DETAILED ACTION
This non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application filed on 5/5/2025. An action on the merits follows.
Claims 1-9 are pending in the application.
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 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 5-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein as the conveyor moves particulate matter, the actuator is adapted to pulse toward and away from the conveyor” is vague and unclear because it is unclear if the particulate matter is moved towards and away from the conveyor or if the actuator moves toward and away from the conveyor. Based on the description in the specification in para 0048 of PGPub, Examiner assumes the particulate matter is moved towards and away from the conveyor.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a weigh station positioned downstream from the feeder gate, and wherein the feeder gate is adapted to move relative to the conveyor based on feedback from a sensor associated with the weigh station and the speed of the conveyor is varied based on feedback from a sensor associated with the weigh station” is vague and unclear because it is unclear if the two sensor limitations are the same or different. In order to prosecute the application, Examiner assumes the two sensors are one and the same.
Claims 6-8 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 (on which claim 6 depends) already recites “wherein the feeder gate is connected to the cooling circuit”. Therefore, claim 6 does not further limit claim 5 making it an improper dependent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by USPGP# 2011004794 of Metzger (henceforth Metger).
Regarding claim 1, Metzger teaches
A packaging system (12) comprising:
a hopper (22, 24d);
a conveyor (24f) positioned below the hopper;
a feeder (26f, 26h) disposed along the conveyor, the feeder comprising a pair of plates (the sidewalls of 26f and 26h as shown in fig. 4) positioned at an end of the conveyor opposite the hopper such that each plate is positioned along opposite sides of the conveyor (right and left side of conveyor 24f in fig. 4), and
a cooling circuit (20) connected to the hopper the conveyor and the feeder (at least indirectly);
wherein the cooling circuit is adapted to cool a portion of the hopper, conveyor, and feeder as the conveyor moves (both the ice making unit 20 and the ice, itself, produced by the ice maker 20, will inherently provide some amount of cooling to the hopper, conveyor and feeder).
Regarding claim 2, as shown in claim 1, Metzger teaches
wherein the hopper is comprised of two opposing sidewalls (22c, 22d) that are spaced apart such that a cross-section of the hopper exhibits an hourglass shape (see fig. 6, the sloped walls form the shape of the top of the hourglass).
Regarding claim 3, as shown in claim 1, Metzger teaches
wherein the hopper includes a gate (24d) positioned proximately to the conveyor such that the gate restricts the flow of particulate matter exiting the hopper on the conveyor (para 0034 and 0037).
Regarding claim 4, as shown in claim 1, Metzger teaches
wherein the feeder further includes a feeder gate (26h) positioned between the pair plates and at the end of the conveyor; wherein the feeder gate is adapted to move toward (fig. 4) and away (fig. 15) from the end of the conveyor.
Regarding claim 5, as shown in claim 4, Metzger teaches
wherein the feeder gate is connected to the cooling circuit (both the ice making unit 20 and the ice, itself, produced by the ice maker 20, will inherently provide some amount of cooling to the feeder gate and the actuator 26i) and to an actuator (26i) and wherein as the conveyor moves particulate matter (ice and ice particles), the actuator is adapted to pulse toward and away from the conveyor (see figs. 4 and 15 and para 0035 and 0049).
Regarding claim 6, as shown in claim 5, Metzger teaches
wherein the feeder gate is connected to the cooling circuit (both the ice making unit 20 and the ice, itself, produced by the ice maker 20, will inherently provide some amount of cooling to the feeder gate).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by USPGP# 20170030467 of Versteeg et al. (henceforth Versteeg).
Regarding claim 1, Versteeg teaches
A packaging system (1000) comprising:
a hopper (0001, 0002);
a conveyor (0216, 0218) positioned below the hopper;
a feeder (0204, 0206, 400 and plates as annotated in fig. 6) disposed along the conveyor, the feeder comprising a pair of plates (the sidewalls of housing of 0204, 0206 as shown in fig. annotated 6) positioned at an end of the conveyor opposite the hopper such that each plate is positioned along opposite sides of the conveyor (right and left side of conveyor and front and back of conveyor as shown in fig. 6), and
a cooling circuit (0044, 0212, 0214) connected to the hopper the conveyor and the feeder (at least indirectly);
wherein the cooling circuit is adapted to cool a portion of the hopper, conveyor, and feeder as the conveyor moves (the cooling circuit 0044, 0212, 0214 directly and indirectly cools portions of the hopper, conveyor, and feeder, see para 0072 and 0085).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and (a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Versteeg.
Regarding claim 9, as shown in claim 1, Versteeg teaches
wherein the cooling circuit comprises a plurality of plates (0044a-d) having fluid channels (0040, 0042, para 0072) to circulate fluid coolant (“refrigerant”, para 0045) through the plates, and a plurality of hoses (see annotated and zoomed fig. 11 ) connecting the plurality of plates, and wherein the coolant is maintained within a range of 35 degrees Fahrenheit and 55 degrees Fahrenheit (para 0076).
Should the applicant contend that Versteeg does not teach maintaining the coolant between a range of 35 degrees Fahrenheit and 55 degrees Fahrenheit It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to maintain the coolant temperature between the range of 35 degrees Fahrenheit and 55 degrees Fahrenheit., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, in order to prevent freezing, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
582
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger in view of USPGP# 20100313524 of Pape et al. (henceforth Pape).
Regarding claim 7, as shown in claim 5, Metzger does not teach
a weigh station positioned downstream from the feeder gate, and wherein the feeder gate is adapted to move relative to the conveyor based on feedback from a sensor associated with the weigh station.
Pape teaches
A similar packaging system (10) comprising:
a hopper (36);
a conveyor (26) positioned below the hopper (fig. 5);
a feeder (41) disposed along the conveyor, the feeder comprising a pair of plates (the sidewalls of 41 as shown in fig. 5) positioned at an end of the conveyor opposite the hopper such that each plate is positioned along opposite sides of the conveyor (right and left side of conveyor 26 in fig. 5), and
a cooling circuit (12) connected to the hopper the conveyor and the feeder (at least indirectly);
wherein the cooling circuit is adapted to cool a portion of the hopper, conveyor, and feeder as the conveyor moves (both the ice making unit 12 and the ice, itself, produced by the ice maker 12, will inherently provide some amount of cooling to the hopper, conveyor and feeder);
a weigh station (30) positioned downstream from the feeder, and wherein the feeder flows a particulate matter (ice) based on feedback from a sensor (“strain gauge scale or one or more load cells ”, para 0073) associated with the weigh station.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the packaging system of Metzger with the addition of a weigh station as taught by Pape in order to provide the predictable result of consistent and reliable dispensing of the particulate matter (ice) into the packaging (Pape: para 0006, 0013, 0063).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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. 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.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record, in combination with other limitations of the claim, is silent on “speed of the conveyor is varied based on feedback from a sensor associated with the weigh station”. USPGP# 2011004794 of Metzger teaches all of the limitation of claim 8 except for a weight station. USPGP# 20100313524 of Pape teaches a weight station. However, the combination of Metzger and Pape does not teach or suggest controlling the speed of the conveyor based on a feedback of a weigh station sensor. Therefore, the prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to read on the present claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example:
Versteeg (alone and/or in combination) can also be used to reject other claims.
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