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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 01/23/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 3-8 and 13-14 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claim 9 is withdrawn for being drawn to a non-elected species. Claims 1-2, 9-12, and 15-28 are pending and examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 5, the embodiment shown in Figures 27-28, in the reply filed on 09/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/26/2025.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10, 12, 16-17, 19-20, 22, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lang et al. (10,144,539) in view of reference Jacobs et al. (9,008,831).
Regarding claim 1, Lang et al. disclose an apparatus (2) for heat-sealing a lidding film (100) to each of a plurality of supporting elements (7) on each of which a product is present, the apparatus (1) comprising:
a structure (see figure 1 below);
a track (5, 8) which is fitted on the structure (see figure 1 below),
wherein the track (5, 8) extends between an infeed zone (4) and an outfeed zone (3) and which defines a plane;
a head-sealing device (9) which is fitted on the structure (see figure 1 below) along the track (5, 8),
wherein the head-sealing device (9) comprises a supporting unit (11) and a closing unit (10), and
wherein at least one of the supporting unit (11) and the closing unit (10) being movable, relative to each other, between a home position (Figure 2), in which the supporting unit (11) and the closing unit (10) are at a distance from each other, and an operating position (Figure 4), in which the supporting unit (11) and the closing unit (10) are coupled to simultaneously clamp, in use, the lidding film (100) and the plurality of supporting elements (7);
a conveying unit (6) configured to support the supporting elements (7),
wherein the conveying unit (6) is movable along the track (5, 8),
wherein the conveying unit (6) conveys the supporting elements (7) from the infeed zone (4) to an intermediate zone, at which the heat-sealing device (9) is located, and form the intermediate zone to the outfeed zone (3),
wherein the conveying unit (6) comprises:
at least two shuttles (37) which are movable over the plane; and
a single body (29) which is supported by the at least two shuttles (37),
wherein the single body (29) defines a plurality of seats (30), and
wherein, when the conveying unit (6) is located in the intermediate zone, during an activation of the heat-sealing device (9), the single body (29) couples to the supporting unit (11) to define a clamping unit for clamping the supporting elements (7) against the closing unit (10).
(Figures 1-4, 10 and Column 13 lines 45-52, 60-63, Column 14 lines 11-18, 23-26, 30-34, Column 17 lines 7-11, 26-28, 41-45)
However, Lang et al. do not disclose the movement track defines a gliding plane with electromagnetic coils situated below the gliding plane, and do not disclose the conveying unit comprises at least two magnetic shuttles.
[AltContent: textbox (Lang et al.)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Structure)]
PNG
media_image1.png
320
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jacobs et al. disclose a system (100) comprising: a movement track (102) defining a gliding plane (104); and a plurality of conveying units (114), wherein the movement track (102) includes electromagnetic coils (112) situated below the gliding plane (104), wherein the conveying units (114) includes at least one or more magnets (126) which are movable over the gliding plane (104) by powering each electromagnetic coil (112) in a controlled way. (Figures 1, 2, 4 and Column 4 lines 49-61, Column 4 lines 66-67 through Column 5 lines 1-6)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lang et al. by incorporating the movement track, electromagnetic coils, and magnets as taught by Jacobs et al., since column 1 lines 41-45 of Jacobs et al. states such a modification would allow the speed of the conveying units to be adjustable.
Lang et al. disclose the conveying unit comprises two shuttles that movable along the track. When modifying Lang et al. in view of Jacobs et al., the conveying unit is interpreted to comprise two magnetic shuttles.
Regrading claim 2, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose the movement track (Jacobs et al. – 102) is a planar motor conveyor plane. (Lang et al. – Figure 1 and Column 13 lines 48-56) (Jacobs et al. – Figure 1 and Column 4 lines 49-52)
Regarding claim 10, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose, at the intermediate zone, at least one the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) and the movement track (Jacobs et al. – 102) is movable relative to the other, and wherein, when the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) is located in the intermediate zone, a relative shifting of the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) and the movement track (Jacobs et al. – 102) causes a mechanical coupling between the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) and the single body (Lang et al. – 29) of the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6), as a result of which the clamping unit is defined. (Lang et al. – Figures 2-4 and Column 14 lines 11-18)
Regarding claim 12, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) is movable between the home position (Lang et al. – Figure 2) and the operating position (Lang et al. – Figure 4), and wherein the passage of the support unit (Lang et al. – 11) from the home position (Lang et al. – Figure 2) to the operating position (Lang et al. – Figure 4) causes the mechanical coupling between the single body (Lang et al. – 29) of the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) placed in the intermediate zone and the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11). (Lang et al. – Figures 2-4 and Column 14 lines 11-18)
Regarding claim 16, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose a plurality of independent conveying units (Lang et al. – 6). (Lang et al. – Figure 1)
Regarding claim 17, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose, at the intermediate zone, at least one the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) and the movement track (Jacobs et al. – 102) is movable relative to the other, and wherein, when the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) is located in the intermediate zone, a relative shifting of the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) and the movement track (Jacobs et al. – 102) causes a mechanical coupling between the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) and the single body (Lang et al. – 29) of the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6), as a result of which the clamping unit is defined. (Lang et al. – Figures 2-4 and Column 14 lines 11-18)
Regarding claim 19, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) is movable between the home position (Lang et al. – Figure 2) and the operating position (Lang et al. – Figure 4), and wherein the passage of the support unit (Lang et al. – 11) from the home position (Lang et al. – Figure 2) to the operating position (Lang et al. – Figure 4) causes the mechanical coupling between the single body (Lang et al. – 29) of the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) placed in the intermediate zone and the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11). (Lang et al. – Figures 2-4 and Column 14 lines 11-18)
Regarding claim 20, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose, at the intermediate zone, at least one the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) and the movement track (Jacobs et al. – 102) is movable relative to the other, and wherein, when the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) is located in the intermediate zone, a relative shifting of the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) and the movement track (Jacobs et al. – 102) causes a mechanical coupling between the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) and the single body (Lang et al. – 29) of the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6), as a result of which the clamping unit is defined. (Lang et al. – Figures 2-4 and Column 14 lines 11-18)
Regarding claim 22, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11) is movable between the home position (Lang et al. – Figure 2) and the operating position (Lang et al. – Figure 4), and wherein the passage of the support unit (Lang et al. – 11) from the home position (Lang et al. – Figure 2) to the operating position (Lang et al. – Figure 4) causes the mechanical coupling between the single body (Lang et al. – 29) of the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) placed in the intermediate zone and the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11). (Lang et al. – Figures 2-4 and Column 14 lines 11-18)
Regarding claim 26, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose a plurality of independent conveying units (Lang et al. – 6). (Lang et al. – Figure 1)
Regarding claim 27, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose a plurality of independent conveying units (Lang et al. – 6). (Lang et al. – Figure 1)
Regarding claim 28, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose a plurality of independent conveying units (Lang et al. – 6). (Lang et al. – Figure 1)
Claims 11, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lang et al. (10,144,539) in view of reference Jacobs et al. (9,008,831) as applied to claims 10, 17, and 20 respectively, and further in view of reference Vaccari (9,162,825).
Regarding claim 11, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the movement track movable between a raised position and lowered position.
Vaccari discloses an apparatus comprising: a movement track (45); and a heat-sealing device (44, 144) including a supporting unit (44) and a closing unit (144), wherein the movement track (45) is movable between a raised position, in which the movement track (45) allows the a supporting element (V) to reach an intermediate zone and to come out of the intermediate zone, and lowered position, wherein the shifting of the movement track (45) from the raised position to the lowered position causes the supporting element (V) to couple to the support unit (44). (Figure 1 and Column 5 lines 21-36)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lang et al. by incorporating the moveable movement track as taught by Vaccari, since column 1 lines 47-53 of Vaccari states such a modification would allow the apparatus to be washed easily and completely.
Regarding claim 18, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. and Vaccari disclose the movement track (Vaccari – 45) is movable between a raised position, in which the movement track (Vaccari – 45) allows the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) to reach the intermediate zone and to come out of the intermediate zone, and a lowered position, wherein the shifting of the movement track (Vaccari – 45) from the raised position to the lowered position causing the mechanical coupled between the single body (Lang et al. – 29) of the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) placed in the intermediate zone and the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11). (Lang et al. – Column 14 lines 11-18) (Vaccari – Column 5 lines 21-36)
Regarding claim 21, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. and Vaccari disclose the movement track (Vaccari – 45) is movable between a raised position, in which the movement track (Vaccari – 45) allows the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) to reach the intermediate zone and to come out of the intermediate zone, and a lowered position, wherein the shifting of the movement track (Vaccari – 45) from the raised position to the lowered position causing the mechanical coupled between the single body (Lang et al. – 29) of the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) placed in the intermediate zone and the supporting unit (Lang et al. – 11). (Lang et al. – Column 14 lines 11-18) (Vaccari – Column 5 lines 21-36)
Claims 15 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Lang et al. (10,144,539) in view of reference Jacobs et al. (9,008,831) as applied to claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 respectively, and further in view of reference Baldini et al. (2022/0250780).
Regarding claim 15, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose further processing stations.
Baldini et al. disclose an apparatus comprising: a movement track (3); and a plurality of processing stations (2), wherein the movement track (3) extends through the plurality of processing station s (2). (Figure 2 and Page 1 paragraphs 16-19, Page 2 paragraphs 28, 39)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the apparatus of Lang et al. by incorporating the further processing stations as taught by Baldini et al., since page 1 paragraph 4 of Baldini et al. states such a modification would allow optimized processing of the support elements.
Regarding claim 23, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. and Baldini et al. disclose the movement track (Jacobs et al. – 102) is part of a forward movement track of a plant (Baldini et al. – 1), wherein the plant (Baldini et al. – 1) comprises further processing stations (Baldini et al. – 2), and wherein the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) is used to move the supporting elements (Lang et al. – 7) along the forward movement track. (Lang et al. – Figure 1) (Baldini et al. – Figure 2)
Regarding claim 24, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. and Baldini et al. disclose the movement track (Jacobs et al. – 102) is part of a forward movement track of a plant (Baldini et al. – 1), wherein the plant (Baldini et al. – 1) comprises further processing stations (Baldini et al. – 2), and wherein the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) is used to move the supporting elements (Lang et al. – 7) along the forward movement track. (Lang et al. – Figure 1) (Baldini et al. – Figure 2)
Regarding claim 25, Lang et al. modified by Jacobs et al. and Baldini et al. disclose the movement track (Jacobs et al. – 102) is part of a forward movement track of a plant (Baldini et al. – 1), wherein the plant (Baldini et al. – 1) comprises further processing stations (Baldini et al. – 2), and wherein the conveying unit (Lang et al. – 6) is used to move the supporting elements (Lang et al. – 7) along the forward movement track. (Lang et al. – Figure 1) (Baldini et al. – Figure 2)
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 01/23/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 3-8 and 13-14 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claim 9 is withdrawn for being drawn to a non-elected species. Claims 1-2, 9-12, and 15-28 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Lang et al. (10,144,539) modified by reference Jacobs et al. (9,008,831), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
No relative movement between the feet and the conveyor belts occurs or is suggested. Lang at col. 17, l. 41-45. Therefore, the conveying unit does not comprise two shuttles which are movable over a plane, because the conveying unit rests on, in a stationary manner, and only moves with the conveyor belt.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., relative movement between the feet and conveyor belt) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Amended claim 1 discloses “a conveyor unit which is configured to support the supporting elements and is associable with the movement track for moving on the movement track”. Amended claim 1 does not disclose the conveyor unit moves relative to the movement track nor disclose the movement track is stationary as the conveyor unit moves.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Lang et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of moving the conveyor units over a glide plane. Lang et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a conveying unit comprising two shuttles, wherein the conveying unit moves along a track that extends from an infeed zone and an outfeed zone. Jacobs et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a conveyor unit comprising a magnet, wherein the conveyor unit is configured to move over a glide plane, wherein electromagnetic coils are situated below the gliding plane. When modifying Lang et al. in view of Jacobs et al., conveying unit is interpreted to comprise two shuttles, wherein each shuttle comprises a magnet, wherein the conveying unit moves along a track that extends from an infeed zone and an outfeed zone, wherein the conveyor unit is configured to move over a glide plane, and wherein electromagnetic coils are situated below the gliding plane.
Applicant states:
Additionally, Jacobs discloses conveying units that include one reaction element (122) wherein the reaction element (122) comprises one or more magnets (126).
…
However, Jacobs never teaches or reasonably suggests using two reaction elements, i.e. magnetic shuttles, to move a single conveying unit.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Jacobs et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of a conveying unit comprising two shuttles. Jacobs et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a conveyor unit comprising a magnet, wherein the conveyor unit is configured to move over a glide plane, wherein electromagnetic coils are situated below the gliding plane. Lang et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a conveying unit comprising two shuttles, wherein the conveying unit moves along a track that extends from a, infeed zone and a, outfeed zone. When modifying Lang et al. in view of Jacobs et al., the conveying unit is interpreted to comprise two shuttles, wherein each shuttle comprises a magnet, wherein the conveying unit moves along a track that extends from an infeed zone and an outfeed zone, wherein the conveyor unit is configured to move over a glide plane, and wherein electromagnetic coils are situated below the gliding plane.
Furthermore, in Figure 4 of Jacob et al., the conveying unit (114) is shown to have two reaction elements (122). Therefore, Jacobs et al. do teach using two reaction elements to move a single conveying unit.
Applicant states:
Instead, a person of ordinary skill in the art, assuming, arguendo, is somehow motivated to combine Jacobs and Lang, would have only modified the conveying units of Lang with as single magnetic reaction element of Jacobs.
Jacobs et al. does not disclose that each conveyor unit (114) can only have one reaction element (122) or teach that the device would not work with more than one reaction element. Rather, in Figure 4, Jacobs et al. disclose the conveyor unit (114) having two reaction element (122).
Furthermore, since Applicant does not provide any evidence to support the assertion that the person of ordinary skill in the art would never modify the shuttles of Lang et al. by incorporating the magnets at taught by Jacobs et al., the assertion is mere speculation. “An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney arguments and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”. [MPEP 2145(I)] Therefore, in view of Applicant not providing support for the assertion, and in view of Jacobs et al. not teaching away from having multiple reaction elements on a single conveying unit, the argument is rendered moot.
Applicant states:
Thus, modifying Lang with the conveying technology of Jacobs only require one magnetic reaction element, which further evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably arrive at the claimed invention when considering Lang and Jacobs.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Lang et al. teaches a conveying unit comprising two shuttles, wherein the conveying unit moves along a track that extends from an infeed zone and an outfeed zone. Lang et al. do not disclose a conveying unit comprising only one shuttle.
Jacobs et al. teaches a conveyor unit comprising a reaction element, wherein the conveyor unit is configured to move over a glide plane, wherein electromagnetic coils are situated below the gliding plane. Jacobs et al. do not disclose the conveyor unit can only have one reaction element, but rather teaches a conveyor unit having two reaction elements, as shown in Figure 4.
Neither Lang et al. nor Jacobs et al. disclose any motivation nor suggest to remove one of the shuttles of the conveyor unit of Lang et al. and incorporating only one reaction element into the remaining shuttle. Therefore, when modifying Lang et al. in view of Jacobs et al., the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the magnets of Jacobs et al. into each shuttle of the conveyor unit of Lang et al..
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 PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 May 14, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights