DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The amendment filed on 3/15/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 remain pending in the application.
Specification/Drawings
The amendment filed 3/15/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Fig. 11 shows a specific design of the motor with two output shafts on opposite ends on opposite sides of the motor and two reels on opposite sides of the motor. The original specification (see para 0078) teaches the motor having two output shaft but does not teach the output shafts are located on opposite sides of the motor. Additionally, original claim 9 states the two pull wires are driven respectively by two reels commonly driven by one winch motor. The original claim 9 does not teach the reels are mounted on the two output shaft located on opposite sides of the motor.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claim 2 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 2, the limitation “the first and second ends of the pull wire are connected to form a closed loop” in combination with “a first end of the pull wire is directly fixed to the reel, and a second end of the pull wire is pre-wound for a plurality of rounds on the reel and then fixed to the reel;” (see claim 1 on which claim 2 depends) is vague and unclear because it is unclear how the first end and second end which are fixed to the reel while at the same time are also connected to each other to form a closed loop. In other words, it is unclear if the first end and second end are connected to the reel to each other.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-20 are allowed.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, in combination with other limitations of the claim, is silent on “wherein a first end of the pull wire is directly fixed to the reel, and a second end of the pull wire is pre-wound for a plurality of rounds on the reel and then fixed to the reel; when the winch motor rotates forwards, a portion of the pull wire at the first end is gradually wound onto the reel, and a portion of the pull wire at the second end is gradually unwound from the reel; when the winch motor rotates backwards, the portion of the pull wire at the first end is gradually unwound from the reel, and the portion of the pull wire at the second end is gradually re-wound onto the reel”. CN 209382708 of Yu et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claim except for the winch motor with prewound pull wire that is fixed to the reel. CN# 101238959 of Zhu teaches looping a pull wire (see fig. 7 but does not teach “when the winch motor rotates forwards, a portion of the pull wire at the first end is gradually wound onto the reel, and a portion of the pull wire at the second end is gradually unwound from the reel; when the winch motor rotates backwards, the portion of the pull wire at the first end is gradually unwound from the reel, and the portion of the pull wire at the second end is gradually re-wound onto the reel”. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add/modify such a configuration without hindsight. Therefore, the prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to read on the present claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record, in combination with other limitations of the claim, is silent on “a winch motor, wherein a reel is fixed on an output shaft of the winch motor; and a pull wire, wherein one part of the pull wire is wound on the reel, and the other part of the pull wire is tensioned on the base plate by means of pulleys; the at least one bag opening closure rod and the at least one hot pressing rod are respectively fixed on the pull wire, and the winch motor drives the reel to rotate forwards and backwards, so that the at least one bag opening closure rod and the at least one hot pressing rod are driven to move respectively by means of the pull wire”. CN 209382708 of Yu et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claim except for using a winch motor and pull rope to move the hot pressing and closure rod. Although winch motors are known per se, the exact configuration as claimed is neither taught or suggested by prior art of record. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add/modify such a configuration without hindsight. Therefore, the prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to read on the present claims.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art of record, in combination with other limitations of the claim, is silent on “two winch motors, each having a reel fixed on an output shaft thereof; and first and second pull wires respectively driven by the two winch motors and configured to move independently of each other, each pull wire having a first part wound on the respective reel and a second part tensioned on the base plate by means of pulleys; wherein the at least one bag opening closure rod is fixed on the first pull wire and the at least one hot pressing rod is fixed to the second pull wire, and the two winch motors are configured to drive the first and second pull wires respectively with different velocities and travel lengths relative to each other, thereby accommodating garbage inlet channels of different shapes and sizes”. CN 209382708 of Yu et al. teaches all of the limitations of the claim except for using a winch motor and pull rope to move the hot pressing and closure rod. Although winch motors are known per se, the exact configuration as claimed is neither taught or suggested by prior art of record. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add/modify such a configuration without hindsight. Therefore, the prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to read on the present claims.
Any remaining claims are allowed for depending on one of the above allowed claims.
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (see claim 1 for Reasons for Allowance)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/15/2026 have been fully considered:
All specification objection have been overcome.
Amended claims have overcome all previous 112 (b) or second paragraph rejection/s. However, new rejections are made in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1, 4 and 17 have been fully considered but are persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOBEEN AHMED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0356. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (8:30 am to 5 pm).
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.
/M.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/VERONICA MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights