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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: The reference numeral 56 mentioned in line 4 of paragraph [0036] is not found in the Figures. The reference numeral 90 is not found in Figure 10A as per line 2 of paragraph [0056]. 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 18 and 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 should depend from claim 7, claim 18 from claim 17 and claim 27 from claim 26 in order to provide proper antecedent basis for “the paddles”. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-16, 19-25 and 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lindbo et al. (US 2018/0354717).
Lindbo et al. show an object processing system having a distribution system for distributing a plurality of objects 28 among a plurality of containers DT. There is an output conveyor system for completed container, a discharge system for emptying containers DT into destination locations wherein there are suspended containers whose bottoms drop open so as to discharge any contents into destination locations. See Figures 14-17 which show a bottom drop system.
Re claim 2, completed containers DT have bottoms which may be opened.
Re claim 3, the bottoms swing down via gravity.
Re claim 4, Figure 16a shows a hinged coupling.
Re claim 5, inherent is the use of a roller conveyor for a discharge conveyor.
Re claim 6, there is a drive for moving the containers.
Re claim 9, inherent is the use of bags to receive contents.
Re claim 10, the bottom of the containers will only open when they are at a destination location.
Re claim 11, the containers are not fixed to an output conveyance system.
Re claim 12, shown are bottoms which may be opened.
Re claim 13, the bottoms open by gravity.
Re claim 14, see Figure 16a.
Re claim 15, as per claim 5 rejection.
Re claim 16, as per claim 6 rejection.
Re claim 19, as per claim 9 rejection.
Re claim 20, as per claim 10 rejection.
Re claim 21, the containers DT are suspended as they move along a discharge conveyor section and they are emptied by permitting a bottom of the container to drop open.
Re claim 22, sown are bottoms which open via gravity.
Re claim 23, see Figure 16a.
Re claim 24, as per claim 5 rejection.
Re claim 25, as per claim 6 rejection.
Re claim 28, asper claim 10 rejection.
Re claim 29, the bottoms may move away from a body of the container when the bottom area is clear.
Re claim 30, the containers are suspended when the bottoms are not supported.
Re claim 31, the containers include engagement features which allow translating when the bottoms are not supported.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 17, 18, 26 and 27 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mathi et al. (US 2020/0247610) shows a container which opens from the bottom via gravity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R BIDWELL whose telephone number is (571)272-6910. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 to 4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gene Crawford, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-6911. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/JAMES R BIDWELL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651 04/29/2026
Prosecution Insights