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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to Applicant’s filing on 6 September 2024.
Claims 45 – 75 are pending. Claims 1 – 44 are cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2 December 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 45, 51, 58 – 59, 64 – 65, and 72 – 75 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 45, the limitation, “comprising”, should read, “comprising:”.
Regarding claims 45 and 73, 37 CFR 1.75(e) describes where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. In the instant case, claim elements are not separated by a line indentation. Moreover, U.S. practice uses indentations, commas, and semicolons to separate sub-combinations to further clarify the claim.
Regarding claim 51, the limitation, “the front leg, rear leg and lower bar”, should read, “the front leg, the rear leg and the lower bar”.
Regarding claim 58, the limitation, “the front leg, rear leg and upper bar”, should read, “the front leg, the rear leg and the upper bar”.
Regarding claim 59, the limitations, “the front leg and rear leg” and “the front leg, rear leg, lower bar and upper bar”, should read, “the front leg and the rear leg” and “the front leg, the rear leg, the lower bar and the upper bar”, respectively.
Regarding claim 64, the limitation, “a raised or lowered position”, should read, “a raised position or a lowered position”.
Regarding claim 65, the limitation, “a noncircular and/or eccentric cam profile”, should read, “a noncircular cam profile and/or an eccentric cam profile”.
Regarding claim 72, the limitation, “strap;”, should read, “strap; and”.
Regarding claim 74, the limitation, “comprising”, should read, “comprising”.
Regarding claim 75, the limitations, “the front leg, rear leg, lower bar and upper bar”, should read, “the front leg, the rear leg, the lower bar and the upper bar”.
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.
Claims 73 – 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 73, the claim is indefinite because the claim appears to be an independent claim directed towards a spacer and, in the preamble, recites “a spacer for a strapping device according to claim 45”; however, the strapping device according to claim 45 already comprises a spacer as part of the strapping device thus it is ambiguous if claim 73 is directed towards this spacer within the strapping device of claim 45 or a different new spacer. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the spacer of claim 73 being directed towards this spacer within the strapping device of claim 45. Please note, since claims 74 – 75 depend upon claim 73, claims 74 – 75 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 73 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 73, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends because the claim appears to be an independent claim directed towards a spacer and, in the preamble, recites “a spacer for a strapping device according to claim 45”; however, the strapping device according to claim 45 already comprises a spacer having the limitations recited in the body of claim 73, thus claim 73 does not further limit this spacer. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 45 – 48, 70, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanks (GB 2 385 294 A).
Regarding claim 45, Blanks discloses a strapping device for strapping one or more articles with a strap, comprising:
a joining apparatus (10, 20, 21, figs. 1, 4) for joining two overlapping portions of the strap, the joining apparatus comprising
a joining jaw (21, fig. 4); and
a joining base (10, 20, figs. 1, 4) arranged to receive the two overlapping portions of the strap therebetween, wherein the joining base comprises
a base body (20, fig. 4); and
a spacer (10, fig. 1) releasably connectable with the base body, the spacer comprising
at least one lower support surface (bottom surface of head 10, fig. 1) for the one or more articles; and
at least one upper support surface (top surface of head 10, fig. 1) for the strap,
wherein the spacer is configured to be releasable from the base body (via the open and closing of jaw 20, 21 as shown in figs. 9, 10) and when the two overlapping portions of the strap are joined.
Regarding claim 46, Blanks discloses the spacer (10, fig. 1) is configured to be releasable from the base body (20, fig. 4) in a horizontal direction transverse to a longitudinal strap axis (Figure 4 shows jaws 20, 21 in the open position wherein the jaw 21 is rotated such that the strapping device can be moved in a horizontal direction transverse to a longitudinal strap axis).
Regarding claim 47, Blanks discloses the spacer (10, fig. 1) is releasably connectable with the base body (20, fig. 4) by a form-fit (Pg. 7, ll. 19 – 34 describes the strap 14 being loaded into the strapping device such that the head 10 is received in a slot 26 of an inner jaw 20 wherein the examiner deems the head 10 is form-fit within the slot 26 of the inner jaw 20).
Regarding claim 48, Blanks discloses the base body (20, fig. 4) and the spacer (10, fig. 1) are releasably connectable by a dovetail connection (Figure 4 shows the head 10 would be releasably connected to the jaw 20 within the recess of slot 26).
Regarding claim 70, Blanks discloses the spacer (10, fig. 1) comprises a slot (12, fig. 1) configured to receive and fasten an end portion of the strap.
Regarding claim 72, Blanks discloses method of operating a strapping device according to claim 45 for strapping one or more articles, the method comprising the steps of:
placing a strap (14, fig. 1) around the one or more articles (Pg. 7, ll. 19 – 22 describes the strap 14 is formed into a loop around the objects to be fastened);
connecting the spacer (10, fig. 1) with the base body (20, fig. 4) (Pg. 7, ll. 19 – 34 describes after the strap 14 is formed into a loop around the objects, a free end of the strap 14 is inserted into bridge 11 of a head 10. Next, the strap 14 is loaded into the strapping device such that the head 10 is received in a slot 26 of an inner jaw 20);
fastening an end portion of the strap (14, fig. 1) at the spacer (Pg. 7, ll. 19 – 21 describes after the strap 14 is formed into a loop around the objects to be fastened, the free end of the strap 14 is inserted into bridge 11 of a head 10);
tensioning the strap (14, fig. 1) around the one or more articles and the spacer (10, fig. 1) (Pg. 8, ll. 6 – 17);
joining two overlapping portions of the strap (14, fig. 1) positioned between the joining jaw (21, fig. 4) and the joining base (10, 20, figs. 1, 4) (Figure 3 shows two overlapping portions of the strap 14 within head 10 wherein Pg. 7, l. 19 – pg. 8, l. 4 describes after the strap 14 is formed into a loop around the objects, a free end of the strap 14 is inserted into bridge 11 of a head 10. Next, the strap 14 is loaded into the strapping device such that the head 10 is received in a slot 26 of an inner jaw 20 and in a slot 27 of an outer jaw 21);
shearing the tensioned strap off from an untensioned bulk portion of the strap (Pg. 8, l. 18 – pg. 9, l. 29);
separating the strapping device from the strap tensioned around the one or more articles and the spacer by releasing the spacer from the base body such that the spacer remains between the one or more articles and the tensioned strap (Pg. 10, ll. 24 – 28 describes once the fastener has been secured, it can be released from the tool by opening the jaws 20,21, wherein pg. 7, ll. 16 – 19 describes the head 10 as the head of a conventional metal banding fastener).
Claims 73 – 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huehoco (EP 2 236 426 A1).
Regarding claim 73, Huehoco discloses a spacer for a strapping device according to claim 45, comprising:
at least one lower support surface (9, 11, figs. 4 – specifically the underside surface of the central web 9 and the side parts 10 having the honeycomb structure 11 as shown in fig. 4) for the one or more articles; and
at least one upper support surface (8, fig. 3) for the strap,
wherein the spacer is configured to be releasably connectable with the base body and to be releasable from the base body when the two overlapping portions of the strap are joined (As shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 74, Huehoco discloses the spacer (5, fig. 2) comprises a concave profile formed on a lower side facing away from the base body (Huehoco – As shown in figure 1).
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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Claims 45 – 47, 49 – 52, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frinzo (US 6 640 838 B2) in view of Huehoco (EP 2 236 426 A1).
Regarding claim 45, Frinzo discloses a strapping device for strapping one or more articles with a strap, comprising:
a joining apparatus (apparatus of figs. 3a – 3d) for joining two overlapping portions of the strap (59, 60, fig. 9), the joining apparatus comprising
a joining jaw (3, fig. 1); and
a joining base (1, 6, figs. 1, 3a) arranged to receive the two overlapping portions of the strap therebetween, wherein the joining base comprises
a base body (1, fig. 1).
Frinzo does not explicitly disclose the joining base comprises a spacer releasably connectable with the base body, the spacer comprising at least one lower support surface for the one or more articles and at least one upper support surface for the strap, wherein the spacer is configured to be releasable from the base body when the two overlapping portions of the strap are joined.
However, Huehoco teaches the joining base comprising a base body (GK, fig. 1) and a spacer (5, fig. 1) releasably connectable with the base body ([0018] describes device body GK laterally contacting a contact edge 7 of a strapping aid/spacer 5. Additionally, [0025] describes the length L of a central web 9 and height HW of the side parts 10 of the strapping aid/spacer 5 are dimensioned to length of the device body GK such that strapping device 6 is stably aligned within the strapping aid/spacer 5. Please note, the term, “connect”, relates to joining two elements and does not necessarily mean to attach or affix two elements. In the instant case, the strapping aid/spacer 5 contacts/joins with the device body GK), the spacer comprising at least one lower support surface (9, 11, figs. 4 – specifically the underside surface of the central web 9 and the side parts 10 having the honeycomb structure 11 as shown in fig. 4) for the one or more articles and at least one upper support surface (8, fig. 3) for the strap, wherein the spacer is configured to be releasable from the base body when the two overlapping portions of the strap are joined (As shown in fig. 2).
Huehoco is evidence that having the joining base comprise the spacer releasably connectable with the base body, the spacer comprising the at least one lower support surface for the one or more articles and the at least one upper support surface for the strap, wherein the spacer is configured to be releasable from the base body when the two overlapping portions of the strap are joined was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the strapping device of Frinzo with the spacer of Huehoco. Moreover, it would have been obvious to have modify the strapping device of Frinzo with the spacer of Huehoco with the motivation to ensure proper tensioning about objects having a curvature ([0009]).
PNG
media_image1.png
471
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
471
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 46, Frinzo, as modified by Huehoco, discloses the invention as recited in claim 45.
The modified Frinzo discloses the spacer (Huehoco – 5, fig. 1) is configured to be releasable from the base body (Frinzo – 1, fig. 1 and Huehoco – GK, fig. 1) in a horizontal direction transverse to a longitudinal strap axis (Huehoco – Figure 1 shows the strapping aid/spacer 5 releasable from the device body GK by moving the device body GK laterally in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis of strap 4. Please note, figure 1 shows the strapping device 6 having spacer 5 on a cylindrical product 2. The cylindrical product 2 with attached strapping device 6 having spacer 5 is rotated such that the attached strapping device 6 having spacer 5 was at the top of the cylindrical product 2, the device body GK by moving the device body GK laterally and horizontally in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis of strap 4).
Regarding claim 47, Frinzo, as modified by Huehoco, discloses the invention as recited in claim 45.
The modified Frinzo discloses the spacer (Huehoco – 5, fig. 1) is releasably connectable with the base body (Frinzo – 1, fig. 1 and Huehoco – GK, fig. 1) by a form-fit ([0025] describes a form/fit connection between the strapping aid/spacer 5 and the device body GK wherein the length L of a central web 9 and height HW of the side parts 10 of the strapping aid/spacer 5 are dimensioned to length of the device body GK such that strapping device 6 is stably aligned within the strapping aid/spacer 5).
Regarding claim 49, Frinzo, as modified by Huehoco, discloses the invention as recited in claim 45.
The modified Frinzo discloses the spacer (Huehoco – 5, fig. 1) comprises a concave profile formed on a lower side facing away from the base body (Huehoco – As shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 50, Frinzo, as modified by Huehoco, discloses the invention as recited in claim 45.
The modified Frinzo discloses the spacer (Huehoco – 5, fig. 1) comprises at least one chamfer (Huehoco – 16, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 51, Frinzo, as modified by Huehoco, discloses the invention as recited in claim 45.
The modified Frinzo discloses the spacer (Huehoco – 5, fig. 1) comprises a front leg (Huehoco – 12, 13a, fig. 3) and a rear leg (Huehoco – 12, 13b, fig. 3) connected by a lower bar (Huehoco – 9, fig. 3), wherein the front leg, the rear leg and the lower bar are arranged to form a trough (Huehoco – the trough having height HW between the two cuboid sections 12, fig. 3) for receiving the base body (Frinzo – 1, fig. 1 and Huehoco – GK, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 52, Frinzo, as modified by Huehoco, discloses the invention as recited in claim 51.
The modified Frinzo discloses the front leg (Huehoco – 12, 13a, fig. 3) comprises a first upper support surface (Huehoco – 8, fig. 3) for the strap and the rear leg (Huehoco – 12, 13b, fig. 3) comprises a second upper support surface (Huehoco – 8, fig. 3) for the strap.
Regarding claim 56, Frinzo, as modified by Huehoco, discloses the invention as recited in claim 51.
The modified Frinzo discloses the front leg (Huehoco – 12, 13a, fig. 3) and/or the rear leg (Huehoco – 12, 13b, fig. 3) comprises an undercut (Huehoco – 8, fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 53 – 55, 57 – 69, and 71 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 75 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takami (US 4 850 180 A) discloses the features of claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is 571-272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
30 April 2026
Prosecution Insights