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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 1/15/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 remain pending.
Claims 12-13 are new and now also pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5 and 7-13 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 1, lines 11-14 recite “wherein an operating parameter of the bag processing machine based on the bag processing information is set based on identification information that identifies each of the plurality of holding units, and the bag processing machine performs the bag processing based on a corresponding operating parameter for each holding unit”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether “an operating parameter” and “a corresponding operating parameter” are referring to the same parameter and therefore it is unclear if “a corresponding parameter” is also based on the bag processing information and is set based on identification information of the holding units.
Regarding Claim 3, line 2 recites “an operating parameter of the bag processing machine”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if this is referring to the one of the “operating parameter” defined in Claim 1 or a different operating parameter.
Regarding Claim 4, lines 2-3 recite “the information on the switchable object can be obtained at a plurality of locations each with an associated sensor”. This limitation renders the claim further indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not this limitation is attempting to refer to the information is “configured to” be obtained at several locations or if this is merely an alternative limitation as the word “can” raises such confusion. Further, it is unclear if the “locations” are referring to locations on the container or locations in the machine.
Regarding Claim 5, line 2 recites “an operating parameter of the bag processing machine”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if this is referring to the one of the “operating parameter” defined in Claim 1 or a different operating parameter.
Regarding Claim 8, lines 2-3 recite “the bag processing machine is determined by a location associated with a sensor of the switchable object”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what “a sensor of the switchable object” is referring to as the “switchable object” is disclosed as referring to “container, a workpiece, a content introduced into a container, and a jig” (Para. 0009).
Regarding Claim 11, lines 14-17 recite “wherein an operating parameter of the bag processing machine based on the bag processing information is set based on identification information that identifies each of the plurality of holding units, and the bag processing machine performs the bag processing based on a corresponding operating parameter for each holding unit”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether “an operating parameter” and “a corresponding operating parameter” are referring to the same parameter and therefore it is unclear if “a corresponding parameter” is also based on the bag processing information and is set based on identification information of the holding units.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 depend on at least one of the claims above and therefore are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1-3, 5, 7 and 9-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US PGPUB 2010/0281822), hereinafter referred to as Murray 2010’, in view of Murray (US PGPUB 2021/0086997), hereinafter referred to as Murray 2021’.
Regarding Claim 1, Murray 2010’ discloses a bag processing method including the steps of:
acquiring information (scanned information via 34) on a switchable object (pouch 18; Figures 1, 3C-3E) associated with a bag processing machine (10) with a sensor (84; Figure 3A; Para. 0047, 0051, 0052, 0054), the bag processing machine (10) including a plurality of holding units (grippers 94) each of which supports a bag (18; Para. 0049); and
performing a bag processing with the bag processing machine (10), based on a bag processing information (“pouch characteristics”) that is associated with the acquired information (from 34) on the switchable object (18; Para. 0051, 0052, 0061,0071, 0072),
wherein the plurality of holding units (94) are configured to hold different types of bags (Para. 0061, 0069),
wherein an operating parameter (i.e. gripper width) of the bag processing machine based on the bag processing information (“pouch characteristics”; Para. 0061), and the bag processing machine (10) performs the bag processing based on a corresponding operating parameter (gripper width) for each holding unit (94; Para. 0056 outlines the grippers rotate through each processing station along which the grippers will be maintained at the width set based on the “pouch characteristics” per Para. 0061), and
wherein the plurality of holding units (94) are each moved using a motor (Para. 0059; “The motor is an intermittent motor which rotates the grippers 94 through the plurality of stations”).
However, Murray 2010’ does not disclose an operating parameter is set based on an identification information that identifies each of the plurality of holding units.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Murray 2021’ which includes a container processing machine (10; Figure 1) which includes a plurality of holding units (grippers 12 including 28, 30 of Figures 3-4) for supporting a plurality of containers (pouch 14), and an operating parameter of the container processing machine (10) for the container processing is set by a control unit (24), based on an identification information (index feature 42) that identifies each of the plurality of holding units (12; Para. 0013 discloses identifying the gripper by a sensor 68 and sending a signal to the controller to identify the position of the identified gripper and to ensure proper spacing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized identification information on grippers/clamps of Murray 2010’ and setting operating parameters (gripper width/spacing) based on such identification information as taught by Murray 2021’. By modifying Murray 2010’ in this manner, the spacing between grippers can be adjusted to accommodate dimensions of different pouches and ensure proper spacing as taught by Murray 2021’ (see Para. 0013 and the end of Para. 0014).
Regarding Claim 2, Murray 2010’, as modified, discloses the switchable object includes a bag (18; Para. 0047).
Regarding Claim 3, Murray 2010’, as modified, discloses an operating parameter (gripper width) of the bag processing machine (10) for the bag processing is set by a control unit (86), based on the bag processing information (“pouch characteristics”; Para. 0052).
Regarding Claim 5, Murray 2010’, as modified, discloses an operating parameter (gripper width) of the bag processing machine (10) for the bag processing is set by a control unit (86), based on a state information (current width state) indicating a current state (current width) of the bag processing machine (10; note Para. 0052, 0061,0071, 0072 outline adjusting the width which would readily require information on the starting/existing width setting; note Para. 0013 of Murray 2021’ outlines location of the gripper being detected and adjusting as needed).
Regarding Claim 7, Murray 2010’, as modified, discloses a step of providing at least one of the acquired information (scanned information via 34) on the switchable object (18) and the bag processing information (“pouch characteristics”) associated with the acquired information on the switchable object (18 in database 90; Para. 0051), to a device (database 90) other than the bag processing machine (10; Para. 0050-0051; note Figure 1 shows the database 90/CPU 88 separate from the machine 10 and/or the stations thereof ). Alternatively, it would have been an obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a remote central database to store the information in order to access such information across several processing machines and alternatively, it would have been an obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to separate the CPU (88) and database (90) of Murray 2010’ from the processing machine (10) such that an operator can control the machine remotely.
Regarding Claim 9, Murray 2010’, as modified, discloses a step of registering the acquired information (information via 34) on the switchable object (18) and the associated bag processing information (“pouch characteristics”) in a database (90) in a form of the acquired information (information via 34) on the switchable object (18) and the associated bag processing information (“pouch characteristics”) being associated with each other when the bag processing information (“pouch characteristics”) associated with the acquired information on the switchable object is not registered in the database (90) in which the information (of 34) on the switchable object (18) and the associated bag processing information (“pouch characteristics”) is registered in a form of the acquired information (of 34) on the switchable object (18) and the associated bag processing information (“pouch characteristics”) being associated with each other (Para. 0051-0053).
Regarding Claim 10, Murray 2010’, as modified, discloses the sensor (84) acquires the information (via 34) on the switchable object optically or via wireless communication (See Para. 0047).
Regarding Claim 11, Murray 2010’ discloses a bag processing machine comprising:
a control unit (86; Figure 1);
a bag processing unit (10) that performs a bag processing under control of the control unit (86; via control of motor 144; Figure 2; Para. 0061; Para. 0059 outlines motor moving the grippers to stations); and
a plurality of holding units (grippers 94) each of which supports a bag (18; Para. 0049);
wherein the control unit is configured to:
acquire information (scanned information via 34) on a switchable object (pouch 18; Figures 1, 3C-3E) associated with a bag processing machine (10) via a sensor (84; Figure 3A; Para. 0047, 0052, 0054), and
cause the bag processing unit (10) to perform the bag processing based on a bag processing information (“pouch characteristics”) that is associated with the acquired information (from 34) on the switchable object (18; Para. 0052, 0061,0071, 0072),
wherein the plurality of holding units (94) are configured to hold different types of bags (Para. 0061, 0069),
wherein an operating parameter (i.e. gripper width) of the bag processing machine based on the bag processing information (“pouch characteristics”; Para. 0061) is set (Para. 0061, 0071, 0072) and the bag processing machine (10) performs the bag processing based on a corresponding operating parameter (gripper width) for each holding unit (94; Para. 0056 outlines the grippers rotate through each processing station along which the grippers will be maintained at the width set based on the “pouch characteristics” per Para. 0061), and
wherein the plurality of holding units (94) are each moved using a motor (Para. 0059; “The motor is an intermittent motor which rotates the grippers 94 through the plurality of stations”).
However, Murray 2010’ does not disclose an operating parameter is set based on an identification information that identifies each of the plurality of holding units.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Murray 2021’ which includes a container processing machine (10; Figure 1) which includes a plurality of holding units (grippers 12 including 28, 30 of Figures 3-4) for supporting a plurality of containers (pouch 14), and an operating parameter of the container processing machine (10) for the container processing is set by a control unit (24), based on an identification information (index feature 42) that identifies each of the plurality of holding units (12; Para. 0013 discloses identifying the gripper by a sensor 68 and sending a signal to the controller to identify the position of the identified gripper and to ensure proper spacing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized identification information on grippers/clamps of Murray 2010’ and setting operating parameters (gripper width/spacing) based on such identification information as taught by Murray 2021’. By modifying Murray 2010’ in this manner, the spacing between grippers can be adjusted to accommodate dimensions of different pouches and ensure proper spacing as taught by Murray 2021’ (see Para. 0013 and the end of Para. 0014).
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US PGPUB 2010/0281822), hereinafter referred to as Murray 2010’, in view of Murray (US PGPUB 2021/0086997), hereinafter referred to as Murray 2021’, and in further view of Bell (US PGPUB 2022/0242600).
Regarding Claim 4, Murray 2010’, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose the information (information/indicia of 34) on the switchable object (18) can be obtained at a plurality of locations each with an associated sensor, and the bag processing information (“product parameters PP”) that is associated with the acquired information (mark/code of 80 associated with “product parameters PP”; Para.0084) on the switchable object is determined according to a location associated with respective sensor where the information on a switchable object is acquired and wherein the bag processing performed by the bag processing machine (10) is determined by a location associated with a sensor of the switchable object..
Attention is brought to the teachings of Bell which discloses another container processing machine (package handling system 26; Figure 2) for packages (32) wherein the system (26) comprises detection components (25) to detect/identify and locate the packages (32) throughout the system (26) at several locations (i.e. the package holder 34, package manipulator 36) and perform bag processing based on the sensed locations (Para. 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized several sensors/detectors throughout the machine of Murray 2010’ as taught by Bell such that the objects information can be obtained at several locations and the information can be determined based on location. By modifying Murray 2010’in this manner, the location of the packages/objects throughout the machine can be readily obtained as taught by Bell (Para. 0060). By having multiple locations of detection, the objects/packages can be readily tracked and information updated throughout the system/machine as also taught by Bell (Para. 0067).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murray (US PGPUB 2010/0281822), hereinafter referred to as Murray 2010’, in view of Murray (US PGPUB 2021/0086997), hereinafter referred to as Murray 2021’, and in further view of Nakamoto (US PGPUB 2019/0233152).
Regarding Claims 12-13, Murray 2010’, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose the motor is a linear motor.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Nakamoto which includes a bag processing machine/process (10; Figure 1) wherein bags (100) are conveyed by holding units (gripper pairs 14), wherein each holding unit (14) is driven by a linear motor (Para. 0035, 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a linear motor to drive the holding units as taught by Nakamoto in the machine/process of Murray 2010’. By modifying Murray 2010’ in this manner, the holding units can be individually driven in an adjustable and synchronous manner as taught by Nakamoto (Para. 0014, 0035, 0044).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
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 JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 3/13/2025