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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “anti-skid protrusions” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The “anti-skid protrusions” are unclear. For examination purposes, any protrusion can in contact with the bag can be considered “anti-skid.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berkoff (US 5,435,648).
Regarding claim 1, Berkoff discloses a clamp (26) for sealing bag bodies for heating, comprising an integrally formed clamp body (30), wherein one or more clamping grooves (34 or 35) penetrate through and are formed in one side of the clamp body in a length direction; and the clamp body is a microwave-heatable clamp body made of a material applicable to microwave oven heating. See Figs. 5-11 and Abstract.
Regarding claim 3, a vertical section of each of the clamping grooves in the length direction is linear. See Figs. 5-10.
Regarding claim 4, a vertical section of each of the clamping grooves in the length direction is curved. See Figs. 5-10.
Regarding claim 5, a filleted corner is disposed on an edge of an opening of each of the clamping grooves. See Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 6, guide slopes (Fig. 10, at 35) inclined from outside to inside are respectively located on opposite groove walls at an opening of each of the clamping grooves.
Regarding claim 7, anti-skid protrusions (34 or 35) are positioned on opposite groove walls at an opening of each of the clamping grooves. See Fig. 10.
Regarding claim 10, the side of the clamp body opposite the clamping grooves is an arc surface. See Fig. 5.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkoff as applied above in further view of Usevitch et al. (US 2023/0358342).
Regarding claim 2, Berkoff does not disclose the material as claimed. Usevitch, which is drawn to a clamp, discloses a clamp body being a wooden clamp body or a bamboo clamp body. See [0070]. Thus, it 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 to have the clamp body of Berkoff be wood, as disclosed by Usevitch, in order to have clamp with a higher heat resistance. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use wood or bamboo in order to have a high heat resistant clamp body, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkoff as applied above.
Regarding claim 5, in the case that Berkoff does not disclose a filleted corner, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a filleted corner disposed on an edge of an opening of each of the clamping grooves since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. See Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Berkoff discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed dimensions. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the width of each of the clamping grooves be 2-8 mm, and the depth of each of the clamping grooves be ½ to ⅘ of the width of the clamp body, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights