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 .
Claim Status
This Office action is in response to the filing of 4/25/2025. Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
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 “workpiece” of claims 1 and 11 and corresponding to block 680; and
the “heating device” of claim 1 and corresponding to heater 660 which is implemented as a resistive heating device, a hot-gas blower, a laser, an induction coil, or an infrared heating device.
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
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.
Claims 1-3 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cunha (US 2021/0214109 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cunha discloses a strapping device comprising: a movable workpiece (18 not including 19, 21 – Fig. 4); a movable strap clamp (6b – Fig. 4); a heating device (21 – Fig. 4); and a controller (8 – Fig. 2; para. 0001 discloses that 8 controls the sealing device, hence the controller performs the steps below) configured to: cause the workpiece to move between a first strap portion (4a – Fig. 4) and a second strap portion (4b – Fig. 4) such that the first strap portion and the second strap portion are at least partially spaced-apart from the workpiece (para. 0045, 18 is fitted between 4a, 4b, hence it is moved between the portions); with the first and second strap portions at least partially spaced-apart from the workpiece, control the heating device to heat and melt a part of the first strap portion and a part of the second strap portion (paras. 0046-0047); cause the workpiece to be removed from between the first and second strap portions (see Figs. 4 and 5 where 18 is present while heating in Fig. 4 and then in Fig. 5 has been removed); and cause the strap clamp to move to clamp the first and second strap portions together such that the melted parts of the first and second strap portions join to form a welded strap joint (para. 0048).
Cunha further discloses:
Claim 2, the heating device (21 – Fig. 4) is configured to heat the parts of the first and second strap portions to a temperature no less than a melting temperature of the strap (para. 0047; since the strap portions are melted together, the heating device necessarily heats the portions at or higher than their melting temperature).
Claim 3, the heating device (21 – Fig. 4) comprises a resistive heating device and the controller is configured to control the resistive heating device to heat the workpiece such that the workpiece emits thermal radiation that heats and melts the parts of the first and second strap portions (para. 0046, the heating device is a resistance heater, hence it emits thermal radiation).
Claim 10, the heating device (21 – Fig. 4) is integrated into the workpiece (18 – Fig. 4; para. 0046).
Claim 11, a strap-sealing process comprising: positioning a workpiece (18 not including 19, 21 – Fig. 4) between a first strap portion (4a – Fig. 4) and a second strap portion (4b – Fig. 4) such that the first strap portion and the second strap portion are at least partially spaced-apart from the workpiece (para. 0045, 18 is fitted between 4a, 4b, hence it is positioned between the portions; see Fig. 4); with the first and second strap portions at least partially spaced-apart from the workpiece, heating and melting a part of the first strap portion and a part of the second strap portion (paras. 0046-0047); removing the workpiece from between the first and second strap portions (see Figs. 4 and 5 where 18 is present while heating in Fig. 4 and then in Fig. 5 has been removed); and moving a strap clamp (6b – Fig. 4) to clamp the first and second strap portions together such that the melted parts of the first and second strap portions join to form a welded strap joint (para. 0048).
Claim 12, heat the parts of the first and second strap portions to a temperature no less than a melting temperature of the strap (para. 0047; since the strap portions are melted together, the heating device necessarily heats the portions at or higher than their melting temperature).
Claim 13, heating the parts of the first and second strap portions comprises controlling a resistive heating device to heat the workpiece such that the workpiece emits thermal radiation that heats and melts the parts of the first and second strap portions (para. 0046, the heating device is a resistance heater, hence it emits thermal radiation).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunha (US 2021/0214109 A1) in view of Heaton (US 6132541).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Cunha discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
However, the heating device of Cunha is a resistive heating device, not a hot-gas blower.
Heaton discloses a heating device (50 – Fig. 5A) for heating parts of a first strap portion and a second strap portion, wherein the heating device comprises a hot-gas blower (col. 5, lines 52-64, the hot air gun is interpreted to be a hot-gas blower) configured to generate and direct hot gas onto parts of the first and second strap portions to heat and melt the parts of the first and second strap portions (col. 6, lines 16-37). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Heaton, would have recognized that the heater of Heaton is analogous to the heater of Cunha since they are both heaters inserted between strap portion for melting the strap portions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the heater of Cunha with the heater of Heaton since they perform the same function and it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to employ known alternatives. Note that since Cunha discloses that the controller (8 – Fig. 2) controls the sealing device (para. 0001), when the heater of Cunha is substituted with the heater of Heaton, the controller would also control the heater of Heaton.
Regarding claim 5, Cunha, as modified by Heaton, further teaches multiple openings (52 – Fig. 5C, Heaton) are defined in the workpiece (the body of 18 – Fig. 4, Cunha is analogous to the body of 50 – Fig. 5A, Heaton, this when the heater of Cunha is substituted with the heater of Heaton, the openings would be located in the workpiece of Cunha), wherein the hot-gas blower is configured to direct the hot gas through openings in the workpiece (col. 6, lines 16-37).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunha (US 2021/0214109 A1) in view of Helldoerfer (US 6403917 B1).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, Cunha discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
However, the heating device of Cunha is a resistive heating device, not a laser emitter.
Helldoerfer discloses a heating device (40 – Fig. 2) for heating parts of a first strap portion and a second strap portion, wherein the heating device comprises a laser emitter (col. 4, lines 11-20) and a controller (the control unit, col. 4, lines 18-20) is configured to control the laser emitter to emit a laser onto the parts of the first and second strap portions to heat and melt the parts of the first and second strap portions via laser radiation (col. 4, lines 11-35). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Helldoerfer, would have recognized that the heater of Helldoerfer is analogous to the heater of Cunha since they are both heaters for heating and melting strap portions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the heater of Cunha with the heater of Helldoerfer since they perform the same function and it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to employ known alternatives.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunha (US 2021/0214109 A1) in view of Uchida (US 2013/0248520 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Cunha discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
However, the heating device of Cunha is a resistive heating device, not an induction coil powered by an inverter.
Uchida discloses a heating device (100 – Fig. 1) for heating two portions, wherein the heating device comprises an induction coil (20 – Fig. 1) and a controller (15 – Fig. 1) is configured to control an inverter to output alternating electric current to the coil at a designated frequency to cause a workpiece (the plate, para. 0032) to be heated by induction such that the workpiece emits thermal radiation that heats the portions (paras. 0011 and 0032). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Uchida, would have recognized that the heater of Cunha is analogous to the heater of Uchida since they both function by heating a body and then heating another element by emitting thermal radiation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the heater of Cunha with the heater of Uchida since the perform the same function and it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to employ known alternatives.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunha (US 2021/0214109 A1) in view of Powers (US 4906320).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Cunha discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
However, the heating device of Cunha is a resistive heating device, not an infrared heating device.
Powers teaches a heating device (45 – Fig. 3) for heating parts of a first strap portion and a second strap portion, wherein the heating device comprises an infrared heating device (col. 4, lines 30-34) and a controller is configured to control the infrared heating device to heat and melt parts of the first and second strap portions via infrared radiation (col. 7, lines 20-36). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Powers, would have recognized that the heater of Powers is analogous to the heater of Cunha since they are both heaters used for melting two straps together.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have substituted the heater of Cunha with the heater of Powers since the perform the same function and it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to employ known alternatives.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cunha (US 2021/0214109 A1) in view of Schmetzer (US 2007/0181261 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Cunha discloses essentially all of the elements of the claimed invention in claims 1 and 11, respectively with Cunha further disclosing an actuator (14 – Fig. 2), wherein the controller is configured to control the actuator to cause the strap clamp to move (para. 0042).
However, Cunha does not expressly disclose how the workpiece is moved.
Schmetzer teaches a strapping device comprising a movable workpiece (17 – Fig. 1b) and a strap clamp (9 – Fig. 1b), wherein an actuation system (the cam and spring assembly of 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21 – Fig. 1b; 8 – Fig. 1a; and 25 – Fig. 2b) moves the movable workpiece based on the movement of the strap clamp (paras. 0030-0039). One of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the teaching of Schmetzer, would have recognized that the workpiece of Cunha may be connected to the strap clamp in a similar manner as taught by Schmetzer in order to move the workpiece.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the strapping device of Cunha such that the workpiece is movable based on the position of the strap clamp as suggested by Schmetzer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification since Cunha is silent with respect to how the workpiece is moved and Schmetzer provides a known solution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kawabata (US 2003/0089246 A1) discloses a strapping device comprising a heater (35 – Fig. 5) disposed between two straps (see Fig. 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7012. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9:00-5:00.
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.
/THOMAS M WITTENSCHLAEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
9/25/2026
