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 of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on January 29, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The abstract is objected to because it includes the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,”. Therefore, the phrase, “comprises” should be changed to “includes”. Additionally, the reference numbers and “Figure 1 (last line)” should be deleted.
The disclosure is objected to because it fails to include section headings.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC.
(f) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(g) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(h) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(i) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(j) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(k) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) SEQUENCE LISTING (See MPEP § 2424 and 37 CFR 1.821-1.825. A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document on compact disc).
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.
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.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, last line, the limitation, “the flywheel being rigidly connected to the drive unit” is indefinite because the flywheel is part of the drive unit (see line 6). The flywheel must connect to a part that make up the drive unit and cannot connect to the overall drive unit.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tado (DE 10 2012 217629 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tado discloses a processing machine comprising:
an upper processing tool (Cu) and a lower processing tool (Cl), the upper processing tool (Cu) and the lower processing tool (Cl) being configured for interacting with each other in order to process a material (fig. 1),
a drive unit (figs. 1 and 3) comprising an electric machine (a motor 40) and a flywheel (30), wherein at least one of the upper processing tool (Cu) and the lower processing tool (Cl) is coupled to the electric machine (40) via the flywheel (30) such that the at least one of the upper processing tool (Cu) and the lower processing tool (Cl) is movable in a reciprocating manner with respect to the other one of the upper processing tool and the lower processing tool (see page 5, paragraphs 5-7 of the English translation).
an electrical supply unit (51) being electrically connected to the electric machine (40) (fig. 1) such that the electric machine is operable as an electric motor (40) (see page 5, second paragraph of the English translation), and
an electrical energy recovery unit (52-55) being electrically connected to the electric machine (40) such that the energy recovery unit is able to store or transfer electrical energy provided by the electric machine operating as an electric generator, the flywheel (30) being rigidly connected to a part of the drive unit (fig. 1).
As to the processing machine is used to process a packaging material, as recited in the preamble, said recitation is used to describe an intended use of the processing device. Recitations of intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art teaches the structures of the claimed invention, then the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, therefore, the prior art meets the claimed limitation. See In Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2111.02 and 2114(11).
Regarding claim 2, the processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the energy recovery unit comprises an electric storage means (see “a rechargeable battery may be used as the electricity storage part” on page 5, second paragraph of the English translation).
Regarding claim 3, the processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the energy recovery unit (52-55) is connected to a direct current line of the electrical supply unit (51) (see fig. 1 and see “direct current” on page 5, first paragraph of the English translation).
Regarding claim 4, the processing machine according to claim 3, wherein the energy recovery unit (52-55) comprises an alternating-current converter (a converter 52, see page 5, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, the processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the energy recovery unit (52-55) comprises a frequency converter (a converter 55, see page 5, first paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, the processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the energy recovery unit (52-55) comprises a connection means for electrically connecting the energy recovery unit (52-55) to an electricity supply grid (Masashi discloses the processing machine includes the electrical supply unit (51), it is well known in the mechanical art that all machines that have access to electricity are connected to the electricity supply grid in order to receive electricity).
Regarding claim 8, the packaging material processing machine, according to claim 1, wherein the upper processing tool (Cu)and the lower processing tool (Cl) are hot foil stamping tools (see “stamp” on page 3, paragraph 8 of the English translation and “hot” on page 6, paragraph 6).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tado in view of Huang (CN 204480833 U).
Regarding claim 7, Tado discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. Tado does not expressly disclose two or more drive units each comprising an electric machine and a flywheel, wherein the drive units are connected in parallel to the electrical energy recovery unit.
Huang discloses a stamping press having two drive units (5,7) and (8,9), each comprising an electric motor (5, 9) and a flywheel (7,8). (fig. 1).
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 machine of Tado to include two drive units each comprising an electric machine and a flywheel, as taught by Huang and connected in parallel to the electrical energy recovery unit, for precise control of power output in a pressing operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed on the attached PTO 892 is cited to show:
US 7,805,973 discloses a processing machine comprising a flywheel (35) and an electric motor (20), and connection means for electrically connecting an energy recovery unit to an electricity supply grid (col. 6, lines 42-54).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725