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 .
Application Status
This action is responsive to the claims filed 1 April 2025.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are currently pending and being examined.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) 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.
Claim 14 recites “a data processing device comprising means for carrying out the method”, which is described in the specification as a computer on page 7 of the specification.
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 1, 3, 7-11, 13, and their dependents 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.
Claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 line 11 recites “its”, which is inherently unclear because it is unclear what element is being referred to. Examiner will interpret as “to displace the respective contact element.
Claim 3 line 2 recites “a corresponding folding arm”, is this an additional corresponding arm in addition to the “at least two” or the same? Examiner will interpret as “the corresponding folding arm”.
Claim 7 line 2 recites “four of the folding arms”, are these additional corresponding arms in addition to the “at least two” or the same? Examiner will interpret as “wherein the at least two folding arms comprises four folding arms”.
Claim 7 line 3 recites “a corresponding electric actuator”, which was previously claimed. Therefore, Examiner will interpret as “the corresponding electric actuator”.
Claim 7 line 6 recites “wrapping material” and “a corresponding edge”, which were previously claimed. Therefore, Examiner will interpret as “the wrapping material” and “the corresponding edge”.
Claim 8 line 2 recites “at least one operating parameter”, which was previously claimed. Therefore, Examiner will interpret as “the at least one operating parameter”.
Claim 9 line 3 recites “at least one operating parameter” and “a corresponding target displacement parameter”, which were previously claimed. Therefore, Examiner will interpret as “the at least one operating parameter” and “the corresponding target displacement parameter”.
Claim 10 lines 4 and 6 recites “at least one electric actuator” and “wrapping material”, which were previously claimed. Therefore, Examiner will interpret as “the at least one electric actuator” and “the wrapping material”.
Claim 11 lines 2-3 recite “a pulp bale”, which was previously claimed. Therefore, Examiner will interpret as “the pulp bale”.
Claim 13 lines 12 and 14 recite “one or more contact elements” and “actuator or folding arm”, which was previously claimed. Therefore, Examiner will interpret as “the one or more contact elements” and “the actuator or the folding arm”.
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(s) 1-7, 10, 13-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2019/0270532) in view of Erhart (US 5,557,154).
Johnson teaches:
Claims 1 and 13: A method and folding apparatus (at least 800-fig.16; fig.19-23; ¶[0099]) for folding ends of a wrapping material (1000-fig.16; ¶[0099]-[0104]) around a pulp bale (¶[0002],[0218]) when the pulp bale is positioned at a bale folding area (800-fig.16) in said folding apparatus with the wrapping material arranged around the circumference of the pulp bale and having a length greater than a length of the pulp bale such that said ends of the wrapping material extend beyond opposite ends of the pulp bale (see fig.18 showing the length of bag 1000 is greater than the length of the bale), said folding apparatus comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
449
782
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
473
695
media_image2.png
Greyscale
at least two folding arms (annotated figs.21-23), each comprising a contact element to an end thereof (annotated figs.21-23);
at least two electric actuators (annotated figs.21-23), each configured to co-act with one or more of the folding arms such as to displace its contact element for making contact with the wrapping material to fold said wrapping material around an edge of the pulp bale (¶[0127]-[0132]); and
a control unit arranged in electrical contact with said at least two electric actuators (¶[0104]), and configured to:
control said at least two actuators (¶[0104]).
Johnson does not expressly teach a control unit configured to determine, for an electric actuator, a position parameter correlated to a position of one contact element, and control the electric actuator.
However, Erhart teaches a control unit (506-fig.9) configured to determine, for an electric actuator (20-fig.1), a position parameter correlated to a position of one contact element (510-fig.9), and control the electric actuator (6:37-54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the apparatus of Johnson, by the sensor and electric actuators, as taught by Erhart, as well-known art recognized equivalent actuator with the added benefit of having a position sensor to ensure the actuator is operating as desired by the operator.
Johnson as modified by Erhart further teaches:
Claim 2: The folding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein one or more of the at least two electric actuators (Johnson: annotated figs.21-23: Erhart: 20-fig.1)) each comprises an electric motor (Erhart: 3:21-37), wherein said control unit (Johnson: ¶[0104]; Erhart: 20-fig.1) is configured to determine said position parameter using data obtained from one or more position sensors connected to folding arm (Erhart: 6:37-54, 9:16-36).
Claim 3: The folding apparatus according to claim 2, wherein each electric motor (Erhart: 3:21-37) is connected to a corresponding folding arm via a gearbox (Erhart: 3:46-4:32) for rotation of the folding arm (Erhart: annotated fig.23; ¶[0130]-[0131]).
Claim 4: The folding apparatus according to claim 2, wherein each electric motor forms part of a mechanical linear actuator connected to a corresponding folding arm (Erhart: 3:21-37; Johnson: annotated figs.21-23; ¶[0130]-[0131]).
Claim 5: The folding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
said control unit is configured to determine at least one target displacement parameter for one or more of the electric actuators (Erhart: 9:17-36),
said folding apparatus further comprises a Human Machine Interface, HMI, arranged in communication with said control unit, wherein said HMI is configured to receive user input comprising said at least one target displacement parameter, or user input indicative thereof, and to transmit to the control unit one or more signals indicative of said user input (Erhart: 6:8-54), and
said control unit is configured to determine said at least one target displacement parameter using said one or more signals (Erhart: 9:16-35).
Claim 6: The folding apparatus according to claim 5, wherein said at least one target displacement parameter comprises at least one of an end position (Erhart: 6:8-54).
Claim 7: The folding apparatus according to claim 1, comprising four of the folding arms arranged symmetrically around the bale folding area (Johnson: see annotated fig.22-23 showing four folding arms that are symmetric), wherein a corresponding electric actuator for each of the four folding arms is configured to co-act therewith such that the contact elements of the four folding arms are, independently of each other (Johnson: ¶[0104]), laterally displaceable into the bale folding area to make contact with wrapping material at a corresponding edge of the pulp bale (Johnson: see figs. 21-23 showing the folding arms laterally displaceable to fold ends of the wrapping material).
Claim 10: The folding apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, among the at least two folding arms, two lower folding arms are arranged symmetrically at opposing sides of the bale folding area (Johnson: see annotated fig.22 showing two symmetrical folding arms), wherein, for each of the two lower folding arms, at least one electric actuator is arranged configured to co-act therewith such that the contact element is vertically displaceable towards the bale folding area from below for making contact with wrapping material at a corresponding lower edge of the pulp bale (Johnson: 815,825-fig.21; ¶[0099]-[0104]).
Claim 14: A data processing device comprising means for carrying out the method of claim 13 (Erhart: 6:8-36).
Claim 16: A non-transient computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 13 (Erhart 6:8-36).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2019/0270532) in view of Erhart (US 5,557,154), further in view of Sabel (US 4,674,261).
Johnson as modified by Erhart further teaches:
Claim 11: The folding apparatus according to claim 1.
Johnson as modified by Erhart does not expressly teach a rotation device configured to engage with a pulp bale when positioned at said bale folding area to rotate said pulp bale, said rotation device being electrically controlled by said control unit.
However, Sabel teaches a rotation device (22-fig.1) configured to engage with a pulp bale when positioned at said bale folding area to rotate said pulp bale, said rotation device being electrically controlled by said control unit (6:55-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Johnson and Erhart, by adding a rotation device, as taught by Sabel, to reorient the bale into the proper position before folding the ends, thus preventing wrinkles or improper folding to take place.
Claim 12: The folding apparatus according to claim 10, further comprising:
said control unit, wherein:
for each of the two lower folding arms at least one electric actuator is configured to co-act therewith such that the contact element is laterally displaceable (Johnson: see figs. 21-23 showing the folding arms laterally displaceable to fold ends of the wrapping material), and
the control unit is configured to, control the electric actuators co-acting with the two folding arms to (Johnson: ¶[0104]):
raise the contact elements of the two folding arms to a vertical level being above the bale folding area (Johnson: 815,825-fig.21; ¶[0099]-[0104]), and
thereafter, move the contact elements of the two folding arms (Johnson: annotated fig.22) towards each other for pushing opposite sides of the pulp bale (Johnson: figs.21-22; ¶[0.101]-[0103]).
Johnson as modified by Erhart does not expressly teach a rotation device configured to engage with a pulp bale when positioned at said bale folding area to rotate said pulp bale, said rotation device being electrically controlled by said control unit.
However, Sabel teaches a rotation device (22-fig.1) configured to engage with a pulp bale when positioned at said bale folding area to rotate said pulp bale, said rotation device being electrically controlled by said control unit (6:55-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Johnson and Erhart, by adding a rotation device, as taught by Sabel, to reorient the bale into the proper position before folding the ends, thus preventing wrinkles or improper folding to take place.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATIE L GERTH whose telephone number is (303)297-4602. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am-4pm (CT).
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.
/KATIE L GERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights