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
Receipt is acknowledged of Claim, filed on 04/10/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 19-37 are pending for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I drawn to claims 19-34 in the reply filed on 04/15/2026 is acknowledged.
However, after further review Election/restriction requirement mailed on 02/25/2026 is withdrawn and claims 35-37 are rejoined. Consequently, Claims 19-37 are currently pending and being examined in this office action.
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 following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
transverse sealing device (claim 36);
Folding device (claim 36);
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 Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “gusset-folding devices” of claim 19 corresponding to the first crank-rocker gusset folding mechanism 220 thus consists of a first crank element 221 which can be rotated through 360° and a rotatable first rocker element 222 which oscillates back and forth between two end positions and the second crank-rocker mechanism 230 thus consists of a rotatable second crank element 231 and a rotatable second rocker element 232 which are connected to one another via a second coupling element or connecting element 233;
the “drive device” of claim 22 corresponding to drive device 226, 236 is provided, for example a servomotor ([0088]);
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claims 19-22, 29-30, 32-33 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) as described in at least paragraphs [0013], [0016]-[0018, and [0024]-[0026] of the specification, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of Umenaka et al. (US 20230113515 A1).
Note: For convenience of citation of the Applicant admitted prior art, refer to the specification of USPGPUB US 20260116609 A1. Applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) admits that various devices and methods were known for forming gussets in tubular bag packaging units ([0013]). In particular, the specification admits that a parallel-crank gusset folding mechanism 10 was known ([0016]-[0018]) and Figs. 4, 5a-5c) and that a crank-rocker gusset folding mechanism 20 was known ([0024]-[0026] and Fig. 6). The specification further admits that these mechanisms were known with a few drawbacks ([0028-[0029]).
Regarding claim 19, AAPA discloses a folding device (Fig. 4, 5a-5c, and Fig. 6) for folding a packaging film in a region of a transverse sealing seam (Q) to be formed of a packaging unit to be formed in a tubular bag packaging machine, wherein the transverse sealing seam (Q) runs substantially in a conveying plane and perpendicularly to a conveying direction of the tubular bag packaging machine (Figs. 5a-5c),
wherein the packaging unit (V) to be formed has two side surfaces (S) which run substantially in the conveying direction (F) and perpendicularly to the conveying plane of the tubular bag packaging machine (Figs. 5a-5c),
wherein the folding device (Fig. 4, 5a-5c, and Fig. 6) has two gusset-folding devices (10, 20), wherein in each case one gusset-folding device is arranged substantially outside of one side surface of the packaging unit to be formed, in the region of the transverse sealing seam to be formed (AAPA teaches of a mirrored, symmetrical arrangement on both sides of the packaging unit; [0012]),
characterized in that each of the two gusset-folding devices (Fig. 4, 5a-5c, and Fig. 6) comprises:
at least one folding finger (14), which is configured and movable in such a way that, in the region of the transverse sealing seam (Q) to be formed, the at least one folding finger (14) engages laterally from the outside into one of the side surfaces of the packaging unit to be formed, and presses the side surface (S) inwards at least partially, substantially in the direction of the transverse sealing seam (Q) to be formed, perpendicularly to the conveying direction (Figs. 5a-5c); and
at least two coupling mechanisms (11, 12, 21, 22; i.e. coupling elements of 10 and 20), wherein each coupling mechanism comprises: a movable first coupling element (11), a movable second coupling element (12), a connecting element (13), which is configured in such a manner that the connecting element (13) connects the movable first coupling element (11) and the movable second coupling element (12) to one another (Fig. 4),
wherein in each case one folding finger (14) is attached to one of the connecting elements (13) of the at least two coupling mechanisms (11, 12, 21, 22).
Wherein an argument is made that AAPA does not disclose at least two coupling mechanisms for each folding device.
Umenaka in a related invention discloses folding device (80) having two gusset folding device (11, 11, 12; Fig. 13) and comprising at least two coupling mechanisms (85a-85c, 83, 84 on each side of 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to modify the device of Applicant admitted prior art reference, to include at least two coupling mechanisms per gusset folding device, as taught by Umenaka, in order to allow for small movable ranges of the side portion folding plates of the folding device, and therefore the side gussets can be reliably formed ([0112]).
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to have at least two coupling mechanisms for each folding device, since it has been held that the mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Further, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
AAPA as modified further teaches (All rejection refers to AAPA unless otherwise stated):
Regarding claim 20, wherein each of the two gusset-folding devices (10, 20) has two folding fingers (14, 14) and two coupling mechanisms (11, 12, 21, 22), wherein in each case one folding finger (14) is attached to the connecting element (13, 23) of each coupling mechanism of each gusset-folding device (Figs. 4 and 6 of AAPA).
Regarding claim 21, wherein at least one coupling mechanism (11, 12, 21, 22 of AAPA) of the at least two coupling mechanisms is configured in such a way that the first coupling element (11) and the second coupling element (12) in each case is a crank element each defining an axis (Fig. 4), wherein each crank element (11, 12) is configured in such a way that each crank element can be rotated about the respective axis through 360 degrees ([0015]), wherein the axes of the first and of the second crank elements run substantially parallel to one another and perpendicularly to the conveying plane and perpendicularly to the conveying direction of the tubular bag packaging machine (Fig. 5a-5c).
Regarding claim 22, wherein each crank element (11, 12) has a drive device, wherein each drive device (drive motor and/or overdrive; [0028] and [0015]-[0016]) is configured to control the rotation of the crank element in phases with a predetermined speed profile to accelerate or brake the crank element or to move the crank element at a constant speed ([0015]-[0016] and [0029]).
Regarding claim 29, wherein at least one coupling mechanism (11, 12, 21, 22) of the at least two coupling mechanisms is configured in such a way that the first coupling element is a crank element (21) having a first axis (Fig. 6), wherein the crank element (21) is configured to rotate about the first axis through 360 degrees ([0024]), and that the second coupling element is a rocker element (22) having a second axis (Fig. 6), wherein the rocker element (22) is configured to rotate about the second axis and oscillate back and forth between two end positions (Fig. 6), wherein the first axis of the crank element and the second axis of the rocker element run substantially parallel to one another and perpendicularly to the conveying plane and perpendicularly to the conveying direction of the tubular bag packaging machine (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 30, wherein each of the two gusset-folding devices (10, 20) has two coupling mechanisms (11, 12, 21, 22), wherein each of the two coupling mechanisms is configured in such a way that a first coupling element is a crank element (21) having a first axis (Fig. 6), wherein the crank element is configured to rotate about the first axis through 360 degrees ([0024]), and that a second coupling element is a rocker element (22) having a second axis (Fig. 6), wherein the rocker element (22) is configured to rotate about the second axis and oscillate back and forth between two end positions (Fig. 6), wherein the first axis of the crank element and the second axis of the rocker element run substantially parallel to one another and perpendicularly to the conveying plane and perpendicularly to the conveying direction of the tubular bag packaging machine (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 32, wherein each of the at least two coupling mechanisms (11, 12, 21, 22) is configured and arranged in such a manner that the first coupling elements (11), the second coupling elements (12) and the connecting elements (13) of the at least two coupling mechanisms (11, 12, 21, 22), or the folding fingers (14), respectively, assigned to the coupling mechanisms do not collide with one another during their movement (Fig. 4 and/or Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 33, wherein the first coupling elements (11), second coupling elements (12), connecting elements (13) and folding fingers (14), respectively, assigned to a first coupling mechanism (mechanism of 10) of the at least two coupling mechanisms are arranged substantially in a plane which is arranged substantially parallel to the conveying plane of the tubular bag packaging machine and which differs from a corresponding plane of a second coupling mechanism (mechanism of 20) of the at least two coupling mechanisms, in relation to the conveying plane of the tubular bag packaging machine (Figs. 4, 5a-5c and 6).
Regarding claim 35, a method for folding a packaging film in the region of a transverse sealing seam of a packaging unit to be formed in a tubular bag packaging machine ([0007]-[0012]), characterized in that the method is carried out with a folding device according to claim 19 (See claim 19 rejection above).
Regarding claim 36, A tubular bag packaging machine (Figs. 5a-5c) for forming a packaging unit containing a product from a packaging film according to claim 19 (See Claim 19 rejection above), characterized by the following features: a transverse sealing device for forming the transverse sealing seam running transversely to the conveying direction of the tubular bag packaging machine on the packaging unit; and a folding device for folding the packaging film in the region of the transverse sealing seam to be formed, wherein the folding device is arranged upstream of the transverse sealing device in the conveying direction of the tubular bag packaging machine (Figs. 1a and 5a-5c and [0007]-[0012]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23-28, 31, 34 and 37 are 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 Notice of References Cited. Those references not relied upon are directed mainly toward the general field of gusset-folding devices. Of the prior art not relied upon, Miyazaki (US 8689531 B2; see element 18a and 18b), Cutler (3353327 A; see element 42, 30; Fig. 1, 3) are deemed to be the most relevant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 on (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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights