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.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webber at al. (US Pat. No.: 3,823,438).
Regarding claim 1, Webber discloses a device for preparing a weld region of a filling tube (8) of a bag (1), comprising: conveyor which transports the bag through the cleaning and sealing machine. The conveyor is able to suspend the bag (1) in a substantially vertical orientation such that the filling tube (8) is arranged above a portion of the bag (1) (Fig. 2; Col 2, Ln 5-26); 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. 3-4; Col 2, Ln 51-Col 3, Ln 8).
The clamping device (17) would naturally assure adequate force is applied near the neck (16) to assure material contained inside the bag does not spill/escape onto the weld region. The benefit of doing so would have been to obtain a tight secure seal of the bag.
Regarding claim 2, Webber discloses wherein the filling tube (8) is designed to be clamped between a free end of the suction hole (9) and bag (1) (Fig. 3-4; Col 2, Ln 51- Col 3, Ln 8).
Regarding claim 3, Webber discloses 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. 3-5; Col 2, Ln 51-Col 3, Ln 43). Webber further discloses the suction tube (9) has ports (14) in its sides toward its outer end. The ports (14) are located in lower and upper end of the suction tube (9) (corresponding to opening at lower end). Each set of ports being designed to remove particles of the material with which the sack is filled, by vacuum suction from a band on each of the two mutually inner surfaces of the mouth portion which is swept by those ports and which is indicated at (15) in Fig. 5. The vacuum applied to the ports (14) tends to draw the material of the sack toward the finger (9). The suction tube (9) is placed in a peripheral intermediate space formed between outer wall of the suction tube (9) and inner walls of the filling tube (8) to allow the residual material to be sucked out clean. The act of vacuum suction would naturally suck the air downwardly along the peripheral intermediate space since the top portion is open and the bottom portion is clamped via clamp (17).
Give the wealth of knowledge it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to place the suction tube within peripheral intermediate space to remove residual material prior to welding. The benefit of doing so would have been to obtain secure bond.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webbe 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
Prosecution Insights