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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seeberger (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0052277).
Regarding claim 1: Seeberger discloses a forming unit for a packaging machine, comprising:
- a conveyor configured to convey a flexible packaging material along a conveying direction, see for example (Figs. 2-3; inherently web 4 is being conveyed via conveying means);
- a forming assembly activatable on the flexible packaging material, and configured to shape the flexible packaging material along a forming direction transverse to the conveying direction to form a package (Figs. 2-3; via discs 10);
the forming assembly comprising:
- a first discoidal element and a second discoidal element activatable on a respective portion of the flexible packaging material to shape it so as to form a package (via discs 10); and
- a first bar and a second bar extending substantially parallel to said conveying direction (via both bars 16s and/or 17s), wherein the first discoidal element and the second discoidal element are respectively mounted rotatably on both the first and the second bar (via discs 10 rotates while mounted on 16/17) and wherein the first and second bars are reversibly movable in such a way as to move the first discoidal element and the second discoidal element reciprocally nearer and/or farther apart (Fig. 3; via movement direction “A”);
- an adjustment element associated with the forming assembly and configured to move it nearer and/or farther away along the forming direction (Figs. 3-4; via adjusting device 21), so as to adjust a transversal dimension of the package, wherein the adjustment element comprises an articulated mechanism activatable on the said first bar and the second bar in such a way as to allow a substantially synchronous movement thereof along the forming direction, see for example (Figs. 3-4; via the shown mechanical mechanism of the adjusting device 21).
wherein the adjustment element comprises a first sliding guide and a second sliding guide arranged substantially parallel to each other and extending substantially parallel to the forming direction (Fig. 5; via guides 18); and wherein the forming assembly is slidably mounted on the first sliding guide and the second sliding guide (via discs 10 sliding along with moving elements 18 & paragraph 0019; “pieces 18 running parallel to one another. In order to adjust the rows of insertion discs 10 to the desired gusset depth”); and
wherein the articulated mechanism comprises:
a four-bar linkage, (Figs. 3-7; via the shown multiple linkage to discs 10), and
a slider-crank mechanism (Figs. 6-7; via lever 36) kinematically associated with the four-bar linkage and configured to drive movement of the first bar and the second bar along respectively the first sliding guide and the second sliding guide, see for example (Figs. 3-7; via the mechanism of lever 36 along with the other linkage elements moves discs 10 along guide 20).
Regarding claim 5: wherein at least one of the at least one first discoidal element and/or at least one of the at least one second discoidal element is reversibly movable between a plurality of different operating positions, see for example (Fig. 3; via the shown movements of discs 10 along guide 20 in different positions with respect to each other’s).
Regarding claim 6: wherein the first bar and the second bar are slidably mounted on said first sliding guide, see for example (Fig. 3; via both pairs of bars 16 and/or 17 sliding along with discs 10 along guide 20).
Regarding claim 9: an actuation element activatable on the adjustment element and configured to drive the movement of the forming assembly, wherein the actuation element comprises an electric drive and/or a manual drive, see for example (Figs. 2-4; inherently those mechanical elements have source of driving; paragraph 0001; “to be driven inwards”).
Regarding claim 11: wherein the adjustment assembly comprises a first sliding guide (via guide 18) and a second sliding guide (via the other 18) arranged substantially parallel to each other and extending substantially parallel to the forming direction; and sliding guide, see for example (Fig. 3; via 18s are parallel and sliding along 20).
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.
Alternatively, claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seeberger (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0052277).
Regarding claim 1: in case it is not clear that Seeberger articulated the exact adjustment element with sliding guides arranged substantially parallel to each other and extending substantially parallel to the forming direction, while having the articulated mechanism with four bar linkage and slider crank mechanism kinematically associated with the four-bar linkage. However, since Seeberger discloses the claimed elements of sliding guides (Fig. 3; via movable elements 18) arranged substantially parallel to each other along with the use of different linkages and crank (Figs. 3-4; via the shown mechanical mechanism of the adjusting device 21), coming up with a specific arrangements or orientations of the elements would be nothing more than an engineering design choice to be made.
Therefore, 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 Seeberger’s adjustment element with sliding guides to be arranged substantially parallel to each other and extending substantially parallel to the forming direction, while having the articulated mechanism with four bar linkage and slider crank mechanism kinematically associated with the four-bar linkage, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claims 2, 5-6, 8-9, and 11: as set forth above they are rejected and disclosed by Seeberger the same way indicated under the 102 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12, 5-6, 8-9, and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely sole on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In respect to applicant’s argument that the applied art of Seeberger ‘277 does not disclose the exact arrangements of elements to have the sliding guides parallel to the forming direction (Z-direction). As explained above in the action, since ‘277 shows all claimed elements only in different arrangements or orientation. It is noted that to come up with the claimed specific orientation would be nothing more than a design choice to be made; rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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