DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Action is in response to the Response to Non-Final filed 06/25/2026.
The status of the Claims is as follows:
Claims 1-31 have been cancelled;
Claims 35, 36, 38, 46 47 have been amended;
Claims 32-47 are pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2025 and 01/31/2025 were filed after the mailing date of the Application on 01/24/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) include:
Counter element (6)
Encapsulated drive device (15)
Gripping mechanism (11)
Counter coupling means (18)
Actuator (pg. 20)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 43, 45 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kuhnle et al. (US 20240034506; Kuhnle)
Regarding Claim 43 Kuhnle discloses a method for discharging a container (24) from a bag (32), the method comprising:
cutting open the bag (32) with at least one cut to form an opening; (par 47)
discharging the container (24) via the opening formed by the cut; (par 48)
holding the bag (32) from a top side of the bag (32) level with the container (24) by at least one releasable holding means; (par 48) and
sliding the container (24) via a conveying means (40) out of the bag (32) while the bag is being held, and the conveying means (40) sliding the container (24) onto a container receptacle (44) of a transport unit at least until a center of gravity of the container (3) lies above the container receptacle (44). (par 38-41)
Regarding Claim 45 Kuhnle discloses the invention as described above. Kuhnle further discloses, at least during the sliding of the container (24), directing a fluid flow against the inserted bag (32) against a discharge side. (par 50)
Regarding Claim 46 Kuhnle discloses the invention as described above. Kuhnle further discloses the method is carried out in a protected room (par 49) or with the bag (32) having sterile contents. (par 34)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 32-35, 38-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohoe et al. (US 10836529; Donohoe) in view of Kirsch et al. (US 20200062436; Kirsch)
Regarding Claim 32 Donohoe discloses a cutting device (40) for a bag (530) containing a container (520), the cutting device comprising:
a knife (456) for cutting the bag (530);
the knife (456) including a knife blade (456) that is disk-shaped (Col 6 lines 2-3);
a counter element (462) with which the knife blade (456) interacts; and
a drive device to which the knife (456) is coupled (Col 5 lines 55-59)
However, Donohoe does not expressly disclose an encapsulated drive device to which the knife is magnetically coupled.
Kirsch discloses a cutting device for cutting film (abstract) that includes a knife. Kirsch further discloses an encapsulated drive device to which the knife is magnetically coupled providing an actuating device with optimized power consumption for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 48-52)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the drive device of Donohoe to include the encapsulated drive device of Kirsch since par 48-52 of Kirsch suggests that such a modification provides providing an actuating device with optimized power consumption for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 33, the modified invention of Donohoe in view of Kirsch teaches the invention as described above. Donohoe further discloses the counter element (462) comprises a rectilinear running surface. (Fig. 3D)
Regarding Claim 34 the modified invention of Donohoe in view of Kirsch teaches the invention as described above. Donohoe further discloses the knife (456) being arranged so as to be movable on a gripping mechanism (460) for the bags (530).
Regarding Claim 35 the modified invention of Donohoe in view of Kirsch teaches the invention as described above. Donohoe further discloses the counter element (462) is formed on a gripping finger of the gripping mechanism (460) with which the bag (530) is adapted to be held below a cut. (Col 4 line 62- Col 5 20)
Regarding Claim 38 Donohoe discloses a method for discharging a container (520) from a bag (530), the method comprising:
cutting open the bag (530) with at least one cut to form an opening; (Col 5 line 60- Col 6 line 11)
discharging the container (520) via the opening formed by the cut; (Col 7 lines 40-53)
the cutting open of the bag (530) including a disk-shaped knife blade (456) at least one of interacting with or rolling on a counter element (462);
gripping the bag (530) by a gripping mechanism (460), on which a knife that includes the knife blade (456) is moved for cutting the bag (530);
hanging the bag (530) on a bag carrier (29) while the cut (13) is being made; (Col 7 lines 22-34)
However, Donohoe does not expressly teach hanging the bag (2) on a bag carrier (29) while the cut (13) is being made; and wherein the knife (4) is magnetically coupled to an encapsulated drive device (15) and is moved thereby.
Kirsch discloses a method for cutting film (abstract) that includes a knife. Kirsch further discloses the knife is magnetically coupled to a drive device and is moved thereby providing an actuating device with optimized power consumption for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method. (par 48-52)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the drive device of Donohoe to include the encapsulated drive device of Kirsch since par 48-52 of Kirsch suggests that such a modification provides providing an actuating device with optimized power consumption for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Regarding Claim 39 the modified invention of Donohoe in view of Kirsch teaches the invention as described above. Donohoe further discloses driving the knife blade (456) by a motor. (Col 5 lines 55-59)
Regarding Claim 40 the modified invention of Donohoe in view of Kirsch teaches the invention as described above. Donohoe further discloses the counter element (462) comprises a rectilinear running surface. (Fig. 3D)
Regarding Claim 42 the modified invention of Donohoe in view of Kirsch teaches the invention as described above. Donohoe further discloses a knife blade
However Donohoe does not expressly teach a knife slide for the knife blade is magnetically coupled to the drive device and is moved thereby.
Kirsch discloses a method for cutting film (abstract) that includes a knife. Kirsch further discloses knife slide (38a) for the knife blade is magnetically coupled to the drive device and is moved thereby providing an actuating device with optimized power consumption for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the method. (par 48-52)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the drive device of Donohoe to include the encapsulated drive device of Kirsch since par 48-52 of Kirsch suggests that such a modification provides providing an actuating device with optimized power consumption for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohoe et al. (US 10836529; Donohoe) in view of Kirsch et al. (US 20200062436; Kirsch) as recited in Claim 32 and further in view of Ponczek et al. (US 3942247; Ponczek)
Regarding Claim 37 the modified invention of Donohoe in view of Kirsch teaches the invention as described above. Donohoe further discloses a carriage on which the knife is arranged, the carriage (454)
However, Donohoe in view of Kirsch does not expressly teach the carriage includes a counter-coupling means (18), such that the knife (4) is removable from the carriage (17).
Ponczek teaches a cutting device for a bag (39) that includes a knife (43) and a carriage (27). Ponczek further teaches a counter-coupling means (46) such that the knife (43) is removable from the carriage (17) providing easy tool change for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (Col 4 lines 46-53)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the carriage of Donohoe in view of Kirsch to include a counter-coupling means as taught by Ponczek since Col 4 lines 46-53 of Ponzcek suggests that such a modification provides providing easy tool change for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohoe et al. (US 10836529; Donohoe) in view of Kirsch et al. (US 20200062436; Kirsch) in view of Kuhnle et al. (US 20240034506; Kuhnle)
Regarding Claim 47 the modified invention of Donohoe in view of Kirsch discloses the invention as described above. Donohoe further discloses an unpacking device, comprising: the cutting device (40)
However Donohoe in view of Kirsch does not expressly teach the cutting device located within a protected clean room.
Kuhnle discloses an unpacking device comprising a cutting device located within a protected clean room (10) providing a sterile environment for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus. (par 46-48)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the cutting device of Donohoe in view of Kirsch to include it in an unpacking device located within a protected clean room as taught by Kuhnle since par 46-48 of Kuhnle suggests that such a modification provides a sterile environment for the purposes of improving the efficiency of the apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36, 41 and 44 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 36 the Prior Art does not teach the knife is formed on a gripping finger of the gripping mechanism with which the bag is adapted to be held below a cut in addition to the limitations included in Claim 34.
Regarding Claim 41 the Prior Art does not teach holding the bag below the cut such that the opening remains closed after the cut has been made in addition to the limitations included in Claim 38.
Regarding Claim 44 the Prior Art does not teach the transport unit is at least one of magnetically coupled to a stationary coil arrangement or moved suspended in an electromagnetic field in addition to the limitations included in Claim 43.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument: Kuhnle does not teach the bag 32 is held by a top side at the level of the container.
Examiner’s Response: Kuhnle teaches at par 48 “A film composite 94 consisting of the cover portion 70 and the overlap portion 74, which are connected together, is pushed into the interior 52 of the film tube 50. As a result of the connection in the region of the rear edge/in the region of the second part 90 of the connection region 72, the film composite 94 is folded back to the side so that the packaging unit 22 is transferred past the folded-back film composite 94 into the interior 52 of the film tube 50.” Where the top of the severed bag (32) is held in the interior (52) of the film tube (50) by the airflow (par 3) within the interior (52) of the film tube (50) while the container (24) slides out of the bag (32) via a conveying means (40).
Applicant’s Argument: Kirsch is directed to a packaging machine that cuts stretchable film from a film supply to size not for a bag opening device, for example for entry into a clean room environment.
Examiner’s Response: In response to applicant's argument that Kirsch is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. MPEP 2142 In this case, the Prior Art, Kirsch is directed to an invention in the field of the inventor’s endeavor: packaging and more specifically severing a packaging film, where the Examiner understands the term “bag” can include a film bag.
Applicant’s Argument: The rationale that Kirsch would improve efficiency or optimize power consumption is conclusory. There is not a benefit to replace Donohoe conventional carriage/rail drive with kirsch specialized film-web cutter drive where the drive of Kirsch is not an encapsulated drive device to which a knife is magnetically coupled.
Examiner’s Response: At Col 5 line 60-Col 6 line 11 Donohoe teaches a circular cutting blade that is configured to move through the length of bag. Kirsch teaches at par 13 that a cutting operation where the cutting device is moved through the film results in a slow cutting operation. Kirsch teaches at Fig. 2 the solution to the slow cutting operation to include an encapsulated drive in the form of a magnet that acts on the cutting device (par 48) thus optimizing power consumption (Title) and improving the cutting operation. The Examiner relies on the improved efficiency of the drive mechanism of Kirsch to drive the circular blade on the frame of the bag cutting device of Donohoe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trebbi US 2021/0292032 : opening assembly and process for bags housing containers in a clean room
Gabusi US 2024/0150059: bag opening assembly and process in a sterile environment
Gabusi US 2021/0292033: bag opening assembly and process in a sterile environment
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)270-5944. The examiner can normally be reached 4 pm - 11:59 pm Monday - Friday.
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 at 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 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.
/CHINYERE J RUSHING-TUCKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights