Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/30/2026 has been entered.
Amendments of Claims 1 to 6, 9, 11 to 13 and 18 are acknowledged.
Cancelation of Claims 10 and 17 is acknowledged.
New Claims 21 and 22 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The Claim include the limitations:
first transporting chutes to a loading station and
second transporting the chutes to an unloading station
The Examiner considers that two consecutive steps are being claimed, as such it should read
-- first, transporting chutes to a loading station-- and
-- second, transporting the chutes to an unloading station--
Or maybe
--A first transporting step-- and --a second transporting step--
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 2 to 4, 6 to 8, 11 to 13 and 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 Claims 2 to 4, 6 and 11 to 13 The claims include the limitation: “the unloading the loose products unloads”. This is unclear since there is no component called “the unloading the loose products”. For prosecution, the Examiner will read the claim as –in the unloading step the loose products are unloaded—or the unloading station unloads the loose products--.
Regarding Claims 7, 8 and 20: The Claims include the limitation “the second transporting transports”. The second transporting would be a step, not a device, so it can’t “transport” anything. The transport occurs during the step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 18 to 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gruss (US 2010/0252056).
Regarding Claim 1:
Gruss discloses a method, comprising:
first transporting chutes to a loading station; loading loose products through vertical walls, and into a first opening of defined by each of the chutes at the loading station, movement of the loose products into the chutes at the first loading station being at least partially assisted by gravity (Figures 1 and 2, the four ends of shaping component 14, that contain endless tobacco rods 15 will be considered the loading stations that load receptacles 20 with tobacco portions 17 in the position Auf, that will be considered the loose product through not numbered vertical walls, the loading is at least partially assisted by gravity) and
second transporting the chutes to an unloading station; and unloading the loose products from a second opening of each of the chutes into containers at the unloading station (Figures 2 and 3, the receptacles 20 are unloaded at the position Ab, where blow-out station 23 is located, that will be considered the unloading station by a second opening at the bottom of the receptacle into feed pipes 21 into bags 22),
a first number of the chutes equaling a second number of the containers (Figure 3 shows one chute delivering into feed pipe 21 into the not numbered bag, so the first and the second number are one, note that Gross discloses on Paragraphs 0009 direct allocation of one endless tobacco rod to each feed pipe of a sealed-edge or tubular bag machine and Paragraph 0022 that tobacco portions 17 located in the receptacles 20 can be conveyed to subsequent processing stations, for example to feed pipes 21 of a sealed-edge or tubular bag machine).
Regarding Claim 2:
Gruss discloses that the unloading the loose products unloads while the chutes are stationary and are aligned along a first horizontal plane (Figure 2, Paragraph 0022 and 0025, produced tobacco portions 17 can be received in the storage device 18 and dispensed again cyclically and the receptacles 20 are aligned on a horizontal plane defined by turntable 19).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8:
Gruss discloses that second transporting transports the chutes together in a horizontal direction at a same speed towards, and into, the unloading station (Figure 2, all receptacles 20 are together on horizontal turntable 19, moving at the same speed towards, and into, the unloading station).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19:
Gruss discloses the first opening and the second opening are near opposite ends of each one of the chutes (Figure 2, the first opening would be at the top to receive tobacco portions 17 and the second at the bottom to deliver tobacco portions 17 into feed pipe 21).
The Examiner notes that the claims are identical, so one of them should be canceled.
Regarding Claim 20:
Gruss discloses that the second transporting transports while lower surfaces of each one of the chutes helps support the loose products (Figure 2, all receptacles 20 have a lower surface formed on turntable 19).
Regarding Claim 21:
Gruss discloses that the loading the loose product loads while the vertical walls are aligned with the first opening (Figures 1 and 2, vertical walls at the bottom of metering device 13 are aligned with the walls of receptacle 20 for the tobacco portions 17 pass into the receptacles 20 on position Auf).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gruss (US 2010/0252056).
Regarding Claim 3:
Gruss discloses that the unloading the loose products unloads the loose products into each of the containers at the unloading station simultaneously (Figures 2 and 3 show a single bag being filled so all the loose product is unloaded at the same time; also, the slicing to place on receptacles 20 is made simultaneously and Paragraphs 0009 indicates direct allocation of one endless tobacco rod to each feed pipe of a sealed-edge or tubular bag machine so if multiple containers are filled the discharge would obviously also be simultaneous since the goal of Gruss is for the tobacco rods to be processed simultaneously.
Additionally, the Specification does not provide much support for this limitation, since Figure 7B actually show the unload from the chutes done one by one, so it doesn’t seem to have any criticality and can be considered a matter of design choice.
PNG
media_image1.png
559
691
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4, 5, 9 and 12 to 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gruss (US 2010/0252056) in view of Groom (US 4524564).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, Gruss discloses the invention as claimed, and in particular that the products unloads while the chutes and the containers are stationary as the chutes are aligned along a first horizontal plane.
Gruss does not disclose that the containers are aligned along a second horizontal plane parallel to the first horizontal plane.
Groom teaches an unloading station receiving loose product from a dispenser to unload it into containers by using horizontal plungers (Figures 5 to 8, cartoning machine 10A, loose product is first placed on bags B to be inserted into cartons C by using pusher plate 68, that will be considered a plunger), 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 Gruss 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 Gruss into containers by using a horizontal plunger.
Regarding Claim 9 and 12 to 16:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, Gruss discloses the invention as claimed.
Gruss does not disclose transferring the loose products, at least in part, into each respective one of the containers via a-plungers, a first number of the containers is equal to a second number of the plungers at the unloading station.
Groom teaches an unloading station receiving loose product from a dispenser to unload it into containers being aligned on a horizontal plane, so the product is unloaded into the containers in the same horizontal direction by transferring using horizontal plungers (Figures 5 to 8, cartoning machine 10A, loose product is first placed on bags B to be inserted into cartons C by using pusher plate 68, that will be considered a plunger moving horizontally); 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 first 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 Gruss 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 Gruss horizontally, that can be considered a second direction, into containers by transferring using a horizontal plunger, the unloading and the transferring do not commence simultaneously, since using plungers to fill products into containers is a common practice in the art.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gruss (US 2010/0252056) in view of Groom (US 4524564) as applied to Claim 5 above and further in view of Anderson (US 5570562).
Regarding Claim 6:
Note that in the embodiment of Gruss were there is only one loose product being delivered into a single bag former it can be considered that “each one” of the containers is being loaded simultaneously.
As discussed for Claim 5 above, the modified invention of Gruss discloses the invention as claimed, and in particular the chutes deliver the loose product into the feed lines 21 towards the containers simultaneously.
Assuming that the Applicant is trying to claim “a plurality of containers”, the modified invention of Gruss does not disclose unloading the loose products unloads the loose products into each of the containers at the unloading station simultaneously.
Anderson teaches operating several plungers simultaneously to unload a loose product into several containers simultaneously (Figure 1, product not numbered, the whole set of plungers 50 operates simultaneously to load the product into corresponding containers 70 by using a single actuator 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Gruss the teachings of Anderson and operate the plungers simultaneously to be able to fill several containers at the same time while requiring only a single actuator with less movable parts and faster operation, and operating several plunger simultaneously is a common practice in the art.
Regarding Claim 11:
As discussed for Claim 9 above, the modified invention of Gruss discloses the invention as claimed,
The modified invention of Gruss does not disclose multiple plungers moving on unison with each other.
Anderson teaches operating several plungers simultaneously to unload a loose product into several containers simultaneously (Figure 1, product not numbered, the whole set of plungers 50 operates simultaneously to load the product into corresponding containers 70 by using a single actuator 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate to the modified invention of Gruss the teachings of Anderson and operate the plungers simultaneously to be able to fill several containers at the same time while requiring only a single actuator with less movable parts and faster operation, and operating several plunger simultaneously is a common practice in the art.
Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gruss (US 2010/0252056) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Boldrini (US 2010/0199601).
Regarding Claim 22:
As discussed for Claim 1 above, Gruss discloses the invention as claimed.
Gruss does not disclose the loose products includes loading a first plurality of pouches.
Boldrini teaches packaging snus in small loose pouches (Figure 1, pouches 2) as an alternative to packaging the product loose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate to Gruss the teachings of Boldrini and adapt the device of Gruss to package the small loose pouches of Boldrini as product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of the amended claims under the reference Merz 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. The Amendment required using the reference Gruss (US 2010/0252056) already on the record to reject the amended Claims.
The Examiner notes that the Applicant seems to be interested on claiming multiple containers and multiple plungers, and recommends for clarity, from the beginning claim something like “a plurality of containers” and “a plurality of plungers”, not that the change would make the claims allowable or not, but it would make the claims clearer.
The Examiner also notes that several 112(b) rejections were not corrected, there seems to be some confusion between method steps and the structure or functions of the devices during the claimed steps.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights