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 amendment filed 8/4/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9-15 remain pending.
Claim 16 is new and now also pending
Claims 3, 6, and 8 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 9, line 2, “and/or release surface” is changed to “and/or the release surface”. 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 “wherein the first width….the second width…and a third width…are each selected based on a width of the longitudinal sealing section of the tube”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what the limitation is intending to encompass. Specifically, it is unclear if the Applicant is attempting to claim an adjustability feature of the anvil or if the Applicant is merely suggesting that the anvil shape is selected based on the longitudinal sealing position. Further, given the latter, if the shape is being selected it is unclear if the Applicant is attempting to claim multiple anvils within the scope of the packaging machine.
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, 2, 4-5, 7, 9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US Patent 6,986,232), in view of Basque (US PGPUB 2008/0000591-newly cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Kume discloses an anvil (20; Figure 4; specifically the embodiment of Figure 20) of an ultrasonic sealing system (Figures 3, 4) for sealing a transversal sealing section of a tube (11; Figure 2) of packaging material (11), wherein the transversal sealing section comprises a first transversal edge section (see Figure 2), a longitudinal sealing section (12; Figure 2) and a second transversal edge section (see Figure 2), said anvil comprising a ridge (“jaw working portion” 22) extending along a first axis of the anvil, wherein the anvil (20) comprises:
a middle section (recess 27; Figure 20) arranged to interact with at least the longitudinal sealing section (12) of the tube (11) during a transversal sealing state (see Col 8, lines 28-35 referencing the sealing section 12 abutting recess 25 and it is noted that the same interaction would occur with the recess 27 in Figure 20),
a first and a second side section (23) arranged to interact with at least the first and the second transversal edge section of the tube (11), respectively, during the transversal sealing state (see “Annotated View of Figure 20” below),
a first transition section (step/inclined portion; see “Annotated View of Figure 20” below) arranged between the first side section (23) and the middle section (27; Col 9, lines 12-14), and
a second transition section (step/inclined portion; see “Annotated View of Figure 20” below) arranged between the middle section (27) and the second side section (23; Col 9, lines 12-14; see “Annotated View of Figure 20” below),
wherein, in the first transition section, the ridge (22) transitions from a first height of the first side section (23) to a second height of the middle section (27) over a first width of the first transition section (as shown; Col 9, lines 12-14),
wherein, in the second transition section, the ridge (22) transitions from the second height of the middle section (27) to a third height of the second side section (23) over a second width of the second transition section (as shown; Col 9, lines 12-14),
wherein the first width of the first transition section is smaller than the second width of the second transition section (as clearly shown in Figure 20; Col 9, lines 12-14),
wherein the anvil (20) further comprises:
a release surface (portions of 21 not including 20) extending along the first axis of the anvil (20), and
wherein, in the first and second side section, the ridge (22) and the release surface follow a first profile (i.e. see “Annotated View of Figure 15” below for reference; note Figure 15 is merely used for reference to the plane of view which would be similar to the embodiment of Figure 20),
wherein, in the middle section, the ridge (22) and the release surface follow a second profile (i.e. see “Annotated View of Figure 15” below for reference), and
wherein a height of the ridge (22) in the first profile is greater than a respective height in the second profile (as shown in “Annotated View of Figure 20” below), and a height of the release surface in the first profile is the same as in the second profile (as shown in “Annotated View of Figure 15” below).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 20
PNG
media_image2.png
392
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 15
However, Kume does not readily disclose a support surface extending along the first axis of the anvil and arranged between the ridge and the release surface, and wherein the support surface follows a first profile in the first and second side sections and a second profile in the middle section wherein the height of the support surface is greater in the first profile than the second profile.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Basque which includes an anvil (13; Figures 4-6) which includes a ridge (at 16) and a support surface formed on sides thereof between the ridge and release surfaces (see “Annotated View of Figure 4” below for reference; Para. 0023).
PNG
media_image3.png
192
537
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 4
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 support surface between the ridge and release surface as taught by Basque in the anvil of Kume. With such a modification, variable pressure can be applied to the sealing material and the quality of the seal can be further enhanced as taught by Basque (Para. 0005). Note the ridge of Kume has no form of transition between the ridge and the release surface and with such a support surface, the chance of damage to the film material of Kume can be reduced as the steep vertical wall forming the ridge of Kume creates a sharp edge in comparison to a configuration utilizing a support surface as taught by Basque. Further note that Kume teaches the height of the ridge being greater in the first profile and with an incorporated support surface that acts as a transition between the ridge and release surface, the support surface will also comprise a greater height in the first profile.
Regarding Claim 2, Kume, as modified, discloses the first height is the same as the third height (the heights of each end section “23” are clearly the same as depicted).
Regarding Claim 4, Kume, as modified, discloses a recess (27) arranged in the middle section and extending along a second axis (i.e. vertical/in machine direction) of the anvil (20; Figure 20).
Regarding Claim 5, Kume, as modified, discloses an ultrasonic sealing system (17 including 20; Figures 3-4) for sealing a transversal sealing section of a tube of packaging material (11), wherein the transversal sealing section comprises a first transversal edge section, a longitudinal sealing section (12) and a second transversal edge section, the ultrasonic sealing system comprising: an ultrasonic generating device (horn 14) arranged to transmit ultrasonic vibrations into the transversal sealing section of the tube (11), wherein the ultrasonic generating device comprises a sonotrode (horn body 14 and converters 15) and a clamping unit (sealing surfaces 13; Col 4, line 58 through Col 5, line 9); an anvil (20) according to Claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 7, Kume, as modified, discloses the ridge (22) is arranged to face the sonotrode (horn 14) of the ultrasonic generating device (14), and wherein the support surface (incorporated by Basque above) and the release surface (of 21) are arranged to face the clamping unit (13) of the ultrasonic generating device (17, 20).
Regarding Claim 9, Kume, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose the support surface and/or release surface and/or a surface of the clamping unit is provided with an elastic material.
Basque further teaches the anvil (13; Figures 1-6) comprising surfaces provided with an elastic silicone pad (Para. 0014-0015, 0020, 0021).
Use of elastic pads for applying pressure in sealing systems is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have applied an elastic material to a surface of the jaw/anvil of Kume as taught by Basque. Such a material allows for evening the contact/pressure between the jaws and provide fine tuning to provide accurate sealing as taught by Basque (Para. 0015).
Further note it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 12, Kume, as modified, discloses a packaging machine (Col 5, lines 16-22; see Figure 1 for reference) comprising a transversal sealing station (17 including 20; Figures 3-4) for transversally sealing and cutting a tube of packaging material (11) into packages (i.e. “8” in Figure 1), wherein the transversal sealing station (17, 20) comprises the ultrasonic sealing system according to claim 5 (see rejection of Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Kume, as modified, discloses wherein the packaging material (11) comprises a paperboard layer and a plastic foil attached to the paperboard layer, and is void of aluminum (see Col 4, lines 35-40 which outline synthetic resin or foil layer; further note the machine is capable of use with such material)
Regarding Claim 14, Kume, as modified, discloses the first width of the first transition section of the anvil, the second width of the second transition section of the anvil and a third width of the middle section (including 27; see “Annotated View of Figure 20” above) are each selected based on a width of the longitudinal sealing section (12) of the tube (11; note that as depicted the anvil is designed to accommodate such sealing section 12; note the 112 rejections above).
Regarding Claim 15, Kume, as modified, discloses a method for transversally sealing a tube of packaging material (11; Figure 2) using the ultrasonic sealing system (17 including 20; Figure 3-4) according to claim 5 (see rejection of Claim 5 above), wherein the packaging material comprises a paperboard layer and a plastic foil attached to the paperboard layer (Col 4, lines 32-40), the method comprising:
providing a transversal sealing section (of 11) of the tube of packaging material (11) between the ultrasonic generating device (14) and the anvil (20) of the ultrasonic sealing system (17, 20; Figure 3-4; Col 8, lines 29-35 outline positioning the material and it can be assumed that the same step is carried out in the embodiment of anvil of Figure 20),
generating ultrasonic vibrations by using the sonotrode (of 14, 15) of the ultrasonic generating device (14), such that the plastic foil of the packaging material (11) in the transversal sealing section at least partly melts (Col 4, lines 2-7; Col 5, lines 1-9), and
pressing together the tube (11) in the transversal sealing section between the ultrasonic generating device (14) and the anvil (20), such that a pressure is formed over the transversal sealing section causing the plastic foil (thermoplastic resin) to bond, thereby forming a transversal sealing (abstract; Col 5, lines 10-22).
Regarding Claim 16, Kume, as modified, discloses the ridge (22) is a raised contact portion arranged to face a sonotrode (horn body 14 and converters 15) of the ultrasonic sealing system (17, 20) and is raised relative to respective surfaces (i.e. support surfaces and release surfaces as shown) of the anvil disposed on opposite sides of the ridge (22).
Claims 5, 7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kume (US Patent 6,986,232), in view of Basque (US PGPUB 2008/0000591), and in further view of Matheny (US Patent 9,938,032).
Alternatively, regarding Claim 5, assuming arguendo that the ultrasonic generating device of Kume, as modified, cannot be readily viewed as comprising both a sonotrode and a clamping unit, in which the Examiner does not readily concede to, attention is brought to Matheny.
Matheny teaches an ultrasonic generating device (10; Figures 1) which includes a sonotrode (horn 100; Figure 2) and a biased (via 22, 24) clamping unit (jaw 20) wherein the sonotrode (100) and clamping unit (20) comprise contact surfaces (11, 21) facing an anvil (500; Col 6, line 64 through Col 7, line 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the ultrasonic generating device of Kume to comprise a sonotrode and clamping unit/jaw in the manner as taught by Matheny as such a modification allows the ability of the ultrasonic generating device to seal films of different widths and thicknesses and further such an arrangement reduces damage to the ultrasonic components (i.e. sonotrode) and such a movable clamping unit allows for compensation for self-leveling as taught by Matheny (Col 4, lines 30-47).
Regarding Claim 10, Kume, as modified, discloses a surface of the sonotrode (14) and a surface of the clamping unit (20 of Matheny) are arranged towards the anvil (20) lie on a same plane (see Col 4, lines 30-47 of Matheny which outline the ability of the jaw 20 to level the sonotrode surface with the anvil and therefore such arrangement is clearly capable of being obtained).
Regarding Claim 11, Kume, as modified, discloses wherein the clamping unit (20 of Matheny) is spring loaded (via 22, 24 of Matheny; see Col 4, lines 30-47).
Regarding Claims 7, 9, and 12-15, refer to the 103 rejections above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the deficiencies of Kume that:
PNG
media_image4.png
603
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts that Basque is relied upon for teaching the support surface while Kume clearly discloses the profiles of the ridge and release surfaces as claimed (refer to rejections above).
Further, with respect to the excerpt of Kume recited in the arguments, Examiner respectfully notes that Kume is merely referring to modifying such anvil surfaces to evenly apply pressure and goes on to further explain (through Col 3, line 29) that providing a recess in the center/middle portion allows for even pressure application. Further, although Kume does not specifically refer to the working portion 22 and/or its pressing face 24 as a ridge, this does not preclude such interpretation as a “ridge” can be readily viewed as “an elevated body part or structure” (per https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridge). Merely because Kume may refer to the disadvantages of a previous configuration of a “ridge” does not preclude the working portion 22 from being viewed as another ridge. Further see the “Annotated View of Figure 15” in the rejection above for further reference as Figure 20 is a different view of a modification of the anvil of Figure 15 which instead of a rounded recess as shown in Figure 15, the embodiment of Figure 20 uses a sloped transition portion.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to the previous 103 rejection has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
Note while not relied upon, other references such as Davis (US Patent 4,961,302), Bierlein (US PGPUB 2016/0059480), and Aurand (US Patent 10,486,370) disclose anvils comprising a ridge section, a support surface (transition section to ridge), and release surface and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have changed the profile/reduced the height of the ridge and support/transition surfaces in a middle section of the anvil to accommodate the thickness of a longitudinal sealed section which is taught by Kume (US Patent 6,986,232). Alternatively, other references teach accommodating the longitudinal sealed portion with a recessed middle portion including Capasso (US PGUB 2004/0142130), Garitz (US PGPUB 2017/0313459-previously cited), and Yuhara (US PGPUB 2020/0247066- previously cited) and while such references may not explicitly disclose maintaining the release surface at a same height in the middle portion, such a feature would have been readily viewed as a matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 9/1/2026
Prosecution Insights