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 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(s) 14-17, 21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forthmann (U.S. Pat. No. 4,743,333).
Regarding claim 14: Forthmann discloses a device for connecting plastic films ((Figs. 6-7; via layers 6/8)) by thermal joining, wherein the plastic films are connected between welding jaws (Figs. 6-7; via 10 & 40) along a weld seam (via the formed seam along the pressed area between 10/40), characterized in that the device comprises a pair of unheated welding jaws (via members 10 & 40) between which the unheated plastic films (via 6/8) are arranged parallel to each other for thermal joining,
wherein a device for impulse generation (via piston rod 18) generates an impact impulse, a stroke movement of at least one of the welding jaws (via movement of 10) perpendicular to the film layers with a penetration time of at least one of the welding jaws (via 10) into the plastic films (via 6/8; and “Knob 81 can be adjusted to control the impulse or pressure which is being exerted by piston rod 18 on toothed member 10”), having at least a first intensity into at least one of the welding jaws (via into 10) wherein the impact impulse acts on the plastic films, a heating in the material of the plastic films caused by deformation is produced and the weld seam is formed in an effective area of the welding jaws (Figs. 1, 6-7; via impulse movement of 10 against 40 results on welding and sealing thermoplastic materials 6/8).
Regarding the claimed impulse generation to generate an impact impulse of less than 10 ms. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Forthmann’s device to have the impulse generator to generate an impact impulse of less than 10 ms., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15: wherein the welding jaws (via 10/40) are pressed against each other by means of a device for applying a prestressing force before the impact impulse is applied, see for example (Figs. 1 and 6-7; via 10/40 moved toward and pressed against each other’s before 18 applies impulses).
Regarding claim 16: wherein the pair of welding jaws consists of at least a first welding jaw (via 10) with an active area having a profiled cross-section (Figs. 6-7; via the shown cross section of 12, part of welding member 10).
Regarding claim 17: wherein the pair of welding jaws comprises a second welding jaw (via 40) with a flat active area (Figs. 6-7; via the shown flat surface area of 40) or with a profiled cross section, wherein the profiled cross-section is formed as a radius R1, or wherein the profiled cross-section is formed as a flat profile with a width a, which is limited by two radii R2 or wherein the profiled cross-section is wedge-shaped at an angle a to the flat effective area of the second welding jaw, the wedge tip of which is formed as a radius R3 (the applied art shows the first condition of the claim).
Regarding claim 21: wherein the pair of welding jaws is inserted into a high-speed, continuous web running process with continuous feed, see for example (Fig. 1; via the shown machine and/or paragraph 1, lines 10-20; via “Labels” machine”).
Regarding claim 25: the use of a blow-forging press as a drive mechanism, see for example (Figs. 1 and 6-7; via the shown pressing mechanism of 10/40).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forthmann (U.S. Pat. No. 4,743,333) in view of Yoshida et al .(U.S. Patent No. 5,110,399).
Regarding claim 22: Forthmann does not disclose that the first and/or the second welding jaw is designed as a rolling tool, as a tool that pivots towards the active zone or as a tool that is intermittently carried along with the web during the welding process. However, Yoshida discloses similar device with the use of wedging rolling tools, see for example (Figs. 15-16 & 18; via the shown rotating welding tool 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified or substituted Forthmann’s welding pressing members by another rotating welding members, as suggested by Yoshida, in order to simplify and easily enable the sealing mechanism (column 1, lines 55-60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant main arguments is that the applied art of Forthmann ‘333 does not disclose the claimed device using a “pair of unheated welding jaws” to form the sealing. Rather the claimed invention is using an “impact impulse acts on the plastic forms (10), a heating in the material of the plastic films (10) caused by deformation is produced and the weld seam (12) is formed in an effective area of the welding jaws (2, 4)”. Applicant argues that ‘333 sealing took place using a heated sealing jaws using heating element 38 that is connected over wires 37 to a thermostat control 50.
The Office draws applicant’s attention that the claims are given the broadest reasonable meaning, in this case the claimed invention broadly referring to “a pair of unheated welding jaws” without any specific structural limitations of keeping those jaws “unheated”, which is very much is the case in ‘333. As have been admitted by the applicant in the filed arguments that ‘333 is using a further and separate heating element 38 and wires 37 to achieve the heat seal, makes it clear that the actual pressing jaws themselves are “unheated”, they maybe effected by the outside and separate heating element 38, but structurally they could be considered as “unheated” jaws! In another word, in case those outside heating elements 38/37 not activated, those pressing jaws would be completely “unheated”, they are only impacted and effected when those elements 38 activated.
Further, the argued upon limitations of the “impact impulse acts on the plastic forms (10), a heating in the material of the plastic films (10) caused by deformation is produced and the weld seam (12) is formed in an effective area of the welding jaws (2, 4)”, those appears to be intended use limitations of the welding jaws, which are not given much patentable weight. It is noted that a recitation of the 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 structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the reference and applied case law, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, determining a specific pressing and heat-sealing time would need to be made considering different factors, for example the type of material, the number of the layers, the force of the pressing, the temperature of the heating element itself, etc. Further, as applicant argued heat sealing using heated elements vs using pressing force would require different impact sealing time. Therefore, coming up with a heat-sealing timing to be less than 10 ms, would only be a matter of design choice and discovering of an optimum or workable ranges determined by those skilled in the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731