DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
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:
“welding structure” in claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9, 11, 14-15 (welding bars, p. 4, line 11)
“heating system” in claims 1 and 11 (heated oil or heating elements, p. 9, lines 28-34)
“processing unit” in claims 1, 6, 8 and 11-12; (undisclosed, rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b))
“separation roller displacement control system” in claim 1; (undisclosed, rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b))
“application roller displacement control system” in claim 6; (undisclosed, rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b))
“pressure drum displacement control system” in claims 8 and 12; (undisclosed, rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b)).
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.
Claim Objections
The claim objections have been overcome by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The term “processing unit” in claims 1, 6, 8 and 11-12 invokes 35 USC 112(f) but is not supported by corresponding structure in the specification disclosure. Therefore, there is no written disclosure to show that the inventor possessed the invention.
The term “separation roller displacement control system” in claim 1 invokes 35 USC 112(f) but is not supported by corresponding structure in the specification disclosure. Therefore, there is no written disclosure to show that the inventor possessed the invention.
The term “application roller displacement control system” in claim 6 invokes 35 USC 112(f) but is not supported by corresponding structure in the specification disclosure. Therefore, there is no written disclosure to show that the inventor possessed the invention.
The term “pressure drum displacement control system” in claims 8 and 12 invokes 35 USC 112(f) but is not supported by corresponding structure in the specification disclosure. Therefore, there is no written disclosure to show that the inventor possessed the invention.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-10, and 13-18 are rejected for containing the unsupported language of the parent claims.
Claims 1-18 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.
The term “processing unit” in claims 1, 6, 8 and 11-12 invokes 35 USC 112(f) but is not supported by corresponding structure in the specification disclosure. Therefore, the scope of the term is unclear and has been interpreted as any unit capable of processing.
The term “separation roller displacement control system” in claim 1 invokes 35 USC 112(f) but is not supported by corresponding structure in the specification disclosure. Therefore, the scope of the term is unclear and has been interpreted as any system capable of controlling the displacement of separation rollers.
The term “application roller displacement control system” in claim 6 invokes 35 USC 112(f) but is not supported by corresponding structure in the specification disclosure. Therefore, the scope of the term is unclear and has been interpreted as any system capable of controlling the displacement of application rollers.
The term “pressure drum displacement control system” in claims 8 and 12 invokes 35 USC 112(f) but is not supported by corresponding structure in the specification disclosure. Therefore, the scope of the term is unclear and has been interpreted as any system capable of controlling the displacement of the pressure drum.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-10, and 13-18 are rejected for containing the unclear language of the parent claims.
The examiner suggests amending the claims to avoid using these generic placeholders. Suggestions are made for claims 1, 6, and 8 in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section, below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauder et al. (EP 1 302 306) in view of Singer (US 4,743,334) and Hansen (WO 00/64738).
Sauder teaches (See Fig 2 generally) a welding (or sealing) machine configured for continuous welding of two layers of plastic film material (201) together in a welding pattern (to form bags) [0027-0029], the machine comprising:
A welding drum (sealing drum 208) configured to be rotated around its axis [0002, 0027, 0033];
At least one welding structure (seal bars) disposed on a peripheral surface of the welding drum [0039] and configured to exhibit a welding pattern [0040];
A heating system in thermal contact with the at least one welding structure and configured to heat the at least one welding structure to a welding temperature [0039];
An endless welding band (Sealing blanket 213) [0027];
A plurality of band guidance rollers comprising a first application roller and a second application roller arranged to apply the welding bands to the at least one welding structure on the surface of the welding drum over a peripheral extent of at least 90 degrees of the welding drum with a force radial to the welding drum in a first operational mode of the welding machine (unlabeled but clearly visible in Fig. 2; see [0036]; also see analogous prior art rollers 34, 35, 36, 37; [0005] and Fig. 1);
At least one web guidance roller (205, 206, 210, 211) configured to guide the two layers of plastic film material in between the welding drum and the welding band [0027, 0039]; and
A processing unit configured to control an operation of the welding machine (Abstract, [0039]).
The invention of Sauder does not explicitly teach that A) the heating system is heated oil, heating elements, or an equivalent thereof; B) the band guidance rollers include at least one displaceable tensioning roller for maintaining a tension of the welding band; or C) at least one pressure drum is arranged to provide a pressure force on the welding band towards the welding drum within the peripheral extent wherein the welding band is applied to the welding drum.
However, the prior art of Sauder teaches that the band guidance rollers may include at least one displaceable tensioning roller (35) for maintaining a tension of the welding band in order to accommodate different size of welding drum [0005]. Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing of the instant application to have made one of the blanket rollers displaceable in order to accommodate different sizes of sealing drum (208).
Sauder is silent as to the heating element that controls the sealing temperature. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to look to the related art for equipment that controls the sealing temperature. Singer, in the art of laminating plastic webs (col. 1, lines 15-18) teaches that the heat for laminating may be supplied by heating elements (col. 1, lines 35-38) or heated oil (col. 2, lines 23-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing of the instant application to have used heating elements or heated oil as the heat source for sealing the bags of Sauder with a reasonable expectation of success as known conventional heat sources for laminating plastic films together.
Hansen teaches patternwise sealing of webs (22, 24) around a rotary drum (8) aided by welding band (10) (Figure 1). Hansen teaches that a pressure drum (40) may be provided against the welding band (10) in order to create increased welding pressure against the drum (p. 2, lines 10-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious at the time of filing of the instant application to have used provided a pressure drum arranged to provide force on the welding band of Sauder in order to have increased the welding pressure.
Claim 12: Hansen suggests that the rollers could be controlled by inwardly pressing spring systems (p. 3, lines 26-33).
Claim 13: Hansen teaches that there may be several pressure rollers (p. 3, lines 13-15).
Claim 14: Sauder teaches that the application rollers apply the welding band to approximately 270 degrees of the welding drum (See Fig. 2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sauder in view of Singer and Hansen as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Farkas (US 3,162,561).
Sauder, Singer, and Hansen are discussed above. They do not teach that the welding structures extended in the transverse direction parallel to the axis of the drum and a curved direction perpendicular to the transverse direction nor that they span 180 degrees of the drum surface. However, Farkas teaches heat sealing films together (col. 2, lines 65-72) and teaches the pattern may be formed by bars on the surface (col. 9, lines 1-6; col. 6, lines 54-59), which may comprise structures extended in the transverse direction parallel to the axis of the drum and in a curved direction perpendicular to the transverse direction and that they span at least 180 degrees of the drum surface (Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used structure such as those of Farkas with bars on the surface extending in the transverse direction parallel to the axis of the drum and in a curved direction perpendicular to the transverse direction (a particularly suitable configuration for forming bags by sealing the bottom and sides and leaving the top open). It would have been obvious to have had the pattern span the entire periphery to maximize the amount of the drum that could be used and thereby increase productivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. As discussed above, Sauder (and Hansen and Farkas) teaches sealing two films using a rotary drum with welding structures and an endless welding band that presses against the drum. They do not teach individually or collectively the provision of separation rollers that are, in an operational mode, displaced between the films and welding structures on the peripheral surface of the drum so as to separate the films and the endless welding band from the periphery of the welding drum.
The examiner suggests rewriting claim 1 as follows:
A welding machine configured for continuous welding of two layers of plastic film material together in a welding pattern, the machine comprising:
a welding drum configured to be rotated around its axis,
at least one welding structure disposed on a peripheral surface of the welding drum and configured to exhibit the welding pattern,
a heating system in thermal contact with the at least one welding structure and configured to heat the at least one welding structure to a welding temperature,
an endless welding band,
a plurality of band guidance rollers comprising a first application roller and a second application roller arranged to apply the welding band to the at least one welding structure on the surface of the welding drum over a peripheral extent of at least 90 degrees of the welding drum with a force radial to the welding drum in a first operational mode of the welding machine, the plurality of band guidance rollers also comprising at least one displaceable tensioning roller for maintaining a tension of the welding band,
at least one web guidance roller configured to guide the two layers of plastic film material in between the welding drum and welding band,
wherein the welding machine further comprises one or more separation rollers configured to be controlled, in a second operational mode, to displace the one or more separation rollers from a first position of the one or more separation rollers and in between the at least one welding structure disposed on the peripheral surface of the welding drum and the two layers of plastic film material to a second position of the one or more separation rollers where the two layers of plastic film material and the welding band are separated from the periphery of the welding drum by the one or more separation rollers.
The examiner recommends removing the phrase “by an application roller displacement control system, electrically coupled to the processing unit” from claim 6.
The examiner recommends removing the phrase “by a pressure drum displacement control system, electrically coupled to the processing unit” from claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 8-10, filed 9/3/25, with respect to the objections, prior rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. These rejections are withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, the claims still invoke 35 USC 112(f) for several elements, including those which are not supported by structure in the specification. Also, upon further consideration, claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103, as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)272-1418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00 am - 5:30 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, Alexa Neckel, can be reached at 571-272-2450. 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.
/MICHAEL B CLEVELAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1712