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)(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.
(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) 1-9, 21, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Heeg (US2015/0158247A1) IDS.
With respect to claim 1, Heeg teaches a process for welding a singulated, multi-layer product by means of an ultrasonic tool (1), which comprises a generator (10), a sonotrode (26) and an anvil (30), wherein the product (web material 40) is moved through a gap (29) formed between the sonotrode and the anvil, with a gap width S (figures), wherein the product is welded during its movement by the ultrasonic tool along a welding path by pressing the sonotrode and/or anvil against the product with a force and exciting the sonotrode by the generator in such a way that it oscillates with a predetermined amplitude and transmits the vibration to the product, wherein at least one welding parameter is regulated and varied during movement of the product (figures; and paragraphs 13-31 and 43-122).
With respect to claim 2, Heeg teaches wherein the welding path begins in a first edge region of the product and/or ends in a second edge region of the product (figures 2-3; and paragraphs 48-50).
With respect to claim 3, Heeg teaches wherein the sonotrode for welding the product is excited such that it oscillates with an amplitude A.sub.high, and the sonotrode is excited at other times such that it oscillates with an amplitude A.sub.low, which is smaller than A.sub.high (paragraphs 13, 16, 18, 22, 24, 26, 27, 29, 62, 67, 74, and 79).
With respect to claim 4, Heeg teaches wherein the amplitude is set to A.sub.high (ASOLL) when the product arrives at or before the gap (figure 4; and paragraph 51-55, 60-61, 67, 71, 72, 79, 89, 92, 105, and 110) and/or wherein the amplitude is set to A.sub.low when the product leaves the gap. Note that the amplitude must intrinsically be set when the product arrives at or before the gap in order to form a weld.
With respect to claim 5, Heeg teaches wherein a sensor unit is used to detect whether the product is arriving at the gap or leaving the gap, and the sensor unit sends a signal directly to the generator and the generator sets the amplitude to A.sub.high or A.sub.low (paragraphs 17 and 46).
With respect to claim 6, Heeg teaches wherein a transition from a current amplitude A.sub.now to a target amplitude, is affected by a continuous adaptation (ramp) of the amplitude (paragraphs 13, 17-18, 26, 28, 60-62, 67, 71, 74, 79, and 86-89).
With respect to claim 7, Heeg teaches wherein the gap width S is set continuously by moving the sonotrode and/or anvil relative to one another (title; and paragraphs 2, 14, 48-49, 71, 74, 79, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92, 101, 108, 110, 113, and 121).
With respect to claim 8, Heeg teaches wherein a plurality of products (44) are moved one after the other (continuously) through the gap and welded along a welding path in each case (title; and paragraphs 2, 14, and 48-49). Also, note that web material would intrinsically be replaced when the continuous supply inevitably runs out.
With respect to claim 9, Heeg teaches wherein the product is filled with contents (broadest reasonable interpretation) (air) before it is moved through the gap and welded, and/or the product is moved through the gap at a speed of 5 m/min to 100 m/min and/or the product comprises at least two layers (paragraph 48; and figures 2-3).
With respect to claim 21, Heeg teaches wherein the amplitude and/or the force and/or the gap width is regulated and varied during the movement of the product (paragraphs 13-31 and 43-122).
With respect to claim 24, Heeg teaches wherein the generator sets the amplitude to Ahigh or Alow with a time delay (reaction time) (figure 4; and paragraph 25, 51-55, 60-61, 66-67, 71, 72, 79, 89, 91-92, 105, and 110).
With respect to claim 26, Heeg teaches wherein the gap width S is set by using a metal contact detection and/or a distance measurement is used as an input variable for controlling the size of the gap and/or a target size for the gap is set and used as an input variable for controlling the gap width S (paragraphs 17, 21, 27, 29, 46, 56, 58, and 78).
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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heeg as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Haaf (EP-3296081A1).
With respect to claim 22, Heeg does not teach wherein the products are closed in material bond in at least one of the edge regions before they are moved through the gap.
However, Haaf teaches wherein the products are closed in material bond in at least one of the edge regions (longitudinal seam) before they are moved through the gap where they are transversely sealed (machine translation).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the previous longitudinal edge sealing of Haaf in the process of Heeg in order to ensure that products are properly oriented during transverse bonding.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heeg as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of JP-4147309B2 (hereafter JP ‘309).
With respect to claim 23, Heeg does not teach wherein Ahigh is between 20 µm and 40 µm, and wherein the following applies: 0 < Alow < 0.5 * Ahigh.
However, JP ‘309 teaches wherein Ahigh is between 20 µm and 40 µm, and wherein the following applies: 0 < Alow < 0.5 * Ahigh (paragraph [0041] of the machine translation, wherein the amplitude of vibration is about 15 to 70 μm).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the amplitude of JP ‘309 in the process of Heeg in order to form the desired penetration and seal surface.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heeg as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Kainuma et (US2006/0097029A1) (hereafter Kainuma).
With respect to claim 25, Heeg does not teach wherein the transition from the current amplitude Anow to Ahigh or Alow is affected by a continuous adaptation (ramp) of the amplitude, wherein a slope of the ramp is controlled continuously and/or wherein the ramp lies within one of the edge regions or overlaps with one of the edge regions.
However, Kainuma teaches wherein the transition from the current amplitude Anow to Ahigh or Alow is affected by a continuous adaptation (ramp) of the amplitude, wherein a slope of the ramp is controlled continuously and/or wherein the ramp lies within one of the edge regions or overlaps with one of the edge regions (figure 2; and paragraphs 54 and 59).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the amplitude control of Kainuma in the process of Heeg in order to ensure that the desired amplitude is being applied for forming a bond of the desired strength.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heeg as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kelch et (US2013/0213552A1) (hereafter Kelch).
With respect to claim 27, Heeg does not teach wherein the at least two layers have a layer thickness of between 50 µm and 300 µm each.
However, Kelch teaches wherein the at least two layers have a layer thickness of between 50 µm and 300 µm each (paragraph 18; and claim 5).
At the time of filing the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the thickness of Kelch in the process of Heeg in order to form a product with the desired thickness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that claim 1 defines a process for welding a singulated, multi-layer product by means of an ultrasonic tool. The term "singulated product" is utilized explicitly to distinguish it from continuously manufactured products such as multi-layer material webs, see paragraphs [0002] to [0004] of the published application. It should also be clear from the remainder of the present application what is meant by a singulated product, for example from paragraphs [0005], [0006] and [0011] of the publication as well as the figures and accompanying description. Singulated products are conveyed through the welding device one by one with gaps present between two separate products. On the other hand, a material web is conveyed continuously.
Heeg relates to a manufacturing process for continuous products, as explicitly indicated in paragraphs [0002] and [0003] of Heeg. Paragraph [0048] of Heeg also clearly refers to a continuous welding process. Furthermore, FIG. 3 shows that the material web 40 is a continuous web. Although material web 40 is welded unevenly, it is nevertheless not a singulated product. Heeg does not disclose a method for welding a singulated, multi-layer product using an ultrasonic tool. Claim 1 is therefore not anticipated by Heeg. It is also not obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the process disclosed by Heeg could be used for singulated products as it is specifically meant for processing continuous products such as material webs. The subject matter of claim 1 is therefore not obvious in view of Heeg.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. In the instant application the recited purpose in the preamble does not result in a manipulative difference. MPEP 2111.02. Consequently, it is the examiner’s position that the language of the preamble and the body of independent claim 1 does not positively require a singulating process. Instead, the preamble merely recites the purpose of the process and does not positively limit the steps of the process.
Furthermore, Figures 2-3 of Heeg, which have been reproduced below, depict a single material web (40) with clearly defined upstream and downstream ends. Accordingly, the process of Heeg is certainly not infinitely continuous, and the web material would intrinsically be replaced with another material web when the continuous supply inevitably runs out. Thus, the single material webs depicted by Heeg are considered singulated in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
PNG
media_image1.png
374
268
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
314
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 KILEY SHAWN STONER whose telephone number is (571)272-1183. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday.
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, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. 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.
/KILEY S STONER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights