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 without traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Webber et al. (US Pat. No.: 3,823,438).
Regarding claim 1, Webber anticipates a device for preparing a weld region of a filling tube of a bag (1), comprising: a holder for the bag (1); a suction tube (9), configured to be inserted into the filling tube (8) of the bag (1); and a clamping device (17), configured to clamp the filling tube (8) or the bag (1) (Fig. 1-3; Col 2-3).
Regarding claim 2, Webber anticipates wherein the filling tube (8) is designed to be clamped between a free end of the suction tube (9) and the bag (1) (Fig 3-4; Col 2, Ln 51- Col 3, Ln 8).
Regarding claim 3, Webber anticipates wherein a peripheral intermediate space is formed between an outer wall of the suction tube (9) and an inner wall (1) of the filling tube (8) (Fig 3-4; Col 2, Ln 51- Col 3, Ln 8).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webber as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Robert Berlich (EP 3755299 B1) (hereinafter Berlich).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by Webber as cited above. Webber is silent about the use of heat-sealing device arranged between the clamping device and free end of filling tube.
Berlich also disclose a device for welding a bag. The device comprising a clamping jaws (12) is pressed from the outside against the filling tube (51), do the inner surface of the filling tube (51) on the heated outer wall of the needle is encouraged to melt and seal the filing tube (51) (Fig. 3 -notice the sealing device has two jaws).
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize sealing jaws as taught by Berlich within the sealing device as taught by Webber. The benefit of doing so would have been to assure the bag is tightly sealed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746