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 .
In light of the latest conducted interview and per the Examiner Interview Summary filed on 03/27/2026, a new NF. action processed herewith.
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) 1, 6, and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koike et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,136,155) in view of EP 3-674-222 (will be referred to as ‘222 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1: Koike discloses a machine for packaging products, the machine comprising:
a reference support (Fig. 2; via 63/64);
an actuation assembly configured to be used in a process of packaging the products (Figs. 1-2; via 15 with 57/56), the actuation assembly including a first actuation element linearly displaceable with respect to the reference support (via 82 in respect to 63/64); and
a drive that includes a motor assembly joined to the reference support (via 58) and coupled with the first actuation element (58 coupled with 63), the drive including a first linkage mechanism coupling the first actuation element to a rotor of the motor assembly (via linkage 82) and a second linkage mechanism coupling the first actuation element to the motor assembly (via linkage 81 coupling with motor 58), the motor assembly being joined to the reference support (via motor 58 joined to 63) such that upon the motor assembly being driven, the linking mechanism and the rotor rotate with respect to the reference support in opposite directions of rotation to cause a linear displacement of the first actuation element with reference to the reference support (via motor 58 rotates in forward and reverse directions to cause linear displacement of the actuator (15 and/or sealing jaw 57).
Koike may not be clear about using a stator nor the exact specific arrangements of the linkage mechanism in respect to the stator.
However, ‘222 as indicated by the background of the filed specification and clearly know such use of a “stator” is very old and well known.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified Koike’s motor with a use of stator as suggested by ‘222, in order to come up with more efficient and reliable operations of the motor and generators (well known advantage and benefit of the use of any motor’s stator).
In respect to a specific linking arrangement of the linkages in respect to the stator, that would be nothing more than an engineering design choice to be made. 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 Koike in view of ‘222’s motor by having a first linkage mechanism coupling the first actuation element to a rotor of the motor assembly and a second linkage mechanism coupling the first actuation element to a stator of the motor assembly, since it ahs been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 6: Koike discloses that the actuation assembly includes a second actuation element (Fig. 2-3; via 56) that is linearly displaceable with respect to the reference support and arranged facing the first actuation element (via 56 facing 57 and moving linearly in respect to 63/64), the drive being configured to cause simultaneous linear displacement of each of the first and second actuation elements (Figs. 2-3; via the shown simultaneous linear movements of 56/57), the drive including a third linkage mechanism (via 83) coupling the second actuation element to the stator or to the rotor of the motor assembly (via 83 coupled with 81 and motor rotation 58).
Regarding claim 9: Koike discloses the third linkage (via 83) mechanism couples the second actuation element to the rotor of the motor assembly (via 83 coupled with actuation element 57).
Regarding claim 10: Koike discloses that each of the first, second and third linkage mechanism (via linkages 81-83) respectively comprises a first, second and third connecting rod (via the shown rods of 81-83) coupled to the motor assembly (via motor 58), the first and second linkage mechanisms respectively comprising a first crank and a second crank that is each coupled to the first actuation element, the third linkage mechanism comprising a third crank coupled to the second actuation element, see for example (Figs. 2-4; via the shown members and mechanism of movements of 81-83).
Regarding claims 11 & 12: Koike discloses the first and second connecting rods have a first same length, and the first and second cranks have a second same length, see for example (Figs. 2-4; via 82 & 81 show same length).
regarding claim 13: Koike discloses that the drive comprises a guiding assembly configured to guide the linear displacement of the first actuation element with respect to the reference support, the first actuation element being coupled to and moveable along the guiding assembly, see for example (Figs. 2-3; via guides 65).
Regarding claim 14: Koike discloses that the guiding assembly comprises a guide extending along a direction of travel of the first actuation element and a guiding element associated with the first actuation element (via 65 extended along travel direction of 57), the guiding element cooperating with the guide during displacement of the first actuation element caused by the motor assembly, see for example (Figs. 2-3; via the movement of 57/56 along guides 65).
Regarding claim 15: Koike discloses the guide is fixed to the reference support (via 65 fixed on 63/64).
Regarding claim 16: Koike discloses that the stator or the rotor of the motor is coupled to the reference support (via motor elements coupled to 63).
Regarding claim 17: Koike discloses that the stator or the rotor is coupled to the reference support with freedom of rotation, see for example (Figs. 2-4; via rotor of motor 58/59 in respect to support 63/64).
Regarding claim 18: Koike discloses that the rotor is freely rotatably coupled to the reference support of the motor assembly is rotatably coupled to the reference support (Figs. 2-4; via 58/59 in respect to 63/64).
‘222 discloses the specific arrangement of having the rotor to be freely coupled to the stator, see for example (Figs. 2-4; via the shown linking and rotor mechanism).
Regarding claim 19: Koike discloses that the stator or the rotor is connected to the reference support by a bearing, see for example (Figs. 2-3; via 58/59 connected to support 63/64 inherently with bearing mechanism).
Regarding claim 20: Koike discloses further comprising an additional drive, see for example (Fig. 4; via 59).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6, and 9-20 have been considered and the previously filed FR. on 02/25/2026 have been withdrawn. A new ground of rejecting is made as explained above over Koike et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,136,155) in view of EP 3-674-222.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights