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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-9, in the reply filed on January 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 15, 2026.
Examiner notes the claim set filed on January 15, 2026 indicates Claims 7-9 are original but appears to have inadvertently been changed to reflect the language of withdrawn Claims 10-12. It is assumed that Claims 7-9 as originally filed in the claim set filed December 20, 2023 should still be present and are examined below accordingly for the sake of advancing prosecution.
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 9 is 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 9 recites the limitations “the voltage sensing conductors of the first set of voltage sensing conductors” and “the voltage sensing conductors of the second set”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as these limitations are not previously recited in Claim 9 (or Claims 1 or 7 on which Claim 9 depends). Examiner notes these limitations were previously recited in Claim 8. For examination purposes, Claim 7 will be interpreted as dependent on Claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marek (US Pat. 4705937).
Regarding Claim 1, Marek teaches a heat-seal band (Abstract) comprising:
a band that is configured to be heated to perform a heat-sealing operation to a workpiece (Fig. 1- welding band 1);
a first electrical path configured for transmitting a current load to the band (Fig. 1- heating circuit including power supply 25 through voltage control 27); and
a second electrical path configured for sensing a voltage across the band (Fig. 1- leads 2,3; Col 3, Lines 50-55- As shown schematically, the voltage Us applied to the welding band 1 is measured and is applied via leads 2, 3 to an amplifier 4.).
Regarding Claim 7, Marek further teaches a third electrical path configured for sensing a voltage across a segment of the band (Fig. 3- additional measuring circuits for determining low-temperature resistance of the band).
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.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marek (US Pat. 4705937) in view of Capitani (PGPub 2019/0016487).
Regarding Claim 2, Marek does not specify a conductive tab that is connected to the band and defines a corresponding tab to band (tab/band) junction; and wherein: the first electrical path connects to the tab/band junction by extending through the conductive tab; and the second electrical path connects to the tab/band junction without extending through the conductive tab.
Capitani teaches an alternative heat seal band (Abstract) comprising a conductive tab that is connected to the band ([0363]; Figs. 17-20 first and second electrical terminals 703, 704) and defines a corresponding tab to band (tab/band) junction (Figs. 17-20- first and second electrical terminals 703, 704 connecting to contacting tabs 705, 750) in order to ensure a perfect electrical connection [0524].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Marek to include conductive tabs as taught by Capitani with reasonable expectation of success to ensure a perfect electrical connection [0524].
Capitani also does not specify the first electrical path connects to the tab/band junction by extending through the conductive tab; and the second electrical path connects to the tab/band junction without extending through the conductive tab. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the end of the electrical path as the court has held that mere rearrangement of parts was held to be an obvious matter of design choice that a skilled artisan would have found obvious, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 3, Capitani further teaches the conductive tab engages a conductive surface of a heat-sealing tool that holds the heat-seal band (Figs. 17-20), and the conductive surface of the heat-sealing tool is arranged within the first electrical path (Figs. 17-20).
Regarding Claim 4, Marek further teaches a voltage sensing conductor that is arranged within the second electrical path (Col 3, Lines 50-55- As shown schematically, the voltage Us applied to the welding band 1 is measured and is applied via leads 2, 3 to an amplifier 4.) and is electrically insulated with respect to the heat-sealing tool (Fig. 1- showing the separate loop).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Marek further teaches the band defines an inner perimeter and outer perimeter (Fig. 1- welding band necessarily has an inner and outer perimeter) but does not specify the voltage sensing conductor is connected to the tab/band junction at a location that is arranged inwardly of the band inner perimeter or arranged outwardly of the band outer perimeter. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the voltage sensing conductors as the court has held that mere rearrangement of parts was held to be an obvious matter of design choice that a skilled artisan would have found obvious, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marek (US Pat. 4705937).
Regarding Claim 8, Marek further teaches the second electrical path is defined by a first set of voltage sensing conductors (Col 3, Lines 50-55- As shown schematically, the voltage Us applied to the welding band 1 is measured and is applied via leads 2, 3 to an amplifier 4.) and the third electrical path is defined by a second set of voltage sensing conductors (Col. 5, Lines 55-62- The signal to motor control 32 is fed in via input 53 either manually by the user or automatically by a resistance sensor 50 (shown in phantom)).
Marek does not specify the first set of voltage sensing conductors at generally opposite segments of the band and the second set of voltage sensing conductors at a common segment of the band. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the voltage sensing conductors as the court has held that mere rearrangement of parts was held to be an obvious matter of design choice that a skilled artisan would have found obvious, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 9, Marek does not specify the voltage sensing conductors of the first set of voltage sensing conductors are spaced further from each other than the voltage sensing conductors of the second set. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the location of the voltage sensing conductors as the court has held that mere rearrangement of parts was held to be an obvious matter of design choice that a skilled artisan would have found obvious, see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
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 at (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.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 3/19/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748