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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilhofer (DE 2826116 A1) in view of Pelzer (DE 102017123011 A1) and Michalsky (US 8,468,782).
Prilhofer teaches a sealing tool for joining a cap part (K) to a jacket part (M) by ultrasonic welding, the sealing tool comprising: a sonotrode (1) comprising an end-face cavity (2) to accommodate the cap part and jacket part, wherein the cavity has an inner end surface (3) which contacts an upper surface (O) of the cap part during welding, and a mandrel (5) having an upper end surface (6) which can be guided into the cavity in a longitudinal direction, wherein the upper end surface contacts an edge part (R) of the jacket part during welding, wherein the sonotrode and mandrel are movable relative to one another between a starting position (shown in Fig. 2a) in which they are spaced apart from one another and a welding position (shown in Fig. 2d) in which the mandrel is positioned within the cavity such that the inner end surface and the upper end surface are arranged opposite one another with the cap part and jacket part being accommodated in a gap therebetween (See Figures; [0010]-[0026]).
The jacket part (M) of Prilhofer reads on the instantly claimed sleeve. Prilhofer teaches that the sealing tool may be used for a cap part (K) as shown in the figures or a bottom part (See [0003]-[0011]; [0023]). A bottom part reads on the instantly claimed base. The end-face cavity (2), inner end surface (3), and upper end surface (6) read on the instantly claimed cavity, first sealing surface, and second sealing surface, respectively.
In the sealing tool of Prilhofer, the cavity is contained in the sonotrode (1), and the mandrel acts as an anvil by providing a counter surface to the sonotrode during welding. This is the opposite arrangement to the instant claims, which require that the anvil includes the cavity and that the sonotrode is guided into the cavity of the anvil. Prilhofer does not expressly disclose such an arrangement.
Pelzer teaches an apparatus for joining a gable element (24) including a closure (25) to a packing jacket (10’) by ultrasonic welding, the apparatus including a sonotrode (28) with an annular opening into which an anvil (27) is inserted (See Figs. 4A-4B; [0054]; [0057]-[0058]). This first embodiment of Pelzer corresponds to the sealing tool of Prilhofer, with the gable element and closure forming a cap part. Like Prilhofer, the sonotrode of Pelzer includes the cavity (i.e. the annular opening) into which the anvil is inserted during welding.
Pelzer teaches a second embodiment including an apparatus for joining a base element (23) to the packing jacket (10’) by ultrasonic welding, the apparatus including an anvil (27) with an annular opening into which a sonotrode (28) is inserted (See Figs. 4C-4D; [0059]-[0060]). This second embodiment of Pelzer switches the anvil and sonotrode shape and position, which is opposite to the sealing tool of Prilhofer and corresponds to the instantly claimed arrangement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the sonotrode and anvil arrangement taught in the second embodiment of Pelzer (Figs. 2C-2D and their descriptions) in the sealing tool of Prilhofer, particularly when the sealing tool of Prilhofer is used to bond a bottom part (i.e. base) to the jacket part, because Pelzer teaches that such an arrangement was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for such a purpose (See Figs. 2C-2D; [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding the limitation “wherein the anvil cavity has a second inner surface section serving as a guide section that adjoins the first sealing surface in the longitudinal direction which is arranged closer to the sonotrode in the starting position than the first sealing surface,” both Prilhofer and Pelzer show chamfered corner sections which do not form part of the sealing section but instead form guide surfaces which aid in the insertion of one part into another, as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
194
269
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
230
186
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding the newly added limitations “wherein the anvil cavity has a third inner surface section serving as a holding section for the sleeve, wherein the holding section is located on an opposite side of the first sealing surface as compared to the guide section in the longitudinal direction, and wherein the holding section is substantially cylindrical an has an inner diameter approximately equal to an outer diameter of the sleeve,” the anvil (27) in the second embodiment of Pelzer does not extend above the sealing section. Prilhofer and Pelzer do not expressly disclose providing a third inner surface section/holding section within the anvil cavity in the manner claimed.
Michalsky teaches an apparatus comprising a sonotrode (40) which holds a base (30) for insertion into a tubular pouch body (20) and an anvil (50) surrounding the tubular pouch body (See Figures; col. 5, lines 7-51). As can be most clearly seen in Figures 1 and 2 of Michalsky, the anvil has a height which is substantially greater than a dimension of the sealing area, such that the anvil has an inner surface section which holds the tubular pouch body (i.e. sleeve), is located opposite the proposed location of the chamfered corners (i.e. guide surfaces), is substantially cylindrical, and matches the diameter of the tubular pouch body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide an inner surface section in the anvil taught by the combination of Prilhofer and Pelzer in order to provide additional support for the sleeve during processing.
Regarding claim 2, Prilhofer teaches that the inner end surface and upper end surface each form an angle less than 45° relative to the longitudinal axis (See Figures; [0026]). Pelzer also teaches angles (α,β) with angles between 5° and 15° relative to the longitudinal axis (See Fig. 4C; [0059]), which lie within the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Prilhofer and Pelzer do not expressly disclose the two angles being different such that the gap between the first and second sealing surfaces has a conical cross-section.
Michalsky teaches that the sonotrode (40) may have a taper of 5° and that the tapered pouch body supported by the anvil has a taper of 10° (See col. 5, lines 20-25). This difference in angles provides a conical cross-sectional gap between the anvil and the sonotrode as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the angles (α,β) of Prilhofer with different values in the manner taught by Michalsky. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Michalsky that to do so would predictably ensure that the cap and jacket are urged together and their shapes matched upon insertion of the bottom part into the jacket (See col. 5, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 5, Prilhofer and Pelzer do not expressly disclose a vacuum channel on an end face of the sonotrode as claimed.
Michalsky teaches that the base can be held on the sonotrode with suction for insertion into the tubular pouch body (See col. 3, lines 58-63). Since the only portion of the sonotrode which is in contact with the base prior to insertion is an end face of the sonotrode (See Fig. 1), the vacuum suction taught by Michalsky would necessarily include vacuum apertures in the end face of the sonotrode as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a vacuum opening in an end face of a sonotrode in the sealing tool taught by the combination of Prilhofer and Pelzer. The rationale to do so would have been the motivation provided by the teaching of Michalsky that to do so would predictably allow the base to be securely held on the sonotrode for insertion into the cavity (See col. 3, lines 58-63).
Regarding claim 7, the cavity of Prilhofer has a varying inner diameter in the longitudinal direction (See Figures).
Regarding claim 8, the cavity of Prilhofer expands toward the mandrel (See Figures).
Claims 4 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilhofer (DE 2826116 A1) in view of Pelzer (DE 102017123011 A1) and Michalsky (US 8,468,782) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Williames (US 2020/0384702).
Prilhofer, Pelzer, and Michalsky combine to teach a sealing tool, as detailed above.
Prilhofer, Pelzer, and Michalsky do not expressly disclose a recess which runs in the longitudinal direction in the first and/or second sealing surface as required in claims 4 and 13.
Williames teaches a method of manufacturing a container, the apparatus comprising a base attachment unit (69) which holds a tube (21) while a base (7) is positioned therein, the attachment unit (69) including clamps (71) which form a circular cavity in which the tube is situated (See Figs. 12-14; [0160]-[0165]). As can be seen in Figures 13 and 14 of Williames, the clamps have curved end portions which form a recess in the cavity coinciding with a longitudinal seam of the tube as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
191
254
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a recess in the cavity in the sealing tool taught by the combination of Prilhofer, Pelzer, and Michalsky because Williames teaches that such recesses were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for holders of tubes with longitudinal seams, as detailed above.
Claim 14 contains the same limitations of claim 5, which are taught by Michalsky and detailed above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilhofer (DE 2826116 A1) in view of Pelzer (DE 102017123011 A1) and Michalsky (US 8,468,782) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakazato (US 2009/0194916).
Prilhofer, Pelzer, and Michalsky combine to teach a sealing tool, as detailed above.
Prilhofer, Pelzer, and Michalsky do not expressly disclose channel openings through which a vacuum is applied to hold the jacket part.
Nakazato teaches an apparatus for forming a container (A) having body walls (2) and a foot (4), the apparatus including suction holes (25) which holds the body walls against a mold surface (See Figs. 3-6; [0042]; [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide vacuum channels to hold the jacket part in the sealing tool taught by the combination of Prilhofer, Pelzer, and Michalsky because Nakazato teaches that to do so would predictably hold body walls in a secure position while a foot (i.e. base) is attached to a container (See Figs. 3-6; [0042]; [0048]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilhofer (DE 2826116 A1) in view of Pelzer (DE 102017123011 A1) and Michalsky (US 8,468,782) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pereira (US 10,589,882).
Prilhofer, Pelzer, and Michalsky combine to teach a sealing tool, as detailed above. In the sealing tool taught by the combination of Prilhofer, Pelzer, and Michalsky the anvil is a unitary body with a cavity therein.
Prilhofer, Pelzer, and Michalsky do not expressly disclose an anvil comprising two parts which are arranged side-by-side in a floating manner so as to be movable in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction as claimed.
Pereira teaches an apparatus for installing a fitment (70) including a base (72) into a flexible container by ultrasonic welding, the apparatus comprising a mandrel (80) on which the fitment is situated for insertion in a cavity between clamps (90,92) which are arranged side-by-side in a floating manner to be movable in a direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (See Figures; col. 16, lines 40-67).
It was known in the prior art that a container body could be supported for ultrasonic bonding in a cavity of a unitary anvil (as taught by the combination of Prilhofer, Pelzer, and Michalsky) or in a cavity between two side-by-side clamp halves (as taught by Pereira). Since both of these arrangements were recognized in the prior art as being suitable for the same purpose, the substitution of one arrangement for the other would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilhofer (DE 2826116 A1) in view of Pelzer (DE 102017123011 A1), Michalsky (US 8,468,782), and Williames (US 2020/0384702) as applied to claims 13-14 above, and further in view of Nakazato (US 2009/0194916).
All limitations in claims 15-17 are previously recited in claims 1-8. All such limitations are addressed above with respect to claims 1-8 and 12-14. Claims 15-17 are therefore rejected for the same reasons detailed above, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilhofer (DE 2826116 A1) in view of Pelzer (DE 102017123011 A1), Michalsky (US 8,468,782), Williames (US 2020/0384702), and Nakazato (US 2009/0194916) as applied to claims 15-17 above, and further in view of Pereira (US 10,589,882).
Claims 18-20 combine the limitations of claims 1-17. All such limitations are addressed above with respect to claims 1-17. Claims 18-20 are therefore rejected for the same reasons detailed above, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant persuasively argues that Prilhofer and Pelzer do not expressly disclose a third inner surface section as claimed. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Michalsky (US 8,468,782), as detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claim 3 are moot, as the grounds for rejection for this claim have changed in light of the amendments to claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to claims 6 and 15 are moot, as the grounds for rejection for this claim have changed in light of the amendments to claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. Examiner maintains that all rejections presented in this Office action are proper when these requirements are taken into consideration.
Allowable Subject Matter
In preparation for the interview conducted on 07/16/2026, Applicant submitted potential amendments for discussion purposes. One such amendment was presented as “Option 2a,” which—in addition to the presently added third inner surface/holding section—recites a further inner surface section having a larger diameter than, and adjoining, the holding section.” Such a further inner surface section is designated as numeral 14 in the drawings of the instant application. As of the date of this Office action, Examiner has not identified any reference or combination of references which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the tool taught by the combination of Prilhofer, Pelzer, and Michalsky to include such a feature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
