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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of invention I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 9/30/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a search of group I would overlap groups II and III and that there is no serious burden for such a search.
Examiner finds that such argument is not persuasive because it relies on the assumption that the search and examination of the inventions would be about the same; however, the issues raised in the examination of apparatus and product claims are divergent from those raised in the examination of process claims. Further, while there may be some overlap in the searches of the inventions, there is no reason to believe that the difference in the searches would be at most, slight. A serious search burden exists if restriction were not required because the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries). In particular, the process, a method for laser scoring a polymeric substrate for packaging, the apparatus, a laser scoring system for packaging material, and the product, an easy-open package, require searching different classes/subclasses and employing different search queries. Therefore, based on the additional work involved in searching and examining the distinct inventions together, restriction of the distinct inventions is clear.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old appears to be illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3, ln 1 recites “wherein the power from” which appears to be a misstatement of “wherein the power is from”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatella et al (US 2025/0033148) in view of Mozley et al (US 2010/0140238).
For claims 1 and 9, Hatella et al teach a method for laser scoring a polymeric substrate for packaging, the method comprising: providing a polymeric substrate (Fig. 1 – element 26); providing a laser apparatus (element 11) having a laser arranged and disposed to provide laser energy (element 16) to a surface of the polymeric substrate; configuring the laser apparatus with a control sequence to deliver the laser energy ([0023]); directing the laser energy from the laser apparatus according to the control sequence to the polymeric substrate to form a score channel into the surface; wherein the laser energy ablates the polymeric substrate to form the score channel ([0021], [0025] & [0033]); and the score channel would be devoid of melted polymer since the score channel is formed by vaporizing specified areas of the substrate.
Hatella et al do not teach configuring the laser apparatus with a control sequence having a power setting and a frequency setting to deliver the laser energy; and directing the laser energy from the laser apparatus according to the control sequence at a power corresponding to the power setting and a frequency corresponding to the frequency setting to the polymeric substrate to form a score channel into the surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor pertaining to a method of machining score lines using laser technology, Mozley et al teach the laser apparatus having a power setting and a frequency setting ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Mozley et al with those of Hatella et al by configuring the laser apparatus with a control sequence having a power setting and a frequency setting to deliver the laser energy; and directing the laser energy from the laser apparatus according to the control sequence at a power corresponding to the power setting and a frequency corresponding to the frequency setting to the polymeric substrate to form a score channel into the surface since Hatella et al are silent to the parameters of the control sequence and one would desire to use proven parameters.
For claims 2, 5 and 7, Hatella et al teach the polymeric substrate comprises polyethylene; the polymeric substrate is a polymeric web; and the polymeric web is advanced along a path substantially perpendicular to the directing of the laser energy ([0024], [0028] and Fig. 1).
For claims 3-4, though the previous combination does not teach the power is from about 120 to about 250 kilowatts; and the frequency is from about 150Hz to about 300Hz; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power be from about 120 to about 250 kilowatts; and the frequency be from about 150Hz to about 300Hz, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the power and frequency settings in order to produce a score channel that possesses the dimensions and tear strength properties as desired. Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
For claim 6, though the previous combination does not teach the polymeric web is unsupported at the location where the laser interacts with the polymeric substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the polymeric web be unsupported at the location where the laser interacts with the polymeric substrate since it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to rearrange the parts in such a manner in order to locate the laser closer to the score line inspection sensor in order to reduce the system response time. Please see MPEP 2144.04 (VI) and In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) for further details.
For claim 8, though the previous combination does not teach the control sequence further includes a dwell setting wherein the speed of the advancing of the polymeric web is from about 200 to about 400 feet per minute, further regarding parameters of the control sequence taught as obvious by Mozley et al above, Mozley et al also teach a setting relating to the speed of the relative motion between the laser beam and the substrate ([0013]) and Hatella et al teach there are multiple factors that may affect the actual depth of the score line since the web material is moving and the dynamics of a moving web will produce a margin of error when forming the score ([0023]) and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the control sequence further include a dwell setting wherein the speed of the advancing of the polymeric web is from about 200 to about 400 feet per minute, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to perform routine experimentation for the purpose of optimizing the dwell setting in order to produce a score channel that possesses the dimensions and tear strength properties as desired. Please see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 for further details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-7007. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11-7.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached on 571-270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES SANDERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743