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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed 8/1/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/1/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Page 3, line 9 recites “claim 1”, however, reference to specific claims should be avoided. Claim numbers/scopes could change throughout prosecution.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 12, line 1, “Filling machine” should instead be “A filling machine”.
-Claims 13 and 14 begin with “Filling machine” but this should instead be recited as “The filling machine”.
-Claim 12, line 3, “the system according to claim 7” would be better recited as “at least one system according to claim 7”.
-Claim 13, line 3, “comprising a pair of the systems” would be better recited as “comprising the at least one system, wherein the at least one system comprises a pair of systems according to claim 7”.
-Claim 13, line 6, “a pair of the tracks forming respective closed-loop paths” would be better recited as “a pair of tracks forming respective closed-loop paths, wherein each track is configured as the track according to claim 7”.
Claim 13, line 7, “a pair of the movable members, each one” would be better recited as “a plurality of movable members according to claim 7 associated with each of the tracks, each plurality”.
. 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.
Claim 14 is 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.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “machine…comprising a final folding station … and comprising a system for supporting production of packages…” followed by details of the system. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if this system is referring to a same or different system that it recited in Claim 12 as Claim 14 recites similar structures and therefore rendering it further unclear if the structures recited are referring to the already defined structures. Further, it is unclear if this “system” being introduced is comprised by the “machine” or the “final folding station”.
Note with respect to Claim 14, while the Examiner might speculate as to what is meant by the claim language, the uncertainty provides the Examiner with no proper basis for making the comparison between that which is claimed and the prior art. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should not be based upon considerable speculation as to the meaning of terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims. In re Steele, 134 USPQ 292. When no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in a claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, but rather the claim becomes indefinite. In re Wilson, 165 USPQ 494.
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 1-4, 7, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradelli (WO 2021/001144 A1), in view of Lachenmaier (US PGPUB 2012/0167531), and in further view of Bravo (US PGPUB 2015/0028860).
Regarding Claim 1, Pradelli discloses a movable member (7; Figure 1) for a system (1) for supporting production of packages (3) from a tube (2) of packaging material filled with pourable product, the movable member (7) cyclically movable along a closed-loop path (P; formed by tracks 6 and conveyor 4; Figures 1-2; Page 8, lines 9-12), the movable member (7) comprising:
- a first (body 14) and at least one second (20, 23) element (Figure 3), the at least one second element (20, 23) relatively movable with respect to the first element (14) and comprising an actuator (sealing device 23 and shell 20) configured to engage with the packaging material forming the tube (2; sealing device 23 and shell 20 both engage the material; Page 9, line 25 through Page 10, line 4 and Page 10, line 5; Page 11, lines 9-22; Page 14, lines 4-28),
-an drive (cam assembly 24 including cam follower 25 and element 26) configured to move the at least one second element relative to the first element (14; Col 17, lines 9-29)
- a motor (magnet arrangement 11, 12 forming linear motor) configured to move the at least one second element (12; Page 7, line 23 through Col 8, line 6 outline linear motors to move the cart 7 and therefore the sealing device 23 and shells 20),
- a power receiver (controller/circuitry associated with linear motors of magnet arrangement 11, 12), connected to the motor (11, 12), configured to receive power and transfer it to said motor (11, 12; Page 8, lines 2-6; note some form of controller/circuitry must receive and control the electrical power distributed to the coils; further note the modification below).
However, while it can be readily assumed that the linear motors of Pradelli are controlled according to some form of sensed feedback, Pradelli does not readily disclose at least one first movement sensor, positioned at the at least one second element and configured to generate a first sensor signal indicative of a movement of the at least one second element with respect to the first element.
Attention can be readily brought to the teachings of Lachenmaier which includes another package forming system (3; Figure 1) comprising a movable element (including jaw 1, movable part 22; Figure 2) including a first element (21, 22 of 9) and a second element (1, 22 of 8, 26), wherein a linear motor (of 8) is configured to move the second element (1, 22, 26) relative to the first element (21, 22 of 9; Para. 0031), and a control unit (27) configured to receive power and power the linear motor (8) based on sensed feedback (sealing force feedback; Para. 0031-0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated a controlled motor drive for driving the second element relative to the first element as taught by Lachenmaier with the movable member of Pradelli. By modifying Pradelli, parameters such as sealing force can be adjusted based on different conditions and/or packaging materials as taught by Lachenmaier (Para. 0017-0018).
Note that in order to measure force, a movement (i.e. acceleration) must be measured. Further with such a controlled motor drive incorporated into the moveable member, a power receiver (associated with control unit 27 of Lachenmaier) associated with the motor must also be included.
Further, although Lachenmaier does not explicitly recite a movement sensor positioned at the at least one second element, in order to measure sealing force, some form of sensor must be associated therewith. Regardless, further attention is brought to Bravo which clearly teaches movement sensors (5, 6; Figures 1 and 2) on a movable sealing element (4a, 4b) which generates sensor signals (to 8) associated with the movement thereof for controlling an associated drive (7; Para. 0023) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized sensors on the second element/sealing element as taught by Bravo in the movable member of Pradelli. By modifying Pradelli in this manner, distance between the clamping parts can be measured accurately and detection of defects can be made with accuracy as taught by Bravo (Para. 0007, 0008, 0023).
Regarding Claim 2, Pradelli, as modified, discloses the first sensor signal is indicative of a position of the at least one second element (20, 23) with respect to the first element (14 of Pradelli; see Para. 0023 of Bravo which outlines relaying “measured vales” and therefore signals associated therewith from sensors 5,6).
Regarding Claim 3, Pradelli, as modified, discloses the motor (8 of Lachenmaier) is configured to adjust a position of the at least one second element (23 of Pradelli) as a function of the first sensor signal (see Para. 0023 of Lachenmaier).
Regarding Claim 4, Pradelli, as modified, discloses comprising at least one second movement sensor (associated with linear motor 11, 12), configured to detect a movement of the first element (body 14; see Para. 0045-0046 which outlines independently controlling coils 12 based on position of magnet 11 on first element 14 and therefore some form of sensed feedback associated with the movement must be present).
Regarding Claim 7, Pradelli, as modified, discloses a system (1; Figure 1) for supporting production of packages (3) from a tube (2) of packaging material filled with pourable product, the system (1) comprising:
- a track (4, 6), forming the closed-loop path (P, Q; Figure 1),
- a plurality of movable members (7) according to claim 1 (see above), the plurality of movable members (7) coupled to the track (4, 6) and configured to cyclically move along the closed-loop path (of P, Q; Page 7, lines 8-22; Page 8, lines 9-12).
Regarding Claim 10, Pradelli, as modified, discloses the track (4, 6) comprises an endless track and wherein the plurality of movable members (7) movable along the track independently from one another (Page 7, lines 8-22; Page 8, lines 9-12).
Regarding Claim 12, Pradelli, as modified, discloses a filling machine (1; Figure 1) for producing packages (3) from a tube (2) of packaging material filled with pourable product, the filling machine comprising the system according to claim 7 (see rejection above).
Regarding Claim 13, Pradelli, as modified, discloses a forming, sealing and cutting station (1; Figure 1) configured to form a plurality of packages (3) and comprising a pair of the systems (of 1) for supporting production of packages (3) from a tube (2) of packaging material filled with pourable product, the forming, sealing and cutting station comprising:
- a pair of the tracks (4, 6) forming respective closed-loop paths (P, Q);
- at least a pair of the movable members (7), each one of which coupled to a respective track (4, 6 as shown) and cyclically movable along a respective path (P, Q), the movable members (7) comprising at least one second element (20, 23), wherein the at least one second element (20, 23) of each movable member (7) is movable to support sealing, forming and/or cutting of the packages (3; Page 12, lines 10-20).
Regarding Claim 15, Pradelli, as modified, discloses a method of operating a movable member (7; Figure 1) for supporting production of packages (3) from a tube (2) of packaging material filled with pourable product, the method comprising:
- providing at least one movable member (7) according to claim 1 (see rejection above);
- receive power at the power receiver (of 11, 12; Page 8, lines 2-6; note some form of controller must receive and control the electrical power distributed to the coils; further note the modification in view of Lachenmaier as the motor 8 would require a power receiver).
- power the motor (linear motor 8 of Lachenmaier),
- generate the first sensor signal indicative of a movement of the at least one second element (20, 23 of Pradelli) with respect to the first element (14 of Pradelli; see Para. 0023 of Bravo which outlines relaying “measured vales” and therefore signals associated therewith from sensors 5,6), and
- drive the at least one second element (20, 23 of Pradelli) by means of the motor (linear motor 8 and Paras. 0031-0033 of Lachenmaier).
Claims 4-6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradelli (WO 2021/001144 A1), in view of Lachenmaier (US PGPUB 2012/0167531) and Bravo (US PGPUB 2015/028860), and in further view of Ackerman (US PGPUB 2020/0198825).
Alternatively regarding Claim 4 as well as Claims 6 and 16, Pradelli, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention, however, assuming arguendo that Pradelli cannot be readily viewed as comprising at least one second movement sensor (associated with linear motor 11, 12), configured to detect a movement of the first element (body 14), in which the Examiner does not concede to, attention is brought to Ackerman. Further, Pradelli does not readily disclose the first and/or at least one second movement sensor comprise an inertial sensor or at least one magnet and at least one magnetometer.
Ackerman teaches a processing device (100; Figure 1-2) comprising movable members (102) and a track (rail 106) wherein the movable members (102) comprises a sensing magnet (“position magnets” on carriage assemblies 134; Para. 0034) and the track (106) includes magnetic position/motion sensors (116b; Para. 0060 outlines sensors such as hall sensors which are a type of magnetometer) for detecting movement of the movable member (102; Para. 0036-0037).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated a position sensing arrangement relative to the track/conveyor as taught by Ackerman into the system of Pradelli. By modifying Pradelli in this manner, the coils associated with the linear motor can be selectively activated based on the position of the movable member.
Note although the sensor (116b) of Ackerman is not explicitly taught as being on the movable member (100), it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have located the sensor on the movable member and the magnet on the track because Applicant has not disclosed that such arrangement provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the sensor on the track because in either instance positional feedback can be obtained.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Pradelli to obtain the invention as specified in the claim. Further note, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding Claim 5, Pradelli, as modified, discloses the at least one second movement sensor (116b of Ackerman) is configured to generate a second sensor signal indicative of a deviation in position and/or physical orientation of the first element (14 of Pradelli; Para. 0002).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradelli (WO 2021/001144 A1), in view of Lachenmaier (US PGPUB 2012/0167531) and Bravo (US PGPUB 2015/028860), as applied to Claim 7, and in further view of Sun (US PGPUB 2021/0099119).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, Pradelli, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose a power transmitter, positioned along at least a portion of the closed-looped path (P, Q) and configured to wirelessly transfer power to the power receiver (controller/circuitry of leading to coils 12 of linear motor arrangement 11, 12), and wherein the power transmitter comprises a primary coil configured to generate a varying electromagnetic field and wherein the power receiver comprises a secondary coil.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Sun which includes another system (Figure 1) comprising a movable member (100) mounted to move along a closed loop path (of track 10), wherein the system comprises a power transmitter (coil 50; Figure 14), positioned along at least a portion of the closed-looped path (of 10) and configured to wirelessly transfer power to the power receiver (16), and wherein the power transmitter (50) comprises a primary coil (50) configured to generate a varying electromagnetic field and wherein the power receiver (160) comprises a secondary coil (160; Para. 0040, 0060-0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a primary coil/power transmitter and secondary coil/power receiver arrangement as taught by Sun in the system of Pradelli. By modifying Pradelli in this manner, power can be readily transferred to the movable member and thereby allowing for incorporation and power of further devices on the movable member such as sensors and thereby providing further advanced analytics/monitoring of the movers as taught by Sun (Para. 0062).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pradelli (WO 2021/001144 A1), in view of Lachenmaier (US PGPUB 2012/0167531) and Bravo (US PGPUB 2015/028860), as applied to Claim 7, and in further view of Fontanazzi (US Patent 10,195,790).
Regarding Claim 11, Pradelli, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose a chain comprising a plurality of links, wherein the chain forms the track and wherein the plurality of movable members are fixed to the chain.
Attention is brought to Fontanazzi which teaches a system (1; Figure 1) comprising a track (13a, 13b) but further outlines the use of a chain conveyors (Col 12, lines 41-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a chain conveyor as taught by Fontanazzi to carry the movable members of Pradelli. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a chain conveyor as taught by Fontanazzi to carry the movable members of Pradelli because Applicant has not disclosed that the chain conveyor provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the conveyor of Pradelli or as taught by Fontanazzi because in either instance the movable members will be controllably conveyed to forming and sealing positions.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Pradelli to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 6/22/2026
Prosecution Insights