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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is responsive to reply filed on 01/23/2026.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending in this office action.
Claims 15-20 stand withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC §112f
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.
The following elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
For convenience, reference to the PG Publication US 20250206485 A1 will be made for support for the following claimed elements interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Pulling module – Claim 13; The structure of this element is insufficiently described in the specification, and there is no recited structure for performing the claimed function.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13, the limitation “Pulling module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As described in the section above, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performed the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)/(a)(2)) as anticipated by or Shi Fuhua et al. (CN205495534U; Hereinafter Shi), in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Schott, Jr et al. (US 3948402 A; Hereinafter Schott).
Regarding claim 1, Shi Fuhua discloses a feeding device (Abstract; “Novel feeding device”) comprising: a feeding housing (2; tipping bucket) having an open upper side (Fig. 1; bucket 2 is open at the entrance/top for manual or automated placement of the bagged powder);
a roller (4 and/or 3f) rotatably coupled to the feeding housing ([0026]), at least a part of the roller being accommodated in the feeding housing ([0026]; Figs. 1 and 5); and
a cutter unit (3 with blades 3h) positioned inside the feeding housing (Fig. 1) and protruding upward toward the open upper side of the feeding housing (Fig. 4 shows blade facing upwards. Additionally the cutter rotates and at some point during its rotation, it does face upwards),
wherein the roller (4 and/or 3f) rotates while facing a face of the feeding housing (Figs. 1-6 and [0026]).
To the extent that the precise orientation of the cutter “protruding upwards” is argued, Schott further teaches a cutter unit (12) positioned inside the feeding housing (Fig. 1) and protruding upward toward the open upper side (via cutting edges 14) of the feeding housing (Fig. 1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutter of Shi by incorporating a cutter having upward facing blade edges as taught by Schott in order to further achieve more reliable gravity discharge of contents downward after cutting.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the cutter unit (3 with blades 3h of Shi as modified) is positioned below the roller (4/3f; Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the feeding housing (2 of Shi) includes: a housing front portion (entrance where bag is added and first contacts roller of Shi) positioned in front of the roller (4/3f); and a housing rear portion (rear of the front portion; Fig. 1 of Shi) positioned behind the roller (4/3f), wherein a distance between the roller (3f) and the housing front portion (top of 2 of Shi) is less than a distance between the roller and the housing rear portion (The distance between roller 3f and housing front portion is much closer than that of the rear portion (bottom of 2) as seen in the fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the roller (3f/4 of Shi) faces the housing front portion (Top of 2 and Fig. 7 of Shi).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the housing front portion is inclined forward and upward (Top of 2 and Fig. 7 of Shi).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the roller (3f/4 of Shi) includes: a main roller (4) coupled to the feeding housing (2); and a sub-roller (3f) spaced apart from the main roller (Fig. 7 of Shi).
Regarding claim 9, wherein a rotational axis of the sub-roller (3f) is positioned above a rotational axis of the main roller (4; Fig. 7 of Shi).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the feeding housing includes: a housing front portion (Top of 2 and Fig. 7 of Shi) positioned in front of the roller (3F) and inclined forward and upward (Fig. 7 shows the inclined of the top of housing 2); and a housing rear portion (bottom of 2) positioned behind the roller (3f), wherein a distance between the main roller (4 of Shi) and the housing front portion (Top of housing 2) is greater than a distance between the sub-roller (3f) and the housing front portion (shorter distance between 3f and top portion; Fig. 7 of Shi).
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Caron et al. (EP2714527A1).
Regarding claim 1, Caron discloses a feeding device (Fig. 1 and 14) comprising: a feeding housing (32) having an open upper side (Figs. 6 and 14; housing 32 is open at the top);
a roller (Roller conveyor, C and/or 22) rotatably coupled to the feeding housing (32), at least a part of the roller (Roller conveyor, C and/or 22) being accommodated in the feeding housing ([0033]); and
a cutter unit (76, 77) positioned inside the feeding housing (32) and protruding upward toward the open upper side of the feeding housing (Fig. 8 shows tip portion facing upwards. Additionally the wheel rotates and at some point during its rotation, it does face upwards),
wherein the roller (Roller conveyor, C and/or 22) rotates while facing a face of the feeding housing (32).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the cutter unit (76, 77) is positioned below the roller (Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 8, wherein the roller (Roller conveyor, C and/or 22) includes: a main roller (22) coupled to the feeding housing (32); and a sub-roller (C) spaced apart from the main roller (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, wherein a rotational axis of the sub-roller (C) is positioned above a rotational axis of the main roller (22).
Regarding claim 11, further comprising a feeder unit (112) positioned at a lower end of the feeding housing (32; Fig. 6); wherein the feeder unit (112, 118) includes: a feeder driver; (118) and a feeder screw (120) rotatably coupled to the feeder driver (118).
Regarding claim 12, further comprising a discharge auxiliary unit (110), wherein the feeding housing includes: a housing front portion (Fig. 15) positioned in front of the roller (22); and a housing rear portion (Fig. 15) positioned behind the roller (22), wherein the discharge auxiliary unit (300) includes a push module including a push rod (304), and wherein the push rod is positioned in an opening formed in the housing rear portion (32b, Fig. 6) and is able to protrude from the housing rear portion toward the housing front portion (Fig. 15; [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Caron discloses a feeding device (Figs. 1-6, and 13) comprising:
a feeding housing (32) open upward (Figs. 6 and 14; housing 32 is open at the top);
a roller (Roller conveyor, C) rotatably coupled to the feeding housing (32), at least a part of the roller (Roller conveyor, C) being accommodated in the feeding housing (32);
a cutter unit (76, 77 and/or 40, 42) positioned inside the feeding housing (32); and
a discharge auxiliary unit (300), wherein the roller (Roller conveyor, C) rotates while facing a face of the feeding housing (32),
wherein the feeding housing (32) includes:
a housing front portion (Front portion of housing) positioned in front of the roller; and
a housing rear portion (Front portion of housing) positioned behind the roller,
wherein the discharge auxiliary unit (22) includes a pulling module (60, 60A), and
wherein the pulling module (22) is positioned in an opening formed in the housing front portion (Fig. 14), at least a part of the pulling module is positioned between the housing front portion and the housing rear portion (Fig. 14), and the pulling module rotates (“Each star wheel 60, 60A, ... is rotatable with shaft 62”).
15. Claims 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caron et al. (EP2714527A1)
Regarding claim 3, Caron discloses wherein the feeding housing (32) includes: a housing front portion (32b) positioned in front of the roller (Figs. 6, 15); and a housing rear portion (32a) positioned behind the roller (22), but is silent regarding wherein a distance between the roller and the housing front portion is less than a distance between the roller and the housing rear portion.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance between the roller and housing portions of Carson to have distance between the roller and the housing front portion to be less than a distance between the roller and the housing rear portion, since applicant has not disclosed that coupling both structure solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any arrangement of the rollers relative to the housing portions. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Carson to obtain the invention specified in claim 3 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the roller (Roller conveyor, C and/or 22) faces the housing front portion (Figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Caron discloses the housing front portion (32), but is silent regarding wherein the housing front portion is inclined forward and upward.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the housing front portion of Carson to be inclined forward and upward, since applicant has not disclosed that coupling both structure solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a number of configuration of the housing front portion. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Carson to obtain the invention specified in claim 5 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the housing rear portion (32a) includes: an upper rear portion (upper part of 32a) extending downward from an upper end of the housing rear portion (32a); and a lower rear portion (lower part of 32a) extending upward from a lower end of the housing rear portion (32a; Fig. 5), wherein the feeding housing (32) further includes a housing vent (S) including a vent body (body of S), and wherein the vent body (body of S) extends rearward from a lower end of the upper rear portion and leads to an upper end of the lower rear portion (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the housing vent (S) includes a vent opening (Mesh screen) as an opening formed in the vent body (body of S).
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caron et al. (EP2714527A1) in view of in view of Yamada (US 20120045242 A1), and in further view of Pietikainen et al. (US 20100071480 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Caron discloses the feeding device (Fig. 1) of claim 1 but is silent regarding, further comprising a sensor unit, wherein the sensor unit includes at least one of: a weight sensor coupled to the feeding housing and measuring a weight of the feeding housing;
Yamada in a related invention teaches sensor unit ([0061]) includes at least one of: a weight sensor coupled to the feeding housing and measuring a weight of the feeding housing (“Alternatively, if a sensor (e.g., weight sensor) is provided on the discharge tray, whether the sheets are stacked or not can be detected based on the output of such a sensor” Para [0061])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Caron by incorporating a weigh sensor as taught by Yamada in order to determine the whether sheets are stacked or not on the device (Para [0061]).
Caron in view of Yamada is further silent regarding a roller sensor coupled to the roller and measuring a load applied to the roller.
Pietikainen further teaches a roller sensor coupled to the roller and measuring a load applied to the roller (Para [0059] and [0056])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Caron as modified by incorporating a roller sensor as taught by Pietikainen in order to determine a load on the roller and provide information relating to the usage of the rollers for various control purposes (Para [0004] [0059] and [0056]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
Conclusion
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights