DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3 and 12 have been amended. Claims 21-22 are new. Claim 6 has been cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending with claims 7-11 withdrawn from further consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments overcome the claim objection set forth in the office action of 10/1/2025. Therefore, the claim objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 recites "a connecting means" in claim 2, in addition to the previous recited plurality of connecting means from claim 1. The claim should be amended to specific whether this recitation is included in the previously recited plurality of connecting means, or are a distinct structure
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 is dependent on claim 6, which is a cancelled claim. Claims 13-19 and 21 depend from claim 12, and so inherit the same issue. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20 is dependent on claim 6, which is a cancelled claim. Appropriate correction is required. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the claim being dependent on claim 1.
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.
The recitation "means of a plurality of connecting means" in claim 1 is interpreted as invoking 112(f). The corresponding structure imparted from the specification comprises a screw and welding stud (pages 19, 24), or equivalent structure.
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 1-5 and 12-22 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 recites the limitation "one or more packaging recesses" in line 6. The recitation is indefinite. Are the gaps the same as the packaging recesses? Or is the gap separate from the packaging recesses? Also, it is unclear how merely compressed air alone flowing through a gap can form a material web. For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting the gap and the packaging recesses are the same.
The recitation "the covering element in claim 2 lacks antecedent basis.
The recitation "the plurality of heating modules" in claim 17 lacks antecedent basis.
All claims depending (or interpreted to be depending) therefrom are rejected for the same reason(s).
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) 1-5, 12 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donges (U.S. PGPUB 2006/0096251), hereinafter DONGES, in view of Mader (EP 2905232 A1, original and translation provided), hereinafter MADER.
Regarding claim 1, DONGES teaches: A sealing or moulding tool of a packaging machine (DONGES teaches a sealing tool of a packaging machine [Abstract; 0011].) having a heating element with a heating plate provided on a carrier (DONGES teaches a heating element with a heating plate (5) provided on a carrier (6) [0054; Fig. 3].) and covered with a cover element (DONGES teaches the heating plate has a cover element (14) [Fig. 3; 0054]), wherein the cover element is connected to the carrier by means of a plurality of connecting means (DONGES teaches the cover element (14) is connected to the carrier (6) by connecting means [Fig. 3; 0054].), wherein the heating plate is constructed from a plurality of modules (DONGES teaches the a heating plate is constructed from a plurality of modules [0055; Fig. 4].) and . . . .
DONGES is silent as to: wherein the heating plate is constructed from a plurality of modules and a gap is defined between the modules and compressed air flows through the gap between the plurality of modules to form a material web into one or more packaging recesses. In the same field of endeavor, sealing, MADER teaches: wherein the heating plate is constructed from a plurality of modules (MADER teaches the heating plate is constructed from a plurality of modules [Figs. 2-3; 0025].) and a gap is defined between the modules and compressed air flows through the gap between the plurality of modules to form a material web into one or more packaging recesses (MADER teaches a gap (13) are in the seal tool to create a vacuum [0026; Fig. 4]. The limitation “to form a material web into one or more packaging recesses” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It is the examiner's position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that MADER discloses gaps as presently claimed, it is clear that the gaps of MADER would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. to form a material web into one or more packaging recesses, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify DONGES, by having a plurality of modules and a gap between the modules, as suggested by MADER, in order to generate a high holding torque [0006].
Regarding claim 2, DONGES teaches: wherein a connecting means is provided on the covering element (DONGES teaches the cover element (14) has connecting means [Fig. 3; 0054]), which at least partially protrudes through a thermal insulation and/or the carrier (DONGES teaches the connecting means at least partially protrude through the carrier (6), which is insulating [Fig. 3; 0054].).
Regarding claim 3, DONGES teaches: wherein packaging recesses or packaging of different cross-section and/or sealing seams of different shape are produced and which has the heating plate (DONGES teaches packaging a plurality of packages [Fig. 4; 0055]. DONGES teaches a plurality of different packages in any desired formats may thereby be processed simultaneously [0033]), wherein the heating plate has a conducting path pattern having a plurality of L-shaped conducting paths per recess/packaging to be produced (DONGES teaches the heating plate can have a conducting path pattern [0050; Fig. 2].). DONGES does not explicitly teach the channels are L-shaped; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the shape of the channels to be L-shaped, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. See In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23 (“It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art.”).
Regarding claim 4, DONGES teaches: wherein several conductive paths can be controlled individually and/or in groups (DONGES teaches providing the heating plate with several conductive paths (9, 10) [Fig. 2; 0050]. DONGES teaches the temperature distribution in the tool is very variable and may be precisely adjusted [0038]. DONGES teaches each mould may be individually and specifically controlled [0054].).
Regarding claim 5, DONGES teaches: wherein the plurality of modules are identical (DONGES shows the plurality of modules are identical [Fig. 4].).
Regarding claim 12, MADER further teaches: wherein the gap extends around the plurality of modules (MADER teaches the gap (13) extends around the plurality of modules [Figs. 2-4].).
Regarding claim 20, DONGES teaches: wherein each of the plurality of modules are individually electrically connected and individually controllable/adjustable (DONGES teaches providing the heating plate with several conductive paths (9, 10) [Fig. 2; 0050]. DONGES teaches the temperature distribution in the tool is very variable and may be precisely adjusted [0038]. DONGES teaches each mould may be individually and specifically controlled [0054].).
Regarding claim 21, MADER further teaches: wherein the compressed air flows through the gap between the plurality of modules from above to form the material web into the one or more packaging recesses (MADER teaches the air used in the vacuum would come from above the tool where the air line (11) is to flow through the gap (13) [Fig. 5; 0027].).
Regarding claim 22, MADER further teaches: wherein the compressed air flows through the gap between the plurality of modules from above to form the material web into the one or more packaging recesses (MADER teaches the air used in the vacuum would come from above the tool where the air line (11) is to flow through the gap (13) [Fig. 5; 0027].).
Claim(s) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donges (U.S. PGPUB 2006/0096251), hereinafter DONGES, and Mader (EP 2905232 A1, original and translation provided), hereinafter MADER, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mochizuki (U.S. 9,988,169), hereinafter MOCHIZUKI.
Regarding claim 13, DONGES and MADER teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including: wherein the plurality of modules are arranged next to each other and in one plane (DONGES teaches a plurality of molds are arranged next to each other and in one plane [Fig. 4].), but are silent as to: wherein a transverse extension of the plurality of modules in a transverse direction to a direction of travel of a material web that is sealed or moulded with the sealing or moulding tool is greater than a useful width of the material web, and wherein the transverse extension of the plurality of modules is greater than a distance between opposing grippers that grip or clamp the material web. In the same field of endeavor, molding, MOCHIZUKI teaches the transverse extension (width) of the modules of material web (all of 2) is greater than the used material of the web (where the border in 2 is) [Fig. 2]. MOCHIZUKI teaches the transverse extension (edges of 4) is greater than a distance between opposing grippers that grip or clamp the material web [Fig. 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify DONGES and MADER, by having a large transverse extensions, as suggested by MOCHIZUKI, in order to prevent drooping of the film [Col. 8, lines 13-15].
Regarding claim 14, MOCHIZUKI further teaches: wherein the heating element is configured to at least partially overhang the grippers in the transverse direction of the travel of the material web (MOCHIZUKI shows the grippers at least partially overhang the grippers [Fig. 11].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify DONGES and MADER, by having the grippers overhang, as suggested by MOCHIZUKI, in order to perform the sealing step [Col. 2, lines 30-32].
Regarding claim 15, DONGES teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In regards to the clause “wherein no heating energy is released in an area of the heating element that at least partially overhangs the grippers” is an intended use of the claimed apparatus. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself, In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. The structure of DONGES, MADER and MOCHIZUKI are capable of performing the intended use.
Regarding claim 16, MOCHIZUKI further teaches: wherein the transverse extension of the plurality of modules is greater than or equal to a forward pull of the material web (MOCHIZUKI shows the transverse extension is greater than or equal to a forward pull of the web [Fig. 10]).
Regarding claim 17, DONGES teaches: wherein the heating element comprises a cover element (DONGES teaches the heating element comprise a cover element (14) [Figs. 3-4; 0054-0055), a carrier plate (carrier plate (6) [Figs. 3-4]), and thermal insulation between the cover element and the carrier plate (DONGES teaches the carrier (6) is thermally insulated [0028]. DONGES is silent as to carrier being a separate thermally insulated layer; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the carrier and thermal insulation separate, since it has been held that constructing formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in art. One would have been motivated to make the elements separable for the purpose of the heating power be ideally emitted [DONGES: 0029].), the plurality of heating modules are located between the thermal insulation and the cover element (DONGES teaches the plurality of heating modules are located between the thermal insulation and the cover [0054].).
Regarding claim 18, DONGES teaches: wherein the heating element comprises a connecting device that extends at least partially through the carrier plate and with which the cover element is connected to the carrier plate (DONGES teaches the heating element comprise a cover element (14) that is connected to the carrier plate (6) with a connecting device (13) [0054].), wherein the connecting device is located on a side of the cover element facing away from the material web and spaced a distance from an edge area of the material web and is configured to prevent the cover element from moving away from the heating plate during heating and/or sealing of the material web (DONGES teaches the connecting device (13) is located on a side of the cover element (14) and facing away from the material web and is spaced a distance from an edge [Fig. 3; 0054]. DONGES teaches the connecting element (13) is configured to clamp all the components together [0054].).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donges (U.S. PGPUB 2006/0096251), hereinafter DONGES, Mader (EP 2905232 A1, original and translation provided), hereinafter MADER, and Mochizuki (U.S. 9,988,169), hereinafter MOCHIZUKI, as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lezier et al. (U.S. 4,192,638), hereinafter LEZIER.
Regarding claim 19, DONGES, MADER and MOCHIZUKI teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the thermal insulation comprises one or more gas channels that are connected to one or more bores in the cover element, wherein a gas is sucked in or blown out through the one or more gas channels and the one or more bores, and wherein the heating element comprises one or more gas collection channels provided in the carrier plate to direct a gas toward or away from the one or more gas channels. In the same field of endeavor, molding, LEZIER teaches thermal insulating frames (31, 32) [Col. 2, lines 64-68 – Col. 3, lines 1-18; Fig. 2]. LEZIER teaches gas channels are in the thermal insulation frames and connected to inlets and outlets and gas is sucked and blown out [Figs. 2-3; Col. 3,lines 19-28]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify DONGES, MADER and MOCHIZUKI, by having a thermal insulation component with gas channels to exchange gas in and out, as suggested by LEZIER, in order for good heat transfer [Col. 1, lines 46-49].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748