DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC §112f
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The following elements are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Examiner’s note: reference will be made to the US PG Publication of the instant application (US 2025/0296718 A1).
Regarding claim 11, “a powering group” (because A – “powering group” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “configured to apply an alternating current to the induction coil” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “a powering group” is understood as equivalent to “means for applying an alternating current to the induction coil”). A review of the specification does not describe a structure for a powering group, and a requisite rejection under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) is provided below.
Regarding claim 13, “a conveying device” (because A – “conveying device” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “to advance the web of multilayer packaging material along a web advancement path” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “conveying device” is understood as equivalent to “means for advancing the web of multilayer packaging material along a web advancement path”). A review of the specification does not describe a structure for a powering group, and a requisite rejection under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) is provided below.
Regarding claim 13, “a sealing device” (because A – “sealing device” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “configured to form the tube from the web of multilayer packaging material and to longitudinally seal the tube” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “sealing device” is understood as equivalent to “means for forming the tube from the web of multilayer packaging material and longitudinally sealing the tube”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is an induction sealing device (shown in figures 2 and 3, #19 and described in ¶ [0074]) or equivalent.
Regarding claim 13, “a filling device” (because A – “filling device” is the placeholder/nonce term, B – “for filling the tube with the pourable product” designates the function, and C – no additional structure is provided in the claim body, thus “filling device” is understood as equivalent to “means for filling the tube with the pourable product”). A review of the specification suggests that the corresponding structure is a filling pipe to direct the product into a tube (shown in figure 1, #14 and described in ¶ [0063]) or equivalent.
If the applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre -AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre –AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 “powering group” and “conveying device” must be shown or the feature canceled from the claims. 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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claims 11 and 13 are 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites “…wherein the sealing unit comprises a powering group…” However, because the specification fails to disclose or describe any structure (such as a power source, AC generator, or circuitry) corresponding to the “powering group,” the specification does not demonstrate that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the specification, would not be able to identify what structure corresponds to the claimed “powering group.” Consequently, the claim lacks adequate written description support.
Claim 13 recites “…a conveying device configured to advance the web of multilayer packaging material along a web advancement path and for advancing the tube along a tube advancement path…” However, because the specification fails to disclose or describe any structure corresponding to the “conveying device,” the specification does not demonstrate that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the specification, would not be able to identify what structure corresponds to the claimed “conveying device.” Consequently, the claim lacks adequate written description support.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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 2-5, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2-5, the claims recite a series of limitations with the use of “and/or” which then render the scope of the limitations indefinite. For example, claim 2 recites that, “…the nickel alloy comprises at least 40% by weight of nickel and/or less than 60% by weight of nickel.” Based on this limitation, a value of 10% satisfies “less than 60%” and a value of 90% satisfies “at least 40%.” Because “or” is an alternative limitation, any value satisfies the claim. Similar language is similarly present in claims 3-5. Therefore, the term “and/or” in the context of the ranges renders the claim scope unclear. It is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claim because the “or” alternative encompasses all possible percentages, contradicting the likely intent to limit the range. For purposes of examination, the limitation of “and/or” will be interpreted as “and” which limits the claimed range.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites, “…wherein the induction coil comprises an outer portion, preferentially protruding away from the housing…” From the claim language, it is not clear if the feature of “an outer portion… protruding away from the housing…” is required for infringement, or is just a preferred embodiment. Therefore, the scope of the claim is rendered unclear. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as, “…wherein the induction coil comprises an outer portion, protruding away from the housing…”
Regarding claims 11 and 13, the limitations of “a powering group” and “a conveying device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not provide the required structure to the corresponding function of “apply[ing] an alternating current to the induction coil” and “advance[ing] the web of multilayer packaging material along a web advancement path and for advancing the tube along a tube advancement path” such that the bounds of the claim can be determined. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 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 1-2, 4-6, 8-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bierlein (US 2016/0059480 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bierlein discloses a multilayer rod for an induction coil of a sealing unit (Shown in figures 1-2 and described in ¶'s [0056] - [0058]), the multilayer rod comprising a metal layer and a corrosion-resistant layer (Described in ¶ [0063] - [0065]);
wherein the corrosion-resistant layer comprises and/or is formed from a nickel alloy (Described in ¶'s [0030] & [0063] - [0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Bierlein discloses wherein the nickel alloy comprises at least 40% by weight of nickel and/or less than 60% by weight of nickel (Described in ¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 4, Bierlein discloses wherein the nickel alloy comprises at least 10% by weight of chromium and/or less than 20% by weight of chromium (Described in ¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Bierlein discloses wherein the nickel alloy comprises at least 2% by weight of iron and/or less than 8% by weight of iron and/or 2% by weight of tungsten and/or less than 8% by weight of tungsten (Described in ¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 6, Bierlein discloses wherein the nickel alloy comprises nickel, chromium, molybdenum, iron, tungsten (Described in ¶ [0064]).
Regarding claim 8, Bierlein discloses wherein the corrosion-resistant layer comprises a connecting surface and the metal layer comprises an attachment surface (Shown in figure 5 and described in ¶ [0063]); wherein the connecting surface is arranged on the attachment surface and the connecting surface and the attachment surface are brazed to one another (This limitation is a product-by-process limitation within the claim. Though acceptable language, the product is treated as the resulting structure – a bonded interface – regardless of whether it was actually brazed or welded. Figure 5 illustrates that the connecting surface #26b is attached to the attachment surface #26a, thus resulting in a bonded interface according to the claim limitation).
Regarding claim 9, Bierlein discloses wherein the metal layer comprises and/or consists of silver (Described in ¶'s [0063] - [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, Bierlein discloses a sealing unit for sealing a multilayer packaging material comprising an induction sealing device (Figures 1 and 2, #12) configured to generate an electromagnetic field (Described in ¶ [0008]), wherein the induction sealing device comprises at least an induction coil (Figure 1, #12) comprising and/or formed from a multilayer rod according to claim 1 (Described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Bierlein discloses the sealing unit according to claim 10, wherein the sealing unit comprises a housing (Figure 1, #22), wherein the induction coil is at least partially arranged within and/or encapsulated in the housing (Shown in figure 1); wherein the induction coil comprises an outer portion (Figure 4a, #12a/#24), preferentially protruding away from the housing and/or defining at least partially an outer surface of the sealing unit (Figure 4a illustrates the induction coil outer portion protrudes away from the housing); the outer portion being defined by at least a section of the corrosion-resistant layer and being configured to be exposed to an external corrosive environment (Shown in figure 5, #26b and described in ¶ [0063]),
wherein the sealing unit comprises a powering group connected to a first end and a second end of the induction coil and configured to apply an alternating current to the induction coil (Described in ¶'s [0056] and [0058]).
Regarding claim 15, Bierlein discloses a method for manufacturing an induction sealing device comprising at least one induction coil (Figure 2, #12) comprising and/or formed from a multilayer rod according to claim 1 (Described in ¶'s [0056] - [0058]), the method comprising the steps of:
arranging the induction coil within a mould (Described in ¶ [0058]);
injecting a molten polymer into the mould such that the metal layer of the induction coil is fully immersed in the molten polymer (Described in ¶ [0058]) and that at least a remainder portion of the corrosion resistant layer is not immersed in the molten polymer (Described in ¶ [0058] and shown in figure 1).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bierlein in view of Brambilla (US 2018/0211794 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bierlein does not specifically teach wherein the nickel alloy comprises at least 10% by weight of molybdenum and/or less than 20% by weight of molybdenum.
Brambilla teaches wherein the nickel alloy comprises at least 10% by weight of molybdenum and/or less than 20% by weight of molybdenum (Described in ¶ [0388]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bierlein to incorporate the teachings of Brambilla to include a composition alloy including molybdenum with the motivation of assuring precise uniform thermal expansion properties, as recognized by Brambilla in ¶ [0388].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bierlein in view of Brambilla, and in further view of Deleuze (US 2019/0160638 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Bierlein teaches wherein the nickel alloy comprises:
at least 40% and less than 60% by weight of nickel (Described in ¶ [0063] - [0064]); at least 10% and less than 20% by weight of chromium (Described in ¶ [0063] - [0064]); at least 2% and less than 8% by weight of iron (Described in ¶ [0063] - [0064]);
Bierlein does not specifically teach at least 10% and less than 20% by weight of molybdenum; or at least 2% and less than 8% by weight of tungsten.
Brambilla teaches at least 10% and less than 20% by weight of molybdenum (Described in ¶ [0388]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bierlein to incorporate the teachings of Brambilla to include a composition alloy including molybdenum with the motivation of assuring precise uniform thermal expansion properties, as recognized by Brambilla in ¶ [0388].
However, Bierlein in view of Brambilla does not specifically teach at least 2% and less than 8% by weight of tungsten.
Deleuze teaches at least 2% and less than 8% by weight of tungsten (Described in ¶ [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bierlein in view of Brambilla to incorporate the teachings of Deleuze to include tungsten with the motivation of increasing the thermal resistant properties of the resulting alloy, as tungsten has the highest melting temperature of any metal.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bierlein in view of Edwards (US 2013/0174523 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Bierlein teaches a sealing unit according to claim 10 (See rejection of claim 10 above) configured to transversally seal the tube and comprising an induction sealing device (Described in abstract and ¶’s [0004] – [0005]).
Bierlein does not specifically teach a package forming apparatus for a packaging machine and being configured to at least transversally seal a tube formed from a multilayer packaging material for obtaining packages.
Edwards teaches a package forming apparatus for a packaging machine (Shown in figure 1) and being configured to at least transversally seal a tube formed from a multilayer packaging material for obtaining packages (Figure 1 illustrates the forming of packages via a transverse seal #105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bierlein to incorporate the teachings of Edwards to include a packaging apparatus with the motivation of providing an overarching device to utilize the specific sealer of Bierlein for forming filled packages, as recognized by Edwards in ¶ [0015].
Regarding claim 13, Bierlein does not specifically teach a packaging machine for forming packages of a pourable product from an advancing tube formed from a web of multilayer packaging material, the packaging machine comprises: a conveying device configured to advance the web of multilayer packaging material along a web advancement path and for advancing the tube along a tube advancement path; a tube forming and sealing device configured to form the tube from the web of multilayer packaging material and to longitudinally seal the tube; a filling device for filling the tube with the pourable product; and a package forming apparatus according to claim 12.
Edwards teaches a packaging machine for forming packages of a pourable product from an advancing tube formed from a web of multilayer packaging material (Described in ¶ [0015] and shown in figure 1), the packaging machine comprises: a conveying device (Figure 1, #104) configured to advance the web of multilayer packaging material along a web advancement path and for advancing the tube along a tube advancement path (Described in ¶ [0015]); a tube forming (Figure 1, #102) and sealing device (Figure 1, #106) configured to form the tube from the web of multilayer packaging material and to longitudinally seal the tube (Described in ¶'s [0015] - [0017]); a filling device (Figure 1, #101) for filling the tube with the pourable product (Described in ¶ [0015]); and a package forming apparatus according to claim 12 (See rejection of claim 12 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bierlein to incorporate the teachings of Edwards to include a packaging apparatus with the motivation of providing an overarching device to utilize the specific sealer of Bierlein for forming filled packages, as recognized by Edwards in ¶ [0015].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is 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.
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 JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731