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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20216431.5, filed on 12/22/2020.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 3-5, 12, and 17-19 are amended. Claims 7-8, 10-11, 14-15 are as previously presented. Claims 20-21 are newly added. Claims 1-2, 6, 9, 13, and 16 are cancelled. Therefore, claims 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-15, and 17-21 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 08, 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previously set-forth rejection of claims 7-8, 16, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-9, filed on 08/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-19 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendment regarding the metallized film including a metal layer having the thickness as claimed and newly found prior art regarding this feature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the primary reference Nilsson’s layer includes dispersed magnetic particles and this is being replaced with a metal vapor deposition coating layer from the secondary reference Toft and such a replacement would be unsuitable for use within Nilsson of induction sealing. It is the Examiner’s position that Toft’s system also allows for induction sealing to occur (Page 1, lines 6-7, “a non-foil packaging laminate for induction heat sealing into packages for liquid food or beverage.”) and the metal vapor deposition coating can function within an induction heat sealing method as it is shown in Toft to work. Toft also discloses advantages to using a coating for the metallized layer in acting as a barrier to prevent water vapor from entering. As a result, the Examiner finds the applicant’s argument regarding the metal layer in Toft being unapplicable to Nilsson as being unpersuasive.
Further, it is the Examiner’s position that Toft also satisfies the applicant’s limitations in their independent claims as Toft includes a metallized film that includes the packaging material or the thermoplastic polymer layer which is connected to a metal layer through vapor deposition. Therefore, the metal layer does not need to replace the magnetized layer within Nilsson and could instead be used with the system from Toft itself and still be suitable for induction heating sealing.
Additional prior art has found to further support the Toft reference.
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.
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.
Claims 3-5, 8, 11-12, 14-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (WO 2006065211 A1, hereinafter Nilsson) in view of Toft et al. (WO 2011003565 A2, hereinafter Toft) and Svard et al. (EP 3431267 A1, hereinafter Svard).
Regarding claim 5, Nilsson discloses an induction heating sealing system (Page 6, lines 9-11, “sealing jaw 14 is an inductor similar to the ones used for induction sealing (where the laminate comprises aluminum foil that generate heat).”), comprising
a packaging material having at least one layer of metallized film (Page 1, lines 26-27, “The magnetizable particles are dispersed in any of the layers of the packaging material laminate, preferably in one of the plastic layers.”), and
an induction heating sealing device comprising an AC power source and an inductor coil connected to the AC power source (Page 6, lines 9-12, “sealing jaw 14 is an inductor similar to the ones used for induction sealing (where the laminate comprises aluminum foil that generate heat). The inductor 14 is here coupled to an alternating current supply 18.”, where an inductor is known in the prior art to be an insulated wire wound into a coil, https://en.wikipiedia.org/wiki/Inductor) and configured to induce eddy currents in the metallized film for inductive heating of the packaging material (Claim 1, “providing an alternating magnetic field to the laminates ("10, 12) in a sealing zone, thereby generating magnetic hysteresis losses in the laminate (10) comprising the magnetizable particles, which losses create heat substantially melting the sealable layer (34) in the sealing zone”, where eddy currents are induced within the laminates that have magnetizable particles through the AC inductor, Page 7, lines 37-39, “An alternating current is thereafter supplied to the conductor 24 of the sealing jaw 14. The current generates a magnetic field in the sealing zone of the laminates 10, 12.”, where the sealing jaw is an inductor),
wherein the AC power source is configured to generate a variable current or voltage signal of a frequency in the range of 1 MHz to 30 MHz (Page 6, lines 11-15, “The inductor 14 is here coupled to an alternating current supply 18…The frequency is preferably in the MHz range, and a preferred frequency interval is 0,5-5 MHz. A most preferred interval is 1-4 MHz.”).
Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein the metallized film comprises a metal layer having a thickness below 0.5 μm.
However, Toft discloses, in the similar field of induction heating sealing devices (Page 1, lines 6-7, “a non-foil packaging laminate for induction heat sealing into packages for liquid food or beverage.”), where the metallized film can use a metal layer that has a thickness below 0.5 μm (Page 12, lines 12-13, “An aluminium-based thin vapour deposited layer preferably has a thickness of from 5 to 100 nm, more preferably from 5-50 nm,”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified metallized particles in the layer from Nilsson to be a metal layer having the thickness values as taught by Toft.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to provide a complete barrier against water vapor from entering into inner layers of the laminate, as stated by Toft, Page 12, lines 23-26, “Generally, thin coatings of metal or a mixture of metal and metal oxide provide barrier properties against water vapour and are used also when the desired function is to prevent water vapour from migrating into and through the multilayer film or packaging laminate.”, and where the thickness can be lower than that used within a conventional aluminum foil, as stated by Toft, Page 12, lines 12-15, “An aluminium-based thin vapour deposited layer preferably has a thickness of from 5 to 100 nm, more preferably from 5-50 nm, which corresponds to less than 1 % of the aluminium metal material present in an aluminium foil of conventional thickness, i.e. 6,3 μm.”.
Further, Svard discloses, in the similar field of induction heating sealing (Abstract, “An induction sealing device”), where a metal layer is used with a film to create a metallized film (Abstract, “an inductor coil (101) configured to induce an alternating current in a metal foil of the packaging material for inductive heating thereof”), where the metal layer has a thickness in the micron level (Para. 0002, “laminate containing the aluminium Foil”, where aluminum foil exists that is in the nanometer range, https://www.americanelements.com/ultra-thin-aluminum-nanoscale-foil-7429-90-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the layer from Nilsson to be a metal layer combined with the packaging material as taught by Svard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use another type of packaging structure to have induction heating sealing occur, as stated by Svard, Para. 0002, “One example of such a laminated material is a carrier layer of paper, aluminium foil and thermoplastic coatings along the inner and outer surfaces of the laminate. The technique of induction welding is based on the fact that the magnetic field around a conductor, generated by an alternating current is capable of inducing a current in an adjoining electrically conducting material, which depending on the resistance of the material, warms up the material.”.
Regarding claim 3, modified Nilsson teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above, discloses wherein the inductor coil is configured to provide a longitudinal sealing to a tube-shaped web of packaging material (Page 10, lines 5-11, “For instance, a rectangular blank or a web is to be formed into a sleeve or a tube and sealed along two longitudinal edges in an overlapping joint area 38…The areas 38 will later create an overlap which will be sealed.”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nilsson teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above.
Modified Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein the inductor coil is configured to provide a transverse sealing to a tube-shaped web of packaging material.
However, Toft discloses, in the similar field of induction heating sealing devices (Page 1, lines 6-7, “a non-foil packaging laminate for induction heat sealing into packages for liquid food or beverage.”), where inductors create seals within packaging material (Page 15, lines 17-18, “strong, durable seals, from induction heat sealing.”), where those seals can be transverse sealing to a tube shaped web of packaging material (Page 29, 6-8, “It may be of any configuration, but is preferably brick-shaped, having longitudinal and transversal seals 51 and 52, respectively”, and Page 29, lines 24-29, “a web of packaging material is formed into a tube 61 by the longitudinal edges 62, 62' of the web being united to one another in an overlap longitudinal joint 63. The tube is filled 64 with the intended liquid food product and is divided into individual packages by repeated transversal seals 65 of the tube at a pre-determined distance from one another below the level of the filled contents in the tube.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the longitudinal sealing in modified Nilsson to further include transversal sealing as taught by Toft.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to divide the packaging up into individual packages, where this allows for food items to have a desired geometric configuration, as stated by Toft, Page 29, lines 26-31, “The tube is filled 64 with the intended liquid food product and is divided into individual packages by repeated transversal seals 65 of the tube at a pre-determined distance from one another below the level of the filled contents in the tube. The packages 66 are separated by incisions in the transversal seals and are given the desired geometric configuration by fold formation along prepared crease lines in the material.”.
Regarding claim 8, modified Nilsson teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above.
Modified Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein the metal layer is made of aluminum.
However, Toft discloses where the metal layer is made of aluminum (Page 12, lines 12-13, “An aluminium-based thin vapour deposited layer preferably has a thickness of from 5 to 100 nm, more preferably from 5-50 nm,”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the layer with metallized particles in modified Nilsson to be a layer made from aluminum as taught by Toft.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use a metal coating in order to provide a barrier for the laminate against water vapor, and where aluminum is known in the prior art as a commonly used metal for the metal coating process, as stated by Toft, Page 12, lines 23-27, “Generally, thin coatings of metal or a mixture of metal and metal oxide provide barrier properties against water vapour and are used also when the desired function is to prevent water vapour from migrating into and through the multilayer film or packaging laminate. Most commonly however, the metal in a metallisation coating is aluminium (Al).”.
Regarding claim 11, modified Nilsson teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above, discloses wherein a package producing machine comprises at least one induction heating sealing system according to claim 5 (Page 1, lines 10-13, “The laminate is of the type used for manufacturing of for example liquid food packages, and generally comprises a layer of paper or carton, layers of plastic and barriers, such as for example oxygen barriers.”, where the induction heating sealing system is located within a packaging producing machine to create liquid food packages).
Regarding claim 12, Nilsson discloses a method for manufacturing a packaging container (Abstract, “sealing the laminates (10, 12) to each other. The invention also relates to a device for carrying out the method.”),
comprising providing a packaging material having at least one layer of metallized film (Page 1, lines 26-27, “The magnetizable particles are dispersed in any of the layers of the packaging material laminate, preferably in one of the plastic layers.”),
arranging at least two layers of the packaging material at an inductor coil of an induction heating sealing device (Page 6, lines 5-9, “A first and a second packaging material laminate 10, 12 to be sealed together in a joint by means of a sealing jaw 14 and an anvil 16. In the joint shown the two laminates are abutting each other with their inside surfaces facing each other. In this presently preferred embodiment the sealing jaw 14 is an inductor”),
supplying the inductor coil with an AC power source to generate a variable- voltage or current signal of a frequency in the range of 1 MHz to 30 MHz (Page 6, lines 11-15, “The inductor 14 is here coupled to an alternating current supply 18…The frequency is preferably in the MHz range, and a preferred frequency interval is 0,5-5 MHz. A most preferred interval is 1-4 MHz.”), and
heat sealing the at least two layers of packaging material by inducing eddy currents in the metallized film for inductive heating of the packaging material (Claim 1, “providing an alternating magnetic field to the laminates ("10, 12) in a sealing zone, thereby generating magnetic hysteresis losses in the laminate (10) comprising the magnetizable particles, which losses create heat substantially melting the sealable layer (34) in the sealing zone”, where eddy currents are induced within the laminates that have magnetizable particles through the AC inductor and where the layers 10 and 12 are sealed together, Page 7, lines 37-39, “An alternating current is thereafter supplied to the conductor 24 of the sealing jaw 14. The current generates a magnetic field in the sealing zone of the laminates 10, 12.”, where the sealing jaw is an inductor).
Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein the metallized film comprises a metal layer having a thickness below 0.5 μm.
However, Toft discloses, in the similar field of induction heating sealing devices (Page 1, lines 6-7, “a non-foil packaging laminate for induction heat sealing into packages for liquid food or beverage.”), where the metallized film can use a metal layer that has a thickness below 0.5 μm (Page 12, lines 12-13, “An aluminium-based thin vapour deposited layer preferably has a thickness of from 5 to 100 nm, more preferably from 5-50 nm,”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified metallized particles in the layer from Nilsson to be a metal layer having the thickness values as taught by Toft.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to provide a complete barrier against water vapor from entering into inner layers of the laminate, as stated by Toft, Page 12, lines 23-26, “Generally, thin coatings of metal or a mixture of metal and metal oxide provide barrier properties against water vapour and are used also when the desired function is to prevent water vapour from migrating into and through the multilayer film or packaging laminate.”, and where the thickness can be lower than that used within a conventional aluminum foil, as stated by Toft, Page 12, lines 12-15, “An aluminium-based thin vapour deposited layer preferably has a thickness of from 5 to 100 nm, more preferably from 5-50 nm, which corresponds to less than 1 % of the aluminium metal material present in an aluminium foil of conventional thickness, i.e. 6,3 μm.”.
Further, Svard discloses, in the similar field of induction heating sealing (Abstract, “An induction sealing device”), where a metal layer is used with a film to create a metallized film (Abstract, “an inductor coil (101) configured to induce an alternating current in a metal foil of the packaging material for inductive heating thereof”), where the metal layer has a thickness in the micron level (Para. 0002, “laminate containing the aluminium Foil”, where aluminum foil exists that is in the nanometer range, https://www.americanelements.com/ultra-thin-aluminum-nanoscale-foil-7429-90-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the layer from Nilsson to be a metal layer combined with the packaging material as taught by Svard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use another type of packaging structure to have induction heating sealing occur, as stated by Svard, Para. 0002, “One example of such a laminated material is a carrier layer of paper, aluminium foil and thermoplastic coatings along the inner and outer surfaces of the laminate. The technique of induction welding is based on the fact that the magnetic field around a conductor, generated by an alternating current is capable of inducing a current in an adjoining electrically conducting material, which depending on the resistance of the material, warms up the material.”.
Regarding claim 14, modified Nilsson teaches the method according to claim 12, as set forth above, discloses wherein the inductor coil is longitudinally oriented in order to provide a longitudinal sealing of the packaging material (Page 10, lines 5-11, “For instance, a rectangular blank or a web is to be formed into a sleeve or a tube and sealed along two longitudinal edges in an overlapping joint area 38…The areas 38 will later create an overlap which will be sealed.”, where the sealing jaw 14 is lined with the sealing area between laminates 10 and 12, meaning that the inductor coil would also need to be longitudinally orientated in order to seal a longitudinal area of the laminates).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nilsson teaches the method according to claim 12, as set forth above.
Modified Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein the inductor coil is transversally oriented in order to provide a transversal sealing of the packaging material.
However, Toft discloses, in the similar field of induction heating sealing devices (Page 1, lines 6-7, “a non-foil packaging laminate for induction heat sealing into packages for liquid food or beverage.”), where inductors create seals within packaging material (Page 15, lines 17-18, “strong, durable seals, from induction heat sealing.”), where those seals can be transverse sealing to a tube shaped web of packaging material (Page 29, 6-8, “It may be of any configuration, but is preferably brick-shaped, having longitudinal and transversal seals 51 and 52, respectively”, and Page 29, lines 24-29, “a web of packaging material is formed into a tube 61 by the longitudinal edges 62, 62' of the web being united to one another in an overlap longitudinal joint 63. The tube is filled 64 with the intended liquid food product and is divided into individual packages by repeated transversal seals 65 of the tube at a pre-determined distance from one another below the level of the filled contents in the tube.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the longitudinal sealing in modified Nilsson to further include transversal sealing as taught by Toft; where the sealing jaw from Nilsson is shown to be orientated along the sealing seam area, where a transverse sealing would require that the sealing jaw with the inductor also be located transversely.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to divide the packaging up into individual packages, where this allows for food items to have a desired geometric configuration, as stated by Toft, Page 29, lines 26-31, “The tube is filled 64 with the intended liquid food product and is divided into individual packages by repeated transversal seals 65 of the tube at a pre-determined distance from one another below the level of the filled contents in the tube. The packages 66 are separated by incisions in the transversal seals and are given the desired geometric configuration by fold formation along prepared crease lines in the material.”.
Regarding claim 17, modified Nilsson teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above.
Modified Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein the metal layer has a thickness between 25 and 50 nm.
However, Toft discloses where the metallized film can use a metal layer that has a thickness below 0.5 μm (Page 12, lines 12-13, “An aluminium-based thin vapour deposited layer preferably has a thickness of from 5 to 100 nm, more preferably from 5-50 nm,”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified metallized particles in the layer from modified Nilsson to be a metal layer having the thickness values as taught by Toft.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to provide a complete barrier against water vapor from entering into inner layers of the laminate, as stated by Toft, Page 12, lines 23-26, “Generally, thin coatings of metal or a mixture of metal and metal oxide provide barrier properties against water vapour and are used also when the desired function is to prevent water vapour from migrating into and through the multilayer film or packaging laminate.”, and where the thickness can be lower than that used within a conventional aluminum foil, as stated by Toft, Page 12, lines 12-15, “An aluminium-based thin vapour deposited layer preferably has a thickness of from 5 to 100 nm, more preferably from 5-50 nm, which corresponds to less than 1 % of the aluminium metal material present in an aluminium foil of conventional thickness, i.e. 6,3 μm.”.
Claims 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (WO 2006065211 A1, hereinafter Nilsson) in view of Toft et al. (WO 2011003565 A2, hereinafter Toft) and Svard et al. (EP 3431267 A1, hereinafter Svard) in further view of Ajiki (JP 2010225798 A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nilsson teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above.
Modified Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein the metal layer has a sheet resistance between 0.5 and 10 Ω/sq.
However, Ajiki discloses, in the similar field of metal film layers (Abstract, “transparent conductive film”), where the metal layer has a sheet resistance between 0.5 and 10 Ω/sq (Page 5, last Para., “The transparent conductive film 8 has a sheet resistance of 10 [Ω / □] or less and a thickness of 200 to 400 nm so as not to prevent light from entering.”, and where the metal film can be a layer, Page 4, Para. 5 from end, “a metal film (Au) 2 having a thickness of about 10 nm is formed on the entire surface of the substrate 1”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the metal layer in modified Nilsson to have a sheet resistance value as taught by Ajiki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to keep the conductive film transparent, which can be beneficial for a user as they can see through the packaging at the food without needing to open the packaging, as stated by Ajiki, Page 5, last Para., “The transparent conductive film 8 has a sheet resistance of 10 [Ω / □] or less and a thickness of 200 to 400 nm so as not to prevent light from entering.”.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (WO 2006065211 A1, hereinafter Nilsson) in view of Toft et al. (WO 2011003565 A2, hereinafter Toft) and Svard et al. (EP 3431267 A1, hereinafter Svard) in further view of Toft et al. (JP 2012532043 A, hereinafter Wake).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nilsson teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above.
Modified Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein the packaging material comprises an innermost heat sealable thermoplastic layer having a melting temperature lower than the melting temperature of the metallized film.
However, Wake discloses, in the similar field of induction heating sealing systems (Abstract, “induction heating fusion of the packaging laminate to the packaging container.”), where the packaging material can include an innermost heat sealable thermoplastic layer (Page 4, Para. 4 from end, “On the inside of the laminate, i.e. the side intended to face the food contents filled in a container made from the laminate, there is an innermost layer applied on the aluminum foil, this innermost inner layer being It may be composed of one or more partial layers comprising a heat-bondable adhesive polymer and / or polyolefin.”), where that thermoplastic layer has a melting temperature lower than the melting temperature of the metallized film (Polyolefin includes polyethylene which has a melting temperature of 115–135 °C, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyethylene; aluminum has a melting temperature of 660.32 °C, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum; where the inner layer has a melting temperature lower than that of the outer layer). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the packaging in modified Nilsson to include the innermost heal sealable thermoplastic layer as taught by Wake.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able use the heat sealable thermoplastic layer as an additional layer to add on thickness to the packaging if desired, which can allow a user to customize how thick they want their packaging to be, as stated by Wake, Page 9, Para. 2 from end, “In some specific cases where a relatively thick heat-fusible layer is required, although not preferred from a cost standpoint, it is possible to apply an additional heat-fusible polyethylene layer inside the innermost layer 14. Of course, it is possible.”.
Claims 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nilsson et al. (WO 2006065211 A1, hereinafter Nilsson) in view of Toft et al. (WO 2011003565 A2, hereinafter Toft) and Svard et al. (EP 3431267 A1, hereinafter Svard) in further view of Gilbert et al. (US 20200223153 A1, hereinafter Gilbert).
Regarding claim 18, modified Nilsson teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above.
Modified Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein the AC power source is configured to generate a variable current or voltage signal of a frequency of 2 MHz.
However, Gilbert discloses, in the similar field of induction heat sealing (Para. 0006, “The metal susceptor may be heated by induction.”, and Para. 0003, “overlapping portions fuse together, a process sometimes referred to as heat sealing”), where the AC power source can have a variable current between 10 Hz to 10 MHz (Para. 0007, “alternating current may be passed through the coil to generate an alternating magnetic field that acts on the metal susceptor and induces heating within the metal susceptor. The alternating current passing through the coil may have a frequency in the range of 10 Hz to 10 MHz.”, where this range covers 2 MHz). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the induction heat sealing system in modified Nilsson to use the current range as taught by Gilbert.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use a current range known in the prior art to be generally employed, as stated by Gilbert, Para. 0007, “The alternating current passing through the coil may have a frequency in the range of 10 Hz to 10 MHz.”.
Regarding claim 19, modified Nilsson teaches the method according to claim 12, as set forth above.
Modified Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein powering the inductor coil is performed by controlling the AC power source to generate a variable-voltage or current signal of a frequency of 2 MHz.
However, Gilbert discloses, in the similar field of induction heat sealing (Para. 0006, “The metal susceptor may be heated by induction.”, and Para. 0003, “overlapping portions fuse together, a process sometimes referred to as heat sealing”), where the AC power source can have a variable current between 10 Hz to 10 MHz (Para. 0007, “alternating current may be passed through the coil to generate an alternating magnetic field that acts on the metal susceptor and induces heating within the metal susceptor. The alternating current passing through the coil may have a frequency in the range of 10 Hz to 10 MHz.”, where this range covers 2 MHz). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the induction heat sealing system in modified Nilsson to use the current range as taught by Gilbert.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use a current range known in the prior art to be generally employed, as stated by Gilbert, Para. 0007, “The alternating current passing through the coil may have a frequency in the range of 10 Hz to 10 MHz.”.
Regarding claim 20, modified Nilsson teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above.
Modified Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein the AC power source is configured to generate a variable current or voltage signal of a frequency of 6.78 MHz, 13.56 MHz, or 27.12 MHz.
However, Gilbert discloses, in the similar field of induction heat sealing (Para. 0006, “The metal susceptor may be heated by induction.”, and Para. 0003, “overlapping portions fuse together, a process sometimes referred to as heat sealing”), where the AC power source can have a variable current between 10 Hz to 10 MHz (Para. 0007, “alternating current may be passed through the coil to generate an alternating magnetic field that acts on the metal susceptor and induces heating within the metal susceptor. The alternating current passing through the coil may have a frequency in the range of 10 Hz to 10 MHz.”, where this range covers the value of 6.78 MHz). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the induction heat sealing system in modified Nilsson to use the current range as taught by Gilbert.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use a current range known in the prior art to be generally employed, as stated by Gilbert, Para. 0007, “The alternating current passing through the coil may have a frequency in the range of 10 Hz to 10 MHz.”.
Regarding claim 21, modified Nilsson teaches the apparatus according to claim 12, as set forth above.
Modified Nilsson does not disclose:
wherein the AC power source is configured to generate a variable current or voltage signal of a frequency of 6.78 MHz, 13.56 MHz, or 27.12 MHz.
However, Gilbert discloses, in the similar field of induction heat sealing (Para. 0006, “The metal susceptor may be heated by induction.”, and Para. 0003, “overlapping portions fuse together, a process sometimes referred to as heat sealing”), where the AC power source can have a variable current between 10 Hz to 10 MHz (Para. 0007, “alternating current may be passed through the coil to generate an alternating magnetic field that acts on the metal susceptor and induces heating within the metal susceptor. The alternating current passing through the coil may have a frequency in the range of 10 Hz to 10 MHz.”, where this range covers the value of 6.78 MHz). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the induction heat sealing system in modified Nilsson to use the current range as taught by Gilbert.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use a current range known in the prior art to be generally employed, as stated by Gilbert, Para. 0007, “The alternating current passing through the coil may have a frequency in the range of 10 Hz to 10 MHz.”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
10/09/2026
Prosecution Insights