DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 4/10/2025.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 4/10/2025 has been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “according claim 12” should be “according to claim 12”. 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.
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 15 and 16 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 claim 15:
In claim 15, “the tip portions” (of the first mandrel and second mandrel) lack antecedent basis as no tip portions were previously recited in the claims. Examiner recommends simply removing the word “the” from the limitation.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 recites “a cutting unit for cutting the tubular foil to form a sleeve and a sleeve dispatch” which is indefinite since it is unclear what a “sleeve dispatch” is, and how, in addition to the sleeve, it may be formed by the cutting unit.
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 1-3, 5-10, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Rijsewijk et al. US 2013/0061559.
Regarding claim 1:
Van Rijsewijk teaches a mandrel (190) to be suspended in a sleeving device, for spreading open a flattened tubular foil into a tubular form having a rounded cross section ([0011]), the mandrel comprising:
a spreading portion (190a/190b) which extends in a feeding direction of the foil along a central axis of the mandrel and is configured to change a cross section of the tubular foil from a flattened cross section into a rounded cross section ([0037]), the spreading portion comprises, in a feeding direction of the tubular foil:
a first length section (190a) configured to change the cross section of the tubular foil from the flattened cross section into a first polygonal cross section defined by four corner points (adjacent 191a-191b), and
a second length section (190b) configured to change the cross section of the tubular foil from the first polygonal cross section into a second polygonal cross section defined by eight or more corner points (see annotated FIG. 2 below which shows 4 corner points P on one half of the mandrel, out of 8 total when counting the corner points on the opposing side).
PNG
media_image1.png
369
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2:
Van Rijsewijk teaches the mandrel according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first length section is configured to change the cross section of the tubular foil from the flattened cross section (tip of 190a) into a rectangular cross section (around 196) and, then, into a square cross section ([0041] discusses the square cross-section).
Regarding claim 3:
Van Rijsewijk teaches the mandrel according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the second length section is configured to change the cross section of the tubular foil from the first polygonal cross section into an octagonal cross section (i.e., octagonal here is interpreted to mean having 8 corner/apex points, as referenced in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5:
Van Rijsewijk teaches the mandrel according to claim 1, the spreading portion further comprises a third length section (e.g., portion near end of 195b) following the second length section and configured to guide the tubular foil with the second polygonal cross section along the feeding direction.
Regarding claim 6:
Van Rijsewijk teaches the mandrel according to claim 5, as discussed above, further comprising an advancing means with at least one driving wheel (199a/199b) rotatably mounted inside the third length section so that a circumferential surface of the driving wheel is flush with an outer surface of the third length section.
Regarding claim 7:
Van Rijsewijk teaches the mandrel according to claim 1, as discussed above, further comprising a rounding portion (portions below 199a/199b) configured to change the cross section of the tubular foil from the second polygonal cross section into a rounded cross section.
Regarding claim 8:
Van Rijsewijk teaches the mandrel according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the mandrel is configured to change the cross section of the tubular foil from the flattened cross section into the rounded cross section so that the tubular foil has a same circumferential length at any position along the central axis of the mandrel (abstract, “substantially constant circumference”).
Regarding claim 9:
Van Rijsewijk teaches the mandrel according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the mandrel is configured to change the cross section of the tubular foil from the flattened cross section into the rounded cross section so that, if a first cross section of the tubular foil at any first position along the central axis of the mandrel is divided into a specific number of nodes N1 to Nn being located at equal distances from each other along the circumference of the first cross section, and a second cross section of the tubular foil at any second position along the central axis of the mandrel is divided into the specific number of nodes M1 to Mn being located at equal distances from each other along the circumference of the second cross section, distances N1-M1, N2-M2, to Nn-Mn on the tubular foil between equally numbered nodes at the first position and the second position are equal, wherein nodes N1 and M1 are located in a symmetry plane of the mandrel containing the central axis of the mandrel (this appears to be a property due to the fact that the mandrel has a “substantially constant circumference” as stated in the abstract. So if two cross-sectional slices are made, they will have an equal circumference, and nodes (Mi/Ni) may be mapped in the manner claimed).
Regarding claim 10:
Van Rijsewijk teaches the mandrel according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the spreading portion causes any polygonal cross section of the tubular foil to have rounded corner points (e.g., at the first length section 190a the corner points may be considered at least rounded).
Regarding claim 14:
Van Rijsewijk teaches the mandrel according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the spreading portion further comprises a tip portion (flat tip of 190a) upstream of the first length section, configured to receive and guide the flattened tubular foil to the first length section.
Regarding claim 16:
Van Rijsewijk teaches a sleeving device (see FIG. 1) for arranging a sleeve (1’o) around a container comprising a frame (10), a foil feeding unit (11) mounted to the frame and configured to feed a tubular foil (1) to the mandrel according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) suspended to the frame, a cutting unit (14) for cutting the tubular foil to form a sleeve (1’o).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 11-13, and 15 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. The prior art does not teach or render obvious the second length section is further configured to change the cross section of the tubular foil from a first octagonal cross section into a second octagonal cross section, wherein the first octagonal cross section is a non-equilateral octagonal cross section and the second octagonal cross section is an equilateral octagonal cross section (claim 4); wherein a cross section of the spreading portion at any position along the central axis is defined by n contact points configured to contact the tubular foil, with n=4 along the first length section and n>8 along the second length section, so that a polygonal chain of straight line segments connecting the n contact points defines a polygonal cross section of the tubular foil (claim 11); and a first mandrel according to claim 1 and a second mandrel according to claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the first mandrel and second mandrel are arranged such that the central axis of the first mandrel and second mandrel coincide with each other and the tip portions of the first mandrel and second mandrel are positioned opposite to each other, and wherein the second mandrel is turnable with respect to the first mandrel around its central axis so that the first length sections and second length sections of the first mandrel and second mandrel are not congruent (claim 15). Claims 12-13 would be allowable based on their dependencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408)918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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 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.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights