Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to applicant amendment received on 01/20/2026:
Amendment of Claim 1 is acknowledged.
New Claims 2 to 20 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: The Claim reads “The method of claim 5, wherein the first horizontal plane and the second horizontal plane are parallel to each other”. The Examiner is considering it a typo and that it should read --The method of claim 4, wherein the first horizontal plane and the second horizontal plane are parallel to each other.
The Examiner also notes that the claim mentions that since both claimed planes are horizontal then obviously, they have to be parallel and wonders if some limitation is actually missing from the claim.
Appropriate correction 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.
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 to 20 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:
The Claim reads “movement of the loose products into the chutes at the first loading”. This is unclear since “the first loading” has not been defined in the claim. The Examiner will read it as -- movement of the loose products into the chutes at the first opening--.
Regarding Claim 2:
The Claim reads: “wherein the unloading unloads while the chutes are stationary”. This is unclear because ““the unloading” is a step, not an apparatus executing a function. For prosecution it will be read as -- in the step of unloading the loose product is unloaded while the chutes are stationary--.
Regarding Claims 3 and 6:
The Claim reads “the unloading unloads the loose products into the containers at the unloading station simultaneously”. This is unclear since it is not defined the unloading being simultaneous to what in particular, and being loose products on a chute, even with a plunger some products are going to leave the chute before the others. Also, as discussed above for Claim 2, “the unloading” is a step, not an apparatus executing a function, and would be read as a step.
Regarding Claims 4, 6, 11 to 13:
Same as discussed above for Claim 2, the claims are unclear because “the unloading” is a step, not an apparatus executing a function. For prosecution it will be read as -- in the step of unloading--.
Regarding Claim 11:
The Claims mentions “each one of the plungers moves in unison with each other”. This is unclear since only one plunger has been disclosed on the claims and even if considering that claim 10 mentions the possibility of more than one still a single plunger is the only option positively claimed.
Regarding Claim 13:
The Claims mentions “each respective one of the plungers”. This is unclear since only one plunger has been disclosed on the claims.
Regarding Claim 17:
The Claim reads: “wherein the first loading loads the loose product through vertical walls near the first opening of each of the chutes”. This is unclear because no device named “first loading” capable of loading the loose product has been defined in the claims. The Examiner will read the limitation as -- wherein the loose product is loaded through vertical walls near the first opening of each of the chutes--.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 7 to 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merz (US 2012/0060446 in view of Groom (US 4524564).
Regarding Claim 1
Merz discloses a method comprising: first transporting chutes to a loading station; loading loose products into a first opening of each of the chutes at the loading station, movement of the loose products into the chutes at the first loading being at least partially assisted by gravity (Figure 1, Paragraph 0032, dosing chambers 17, 18 and 19 will be considered chutes, they are loaded at the top, considered a first opening partially assisted by gravity, the tobacco 28 can flow into the dosing chamber 19 due to dead weight);
second transporting the chutes to an unloading station; and unloading the loose products from a second opening of each of the chutes into dispensers at the unloading station, a first number of the chutes equaling a second number of the dispensers (Figure 1, dosing chamber 17 was transported to outlet opening 27, that with funnel end 39 and conveying channel 37 that will be considered a dispenser where a dose of loose product is dispensed to be packaged from the bottom of dosing chamber 17, that will be considered the second opening, the number of chutes is one per dispenser).
Merz does not specifically disclose unloading the loose products from a second opening of each of the chutes into containers at an unloading station, a first number of the chutes equaling a second number of the containers
Groom teaches an unloading station receiving loose product from a dispenser to unload it into containers (Figure 5, cartoning machine 10A, loose product is first placed on bags B to be inserted into cartons C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate to Merz the teachings of Groom and include a cartoning machine as indicated to unload the loose product of Merz into containers for safe storage.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8:
Merz discloses that the second transporting transports the chutes together in a horizontal direction at a same speed towards, and into, the unloading station (Figure 1, being all of them part of dosing plate 12, dosing chambers 17, 18 and 19 are transported together, at the same speed to the unloading station).
Regarding Claims 9 to 16:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Merz discloses the invention as claimed.
Merz does not disclose transferring the loose products, at least in part, into each respective one of the containers via a plunger.
Groom, as discussed for claim 1, teaches an unloading station receiving loose product from a dispenser to unload it into containers (Figures 5 to 8, cartoning machine 10A, loose product is first placed on bags B to be inserted into cartons C; the loose products are transferred simultaneously into the cartons by a pusher plate 68, that will be considered a plunger, being one plunger and one box, the number of containers and plungers are the same and it would be moving in unison with itself; the bags C, containing the loose products are being unloaded into the cartons C, considered the containers, in a first direction that coincides with the length of the carton C, and the transferring transfers via a movement of the pusher plate 68 in a second direction, that is collinear with the unloading of the loose products in the first direction along the length of the carton C for the pusher plate 68), Groom also teaches that the unloading and the transferring do not commence simultaneously, the transferring occurs following the unloading and is initiated after the unloading is initiated (Figure 5, the loose product is unloaded firs and the pusher plate 68 only operates when the product reaches the front of the pusher plate 68).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate to Merz the teachings of Groom and include a cartoning machine as indicated including a plunger to transfer the loose products simultaneously into the containers in a first direction, the plunger operating on a second direction that is collinear with the first direction; and wherein the transferring by the plunger is initiated after the unloading is initiated, as a well-known way to unload the loose product of Merz into containers for safe storage.
Regarding Claim 17 (See rejection 112):
Merz discloses that the first loading loads the loose product through vertical walls near the first opening of each of the chutes to guide the loose products into the chutes (Figure 1, the dosing chambers have walls 22 formed from polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), that will be considered vertical walls near the first opening of each of the chutes to guide the loose products into the chutes).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19:
Merz discloses that the first opening and the second opening are near opposite ends of each one of the chutes (Figure 1, the first opening is at the top end and the second opening is at the bottom end, opposite ends).
Regarding Claim 20:
Merz discloses that the second transporting transports while lower surfaces of each one of the chutes helps support the loose products (Figure 1, Paragraph 0031, dosing chambers 17, 18 and 19 are in each case covered on a lower side 26 of the dosing plate 12 by means of the grinding disk 13, that will be considered a lower surface of the chutes, and are thus closed).
Claims 2 to 6 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merz (US 2012/0060446 in view of Groom (US 4524564) and in the alternative in view of Boldrini (US 2010/0071711).
Regarding Claim 2:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Merz discloses the invention as claimed.
Merz discloses that in step of loading the loose material on the chute the material needs to fall in the chute and then compacted by vacuum, that the Examiner considers requires an intermittent operation; the same applies for the step of unloading the chute, valve 48 needs to open, the material is blown by “temporarily opening the valve 41” (Paragraph 0033) and after ejecting water vapor is added to the product, that the Examiner also considers indicates an intermittent operation, makes the chutes stationary and aligned on a first horizontal plane defined by grinding disk 13 when the chutes are unloaded.
If it is argued that Merz does not explicitly disclose that the operation is intermittent and the chute remains stationary, Boldrini teaches a very similar dosing device for a similar loose product (Figure 1, machine 1) that operates intermittently (Paragraph 0024, The dispensing disc 5a rotates intermittently) to allow for proper filling and discharge of the cavities 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate to Merz the teachings of Boldrini and make intermittent the operation of the dosing device, making the chutes stationary for loading and unloading to allow for proper filling and discharge of the chutes.
Regarding Claim 3 (See rejection 112):
Merz discloses that all the loose product on the dosing chamber 17 is unload on a single operation to the container.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, the modified invention of Merz discloses the invention as claimed, including that the chutes are aligned along a first horizontal plane defined by grinding disk 13 when the chutes are unloaded.
Merz discloses that in step of loading the loose material on the chute the material needs to fall in the chute and then compacted by vacuum, that the Examiner considers requires an intermittent operation; the same applies for the step of unloading the chute, valve 48 needs to open, the material is blown by “temporarily opening the valve 41” (Paragraph 0033) and after ejecting water vapor is added to the product, that the Examiner also considers indicates an intermittent operation, makes the chutes stationary and aligned on a first horizontal plane defined by grinding disk 13 when the chutes are unloaded.
If it is argued that Merz does not explicitly disclose that the operation is intermittent and the chute remains stationary, Boldrini teaches a very similar dosing device for a similar loose product (Figure 1, machine 1) that operates intermittently (Paragraph 0024, The dispensing disc 5a rotates intermittently) to allow for proper filling and discharge of the cavities 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate to Merz the teachings of Boldrini and make intermittent the operation of the dosing device, making the chutes stationary for loading and unloading to allow for proper filling and discharge of the chutes.
The modified invention of Merz does not disclose that the containers are aligned along a second horizontal plane.
As already discussed for Claim 1, Groom teaches an unloading station receiving loose product from a dispenser to unload it into containers (Figure 5, cartoning machine 10A, loose product is first placed on bags B to be inserted into cartons C), the containers being aligned on a horizontal plane, that can be considered a second horizontal plane, defined by carton conveyor 12a, that transport the cartons to and from the carton filling station 18a.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate to Merz the teachings of Groom and include a cartoning machine as indicated, having the containers aligned on a second horizontal plane, parallel to the first horizontal plane, to unload the loose product of Merz into containers for safe storage.
Regarding Claim 6 (See rejection 112):
Merz discloses that all the loose product on the dosing chamber 17 is unload on a single operation to the container.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under Vogt have been considered but are moot because of the amendment of Claim 1 and the new Claims 2 to 20 required a new ground of rejection that 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. In particular, Boldrini (US 2010/0071711) and Smith (US 2010/0326016) could be used for a proper rejection of the independent claim.
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 EDUARDO R FERRERO whose telephone number is (571)272-9946. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:00.
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.
/EDUARDO R FERRERO/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ROBERT F LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731