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 12/18/2025. Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on 12/18/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IT102024000028869 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 “forming station” of at least claim 1 and corresponding to the assembly of 13 which includes tube wrapper 14, transverse sealer 16, longitudinal sealer 15 and roller cutter 17;
the “cutting device” of at least claim 1 and corresponding to roller cutter 17; and
the “conveying device” of at least claim 1 and corresponding to the assembly of 18 which includes upper and lower belts 19.
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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informality: line 3 reads “cutting device (17); wherein” when it should read “cutting device (17), wherein.” 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 1-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a cutting device” is indefinite because it is recited as separate from the forming station but the written description discloses that the cutting device is a member of the forming station (which is imported to the claim via the interpretation of “forming station” under 35. U.S.C. 112(f) above). How can a device be simultaneously separate and also a member of another device? In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to be separate from the forming device with the forming device comprising simply elements 14-16. Claims 2-14 are rejected based on their dependency from claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “preferably open at the top” in the third from last line is indefinite because it is not clear if what follows the term “preferably” is a member of the claimed invention. In order to further prosecution, the limitation has been interpreted to recite “open at the top.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, the primary reason for allowance is the inclusion of an accompanying element located between the conveying device and the cutting device.
Similar packer machines are known. For example, Boldrini (US 2010/0101588 A1), discloses a packer machine for the production of pouches (2 – Fig. 1), wherein each pouch encloses, on the inside, a respective quantity of loose material and is closed by two transverse seals opposite one another (para. 0035 and see Fig. 1), the machine comprises at least one packer unit (1 – Fig. 1) configured to produce the pouches (para. 0021), which comprises in turn: a forming station (8 – Fig. 1), which is located along a manufacturing path for the pouches and is configured to form a continuous succession of pouches connected to one another in the area of transverse sealing zone (paras. 0032-0035); a cutting device (23 – Fig. 1), which is located downstream of the forming station along the manufacturing path and is configured to transversely cut the continuous succession of pouches in the area of the transverse sealing zones so as to separate the single pouches (para. 0039); a conveying device (22 – Fig. 1), which is located along the manufacturing path between the conveying device and the cutting device and is configured to convey the continuous succession of pouches coming from the forming station towards the cutting device (para. 0039).
However, Boldrini does not disclose an accompanying element.
Structures similar to the claimed accompanying element are also known. For example, Woolard (US 3582144), discloses an element (Fig. 1) comprising a main body (the body of 8 – Fig. 1) and at least one seat which is open at the top (see Fig. 1, the top surface of 8 is between walls 28 with the top open). This is essentially an air conveyor similar to applicant’s claimed accompanying element.
However, there is no teaching that would suggest placing the structure of Woolard between the conveying device and the cutting device of Boldrini. Doing so would be based only on hindsight. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 1 is novel and non-obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Willis (US 2805898) and Bouladon (US 3279863) both teach air conveyors similar to applicant’s claimed accompanying element.
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
8/7/2026
Prosecution Insights