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 .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119. The certified copy has been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS), filed 28 March 2025, which have been placed of record in the file. An initialed, signed, and dated copy of each PTO-1449 or PTO-SB-08 form is attached to the Office action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the figures are unclear. The lines are too blurry, pale, and undefined, and do not clearly depict the elements of the device. See particularly “Fig. 1”, “Fig. 2”, in figures 1-5. The quality of the lines is too poor. The lines of the drawings must be clear and dark so that the drawings are reproducible for publication purposes.
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 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the limit" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 2, lines 2-3, the phrase “to prevent reverse loosening” is ambiguous as the claim does not define what element is prevented from reverse loosening.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the counteracting force" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the top end" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the connecting position" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the counteracting force" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 is ambiguous as the claim is in the format of two sentences (line 2). The claims must be in in one sentence form only.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the lower portion” and “the roller”" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “an upper welding member” in line 7. It is not clear whether this is the same upper welding member as set forth in claim 1, on which claim 4 depends.
The above list is exemplary and not exhaustive. Applicant should carefully review all of claims 1-10 for ambiguity.
Claims 7-10 depend from claim 1, and are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan et al. (CN 110723340).
With respect to claim 1, Yan et al. disclose a welding device used for a handheld electric strapping machine (portable packer, fig. 5), comprising an upper welding member (welding upper tooth 34, fig. 8), a downward pressing and lifting motion assembly of the upper welding member (welding state conversion mechanism 8, fig. 8, figs. 8-11), and a vibration driving assembly of the upper welding member connected to the downward pressing and lifting motion assembly of the upper welding member (output shaft 71a, gears 71b, 71c, of driving mechanism 71 to perform friction welding, fig. 5, pg. 10, para. 3), wherein the welding device is provided with a first motor and a second motor (first motor 72, second motor 71, fig. 5); the first motor is connected to the downward pressing and lifting motion assembly, so as to drive the upper welding member to press downwards and to be lifted upwards (motor 72 drives output shaft 72a to swing welding state conversion mechanism 8 between the rest position, fig. 1, and the welding position, fig. 2, pg. 11, para. 1-2); the second motor is connected to the vibration driving assembly, so as to drive the upper welding member to vibrate (motor 71 drives output shaft 71a to perform friction welding, fig. 5, pg. 10, para. 3), achieving heating and welding of packaging straps (strapping tape is friction welded, pg. 10, para. 3); the downward pressing and lifting motion assembly is also provided with a limiting member (elastic member 37, fig. 10), the limiting member cooperating with a fixing structure on a handheld electric strapping machine and being used for preventing the upper welding member from going beyond the limit when the upper welding member descends to be in place (elastic member 37 mounted to the bottom of the fusion frame 32 and cooperating with base plate 11, elastic member 37 restores the frame 32 upwardly and keeps the fusion upper tooth 34 away from the limit of the fusion lower tooth 35, fig. 19, pg. 11, para. 2).
Yan et al. disclose a limiting member (elastic member 37) cooperating with a fixing structure (base plate 11) on a handheld electric strapping machine. Thus the limiting member is fully capable of being used for preventing the upper welding member from going beyond the limit when the upper welding member descends to be in place.
The intended use recitation language (some of which has been italicized supra) carries no weight in the absence of any distinguishing structure. Yan et al. disclose the structure as claimed and is thus capable of performing the functions. See MPEP 2114 which states: APPARATUS CLAIMS MUST BE STRUCTURALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRIOR ART While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210,212-13, 169 USPQ 226,228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
With respect to claim 2, Yan et al. disclose the limiting member is maintained in a limited position by a counteracting force of the upper welding member during vibration (the elastic member 37 is maintained in a compressed state by the force of the frame 32 when the frame 32 is in the lowered position and the upper tooth member 34 is vibrated, figs. 2, 10) to prevent reverse loosening.
Yan et al. disclose the limiting member (elastic member 37) maintained in a limited position by a counteracting force of the upper welding member during vibration. Thus the limiting member is fully capable of preventing reverse loosening.
The intended use recitation language (some of which has been italicized supra) carries no weight in the absence of any distinguishing structure. Yan et al. disclose the structure as claimed and is thus capable of performing the functions. See MPEP 2114 which states: APPARATUS CLAIMS MUST BE STRUCTURALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRIOR ART While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (The absence of a disclosure in a prior art reference relating to function did not defeat the Board's finding of anticipation of claimed apparatus because the limitations at issue were found to be inherent in the prior art reference); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210,212-13, 169 USPQ 226,228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528,531 (CCPA 1959). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
With respect to claim 5, Yan et al. disclose the second motor (motor 71) is connected to an eccentric shaft (eccentric shaft 31, fig. 9), and the eccentric shaft is connected to a roller (welding arm 33 including a roller concentric with gear 712, and roller/posts cooperating with frame 32, fig. 9), the downward pressing and lifting motion assembly includes a lifting assembly (frame 32, pressing column 83, swinging bracket 82, eccentric wheel 81, fig. 9), a connecting hole is arranged near a lower portion of the lifting assembly to be in fit with the roller (rollers/posts of welding arm 32 are fit in holes in frame 32, fig. 9, pg. 10, para. 4), the lifting assembly is driven by the roller to vibrate (motor 71 drives the eccentric shaft 31 and roller of welding arm 33 to vibrate, pg. 10, para. 4-5), and the lower portion of the lifting assembly is connected to the upper welding member (lower portion of pressing column 83 is connected to the welding upper tooth 34, fig. 9).
With respect to claim 8, Yan et al. disclose the welding device is provided with a sensing member cooperating with the limiting member (first, second and third switches 101, 102, 103 that detect the up position of the swinging bracket 82, the down position of the swinging bracket 82, and the up position of the tightening wheel swing seat 41, figs. 2, 5, pg. 12, para. 3-4), and the sensing member is pressed to be in place corresponding to the upper welding member (first and second switch 101, 102 detect position of the welding upper tooth 34 on the swinging bracket 82, fig. 2, para. 3-4) and is used by the welding device to control the stopping of the first motor and the starting of the second motor (in the fully automatic mode, the strap tightening mechanism 2, the welding state conversion mechanism 8, and the welding mechanism 8 are operated fully automatically to perform the entire strapping operation, pg. 12, para. 6). The sensing member (sensors 101, 102, 103, control circuit) cooperates with the entire device and its operation, and therefore is considered to cooperate with the limiting member (elastic member 37).
With respect to claim 9, Yan et al. disclose the limiting member is provided with a downward limiting surface (elastic member 37 includes a downward facing surface cooperating with the base plate 11, figs. 10, 19, pg. 11, para. 2), and the welding device is provided with a base (base plate 11, fig. 19), and the base is provided with a structure matching with the limiting surface (the upper surface of the base plate contacts and thus matches with the downward facing surface of the elastic member 37, figs. 10, 19).
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 Yan et al. in view of He et al. (US Patent Publ. No. 2019/0389608).
With respect to claim 3, Yan et al. fail to disclose the limiting member is arranged on a rotating component, and a position of the rotating component receiving the counteracting force on the rotating component is arranged such that, when the upper welding member moves downward, the counteracting force passes a critical point, such that the direction of the counteracting force is to press the limiting member downwards.
He et al. disclose a handheld electric strapping machine, including a limiting member (cam 42 with locking portion 421, fig. 4) is arranged on a rotating component (cam 42 is rotated by cam shaft 420, fig. 3, [0030]), and a position of the rotating component receiving the counteracting force on the rotating component is arranged such that, when the upper welding member moves downward, the counteracting force passes a critical point (point at which the locking portion 421 is in contact with the cam engaging component 45, fig. 4), such that the direction of the counteracting force is to press the limiting member downwards (the cam surface transmits a downward pressing force and locks when entering the strap press position, and over-position is prevented, [0031]).
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 modify the Yan et al. device to replace the limiting member with the limiting member arranged on a rotating component, and a position of the rotating component receiving the counteracting force on the rotating component is arranged such that, when the upper welding member moves downward, the counteracting force passes a critical point, such that the direction of the counteracting force is to press the limiting member downwards, as taught by He et al., to lock the strap press and to prevent the strap press from moving too far downward.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-7, and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
With respect to claim 4, the prior art fails to disclose or teach the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the downward pressing and lifting motion assembly comprises a first lever, a second connecting rod, a third lever, and a lifting assembly; a first end of the first lever is rotatably connected to the top end of the lifting assembly, and a bottom of the lifting assembly is connected to the upper welding member; a second end of the first lever is rotatably connected to an upper end of the second connecting rod, and a lower end of the second connecting rod is rotatably connected to the third lever; the connecting position between the second connecting rod and the third lever is arranged such that, when the upper welding member is pressed downward to be in place, the connecting position moves from one side to the other side of a connecting line between a rotation fulcrum of the first lever and a rotation fulcrum of the third lever, while a limiting portion of the limiting member is positioned on the same side as the fulcrum of the third lever, the counteracting force transmitted through the second connecting rod can be used to press the limiting member downwards; another side of the third lever is provided with a gear, and the gear is in meshing connection with an output gear of the first motor.
Claims 6-7 and 10 depend from claim 4, and would likewise be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jang et al. (KR 102315930) disclose a handheld strapping machine including first and second motors for operating a lifting mechanism and a vibrating mechanism.
Wu et al. (CN 109398794) disclose a strapping machine including a limiting mechanism (fig. 2).
Neeser et al. (US Patent No. 10,518,914) disclose a strapping machine with a plurality of motors.
Amacker et al. (WO 2014/194434) disclose a strapping machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linda J. Hodge whose telephone number is (571)272-0571. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 at (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.
/LINDA J. HODGE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731