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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment filed 25 July 2023 has been entered. Claims 9-15 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. (The examiner notes the presence of a document entitled ‘Priority Document Exchange Failure Status Report’ in the application filed wrapper with a date of 30 October 2024. However, a certified copy of the priority document dated 25 July 2023 is also in the application filed wrapper. In view of the latter document, the examiner determines that a certified copy of the foreign priority document has been received.)
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraphs 2 and 8 refer to “Patent Document 1” and “Patent Document 2”. However, as a result of the amendments to the specification made in the Preliminary Amendment filed 25 July 2023, Patent Document 1 and Patent Document 2 are not explicitly identified in the specification. The specification should be amended to refer to these documents by reference to a country code and patent number, rather than merely “Patent Document 1” and “Patent Document 2”, so that the particular documents being referred to can be understood. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a scraper portion” as recited in claim 9 (first, “portion” is a generic placeholder for “means” because a “portion” is not understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure – any structure can be a “portion’, such that “portion” does not refer to any particular type of structure; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to sweep a waste from the upper or lower blade”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – the term “scraper” does not describe a structure for performing a sweeping function, since sweeping and scraping are two different functions, where scraping is using an edge to remove material and sweeping is using a bristled structure to push material);
“a suction mechanism” as recited in claim 13 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “configured to suction the waste swept from the upper or lower blade”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “suction” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Note that “a transmission mechanism” as recited in claim 9 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because a transmission is a known type of structure for transmitting motion.
Note also that “a bag making apparatus” as recited in claim 9 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because the apparatus is required to include the structure of the crosscut device, which in turn includes upper and lower blades. Cutting a web can be a step of ‘bag making’, and ‘a bag making apparatus’ is any apparatus that performs even a single step of bag making.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 at lines 1-2 recites, “A waste removing device for a bag making apparatus attached to the bag making apparatus which makes a bag from plastic film”. This recitation should read – A waste removing device for a bag making apparatus, the waste removing device attachable to the bag making apparatus, the bag making apparatus making a plastic film – in order to reduce the run-on nature of the recitation, to more clearly identify the structure that makes the bag, and to provide an article for “plastic film”. Moreover, amending “attached” to read – attachable – or similar more clearly indicates that only the waste removing device is being claimed. That is, since claim 9 does not require any bag making apparatus, the waste removing device in the claimed state is not actually attached to the bag making apparatus, but is instead capable of being attached to the bag making apparatus.
Claim 9 at line 9 recites, “transmit elevation and descent”. This recitation should use an article for ‘elevation’ and ‘descent’. The examiner suggests reciting – transmit an elevation and a descent –.
Claim 11 at lines 2-3 recites, “the elevation and descent”. This recitation should read – the elevation and the descent –.
Claim 12 at line 4 recites, “the elevation and descent”. This recitation should read – the elevation and the descent –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 15 is/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 15 recites, “A bag making apparatus comprising the waste removing device as set forth in claim 9.” Claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear what limitations, if any, are required by claim 15 in addition to those already required by claim 9. On the one hand, claim 15 only requires that the bag making apparatus comprises the waste removing device as required by claim 9. Arguably, then, claim 15 makes no requirements of the bag making apparatus that are not already required by the waste removing device of claim 9. The problem with this interpretation results in claim 15 not being further limiting with respect to claim 9 (in which case a rejection under 35 USC 112(d) would be warranted). An alternative interpretation is that some weight should be given to the preamble of “A bag making apparatus”, such that “A bag making apparatus” beginning claim 15 implies some structural requirement(s). Indeed, MPEP 2111.02 permits a preamble to be interpreted as structurally limiting. Still, even if the preamble of claim 15 is interpreted as structurally limiting, it is unclear what particular structure(s) are implicitly required by the preamble. Claim 9 introducing a bag making apparatus that comprises a crosscut device, where the crosscut device comprises upper and lower blades. Arguably, then, claim 15 requires the bag making apparatus to also include a crosscut device comprising upper and lower blades. However, this interpretation is not certain because it is mere speculation based on the requirements of claim 9. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 15 as further limiting claim 9 by requiring the features of the bag making apparatus already set forth in claim 9. (Since the examiner is interpreting the preamble of claim 15 as being structurally limiting, claim 15 has not been rejected under 35 USC 112(d) because claim 15 is interpreted as requiring the additional structure of the crosscut device comprising upper and lower blades.)
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.
Claim(s) 9, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub. No. 2012/0090441 A1 to Abe.
Regarding claim 9, Abe discloses a waste removing device 691 (shown in Fig. 15) for a bag making apparatus (the waste removing device 691 of Abe is usable with a bag making apparatus because the waste removing device 691 of Abe is usable with a vertically reciprocating upper blade 633 and a fixed lower blade 634 as shown in Fig. 16A; further, the use of the claimed waste removing device with a bag making apparatus is merely a statement of intended use of the claimed waste removing device, and the body of claim 9 fully and intrinsically sets forth all limitations of the claimed waste removing device, such that the intended use of the waste removing device in a bag making apparatus is not a distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations in accordance with MPEP 2111.02(II)) attached to the bag making apparatus which makes a bag from plastic film (the waste removing device 691 of Abe is attached to the vertically reciprocating upper blade 633 and the fixed lower blade 634, so the waste removing device 691 of Abe is usable in a bag making apparatus which makes a bag from plastic film, noting again that no bag making apparatus is claimed; since no bag making apparatus is claimed, Abe need not disclose the feature of making a bag from plastic film), wherein:
the [bag making] apparatus comprises a crosscut device configured to crosscut the plastic film (the crosscut device of Abe comprising the upper and lower blades 633 and 634; note, once again, that the claim does not require the bag making apparatus and thus does not require the crosscut device; instead, the bag making apparatus is merely introduced as an unclaimed structure with which the claimed waste removing device is usable as discussed above),
the crosscut device comprises upper and lower blades 633 and 634 (see Fig. 16A of Abe; see also the discussion in the preceding two paragraphs regarding the bag making apparatus, and thus the crosscut device comprising the upper and lower blades, as not being part of the claimed waste removing device),
the waste removing device 691 comprises a scraper portion 692 configured to sweep a waste from the upper or lower blade 633 or 634 (see Fig. 22B illustrating the scraper portion 692 sweeping waste G from both the upper and lower blades 633 and 634; see also paragraph 119 disclosing the sweeping of the waste G), the waste being made from the plastic film with the crosscut device (this feature is merely an intended use of the claimed waste removing device -- no plastic film is required by the claim; further, the waste removing device 691 of Abe is configured to sweep waste made from a plastic film when the waste removing device 691 of Abe is used in an apparatus that processing plastic film, such as if one or more of the sheets of Abe is provided as plastic film),
the waste removing device 691 comprises a transmission mechanism (see Fig. 15; the transmission mechanism includes shaft 6803, plate 6730, arm 6740, abutting surface 6741, and spring 675) configured to transmit elevation and descent of the upper blade 633 (see Figs. 17A-17B and 18A-18B, illustrating that elevation and descent of the upper blade 633 is transmitted to vertical movement of the scraper portion 692 via the transmission mechanism; see also paragraphs 117-120 describing this transmission), and
the scraper portion 692 is movable close to an edge of the upper blade 633 according to the descent of the upper blade 633 (see the movement of the scraper portion 692 to be close to a bottom, cutting edge of the upper blade 633 from the position shown in Fig. 22A to a range of positions extending from the position of the scraper portion 692 shown in Fig. 23A to the position of the scraper portion 692 shown in Fig. 23B, where the scraper portion 692 abuts the upper blade 633 in the immediate vicinity of the edge of the upper blade when moving between the positions shown in Figs. 23A and 23B – this movement is due to the descent of the upper blade 633 since the descent of the upper blade 633 drives the scraper portion 692 to move downward to the position shown in Fig. 23B in accordance with paragraphs 118 and 119; additionally, ‘close’ is interpreted as any position of the scraper portion that is closer to the edge of the blade than any additional position of the scraper portion, such that ‘close’ is interpreted as being satisfied if there is some other position of the scraper portion further from the upper blade 633) and away from the edge of the upper blade 633 according to the elevation of the upper blade 633 (the scraper portion 692 is away from the edge of the upper blade 633 when the upper blade 633 elevates back to the position shown in Fig. 22A) by the transmission mechanism (here, ‘by the transmission mechanism’ is describing the movement of the scraper portion 692; paragraphs 117-120 describe the movement of the scraper portion 692 as being produced by the transmission mechanism as the movement of the upper blade 633 drives the transmission mechanism).
Regarding claim 11, Abe discloses that the transmission mechanism is configured to rotate the scraper portion 692 according to the elevation and descent of the upper blade 633 (the transmission mechanism of Abe is configured to rotate the scraper portion 692 relative to the arm 6740 as indicated by arrow ‘A’ in Fig. 15 – i.e., considering the arm 6740 as defining the frame of reference, elevation and descent of the blade 633 produces rotation of the scraper portion 692 relative to the arm 6740; note also that claim 11 is directed only to the structure of the waste removing device 692, and that no bag making apparatus or upper blade is required by the claim, so it is reasonable to interpret the rotation of the scraper portion 692 of Abe as being relative to another structure of the waste removing device 691).
Regarding claim 12, Abe discloses that the transmission mechanism comprises: a plate 6730 configured to be moved upwardly and downwardly according to the elevation and descent of the upper blade 633 (see Figs. 22B, 23A, and 23B showing the downward movement of the plate 6730, where the plate 6730 moves upward to return to the position in Fig. 22A following the position of the plate 6730 in Fig. 23B; see paragraphs 117-120 describing the movement of the plate 6730 being according to the movement of the upper blade 633), a cam groove 6734 mounted on the plate 6730 (see Fig. 15), and a cam follower 674a fitted into the cam groove 6734 (see Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 15, Abe discloses a bag making apparatus comprising the waste removing device 691 as set forth in claim 9 (see the discussion of claim 9 above regarding Abe disclosing the waste removing device as set forth in claim 9; note also that, consistent with claim 9, the structure required for an apparatus to be considered as a ‘bag making apparatus’ is a structure that is configured to cut a web of material – as such, the apparatus of Abe is properly considered as a ‘bag making apparatus’ because the only features required of the bag making apparatus in claim 9 are the cross-cut device comprising upper and lower blades, and Abe discloses a cross-cut device comprises an upper blade 633 and a lower blade 634 as seen in Fig. 16A; that is, since an apparatus that is configured to cut a web is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘bag making apparatus’ in view of the requirements of claim 9, Abe is properly considered as disclosing a bag making apparatus; see also the discussion of claim 15 being indefinite above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2012/0090441 A1 to Abe in view of CN-111390988-A to Lu Tao.
Regarding claim 10, Abe discloses that the scraper portion 692 comprises: a main body portion (see the annotated Fig. 23A below), and a blade-contacting portion mounted on the main body portion (see the annotated Fig. 23A below) and configured to sweep the waste G from the upper or lower blade 633 or 634 (compare Figs. 23A and 23B, showing the blade-contacting portion sweeping the waste G).
PNG
media_image1.png
656
896
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Abe, however, fails to disclose that the blade-contact portion is a brush portion as required by claim 10.
Lu Tao, however, teaches that providing a blade-contact portion as a brush portion that is made of silica gel material that has elasticity so that the brush portion can adapted to a blade being cleaning, thus providing safe and convenient cleaning (see the penultimate paragraph on page 4 of the English language translation of Lu Tao).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the blade-contacting portion of the scraper of Abe in the form of a brush portion that is made of silica gel material in view of the teachings of Lu Tao. This modification is advantageous because the brush portion of Lu Tao has elasticity that allows the brush portion to conform to the blade being cleaned, thus better sweeping material off of the blade compared to a blade-contact portion that does not conform to the blade being cleaned. Moreover, this modification ensures is advantageous because the brush portion of Lu Tao provides safe and convenient cleaning.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2012/0090441 A1 to Abe in view of JP 2018-176641 A to Totani Mikio.
Abe fails to disclose that the waste removing device further comprises a suction mechanism configured to suction the waste swept from the upper or lower blade as required by claim 13 and that the suction mechanism comprises a cover portion configured to cover the scraper portion and come in contact with the lower blade as required by claim 14.
Totani Mikio, however, teaches a waste removing device that comprises a suction mechanism (the suction mechanism including cover portion 18 and the source of air flow 17 described at the penultimate paragraph of page 3 of the English language translation of Totani Mikio) configured to suction waste from an upper or lower blade 5 or 6 (see Fig. 2 and the penultimate paragraph of page 3 of the English language translation of Totani Mikio). [Claim 13] Totani Mikio further teaches that the suction mechanism comprises a cover portion 18 configured to extend sufficiently high so as to extend to a top of the lower blade 6 (see Fig. 2; see also the disclosure that the upper end of the cover portion 18 is “opposed to the upper blade 5” at the penultimate paragraph of page 3 of the English language translation of Totani Mikio ) and come in contact with the lower blade 6 (see Fig. 2, where a left wall of the cover portion 18 is in contact with the lower blade 6). [Claim 14] Totani Mikio teaches that the suction mechanism is advantageous in order to suction away waste that is produced during cutting (see the penultimate paragraph at page 3 of the English language translation of Totani Mikio).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the waste removing device of Abe with a suction mechanism having the features taught by Totani Mikio, including the suction mechanism having a cover portion that extends to an upper edge of the lower blade so as to oppose the upper blade. This modification is advantageous because it provides a structure that collects and removes waste, leading to a cleaner environment in which the cutting apparatus with which the waste removing device is used. For example, rather than allowing waste to fall to a floor or become scattered about, this modification provides a structure for disposing of waste produced during cutting. Moreover, Abe, as thus modified, discloses that the cover portion is configured to cover the scraper portion at least at the lowest position of the scrapper portion. That is, Abe teaches that the scraper portion is movable downward to scrap waste from the lower blade 634 (see Fig. 23B of Abe), whereas Totani Mikio teaches that the cover portion is configured to extend to a top of the lower blade 6 (see Fig. 2) and to oppose the upper blade (see the penultimate paragraph at page 3 of the English language translation of Totani Mikio). Thus, upon modifying Abe to include a cover portion that extends to a top of the lower blade in view of Totani Mikio, the cover portion is configured to cover the scraper portion at least when the scraper portion is at its lowest position in contact with the lower blade.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724