DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action on the merits. Claims 1-12, as originally filed are currently pending and have been considered below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I and Species B in the reply filed on 26 November 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is lack of undue burden. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7, line 1, the phrase “wherein peripheral boundary” should be replaced by --the boundary lines--.
In Claim 10, line 3, the phrase “the load” should be replaced by --a load--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 6 describes the voids having a cross section (cross-sections are two-dimensional) being pyramidal (having three dimensions). It is unclear how a two-dimensional shape can be described by a three-dimensional adjective.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gahleitner (US 2019/0255761) in view of Moghal (US 2025/0171213) and Farkus (US 3,943,608).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Gahleitner discloses an apparatus formed of an at least partially crystalline thermoplastic material (Abstract lines 2-3) which is ultrasonically welded (Paragraph 4 lines 4-6 describes wherein the straps as disclosed are used in a welding manner), the plastic strap having a length (41), a width (42) and a thickness (21), two substantially parallel major faces (22) having a width and a length separated by the thickness (Fig. 2 as shown), at least one of the major faces having a plurality of voids (28) extending into the thickness from the major face, each of the voids having lines at their periphery wherein they intersect a major face of the plastic strap (Fig. 3 as shown), each of the voids present in the interior of the plastic strap and having a depth, a void surface area and a void volume measurable from the major face of the plastic strap (Figs. 2-3 as shown).
Gahleitner fails to disclose straight boundary lines and wherein per unit length of the plastic strap the cumulative void surface area is from 20% to 90%, and the cumulative void volume is from 5% to 65 in the region of the plastic strap which is subsequently ultrasonically welded and at least partially melted forming a bond therebetween; wherein the cumulative void volume is from 25% to 30% in the region of the plastic strap which is subsequently ultrasonically welded and at least partially melted forming a bond therebetween.
Moghal et al. teaches a strap with straight boundary lines (Figs. 4-22 as shown).
From this teaching of Moghal, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to provide straight boundary lines for the side walls of the voids in the form of the various shapes shown in Moghal. Although Applicant has not expressly disclosed any particular purpose, advantage or problem solves by using straight walls, it would appear that the same or equivalent sidewalls and shapes (particularly the diamond shapes in Fig. 19) would provide the same purpose, advantage and solved problem when applied to Gahleitner. Gahleitner does not limit or teach away from the shape of the voids as evidenced in Paragraph 81, lines 1-2 wherein Gahleitner describes the geometric shape of the embosser that provides the void shape can be randomly chosen.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to distribute the voids with number, spread and depth to achieve 20%-90% surface area and 5%-65% as well as to include void volumes from 25%to 30% in regions for welding to optimize clamping of the band and reduce timespan required for welding and achieve reduced temperature buildup during the welding. Ultrasonic welding for bonding of bundling of straps was known in prior art of Farkas (see lines 1-2 of the Abstract) and the device of Gahleitner can be used with ultrasonic welding techniques. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ultrasonic welding as the type of welding the ends for its speed and advantages of producing only localized frictional heat at the joint interface.
Regarding claims 2-3, Gahleitner further discloses wherein the plastic strap comprises a substantial portion of a polyalkylene terephthalate; wherein the polyalkylene terephthalate is polyethylene terephthalate (Paragraph 47).
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Gahleitner fails to disclose a width not in excess of 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use straps not in excess of 5mm when sufficient strength is achieved by the strap such that excess width would be a waste of material or when binding items of sufficiently small dimensions or items requiring low binding strength. The claimed materials and structures are met in the prior art as shown above. Therefore, the prior art would be expected to also achieve the same functionality with widths not in excess of 5mm.
Regarding claim 5, Gahleitner further discloses wherein the voids are present in an array (Fig. 3 as shown).
Regarding claim 6, the combination device of Gahleitner and Moghal et al. discloses wherein the voids have boundary lines of parallelogram shape having four apices (Fig. 19 of Moghal et al. as shown) and which voids have a pyramidal cross-section (Fig. 2 of Gahleitner shows wherein the voids have ramped side walls. These ramped sidewalls assist with the peeling of the band embossing wheels. As best understood, this ramped sidewall would meet the claim requirement for pyramidal cross-section).
Regarding claim 7, Gahleitner further discloses wherein peripheral boundary of most of the voids present on a major face of a plastic strap are entirely within the width of the plastic strap, but which include incomplete voids having peripheral boundaries which intersect the and edge of the plastic strap (Fig. 3 as shown).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Gahleitner, Moghal and Farkas further disclose a process comprising:
utilizing a plastic strap according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above),
forming a loop about the load with the plastic strap (Paragraph 4 of Gahleitner describes the bundling process), and,
welding parts of the looped plastic strap (Paragraph 4 describes the welding process).
Ultrasonic welding for bonding of bundling of straps was known in prior art of Farkas (see lines 1-2 of the Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ultrasonic welding as the type of welding the ends for its speed and advantages of producing only localized frictional heat at the joint interface.
Regarding claim 12, Gahleitner further discloses a bundled load comprising a welded formed loop of a plastic strap according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 and Paragraph 4 of Gahleitner further describes the bundling and welding process).
Ultrasonic welding for bonding of bundling of straps was known in prior art of Farkas (see lines 1-2 of the Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use ultrasonic welding as the type of welding the ends for its speed and advantages of producing only localized frictional heat at the joint interface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-5735. 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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
/M.S.L/Examiner, Art Unit 3677
/JASON W SAN/ SPE, Art Unit 3677