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 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 6-9 and 11 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 6 recites the limitation "the shaping device" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-9 and 11 are dependent on a rejected base claim and have the same indefinite subject matter.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reil (US Patent 4,564,139) in view of Dersch et al. (DE 10118389 A1) hereinafter referred to as Dersch in view of Baltes (US Patent 9,776,753 B2) alternatively in further view of Mistarz (US Patent 3,486,423).
Regarding claim 1, Reil discloses a packaging machine (fig. 8), configured to package a bulk product (col. 1 lines 6-9, 37-38), comprising:
a carrier (40, 44),
at least one assembly of receiving boxes (58), the receiving boxes of said assembly being connected (col. 16 lines 23-30) to the carrier and moved successively therefrom in a feed direction (59; col. 16 lines 23-30; col. 18 lines 33-68) along a preset operating path,
at least one forming apparatus (53, 32, 55 and 30; can also include 56) positioned along the operating path (fig. 8) and configured to form open packets (1; figs. 4, 9 and 12) of product and release them (via 32 and 55) into the receiving boxes (col. 16 line 31 – col. 17 line 31; col. 18 lines 33-54), and
at least one sealing apparatus (57; 90, 91, 92, 93), positioned along the operating path downstream (fig. 8) of the forming apparatus with respect to a travel direction (59) along a feed direction imposed on the packets by the carrier, which is adapted to seal (col. 17 lines 15-23; col. 18 line 55 – col. 19 line 2) the packets brought by the receiving boxes,
wherein said assembly of receiving boxes (58) overall provides a plurality of receiving seats (58) each of which is individually adapted to receive a respective packet of product.
Reil discloses at least one sealing apparatus which is adapted to seal the packets brought by the receiving boxes, but fails to disclose the at least one sealing apparatus is adapted to vacuum-seal the packets.
However, Dersch teaches at least one sealing apparatus (7) which is adapted to vacuum-seal (Abstract; via 5) the packets (2).
Given the teachings of Dersch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the at least one sealing apparatus of Reil to be adapted to vacuum-seal the packets. Removing excess air often helps to preserve products in a container and also helps to reduce the size of the final package so as to make it easier for packaging, storage and transport.
Reil discloses wherein said assembly of receiving boxes overall provides a plurality of receiving seats each of which is individually adapted to receive a respective packet of product, but fails to disclose at least one plurality of first seats placed one after the other along the feed direction and a plurality of second seats placed one after the other along the feed direction, each first seat being flanked by a respective second seat with respect to a flanking direction orthogonal to the feed direction.
However, Baltes teaches a packaging machine (figs. 1-6) comprising: a carrier (32), wherein said assembly of receiving boxes (51, 51’; col. 6 lines 47-61) overall provides a plurality of receiving seats (52, 52’, 52”; col. 6 lines 47-61) each of which is individually adapted to receive a respective packet of product (57; fig. 1C), of which at least one plurality of first seats placed one after the other along the feed direction and a plurality of second seats placed one after the other along the feed direction, each first seat being flanked by a respective second seat with respect to a flanking direction orthogonal to the feed direction (55; figs. 1A, 1B, 1C).
Given the teachings of Baltes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Reil to have the plurality of first and second seats with the assembly of receiving boxes as in Baltes. Having additional locations for packages to be placed within the assembly of boxes and along the conveyor would allow for the conveyor to run at the same speed and convey twice the amount of packages and thus improve the efficiency of the packaging machine.
The Office deems the cited combination above to teach all the claimed limitations. Wherein the Applicant may argue that the cited combination of references would not be suitable for the intended function as a result of Reil only utilizing a single line of packets, the Office further points to Baltes and Mistarz.
Baltes further teaches that at least one forming apparatus (5, col. 6 lines 38-41; Which is deemed comparable to Reil - 53, 32, 55 and 30) can comprise two wheels (i.e. one wheel for each line of packets). Mistarz further teaches at least one forming apparatus (fig. 4; 43, 43’, 42, 47, 48; col. 3 lines 58-74) and at least one sealing apparatus (190; fig. 3) each of which service two parallel lines (39, 39’; figs. 2-3) of packets.
Given the further teachings of Baltes and Mistarz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the packaging machine of Reil so as to accommodate the two lines of packets resulting from at least one plurality of first seats placed one after the other along the feed direction and a plurality of second seats placed one after the other along the feed direction, each first seat being flanked by a respective second seat with respect to a flanking direction orthogonal to the feed direction. Doing so would simply involve providing a duplication of existing forming and sealing elements. This would improve the efficiency of the device by allowing it to produce complete packages at twice the normal rate.
Regarding claim 2, Reil as modified by Baltes discloses wherein each receiving box (Reil – 58; Baltes - 51, 51’, figs. 1A-C) provides at least one of said first seats and at least one of said second seats (Baltes - 52, 52’, 52”, figs. 1A-C).
Regarding claim 3, Reil as modified by Dersch and Mistarz discloses wherein the sealing apparatus (Reil - 57; 90, 91, 92, 93; Baltes – 7; Mistarz - 190) comprises: a casing (Reil – 57; Dersch – 4; Mistarz - 190) comprising two parts (Reil – 90; Dersch - 15) provided with a relative movement between an open position (Dersch – claim 9), in which they are mutually spaced, and a closed position, in which they are mutually brought into contact to define a hermetically closed sealing chamber adapted to accommodate one or more receiving boxes simultaneously (Dersch – fig. 1; Mistarz – figs. 2-3), means for generating a vacuum (Dersch - 5) connected to the casing to vacuum-seal the sealing chamber, and a sealing device arranged inside the sealing chamber to seal the packets brought by said receiving boxes (Dersch – fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Reil as modified by Mistarz discloses wherein the forming apparatus (Reil - 53, 32, 55 and 30; can also include 56; Mistarz - fig. 4; 43, 43’, 42, 47, 48; can also include 123; col. 3 lines 58-74) comprises a shaping device (Reil - 54, 61) configured to make a tubular shape starting from a belt, notch the tubular shape, making a plurality of tubular pieces, seal (Reil - @ 9a via 31; Mistarz - 48) a lower end of each tubular piece so as to define one of said packets with a closed lower end (Reil - col. 15 lines 15-39; Mistarz – col. 5 lines 11-59) and with an open upper end, fill (Reil - 56; Mistarz - 123) the packet with a dosed amount of product by inserting the product through the open upper end.
Regarding claim 6, Reil as modified by Baltes discloses wherein the forming apparatus (Reil - 53, 32, 55 and 30; can also include 56) comprises a distributor device (Baltes - 15) arranged above the carrier (Reil – 40, 44; Baltes - 32) and configured to receive the packets made by the shaping device (Reil - 54, 61; Baltes – same direction as #3), said distributor device being movable (Baltes - 59; fig. 2) along the feed direction and selectively positionable in a plurality of different positions (Baltes – via 59; figs. 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a and 6a), each of which corresponding to a vertical alignment between a packet formed by the shaping device and a respective seat for accommodating a plurality of accommodating seats for the packets provided by the distributor device.
Given the teachings of Baltes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to further include the distributor device of Baltes with the previous combination of Reil as modified by Baltes. Doing so would allow for the packets to be precisely placed where they needed to go during operation of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Reil as modified by Baltes discloses wherein the distributor device (Baltes - 15) comprises a plurality of channels (Baltes - channels 48, 34, 34’ for 35, 36, 35’, 36’ seen in fig. 1C) arranged in succession one after the other along the feed direction, each of which provides an accommodating seat and a bottom associated with said channels and movable between a holding position (fig. 4a) in which it closes a lower end of said channels so as to retain packets within the accommodating seats and a rest position (fig. 5a) in which it frees said lower ends of said channels.
wherein the forming apparatus comprises two distinct shaping devices, said shaping devices being arranged one after the other along the operating path and furthermore offset with respect to the flanking direction and each adapted to be superimposed in plan on the first receiving seats or the second receiving seats, respectively.
Regarding claim 10, Reil as modified by Baltes and Mistarz discloses wherein the forming apparatus (Baltes - 5, col. 6 lines 38-41; Which is deemed comparable to Reil - 53, 32, 55 and 30; Mistarz – fig. 4) comprises two distinct shaping devices (Baltes - 5, col. 6 lines 38-41; Mistarz – 43, 43’), said shaping devices being arranged one after the other along the operating path and furthermore offset with respect to the flanking direction and each adapted to be superimposed in plan on the first receiving seats or the second receiving seats, respectively (Baltes – figs. 1-6; Mistarz – figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, Reil as modified by Baltes and Mistarz discloses comprising two separate (Baltes - 5, col. 6 lines 38-41; Mistarz – 43, 43’) forming apparatuses (Baltes - 5, col. 6 lines 38-41; Which is deemed comparable to Reil - 53, 32, 55 and 30; Mistarz – fig. 4) arranged along the operating path, each of which is adapted to send the packets to the first seats and second seats of a respective assembly of receiving boxes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected 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.
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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art not relied upon generally pertains to package making production lines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights