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 12 March 2025.
Claims 1 – 10 are pending.
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 12 March 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
“controller” – claim 1
“tensioning belt working motor” – claim 1
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected for the following reason(s):
Applicant is reminded of the proper format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. In the instant application, the abstract is greater than 150 words.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 – 8 are objected because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, 37 C.F.R. 1.75(i) states “[w]here a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.” In the instant case, line indentations are not used separate the elements or steps of the claim. Moreover, 37 C.F.R. 1.75(e) describes an example of an independent claim having the following order:
A preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known,
a phrase such as "wherein the improvement comprises:" and then
those elements, steps, and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion.
The examiner respectfully suggests adhering to this type of format. In the instant case, it is ambiguous as to what portion of the claim constitutes the preamble and what portion of the claim constitutes the body of the claim (see paragraph 12 of this Office action).
Additionally, to ensure differentiation between the preamble and the body of the claims, the transitional phrase (i.e., comprising) should end with a colon as usual with U.S. practices.
Regarding claim 1, line 7, the limitation, “startup”, should read, “the startup of the steering engine electric motor”, referring to its antecedent basis, “[a] startup of the steering engine electric motor”, in claim 1, line 5.
Regarding claim 1, line 8, the limitation, “signal corresponding to the inching switch being switched on”, should read, “a signal corresponding to the inching switch being switched on”.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation, “the tensioning working motor”, should read, “the tensioning belt working motor” referring to its antecedent basis, “a tensioning belt working motor”, in claim 1, lines 2 – 3.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation, “an unlocking direction”, should read, “the unlocking direction”, referring to its antecedent basis, “an unlocking direction”, in claim 1, line 10.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation, “a locking direction”, should read, “the locking direction”, referring to its antecedent basis, “a corresponding locking direction”, in claim 1, lines 12 – 13.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation, “an unlocking direction”, should read, “the unlocking direction”, referring to its antecedent basis, “an unlocking direction”, in claim 1, lines 10.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation, “a controller”, should read, “the controller”, referring to its antecedent basis, “a controller”, in claim 1, lines 5.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation, “a corresponding locking direction”, should read, “the locking direction”, referring to its antecedent basis, “a corresponding locking direction”, in claim 1, lines 12 – 13.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation, “a locking direction”, should read, “the locking direction”, referring to its antecedent basis, “a corresponding locking direction”, in claim 1, lines 12 – 13.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation, “a controller”, should read, “the controller”, referring to its antecedent basis, “a controller”, in claim 1, lines 5.
Regarding claim 8, line 3, the limitation, “a signal”, should read, “the signal”, referring to its antecedent basis, “[a] signal”, in claim 1, lines 8.
Regarding claim 8, line 5, the limitation, “a signal”, should read, “the signal”, referring to its antecedent basis, “[a] signal”, in claim 1, lines 8.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation, “a travel detection switch”, should read, “the travel detection switch”, referring to its antecedent basis, “a travel detection switch”, in claim 1, lines 9.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation, “an unlocking direction”, should read, “the unlocking direction”, referring to its antecedent basis, “an unlocking direction”, in claim 1, lines 10.
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 1 – 10 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 1, the claim is indefinite because claim 1 states “[a] control apparatus for a handheld packaging machine” but does not recite any elements for this control apparatus and thus it is ambiguous as to what constitutes applicant’s invention. Claim 1 states, ““[a] control apparatus for a handheld packaging machine, the handheld packaging machine comprises…” wherein the claim does not explicitly state what the control apparatus comprises and only states what the handheld packaging machine comprises. Therefore, it is ambiguous as what applicant’s invention is in terms of the control apparatus.
Additionally, the formatting of the claim makes the claim indefinite. 37 CFR 1.75(e) describes an example of an independent claim having the following order:
A preamble comprising a general description of all the elements or steps of the claimed combination which are conventional or known,
a phrase such as "wherein the improvement comprises:" and then
those elements, steps, and/or relationships which constitute that portion of the claimed combination which the applicant considers as the new or improved portion.
Given the absence of the phrase such as “the control apparatus comprises:”, it is ambiguous as to what portion of the claim constitutes the preamble and what portion of the claim constitutes the body of the claim. Please note, since claims 2 – 10 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 10 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 1, line 4, the limitation, “the front”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “the front”, to mean “a front”. Please note, since claims 2 – 10 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 10 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 1, line 5, the limitation, “the startup”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “the startup”, to mean “a startup”. Please note, since claims 2 – 10 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 10 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 1, line 7, the limitation, “all the time”, is indefinite because the limitation implies the controller detects the signals of the inching switch when the handheld packaging machine is powered on or off. However, page 5, paragraph 3 states the controller only detects the signals of the inching switch after being powered on. Please note, since claims 2 – 10 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 10 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 1, lines 9 – 10, and claim 8, the limitations, “a travel detection switch is in place” and “the travel detection switch is not in place”, are indefinite because it is ambiguous as to what the term, “in place”, implies. Page 5, paragraph 3, of the specification describes that a travel detection switch 503 is “in place” when it is acted upon by the second actuator 12. This seems to give the terms, “in place”, a special definition to mean it is acted upon by the second actuator 12. However, since the claim does not recite this “second actuator”, it is ambiguous without citing this “second actuator” what is meant by the terms, “in place”. Please note, since claims 2 – 10 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 10 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 1, line 14, the limitation, “an unlocking direction”, is indefinite because it is ambiguous whether this unlocking direction is the same unlocking direction recited in claim 1, line 10, or this unlocking direction is a different unlocking direction. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the unlocking direction of the steering engine electric motor. Please note, since claims 2 – 10 depend upon claim 1, claims 2 – 10 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation, “the position suitable for operation by an index finger when the grip handle is held by a hand”, is indefinite because the limitation is subjective wherein the position may be suitable for operation for some user but not for other users. The specification does not disclose any objective standard for measuring the scope of this limitation wherein without this objective standard, one having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claim.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation, “the starting and shutting down”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “the starting and shutting down”, to mean “a starting and shutting down”. Please note, since claim 5 depends upon claim 4, claim 5 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation, “the stop state”, is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the limitation, “the stop state”, to mean “a stop state”.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1 – 10 will not be analyzed as to whether it is patentable over the prior art. That is, the claims fail to comply with 35 USC §112(b) such that to analyze the claims as to whether they are patentable over prior art would of necessity require considerable speculation with regard to the meets and bounds of the claimed subject matter. In re Steele, 308 F .2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, (CCPA 1962) and In re Wilson, 424 F .2d 1382, 1385, 496 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). First, claim 1 states “[a] control apparatus for a handheld packaging machine” but does not recite any elements for this control apparatus and thus it is ambiguous as to what constitutes applicant’s invention. Second, the limitations, “a travel detection switch is in place” and “the travel detection switch is not in place”, are indefinite because it is ambiguous as to what the term, “in place”, implies given the special definition of the term in the specification and the fact that the structure required in that special definition is not recited in the claims. And third, the limitation, “all the time”, is indefinite because the limitation implies the controller detects the signals of the inching switch when the handheld packaging machine is powered on or off when clearly the specification states this is not the case. Therefore, due to these issues, to analyze the claims as to whether they are patentable over the prior art would require considerable speculation by the examiner as to the scope of the claims.
Conclusion
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
25 February 2026