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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim language makes no sense – “in the erected such that”. Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 13-17 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 13 introduces a box packaging device, while claim 16 introduces a packaging method. The original rejected invention is for a pushing mechanism.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 13-17 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In accordance with the amended claims, the citations have been amended accordingly.
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.
(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 1 and 4-7, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida, JP 6534820.
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Ishida discloses: A pushing mechanism that pushes a plurality of bags (Figs. 1-7a, article WP) formed by sealing both end portions of a film formed in a tubular shape into a laterally open box in an erected posture, the pushing mechanism comprising:
a box standby unit (Figs. 1-7a, Box standby unit 350) for causing the box to stand by;
an article placement unit (Figs. 1-7a, Article placing unit 310) having a placement surface on which the plurality of bags are temporarily placed in the erected posture; and
a pushing unit (Figs. 1-7a, Pushing mechanism 300) extending in an alignment direction of the plurality of bags and pushing the plurality of bags placed on the placement surface into the box by moving toward an opening of the box from the article placement unit,
wherein the pushing unit has a transfer plate (Figs. 7a-7e, first plate 341) with a pressing surface (Figs. 7a-7e, second plate 342) configured to press the plurality of bags and a contact portion (Figs. 1-7a, Push-in plate 340) that comes into contact with a portion of the bag in a height direction in the erected posture such that one side of a bag of the plurality of bags is bent in a pushing direction (the use of a pushing device upon a bag or package of similar sort would necessarily bend the package upon contact), direction, the contact portion being a protrusion that protrudes from the pressing surface between an upper and lower edge of pressing surface (see Figs. 7a-7e).
Regarding claim 4, Ishida further discloses: the contact portion is provided to be expandable and contractible in the alignment direction of the plurality of bags (see Figs. 7a-7e).
Regarding claim 5, Ishida further discloses the contact portion is configured to contact any one edge side of a pair of seal portions provided in both end portions of the bag. (see MPEP 2115, MATERIAL OR ARTICLE WORKED UPON DOES NOT LIMIT APPARATUS CLAIMS - Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)).
Regarding claim 6, Ishida further discloses: the contact portion comes into contact with a central portion of the bag in the height direction in the erected such that (see Figs. 1-7. It can be seen that the contact portion of the bag is a central portion), and one side of the bag pushed into the box on an opening side of the box is made to bent so as to enter an inside of the box when viewed in the alignment direction of the plurality of bags (see MPEP 2115, MATERIAL OR ARTICLE WORKED UPON DOES NOT LIMIT APPARATUS CLAIMS - Claim analysis is highly fact-dependent. A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)).
Regarding claim 7, Ishida further discloses: a transport mechanism (Figs. 1-7a, Transport mechanism 100) that sequentially transports bags one by one; an accumulation mechanism (Figs. 1-7a, Integration mechanism 200A) that accumulates a predetermined number of the bags; and the pushing mechanism according to claim 1, which pushes the predetermined number of the bags into the box (Figs. 1-7a, Pushing mechanism 300).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Ishida further discloses: a peripheral component configured to contact a portion of an edge the bag to be bent upwards (the end portion of the unit 310 comes in contact with the bottom of the package as shown in the figures).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ishida.
Regarding claim 2, Ishida further discloses: the contact portion (Figs. 1-7a, Push-in plate 340) protrudes in a pushing direction of the pushing unit pushing the bag from a pressing surface (Figs. 1-7a, first and/or second plate 341, 342) on which the pushing unit pushes the plurality of bags.
Ishida does not explicitly disclose: a protruding height of the contact portion is larger than 1/10 of a length of the bag in the pushing direction, and is smaller than 1/3 of the length of the bag.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize an appropriately sized pusher element, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. It should be noted that the Ishida reference has a pusher plate that is adjustable for both height and width, which would allow it to be optimized for the size of the bag.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida in view of Schmidt, US 20210394942.
Regarding claim 3, Ishida discloses the device of claim 1.
Ishida does not explicitly disclose: a raising and lowering unit that raises and lowers the box standby unit,
wherein the pushing unit pushes the plurality of bags into the box lowered by the raising and lowering unit again after the plurality of bags are pushed into the box.
Schmidt teaches: a raising and lowering unit (Figs. 4-5, gripper 14) that raises and lowers the box standby unit,
wherein the pushing unit pushes the plurality of bags into the box lowered by the raising and lowering unit again after the plurality of bags are pushed into the box (see Figs. 4-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize the ox raising and lowering device as taught by Schmidt in combination with the Ishida device, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that it allows for multi-row packaging of smaller items, thereby allowing the user to pack more items in the box.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida in view of Dambrosio, US 5195305.
Regarding claim 8 and 11, Ishida discloses the device of claim 1.
Ishida does not explicitly disclose: the contact portion has a curved semi-cylindrical surface.
Dambrosio teaches: the contact portion (Figs. 2-3, tamper 60) has a curved semi-cylindrical surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to utilize the curved shape of the tamper as taught by Dambrosio in combination with the Ishida device, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that it allows for the bag to contour its shape to the pusher. The Examiner notes that no criticality is either claimed nor described in the specification for this feature. .
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).
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 DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights