four suction cups for pulling rolled fresh-keeping bags and the loosening prevention mechanism as claimed. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add/modify such a configuration without hindsight and significant design changes. Therefore, the prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to read on the present claims.
Claims 2-10 are allowable for depending on one of the above allowable claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOBEEN AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0356. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am to 5 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M. A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731