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 1-2, 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).
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.
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,” the end-face cavity (2) of Prilhofer includes a guide section which meets the limitation as shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
444
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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 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 3 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) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Kosaka (JP-S60136360).
Prilhofer and Pelzer combine to teach a sealing tool wherein each of the first and second sealing surfaces forms a non-zero angle with the longitudinal direction, as detailed above.
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.
Kosaka teaches an apparatus for welding a lid (4) to a cylindrical body (1), the apparatus comprising an ultrasonic horn (8) which enters a hole of a support arm (9), wherein a skirt (7) of the lid and a portion of the cylindrical body are pressed in a gap between the horn and the support arm and ultrasonically welded, and wherein each contact surface of the horn and support arm which form the gap has a non-zero angle, and wherein the angles are not equal such that a wedge action occurs at the contact surface during welding (See Figures; pp. 6-8). The ultrasonic horn and support arm correspond to the instantly claimed sonotrode and anvil, respectively, and the non-equal angles form a conical cross-section within the gap as claimed (See Fig. 3; pp. 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the different angles and resulting conical cross-section taught by Kosaka 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 Kosaka that to do so would predictably create a strong and uniform bond (See pp. 7-8).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilhofer (DE 2826116 A1) in view of Pelzer (DE 102017123011 A1) and as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Williames (US 2020/0384702).
Prilhofer and Pelzer combine to teach a sealing tool, as detailed above.
Prilhofer and Pelzer do not expressly disclose a recess which runs in the longitudinal direction in the first and/or second sealing surface.
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_image2.png
191
254
media_image2.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 and Pelzer 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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prilhofer (DE 2826116 A1) in view of Pelzer (DE 102017123011 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of either one of Backes (US 2024/0326346) or Michalsky (US 8,468,782).
Prilhofer and Pelzer combine to teach a sealing tool, as detailed above. Prilhofer teaches vacuum bores (14,15) which hold the cap part or bottom part in the cavity (See Fig. 1; [0023]).
Prilhofer and Pelzer do not expressly disclose a vacuum channel on an end face of the sonotrode as claimed.
Backes teaches a sealing device comprising an opening (18) on an end face of a receptacle (8) in order to hold an equipment element (2) in the receptacle (See Fig. 2; [0058]).
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 Backes that to do so would predictably allow the equipment element (such as a base) to be securely held by vacuum (See [0058]).
Michalsky teaches an apparatus comprising a sonotrode (40) which holds a base (30) for insertion into a tubular pouch body (20) and attachment thereto (See Figures; col. 5, lines 7-51). Michalsky also 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).
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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakazato (US 2009/0194916).
Prilhofer and Pelzer combine to teach a sealing tool, as detailed above.
Prilhofer and Pelzer 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 and Pelzer 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pereira (US 10,589,882).
Prilhofer and Pelzer combine to teach a sealing tool, as detailed above. In the sealing tool taught by the combination of Prilhofer and Pelzer, the anvil is a unitary body with a cavity therein.
Prilhofer and Pelzer 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 and Pelzer) 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Prilhofer (DE 2826116 A1) in view of Pelzer (DE 102017123011 A1) and Kosaka (JP-S60136360) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Williames (US 2020/0384702).
Claim 13 combines the limitations of claims 1-4. All such limitations are addressed above with respect to claims 1-4 and 12. Claim 13 is therefore rejected for the same reasons detailed above, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Prilhofer (DE 2826116 A1) in view of Pelzer (DE 102017123011 A1), Kosaka (JP-S60136360), and Williames (US 2020/0384702) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of either one of Backes (US 2024/0326346) or Michalsky (US 8,468,782).
Claim 14 combines the limitations of claims 1-5. All such limitations are addressed above with respect to claims 1-5 and 12-13. Claim 14 is therefore rejected for the same reasons detailed above, which will not be repeated here for brevity.
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), Kosaka (JP-S60136360), Williames (US 2020/0384702), and either one of Backes (US 2024/0326346) or Michalsky (US 8,468,782) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Nakazato (US 2009/0194916).
Claims 15-17 combine the limitations of 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), Kosaka (JP-S60136360), Williames (US 2020/0384702), either one of Backes (US 2024/0326346) or Michalsky (US 8,468,782), 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 03/17/2026, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previously applied rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims have been amended to address all issues of indefiniteness. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant argues that the combination of Prilhofer and Pelzer fails to teach or fairly suggest a difference in angles between the first and second sealing surfaces, particularly because such a difference in angles provides a conical cross-section in the gap, which goes beyond a mere design choice and materially impacts the operation of the device. Examiner finds this argument persuasive. This rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kosaka, as detailed above.
Applicant's additional arguments with respect to the previously applied prior art have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Prilhofer and Pelzer fails to teach or fairly suggest the claimed relationship between the sonotrode and the anvil, particularly the anvil having a cavity in its end face, the sonotrode being movable from outside the cavity to inside the cavity, opposing first and second sealing surfaces defining a welding gap, and an inner surface section which serves as a guide, adjoins the first sealing surface, and is arranged closer to the sonotrode in a starting position than the first sealing surface. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the combination of Prilhofer and Pelzer teaches all of these features of the instantly claimed invention, as detailed in the rejections above.
Applicant argues that the combination of Prilhofer and Pelzer also does not teach the instantly claimed guide section and shows an annotated version of Fig. 4 to illustrate differences between the claimed invention and that taught by the combination of Prilhofer and Pelzer. In particular, Applicant argues that the guide section is not a holding surface or incident cavity wall and guides a sleeve portion positioned in the cavity beyond the first sealing surface. These arguments are not commensurate with the claims, which make no mention of such features.
Applicant also describes both embodiments of Pelzer and states that they are fundamentally different welding arrangements. Examiner agrees that the two embodiments of Pelzer are different and are used for different sections of the container. However it is unclear how this argument is meant to overcome the rejection based on the Pelzer reference. The Pelzer reference is brought into the rejection because it teaches these two embodiments and shows that both were known in the prior art at the time the invention was filed.
Applicant argues that the embodiment of Pelzer shown in Figs. 4C and 4D does not have a sleeve in a cavity of the anvil. Examiner respectfully disagrees because a bottom sealing surface (19) of the sleeve is present within the cavity of the anvil (See Figs. 4C-4D). Examiner notes that since the cavity of the anvil is where the bonding takes place, at least some portion of the part to be bonded must be present in the cavity, contrary to Applicant’s assertion.
Applicant also argues that the embodiment of Pelzer shown in Figs. 4C and 4D includes an open, ring-shaped anvil, which is different from the instantly claimed anvil with an end face cavity. This argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, which recite an end-face of the anvil having a cavity but make no mention as to whether such an end face is open or closed. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation, an anvil having a cavity in its end face may have a closed end face or an open end face through which the cavity is formed.
Applicant argues that combining Prilhofer and Pelzer would require relocating the cavity from the sonotrode to the anvil, guiding the sonotrode into an anvil cavity while a sleeve is accommodated within the cavity, and providing the anvil cavity with an internal guide section. Examiner maintains that the combination of Prilhofer and Pelzer clearly suggests all such features, as detailed in the rejections above. Therefore the modifications described by the Applicant would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Applicant argues that the combination of Prilhofer and Pelzer would not require internal sleeve guidance as required in the instantly claimed invention. This is not commensurate with the scope of the claims, which mention a guide section but do not require that such a section is configured to guide an internal sleeve. Such a section can also serve to guide the sonotrode into the cavity.
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.
Applicant argues that the modifications would change the principle of operation of the sealing tool of Prilhofer. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The principles of Prilhofer would remain intact when combining the teachings of Pelzer with the Prilhofer reference, with only conventional features being incorporated which would better allow the sealing tool of Prilhofer to be used with a bottom part of a container.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights