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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant's Response to Election/Restriction filed on 20 April 2026.
Claims 1 – 18 are pending. Claims 19 – 35 and 38 – 40 are cancelled by Applicant. Claims 36 – 37 are withdrawn due to a restriction requirement.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of claims 1 – 18 in the reply filed on 20 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 36 – 37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12 March 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“a jaw detachable feature” in claim 15
“a plurality of sets of jaws, wherein each set of jaws comprises jaws having a width different to the widths of the jaws of the other sets of jaws in the plurality of sets of jaws” in claim 18
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 – 8, 10 – 13 and 16 – 17 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 3, the limitation, “centred”, should read, “centered”.
Regarding claims 1, lines 10 and 13, the limitation, “the first jaw assembly and second jaw assembly”, should read, “the first jaw assembly and the second jaw assembly”.
Regarding claim 1, line 16, and claims 7 – 8, 10 – 13, and 17, the limitation, “the first and second jaw assemblies”, should read, “the first jaw assembly and the second jaw assembly”.
Regarding claim 1, lines 21 – 22 and 22, the limitation, “the first and second lateral ends”, should read, “the first lateral end and the second lateral end”.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation, “axes”, should read, “axis”.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation, “an integer number of turns and a fractional number of turns”, should read, “the integer number of turns and the fractional number of turns”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes a claim limitation that does not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a gripping arrangement” in claim 5.
“a jaw detachable connection mechanism” in claim 15.
“a bag folding system for a packaging apparatus comprising… a plurality of sets of jaws” – claim 18.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 7, the limitation, “the respective jaws”, is indefinite because (1) the limitation lacks antecedent basis and (2) it is ambiguous whether the limitation is referring to the first jaw assembly and/or the second jaw assembly or the limitation is referring to a component of the first jaw assembly and/or the second jaw assembly. Please note, in the portion of the claim that first recites this limitation, (hereinafter portion A),
each jaw assembly is configured to transition between an open configuration and a closed configuration wherein: in the open configuration the respective jaws are spread to be spaced apart from a region of a paper bag, and in the closed configuration the respective jaws are configured to grasp the region of the paper bag such that sliding of the region of the paper bag relative to the respective jaw assembly is inhibited, (emphasis added)
there is no structural connection between the first jaw assembly and the second jaw assembly and “the respective jaws”. However, in the next successive portion of the claim, hereinafter portion B, the structural connection is provided between the first jaw assembly and the second jaw assembly and “the jaws”.
the first jaw assembly and second jaw assembly are arranged with the jaws facing one another such that they are operable to grasp the region of the paper bag towards opposite edges of the region of the paper bag;
The examiner respectfully suggests amending the claim to recite this portion B prior to portion A and correcting any antecedent basis issues due to this amendment in order to introduce the jaws and how these jaws structurally relate to the first jaw assembly and/or the second jaw assembly prior to any functional limitations involving the jaws. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation as a component of the first jaw assembly and the second jaw assembly, respectively. Please note, since claims 2 – 17 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 17 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness. Additionally, since independent claim 18 recites, “the bag folding assembly according to claim 14”, and claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness, claim 18 is also rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 1, line 11, the limitation, “they”, is indefinite because the term “they” is a pronoun that refers to an element previously recited and it is ambiguous as written in the claim as to the antecedent basis of the pronoun or, in other words, what element the term “they” refers. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “they”, to mean “the jaws”. Please note, since claims 2 – 17 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 17 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness. Additionally, since independent claim 18 recites, “the bag folding assembly according to claim 14”, and claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness, claim 18 is also rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “a separation between a longitudinal axis of the paper bag and the operational axis along a first direction remains substantially constant during the rotation operation, wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the paper bag and perpendicular to the operational axis”, is indefinite because limitation are read in light of the specification and the specification does not seem to support this limitation and thus it is ambiguous what is meant by this limitation. The examiner interprets the limitation, “a longitudinal axis of the paper bag” as an imaginary straight line that runs lengthwise through the paper bag’s center of mass (or geometric center) and interprets the limitation, “the operational axis”, as an imaginary line around which the first jaw assembly and the second jaw assembly rotates. Figures 4c, 4d of applicant’s drawings show the longitudinal axis 301 of the paper bag 300 perpendicular and intersecting the operational axis 106 of the first jaw assembly 102 and the second jaw assembly 104. Thus, in these drawings since the longitudinal axis 301 and the operational axis 106 intersect, there is no separation between the longitudinal axis 301 and the operational axis 106 in the first direction (i.e., the up-down direction of the figures) perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 301 and the operational axis 106. However, after the rotation operation as seen in figure 4e of applicant’s drawings, the operational axis 106 is positioned near a top surface of the paper bag 300 and, while not shown in figure 4e, the longitudinal axis 301 of the paper bag 300 would still be positioned through the paper bag’s center of mass (or geometric center) – by definition. Thus, in this drawing after the rotation operation, there is a separation between the longitudinal axis 301 and the operational axis 106 in the first direction perpendicular to the longitudinal axis 301 and the operational axis 106. Therefore, the separation between the longitudinal axis of the paper bag and the operational axis along a first direction in not constant during the rotation operation.
The examiner recognizes that figures 12 and 13 are directed to the separation 1204 between the longitudinal axis 301 of the paper bag and the operational axis 106 along the first direction 1202, 1302 remaining substantially constant during the rotation operation. However, there are discrepancies between figures 4c, 4d and figures 12, 13. In figures 4c, 4d, the initial position of the rotation operation shows the longitudinal axis 301 of the paper bag 300 perpendicular and intersecting the operational axis 106 such that there is no separation between the longitudinal axis 301 and the operational axis 106. By contrast, in figure 12, the initial position of the rotation operation shows the longitudinal axis 301 of the paper bag 300 perpendicular to the operational axis 106 but having the separation 1204 between the longitudinal axis 301 and the operational axis 106. It is the examiner’s understanding that these figures are not different embodiments thus please explain or reconcile how both sets of figures can be true.
Please note, since claims 2 – 17 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 17 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness. Additionally, since independent claim 18 recites, “the bag folding assembly according to claim 14”, and claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness, claim 18 is also rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation, “substantially constant”, is indefinite because the term, “substantially” is a term of approximation. The claim does not define the term and the specification only states that the approximation means “within acceptable tolerances” ([0061] – [0062]) which is ambiguous since the specification does not define or present a standard for these acceptable tolerances. Therefore, without defining the term or presenting a standard for this term, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean that the separation between a longitudinal axis of the paper bag and the operational axis along a first direction varies within a tolerance that allows a workable apparatus. Please note, since claims 2 – 17 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 17 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness. Additionally, since independent claim 18 recites, “the bag folding assembly according to claim 14”, and claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness, claim 18 is also rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation, “a high friction member”, is indefinite because the term, “high”, is a relative term. The term, “high”, is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of friction such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation to mean a member that has a friction coefficient that inhibits “sliding of the region of the paper bag relative to the respective jaw assembly” (claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation, “a fold release configuration in which the respective jaws are marginally more open as compared to the closed configuration”, is indefinite because claim 1, upon which claim 7, recites, “each jaw assembly is configured to transition between an open configuration and a closed configuration wherein: in the open configuration the respective jaws are spread to be spaced apart from a region of a paper bag”, and it is ambiguous how this fold release configuration differs from the open configuration recited in claim 1 since both have the respective jaws spread to be spaced apart from the region of the paper bag. Additionally, the term, “marginally”, is a relative term. The term, “marginally”, is not defined by the claim and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree of openness such that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Please note, since claim 8 depends upon claim 7, claim 8 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation, “its respective jaw assembly”, is indefinite because the term “its” is a pronoun that refers to an element previously recited and it is ambiguous as written in the claim as to the antecedent basis of the pronoun or, in other words, what element the term “its” refers. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “its respective jaw assembly”, to mean “the respective jaw assembly”. Please note, since claim 15 depends upon claim 14, claim 15 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness. Additionally, since independent claim 18 recites, “the bag folding assembly according to claim 14”, and claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness, claim 18 is also rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 – 2, 7 – 9, 11 – 13 and 16 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Housei (JP H0219223 A).
[AltContent: oval]
Regarding claim 1, Housei discloses a bag folding assembly for a packaging apparatus for preparing a paper bag to be closed, the bag folding assembly comprising:
a first jaw assembly (11a, 11b, fig. 1) and a second jaw assembly (12a, 12b, fig. 1) centered on a common operational axis (21, fig. 1), wherein:
the first jaw assembly and second jaw assembly are arranged with jaws (11a, 11b and 12a, 12b, fig. 1) facing one another such that the jaws are operable to grasp a region (1a, fig. 1) of a paper bag (1, fig. 1) towards opposite edges of the region of the paper bag (As shown in figure 1);
each jaw assembly is configured to transition between an open configuration and a closed configuration (Page 6, ll. 17 – 20 describes a pair of folding claws 11a, 11b opening and closing between a position that moves away from an opening 1a of a paper bag 1 (i.e., an open configuration) and a position that grips the opening 1a of the paper bag 1 (i.e., a closed configuration). Please note, while only the pair of folding claws 11a, 11b are described in page 6, ll. 17 – 20, page 9, ll. 7 – 9 describes a pair of folding claws 12a, 12b performing the same operation of opening and closing as the pair of folding claws 11a, 11b) wherein:
in the open configuration the respective jaws are spread to be spaced apart from the region of the paper bag (Page 6, ll. 17 – 20 describes the pair of folding claws 11a, 11b opening to the position that moves away from the opening 1a of the paper bag), and in the closed configuration the respective jaws are configured to grasp the region of the paper bag such that sliding of the region of the paper bag relative to the respective jaw assembly is inhibited (Page 6, ll. 17 – 20 describes the pair of folding claws 11a, 11b opening to the position that grips the opening 1a of the paper bag 1. The examiner interprets “grips” as “holding firmly” which would inhibit – that is, restrain or hinder – sliding of the opening 1a of the paper bag 1 relative to the jaws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b);
the first jaw assembly and the second jaw assembly are configured to perform a rotation operation by simultaneously rotating about the operational axis to fold the paper bag by turning the region of the paper bag with respect to the operational axis (Page 14, ll. 6 – 10 describes rotating the pair of folding claws 11a, 11b about an axis 21 to fold the opening 1a of the paper bag 1. Please note, while only the pair of folding claws 11a, 11b are described in page 14, ll. 6 – 10, page 13, ll. 12 – 15 describes the pair of folding claws 12a, 12b performing the same operation of rotating and folding the opening 1a of the paper bag 1 as the pair of folding claws 11a, 11b);
each jaw of the first jaw assembly and the second jaw assembly comprises a first lateral end (bottom end/edge of folding claw 11a, 11b or 12a, 12b as shown in fig. 1) and a second lateral end (top end/edge of folding claws 11a, 11b or 12a, 12b as shown in fig. 1), the first lateral end and the second lateral end being separated by a width of said jaw, wherein the width of said jaw is perpendicular to the thickness of the jaw and perpendicular to the operational axis (As shown in figure 1);
the operational axis is positioned between the first lateral end and the second lateral end of each jaw (Page 11, ll. 15 – 20 describes shaft 21 as the rotation axis of the folding claws 11a, 11b wherein this rotation axis coincides near the lower edges of the folding claws 11a, 11b. Please note, page 6, ll. 1 – 10 describes the support structures for the folding claws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b in both folding bases 20a and 20b are almost identical and are configured symmetrically thus the corresponding shaft 21 of folding base 20b would be the rotation axis of the folding claws 12a, 12b wherein this rotation axis would also coincides near the lower edges of the folding claws 11a, 11b), such that the operational axis is positioned closer to one of the first lateral end and the second lateral end as compared to the other of the first lateral end and second lateral end (As described above, the rotation axis of the folding claws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b would be closer to the bottom end/edge of folding claws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b as compared to the top end/edge of folding claw 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b); and
in use, a separation between a longitudinal axis (axis A, annotated figs. 5a, 5b) of the paper bag (1, figs. 5a, 5b) and the operational axis (axis B, annotated fig. 5a and O1, fig. 5b – shown coming into and out of the figures) along a first direction (the left-right direction C as shown in figs. 5a, 5b) remains substantially constant during the rotation operation (Figures 5a, 5b shows that the separation between a longitudinal axis of the paper bag and the operational axis along a first direction is substantially constant and varies within a tolerance that allows a workable apparatus), wherein the first direction is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the paper bag and perpendicular to the operational axis (As shown in annotated figures 5a, 5b).
Regarding claim 2, Housei discloses each jaw assembly (first jaw assembly: 11a, 11b, fig. 1; and second jaw assembly: 12a, 12b, fig. 1) is configured to grasp the region (1a, fig. 1) of the paper bag (1, fig. 1) such that sliding of the region of the paper bag relative to the respective jaw assembly is prevented during the rotation operation (Page 6, ll. 17 – 20 describes the pair of folding claws 11a, 11b opening to the position that grips the opening 1a of the paper bag 1. The examiner interprets “grips” as “holding firmly” which would prevent sliding of the opening 1a of the paper bag 1 relative to the jaws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b).
Regarding claim 7, Housei discloses each of the first jaw assembly (11a, 11b, fig. 1) and the second jaw assembly (12a, 12b, fig. 1) is configured to adopt a fold release configuration in which the respective jaws (11a, 11b and 12a, 12b, fig. 1) are marginally more open as compared to the closed configuration such that, when the region (1a, fig. 1) of the paper bag (1, fig. 1) is positioned between the respective jaws, the region of the paper bag is able to readily slide relative to the respective jaw assembly (Page 15, ll. 5 – 15 describes that at the end of the folding operation, the folding claws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b are pulled out to the left and the right from the opening 1a of the paper bag 1. Thus, a fold release configuration is inferred else the folding claws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b would not be able to be pulled out from the opening 1a of the paper bag 1. See figure 6A).
Regarding claim 8, Housei discloses the first jaw assembly (11a, 11b, fig. 1) and the second jaw assembly (12a, 12b, fig. 1) are configured to adopt the fold release configuration after performing the rotation operation (Page 15, ll. 5 – 15 describes the folding claws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b pulled out to the left and the right from the opening 1a of the paper bag 1 after the rotation operation. See figure 6A), and move apart from one another after adopting the fold release configuration (Page 15, ll. 15 – 17 describes the folding claws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b returning to their initial position after the folding claws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b are pulled out from the opening 1a of the paper bag 1. See figure 6A).
PNG
media_image1.png
387
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: textbox (E)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (D)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (E)][AltContent: textbox (Housei (JP H0219223 A)
Annotated figures 5A and 5B)]
Regarding claim 9, Housei discloses the operational axis (Page 11, ll. 15 – 20 describes shaft 21 as the rotation axis of the folding claws 11a, 11b wherein this rotation axis coincides near the lower edges of the folding claws 11a, 11b) is positioned closer to the first lateral end (bottom end/edge of folding claw 11a, 11b or 12a, 12b as shown in figs. 1 and 5A) of each jaw (11a, 11b and 12a, 12b, fig. 1); and a first space (space D, annotated figs. 5A, 5B) created between the first lateral end of each jaw and the region of the paper bag during the rotation operation is greater than a second space (space E, annotated figs. 5A, 5B) created between the second lateral end (top end/edge of folding claw 11a, 11b or 12a, 12b as shown in figs. 1 and 5A) of each jaw and the region of the paper bag during the rotation operation.
Regarding claim 11, Housei discloses the first jaw assembly (11a, 11b, fig. 1) and the second jaw assembly (12a, 12b, fig. 1) are configured to move with respect to a level change axis (axis F, annotated figs. 5A, 5B) simultaneously, wherein the level change axis is perpendicular to the operational axis (axis B, annotated figs. 5A, 5B) (Figures 5A and 5B shows the jaw assemblies 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b rotating downward with respect to a level change axis F during the rotation operation).
Regarding claim 12, Housei discloses the first jaw assembly (11a, 11b, fig. 1) and the second jaw assembly (12a, 12b, fig. 1) are configured to move with respect to the level change axis (axis F, annotated figs. 5A, 5B) during the rotation operation (As shown in figures 5A, 5B).
Regarding claim 13, Housei discloses the first jaw assembly (11a, 11b, fig. 1) and the second jaw assembly (12a, 12b, fig. 1) are configured to simultaneously perform the rotation operation when each jaw assembly is in the closed configuration (As shown in figures 5A, 5B).
Regarding claim 16, Housei discloses the rotation operation comprises any rotation comprising a fractional number of turns (Figures 5A and 5B shows the rotation operation rotating 180° or one half of a turn).
Regarding claim 17, Housei discloses the first jaw assembly (11a, 11b, fig. 1) and the second jaw assemblies (12a, 12b, fig. 1) are configured such that the rotation of the rotation operation is controlled to a precision of one degree (Page 14, ll. 6 – 10 describes the rotation of the rotation operation of the jaw assemblies 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b being 180° wherein this indicates a preciseness being within 1° to ensure the rotation of the rotation operation of the jaw assemblies 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b is 180°).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 3 – 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Housei (JP H0219223 A) in view of Walker (GB 1,472,609 A).
Regarding claim 3, Housei discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Housei does not explicitly disclose the jaw assemblies are configured to move away from one another during the rotation operation.
However, Walker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the jaw assemblies (12, 13, fig. 1) are configured to move away from one another during the rotation operation (Page 1, ll. 64 – 67 describes clamp 13 is pulled in a direction away from clamp 12 to apply tension across the clamped end of the sack and ll. 81 – 90 describes that this tension is released after the rotation operation implying the tension is maintain during the rotation operation).
Walker is evidence that having the jaw assemblies configured to move away from one another during the rotation operation was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the jaw assemblies of Housei to be configured to move away from one another during the rotation operation, as taught by Walker. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the jaw assemblies of Housei to be configured to move away from one another during the rotation operation, as taught by Walker, in order to maintain tension across the across the clamped end of the paper bag so that adhesive can be applied and so that resulting fold in the region of the paper bag is does not have gaps or wrinkles.
Regarding claim 4, Housei, as modified by Walker, discloses the invention as recited in claim 3.
The modified Housei discloses the jaw assemblies (Housei – first jaw assembly: 10a, 10b, 11a, 11b, 13a, 14a, 14b, 15, 20a, fig. 1; and second jaw assembly: 12a, 12b, 20b, fig. 1 and pg. 6, ll. 7 – 10 describes the support structures for 12a, 12b in folding base 20b is the same as the support structures for 11a, 11b in folding base 20a thus the second jaw assembly would also have 10a, 10b, 13a, 14a, 14b, and 15) are configured to move away from one another in a continuous manner during the rotation operation (Page 1, ll. 64 – 67 and ll. 81 – 90 describes clamp 13 is pulled in a direction away from clamp 12 via piston and cylinder (pneumatic) assembly 14 and maintained during the rotation operation implying the clamp 13 is pulled in the direction away from clamp 12 in a continuous manner).
Regarding claim 10, Housei discloses the invention as recited in claim 9.
Housei does not explicitly disclose the first jaw assembly and the second jaw assembly are configured to move apart from one another after performing the rotation operation, while still in the closed configuration.
However, Walker, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the first jaw assembly (12, fig. 1) and the second jaw assembly (13, fig. 1) are configured to move apart from one another after performing the rotation operation, while still in the closed configuration (Page 1, ll. 64 – 67 describes clamp 13 is pulled in a direction away from clamp 12 to apply tension across the clamped end of the sack and ll. 81 – 90 describes that this tension is maintained for a short time after the rotation operation to allow an adhesive to set implying the clamp 13 is still being pulled in a direction away from clamp 12 to apply this tension after the rotation operation).
Walker is evidence that having the first jaw assembly and the second jaw assembly configured to move apart from one another after performing the rotation operation, while still in the closed configuration was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the jaw assemblies of Housei to be configured to move apart from one another after performing the rotation operation, while still in the closed configuration, as taught by Walker. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the jaw assemblies of Housei to be configured to move apart from one another after performing the rotation operation, while still in the closed configuration, as taught by Walker, in order to maintain tension across the across the clamped end of the paper bag so that an applied adhesive can have time to set after a rotation operation resulting.
Claims 5 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Housei (JP H0219223 A) in view of Cawley (US 3,625,338 A).
Regarding claim 5, Housei discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Housei does not explicitly disclose each of the jaw assemblies comprises a gripping arrangement configured to generate friction between the jaws of the respective jaw assembly and the region of the paper bag when the region of the paper bag is grasped by the respective jaw assembly.
However, Cawley, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, teaches a jaw assembly (64, 66, 80, fig. 3) comprising a gripping arrangement (72, fig. 3) configured to generate friction between the jaws (64, 66, fig. 3) of the jaw assembly and the region of paper bag (11, fig. 1) when the region of the paper bag is grasped by the jaw assembly (With the incorporation of the teachings of Cawley with the invention of Housei, each of the jaw assemblies of Housei, specifically, the folding claws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b would have an element 72 of rubber material located on the outermost end of a folding claw of each of the folding claws 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b (i.e., the outermost end of a folding claw 11a and 12a)).
Cawley is evidence that having the jaw assembly comprising the gripping arrangement configured to generate friction between the jaws of the jaw assembly and the region of paper bag when the region of the paper bag is grasped by the jaw assembly was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the jaw assemblies of Housei to comprise the gripping arrangement configured to generate friction between the jaws of the jaw assembly and the region of paper bag when the region of the paper bag is grasped by the jaw assembly, as taught by Cawley. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the jaw assemblies of Housei to comprise the gripping arrangement configured to generate friction between the jaws of the jaw assembly and the region of paper bag when the region of the paper bag is grasped by the jaw assembly, as taught by Cawley, in order to produce a tighter grip on the region of the paper bag.
Regarding claim 6, Housei, as modified by Cawley, discloses the invention of claim 5.
The modified Housei discloses the gripping arrangement (Cawley – 72, fig. 3) comprises a high friction member (Crawley – Col. 4, ll. 4 – 7 describes the element 72 being made of rubber) provided on each jaw (Housei – 11a, 11b and 12a, 12b, fig. 1), the high friction member configured to contact the region (Housei – 1a, fig. 1) of the paper bag (Housei – 1, fig. 1) when the respective jaw assembly grasps the region of the paper bag (see claim 5).
Claim 14 – 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Housei (JP H0219223 A) in view of Mossor (US 3,053,150 A)
Regarding claim 14, Housei discloses the invention as recited in claim 1.
Housei does not explicitly disclose each jaw is detachably connected to the respective jaw assembly.
However, Mossor, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a jaw (283, fogs. 24, 26) being detachably connected to a jaw assembly (201, 202, figs. 24, 26) (Col. 14, ll. 59 – 70 describes a jaw assembly 201, 202 configured to clamp a web of paper wherein jaw/anvil 283 is detachably mounted to adapt the jaw assembly for paper of different widths by placing different anvils of different widths. With the incorporation of the teachings of Mossor with the invention of Housei, each jaw of Housei would be detachably mounted to the respective jaw assembly).
Mossor is evidence that having the jaw being detachably connected to the jaw assembly was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the jaw assemblies of Housei to be detachably connected to the jaw assembly, as taught by Mossor. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the jaw assemblies of Housei to be detachably connected to the jaw assembly, as taught by Mossor, in order to adapt the jaw assembly for paper bags of different widths.
Regarding claim 15, Housei, as modified by Mossor, discloses the invention as recited in claim 14.
The modified Housei discloses each jaw assembly (11a, 11b, and 12a, 12b, fig. 1) comprises a jaw detachable connection mechanism (Mossor – Claim 14 incorporates the teaching of Mossor with the invention of Housei to provide each jaw of Housei to be detachably connected to the respective jaw assembly. Figure 26 shows screws as the jaw detachable connection mechanism to allow a user to manually detach and re-attach jaws onto the respective jaw assembly) configured to allow a user to manually detach and re-attach jaws onto the respective jaw assembly.
Regarding claim 15, Housei, as modified by Mossor, discloses the invention as recited in claim 14.
The modified Housei discloses a bag folding system for a packaging apparatus for preparing a paper bag to be closed, the bag folding system comprising:
the bag folding assembly according to claim 14 (see claim 14); and
a plurality of sets of jaws, wherein each set of jaws comprises jaws having a width different to the widths of the jaws of the other sets of jaws in the plurality of sets of jaws (Mossor – Col. 14, ll. 59 – 70 describes a jaw assembly 201, 202 configured to clamp a web of paper wherein jaw/anvil 283 is detachably mounted to adapt the jaw assembly for paper of different widths by placing different anvils of different widths. With the incorporation of the teachings of Mossor with the invention of Housei, each jaw of Housei would be detachably mounted to the respective jaw assembly to adapt the jaw assembly for paper bags of different widths and there would be a plurality of sets of jaws of Housei of different widths corresponding to these different widths of paper bags).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
28 May 2026
Prosecution Insights