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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the present application has at least two (2) related foreign filings or publications in other countries. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 11 October 2024 is acknowledged.
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 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) 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): (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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations include: the claim 1/14 tying tool, deflector(s), guide element(s), and gripping device, the claim 6/12 twisting or knotting device, and the claim 10 guiding device.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations in fact recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At line 3 of claim 1, “that is” should be deleted.
At lines 3-4 of claim 1, “in such a way that it can be moved” should be changed to “so as to be movable”.
At line 5 of claim 1, “that has” should be changed to “having”.
At line 6 of claim 1, it is believed that “thereof” should be added after “face side”.
At line 6 of claim 1, terms such as “of the device” should be added after “tying tool”.
This same addition should also be made at line 9 of claim 14.
At line 7 of claim 1, “of the” should be added after “each”.
At line 11 of claim 1, “in such a way that it can rotate” should be changed to “so as to be rotatable”.
Also at line 11 of claim 1, it is believed that “at least one swivel arm” should be added after “which”.
At line 12 of claim 1, it is believed that “the” after “during” should be deleted.
At line 13 of claim 1, it is believed that “each” should be added between “are” and “guided”.
It is believed that “respective” should be added prior to “guide element”, at each of lines 14 and 15 of claim 1, and also in claims 3, 4 (line 6), 7, 8, 10, and 12 (line 9).
In the 2nd to last line of claim 1, “each” should be added after “arm”.
In the 2nd to last line of claim 1, “the tying means side” should be changed to “a tying means side thereof”.
In the last line of claim 1, “the” prior to “automated” should be deleted.
In the last line of claim 1, “the” should be added prior to “tying means”.
At line 2 of claim 3, “each swivel arm” should be changed to “each of the swivel arms”.
At line 3 of claim 3, “that it can” should be changed to “as to”.
At line 4 of claim 3, a comma should be added after “an axis”.
In the 2nd to last line of claim 3, “that is” should be deleted.
At line 2 of claim 4, “a” tying means should be changed to “the” tying means.
At line 3 of claim 4, “an” should be deleted.
At line 3 of claim 12, it is believed that “a” guiding position should be changed to “the” guiding position.
At line 5 of claim 12, it is believed that “of the” should be added prior to “tying means”.
At line 6 of claim 12, “the” prior to “undamaged” should be deleted.
At line 6 of claim 12, “remaining” should be added after “undamaged”.
At line 7 of claim 12, “corresponding thereto” should be added after “guide elements”.
At line 7 of claim 12, “tying means that is fed in is grasped” should be changed to “tying means is fed in and grasped”.
At line 8 of claim 12, “the” prior to “activation” should be deleted.
In the 3rd to last line of claim 12, “spans” should be changed to “spanning”.
In the 2nd to last line of claim 12, “it” should be changed to “the replaced tying means”.
At line 2 of claim 13, “of the knotting or twisting device” should be added after “twisting”.
In claim 2, it is believed that “the at least one swivel arm is provided as” should be added after “wherein”, “form” should be changed to “forming, and “the axis as” should be added after “about”, and in claim 18, it is believed that “the swivel arm as one of” should be added after “includes”.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at line 6 of claim 1 exactly what the recited “face side” is of. If this refers to a face side of the previously recited “baling ram”, then a suggested correction to this effect appears under objection (d) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear whether the claim 1 line 6 and claim 14 line 9 recitation of a “tying tool” is in fact a component of the statutory device being claimed or may be construed more broadly a non-limiting component with which said device is configured or capable of operating. A suggested correction appears under objection (e) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at lines 11-14 of claim 1 exactly what previously recited component is in a guiding position in which the tying means are guided along the at least one deflector, etc. If this refers back to the previously recited “at least one swivel arm” then a suggested correction to this effect appears under objection (h) above.
The claim 1 line 12 recitation of “the” normal operation lacks antecedent basis, in particular since no such normal operation is recited previously. A suggested correction appears under objection (i) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at line 13 of claim 1 whether it is required that all of the tying means “are guided” in the manner claimed, or that the tying means are “each” guided in the manner claimed. A suggested correction appears under objection (j) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in the 2nd to last line of claim 1 whether only one gripping device is provided regardless of the number of swivel arms, or whether a respective gripping device is provided for each swivel arm. A suggested correction appears under objection (l) above.
In the 2nd to last line of claim 1, “the tying means side” lacks antecedent basis. A suggested correction appears under objection (m) above.
In the last line of claim 1, “the” automated fixing lacks antecedent basis, as no such automated fixing is recited previously. A suggested correction appears under objection (n) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in the last line of claim 1 if or exactly how the recited “tying means” relates back to the tying means recited previously. A suggested correction appears under objection (o) above.
It is unclear in the last line of claim 1 exactly how, where, or by/between/to what component(s) the recited fixing takes place, and/or exactly what said “fixing” entails. This language is confusing.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or how the claim 2/18 swivel arms and shared axis respectively relate back to the at least one swivel arm and axis of claim 1. Suggested corrections appear under objection (ff) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the claim 4 line 2 recitation of “a” tying means relates back to that recited previously in the claims. A suggested correction appears under objection (t) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at line 3 of claim 12, if or exactly how the recitation of “a” guiding position relates back to “the” guiding position recited previously. A suggested correction appears under objection (v) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the claim 12 line 5 “at least one tying means” relates back to that recited previously. A suggested correction appears under objection (w) above.
The claim 12 line 6 recitation of “the” undamaged tying means lacks antecedent basis, in particular since no such undamaged tying means is recited previously. A suggested correction appears under objection (x) above.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment 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)(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.
Claims 1, 2, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weglowski et al. (DE 102016121981, English version made of record via IDS on 10 January 2025 cited herein).
As to claim 1, Weglowski in at least the fig. 1 and 4-8 embodiment(s) discloses a baling device believed to correspond to that claimed, in that a channel 10/11 and ram 12 are provided, in addition to a tying tool transporting a tying means guided below the channel, around at least one deflector, and over the guide contour of a respective guide element, in addition to a swivel arm movable in the manner claimed and having a gripping device capable of use as claimed (see again figs. 1. 4-7, in addition to the their corresponding description as relevant). Note, in particular, the relative disposition of such components in figs. 4 and 6 as compared with figs. 5 and 7, in addition to a gripping device in the form for example of the disclosed component 37 used for securing tying means 20 on roll 32, and/or locking pins 53 utilized therefor. It is noted with respect to claim recitations directed to an intended manner of operating the claimed device that an apparatus claim must distinguish over prior art in terms of structure rather than function (MPEP § 2114), and that any such limitations as they appear in the pending claims are thus not believed to further limit the claimed apparatus or its structure.
Weglowski further teaches the claim 2 plurality of swivel arms (see the fig. 6 cross-section and corresponding description of the above figures as relevant), the claim 9 cover plate as any number of surrounding components that may be construed as protective in the manner claimed, and the claim 10-11 guiding device as one or more of the fig. 8 components 26, 26’, 27, and/or fig. 4-8 component 51.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 12-13 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, and to overcome the objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above. Claims 14-19 would additionally be considered allowable if rewritten to overcome the objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While it is generally known for a baling device to comprise components such as a baling channel, ram, tying tool, and swivel arm for guiding a tying means, and while it is known for a tying means guiding component to further comprise a deflector and guide element with a guide contour over which such a tying means passes, and a gripping device, the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest the claimed combination of such components with their claimed configuration, in particular whereby in addition to the remaining claim recitations, the claimed clamping is performed bearing under pressure on an underside of the claimed guide element over which the claimed tying means are guided.
Note, in particular, DE 102016121981, which is considered to be among the closest prior art of record, and which likewise discloses a baling press with various of the above-cited components but whereby clamping is performed by bearing pressure over as opposed to against an underside of a guide element as claimed.
Related Prior Art
See at least the abstract and figures of the additional prior art hereby made of record, which additional prior art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be relied upon in subsequent rejections against claimed subject matter. Note, for example:
US 11,618,600, which discloses the fig. 1 baling press with the fig. 4 tensioning/knotting device; and
US 11,987,019, which discloses the fig. 1-2 baling press with roller mechanism 80 and plate 73.
The manner in which such prior art might apply to the claimed and/or disclosed invention should be considered prior to a formal response being filed to this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights