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 20 June 2025.
Claims 34 – 53 are pending. Claims 1 – 33 are cancelled by Applicant.
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 4 September 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 for the following reasons:
37 CFR 1.84(p) states “[r]eference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible”. Figures 2, 3A – C, 4A – B, 5A – D, 6A – C, 7A – C, 8A – B, 9A – B, 10 use handwritten reference characters and lead lines that are not plain and legible. Please print reference characters using the font size indicated in 37 CFR 1.84(p).
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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 34 and 44 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 34 and 44, the limitation:
A packaging machine comprising a work station,
the work station comprising:
a rack defining a working space;
should read:
A packaging machine comprising:
a work station, the work station comprising
a rack defining a working space;
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a lifting device” in claim 34.
“a removing device” in claim 34.
“a closure” in claim 36
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 38 – 41 and 44 – 53 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 claims 38, 39, 44, and 47, the limitations, “the at least one release post can be locked against a removal from the rack by moving a closure into a locking position” and “the at least one release post can be released for the removal from the rack by moving the closure into an unlocking position”, in claim 38; the limitation, “the at least one release post can be secured at the at least one coupling section against the removal from the rack by moving the closure into the locking position” in claim 39; the limitations, “the lifting device can be moved between a lower working position and an upper working position to carry out the working stroke” and “the lifting device can further be moved into a release position disposed below the lower working position” in claim 44; and the limitation, “the removal section can be brought into contact with the abutment by moving the lifting device into the release position” in claim 47, are indefinite because the limitations, due to the terms, “can be”, are not positively recited and it is ambiguous whether the limitations are part of the claimed invention. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the terms, “can be”, as the term, “is”, such that the limitations above are part of the claimed invention. Since claims 39 – 41 depend upon claim 38, claims 40 – 41 depend upon claim 39, claims 45 – 49 depend upon claim 44, and claim 48 depends on claim 47, these dependent claims 39 – 41 and 44 – 49 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 44, the limitations, “a working position”, “a lower working position”, and “an upper working position”, are indefinite because it is ambiguous whether the limitations indicate three different positions or the lower working position and the upper working position are part of or positions within the earlier recited working position. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the lower working position and the upper working position as part of or positions within the earlier recited working position. Since claims 45 – 49 depend upon claim 44, claims 45 – 49 are likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 50, the claim is indefinite because it is ambiguous what portion makes up the preamble of the claim and what portion makes up the body of the claim. Moreover, without a transitional phrase, it is ambiguous to define the scope of the claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the claim as follows:
A method for removing a bottom tool of a work station of a packaging machine, wherein, during an operation of the work station, the bottom tool is supported at a lifting device that is movable between a lower working position and an upper working position in order to execute a working stroke, the method comprising:
lowering the lifting device into a release position disposed below the lower working position to release the bottom tool from the lifting device and transfer the bottom tool to a removing device.
Since claim 51 depends upon claim 50, claim 51 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 52, the claim is indefinite because it is ambiguous what portion makes up the preamble of the claim and what portion makes up the body of the claim. Moreover, without a transitional phrase, it is ambiguous to define the scope of the claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets the claim as follows:
A method for removing a bottom tool of a work station of a packaging machine, comprising:
pivoting a removing device to bring the bottom tool out of a working space,
wherein the working space is defined by a rack of the work station.
Since claim 53 depends upon claim 52, claim 53 is likewise rejected under 35 USC §112(b) for indefiniteness.
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 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.
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.
Claims 34 – 35 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Biechteler (EP 2 383 091 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Biechteler discloses a packaging machine comprising:
a work station (100, fig. 1), the work station comprising
a rack (3, fig. 1) defining a working space;
a working unit (1, 90, figs. 1, 2) that comprises an upper tool (90, fig. 2) and a bottom tool (1, fig. 1);
a lifting device (40, fig. 4) that is arranged in the working space of the rack and on which the bottom tool is supported in a working position (position Pa, fig. 6), the lifting device being configured to raise and lower the bottom tool relative to the rack in order to execute a working stroke (As shown in figs. 5, 6); and
a removing device (20, fig. 1) that is configured to move the bottom tool out of the working space of the rack into a removing position (As shown in fig. 7), wherein the removing device is configured to pivot (about rod 31) the bottom tool from the working position into the removing position (As shown in fig. 7).
Regarding claim 35, Biechteler discloses the removing device (20, fig. 1) is configured to pivot the bottom tool (1, fig. 1) about a vertical pivot axle (the axis of the rod 31) from the working position (position Pa, fig. 6) into the removing position (As shown in fig. 7).
Regarding claim 52, Biechteler discloses a method for removing a bottom tool of a work station of a packaging machine, the method comprising:
pivoting a removing device (20, fig. 1) to bring the bottom tool (1, fig. 1) out of a working space, wherein the working space is defined by a rack (3, fig. 1) of the work station.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vine (US 2015/0052848 A1).
Regarding claim 44, Vine discloses a packaging machine comprising:
a work station (200, fig. 5), the work station comprising
a rack (4, fig. 6) defining a working space;
a working unit (3, 106a, 106b, fig. 6) that comprises an upper tool (106a, fig. 6) and a bottom tool (3, 106b, fig. 6 – figure 6 shows bottom tool 106b on a tool table 3);
a lifting device (22a, 22b, 24a, 24b, fig. 6) that is arranged in the working space of the rack and on which the bottom tool is supported in a working position (position shown in fig. 6), said lifting device being configured to raise and lower the bottom tool relative to the rack in order to execute a working stroke (As shown in fig. 6 and fig. 11); and
a removing device (20, 21, figs. 6, 7) for moving the bottom tool out of the working space,
wherein the lifting device is moved between a lower working position (position shown in fig. 6) and an upper working position (position shown in fig. 11) to carry out the working stroke,
wherein the lifting device can further be moved into a release position (position shown in fig. 7) disposed below the lower working position, and
wherein the bottom tool is configured to be brought into engagement with the removing device by moving the lifting device into the release position (Figure 6 shows bottom tool 106b on a tool table 3 and figure 7 shows the tool table 3, which would have the bottom tool 106b as shown in fig. 6, engaging pins 24a/24b of a vertical height adjustment member 22a when the vertical height adjustment member 22a is in its lowest/release position).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
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 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biechteler (EP 2 383 091 A1) in view of Von Seggern (DE 10 2018 104 798 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
592
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (B)][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Von Seggen (DE 10 2018 104 798 A1)
Annotated figure 7)]
Regarding claim 42, Biechteler discloses the invention as recited in claim 34.
Biechteler does not explicitly disclose the bottom tool is pivotable by the removing device about a pivot axle that is arranged offset outwardly from the rack.
However, Von Seggern, in the same filed of endeavor, teaches a tool (3, fig. 7) pivotable by a removing device (8, fig. 7) about a pivot axle (axis A, annotated fig. 7) that is arranged offset outwardly from a rack (rack B, annotated fig. 7) (With the incorporation of the teachings of Von Seggern with the invention of Biechteler, the bottom tool 1 of Biechteler would be pivotable about a pivot axis that is arranged offset outwardly from the rack 3 of Biechteler).
Von Seggern is evidence that the tool is pivotable by the removing device about the pivot axle that is arranged offset outwardly from the rack was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success modifying the packaging machine of Biechteler such that the bottom tool is pivotable by the removing device about the pivot axle that is arranged offset outwardly from the rack, as suggested by Von Seggern. Moreover, it would have been obvious to modify the packaging machine of Biechteler as suggested by Von Seggern, with the motivation to be able to slide or move the removing device to different sections of the rack to remove different bottom tools.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biechteler (EP 2 383 091 A1) in view of Bonneville (US 2017/0313457 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Biechteler discloses the invention as recited in claim 34.
Biechteler does not explicitly discloses the upper tool is supportable at the rack via at least one release post, wherein the work station has at least one coupling section fixed relative to the rack, and wherein the at least one release post and the at least one coupling section are axially coupled.
However, Bonneville, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an upper tool (20, fig. 3) being supportable at the rack (10, figs. 2, 3) via at least one release post (40, fig. 3), wherein the work station has at least one coupling section (the section having a clamping device 30, fig. 3) fixed relative to the rack, and wherein the at least one release post and the at least one coupling section are axially coupled (along the longitudinal axis of a packaging machine shown in fig. 2).
Bonneville is evidence that having the upper tool being supportable at the rack via the at least one release post, wherein the work station has at least one coupling section fixed relative to the rack, and wherein the at least one release post and the at least one coupling section are axially coupled was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success modifying the packaging machine of Biechteler such that the upper tool being supportable at the rack via the at least one release post, wherein the work station has at least one coupling section fixed relative to the rack, and wherein the at least one release post and the at least one coupling section are axially coupled, as suggested by Bonneville. Moreover, it would have been obvious to modify the packaging machine of Biechteler as suggested by Bonneville, with the motivation to be able to remove the upper tool for maintenance, cleaning, and/or replacement.
Claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vine (US 2015/0052848 A1) in view of Bonneville (US 2017/0313457 A1).
Regarding claim 49, Biechteler discloses the invention as recited in claim 44.
Vine does not explicitly disclose the upper tool is supportable at the rack via at least one release post, wherein the work station has at least one coupling section fixed relative to the rack, and wherein the at least one release post and the at least one coupling section are axially coupled.
However, Bonneville, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an upper tool (20, fig. 3) being supportable at the rack (10, figs. 2, 3) via at least one release post (40, fig. 3), wherein the work station has at least one coupling section (the section having a clamping device 30, fig. 3) fixed relative to the rack, and wherein the at least one release post and the at least one coupling section are axially coupled (along the longitudinal axis of a packaging machine shown in fig. 2).
Bonneville is evidence that having the upper tool being supportable at the rack via the at least one release post, wherein the work station has at least one coupling section fixed relative to the rack, and wherein the at least one release post and the at least one coupling section are axially coupled was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success modifying the packaging machine of Vine such that the upper tool being supportable at the rack via the at least one release post, wherein the work station has at least one coupling section fixed relative to the rack, and wherein the at least one release post and the at least one coupling section are axially coupled, as suggested by Bonneville. Moreover, it would have been obvious to modify the packaging machine of Vine as suggested by Bonneville, with the motivation to be able to remove the upper tool for maintenance, cleaning, and/or replacement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36 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.
Claims 38 – 41, 45 – 48, 51 and 53 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 50 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
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
17 June 2026
Prosecution Insights