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
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment, filed on 10/23/2025, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
hood section (claim 4)
funnel section (claim 4)
base plate (Claim 5)
a first assembly interface (Claim 6)
a second assembly interface (Claim 6)
a power supply unit (Claims 7-10)
motor controller (Claims 9-10, 16-20)
overcurrent circuit (Claims 9-10)
overtemperature circuit (Claims 9-10)
a safety circuit (Claim 10 and 17)
No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 “shaping device” of claim 1 corresponding to conveying wheels;
the “dispensing device” of claim 1 corresponding to shaft walls 71, 73 and tear-off teeth 13;
“safety circuit” of claim 10 and 17 there is no corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6, 10, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6, the claim reads in-part, “the cover part includes a first assembly interface and the base part includes a second assembly interface corresponding in shape to the first assembly interface, wherein the cover part is configured to be plugged onto the base part” renders claim 6 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. This language is not present anywhere in the Specification. The cover plate and base part are generally stated as being connected to one another. As such the claim as written is not deemed to have the full support of the Specification.
Regarding claims 10, the claim reads in-part, “a safety circuit associated with the motor controller, wherein, in an event of a triggered overload cut-off, the motor controller can only be activated again when, unlocking of the safety circuit is activated” renders claim 10 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. This language is not present anywhere in the Specification. The specification requires a manual unlocking which is a narrower disclosure than what is claimed. As such the claim as written is not deemed to have the full support of the Specification.
Regarding claims 17, the claim reads in-part, “unlocking a safety circuit associated with the overload cut-off condition being met; and based on the safety circuit being unlocked, activating the motor controller” renders claim 17 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. This language is not present anywhere in the Specification. The specification requires a manual unlocking which is a narrower disclosure than what is claimed. As such the claim as written is not deemed to have the full support of the Specification.
Regarding claims 20, the claim reads in-part, “wherein a first cut-off threshold of the first overload cut- off is higher than a second cut-off threshold of the second overload cut-off.” renders claim 20 to be non-complying with the written description requirement because the feature appears to be new matter. This language is not present anywhere in the Specification. The specification states “a cut-off threshold of the power supply unit can be designed to be higher than a cut-off threshold of the motor controller”. Claim 20 which is dependent on claim 18 and associates a first cut-off threshold of the first overload cut- off with the motor controller and not with the power supply. As such the claim as written is not deemed to have the full support of the Specification.
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 10, 15, 17 and 19-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites in part “a safety circuit associated with the motor controller, wherein, in an event of a triggered overload cut-off, the motor controller can only be activated again when, unlocking of the safety circuit is activated” in line 6-8. The claim does not identify what structure is the safety circuit, what is unlocked, or what act constitutes unlocking. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the limitation.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites in part “unlocking a safety circuit associated with the overload cut-off condition being met; and based on the safety circuit being unlocked, activating the motor controller.” in line 6-8. The claim does not identify what structure is the safety circuit, what is unlocked, or what act constitutes unlocking- is it an automatic unlocking or a manual unlocking. A person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the limitation. Clarification is required
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites in part “the second overload-cutoff” in line 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the means and the barrier film in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites in part “a first cut-off threshold of the first overload cut- off is higher than a second cut-off threshold of the second overload cut-off” in line 1-2. It is unclear whether the first threshold (motor controller, per claim 18) is intended to be higher than the power supply threshold, which contradicts the specification and as such, the metes and bounds of the term cannot be fully ascertained and it is deemed to be indefinite. Clarification is required.
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 (or as subject to pre-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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 11, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk et al. (US 20230138470 A1; DE 102019135629 A1 priority date of 06/24/2021 and provided in the IDS is relied upon for the rejection, however US 20230138470 A1 is used for English equivalence and relied upon for the claim mapping and rejection below) in view of Murphy et al. (US 6015374 A).
Regarding claim 1, Schalk discloses a packaging material production machine (1) configured to produce a packaging material product (Abstract), the packaging material production machine (1) comprising:
a feed (3) configured to introduce packaging material ([0061]), from an inner side of a packaging material web wound to form a roll ([0087] “the packaging material supply is, a web of packaging material rolled up into a roll 6, the roll 6 being configured in such a way that it can be pulled off from a hollow inner side 8.”)
a shaping device (9) disposed downstream of the feed (3) in a conveying direction, the shaping device configured to shape the packaging material web into a cushioning packaging material product ([0032], [0046], and [0049]-“Forming device”); and
a dispensing device ([0032] and [0061]) configured to dispense the packaging material product ([0032] “and/or a delivery/cutting device for cutting packaging material products of desired length from the web-shaped or tubular packaging material strand” and [0061] “a packaging material processing device 9, such as a forming device, an embossing/punching device and/or an dispensing/cutting device, downstream of the feed funnel 3”). Schalk teaches compactness as an object of the invention ([0035]) and teaches working dimensions inside its compact unit such as (feed funnel 3 has a length c of 30 mm to 900 mm, for example of about 200 mm, considered in conveying direction F, funnel vertical height d can be in the range from 20 mm to 300 mm, for example at about 120 mm [0067], and deflection shaft total longitudinal extension z as approximately 400 mm ([0084])
Schalk does not expressly disclose that (a) a total length of the packaging material production machine in the conveying direction is less than 500 millimeters (mm), and (b) wherein a production distance, defined from a first deflection of the packaging material web by the packaging material production machine to a downstream shaping of the packaging material web to form the packaging material product in the conveying direction, is less than 400 mm.
Murphy teaches a compact cushioning conversion machine (20) that converts flat-folded sheet-like stock material 22 into a three-dimensional cushioning product, or pad, 24. Murphy further teaches that preferred embodiment (excluding the operating handle) is about 18 inches in length, about 18 inches in width and about 12 inches in height (about 457 mm in length/conveying direction) for an overall volume reduction of about 85% when compared to the above mentioned AUTOPAD machine that produces a pad of approximately the same width and height (Col 4 lines 42-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine of Schalk by incorporating a total length of the packaging material production machine in the conveying direction is less than 500 millimeters as taught by Murphy in order to allow for a great reduction in the size, and particularly the length and width of the machine, as compared to conventional machines which provides various advantages such as lower shipping costs, easier delivery, more efficient service procedures, decreased need for storage space, etc. (Col 1 lines 59-65 and Col 4 lines 42-59 of Murphy).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the machine size of Schalk or Schalk in view as murphy by incorporating a total length of the packaging material production machine in the conveying direction is less than 500 millimeters and distance, defined from a first deflection of the packaging material web by the packaging material production machine to a downstream shaping of the packaging material web to form the packaging material product in the conveying direction, is less than 400 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and/or since applying known compact machine to Schalk is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable (machine length) with a reasonable expectation of success and no change in principle of operation (Please see MPEP 2144.05). Schalk’s own compactness goal ([0035]) and Murphy’s demonstrated 85 percent volume reduction versus older pad machines. Shortening an already short hopper and former stack to fit and fall within the claimed ranges is treated as routine optimization of a result-effective variable (path length)
Schalk in view of Murphy further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, further comprising a cover part (body of 11 and/or 3) formed from one piece and enclosing the shaping device (9) and the dispensing device (inside 9; [0032] and [0061] of Schalk). Additionally, Murphy also teaches a cover part (casing 35) formed from one piece and enclosing the shaping device (inside; 35-Col 4 lines 30-38).
Wherein it is argued that Schalke as modified doesn’t use the terminology “one piece” for it cover part (11). Schalke already discloses that the chute for the funnel part is manufactured from one piece ([0054]) and Murphy teaches the machine is preferably provided with an outer casing which encloses the frame and other interior components of the machine (35-Col 4 lines 30-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Cover part of Schalk by incorporating a one piece outer case that encloses the frame and other interior components of the machine in order to consolidate the machine frames into single piece design further achieving the goal of a compact machine, and reducing part count, hinges and fasteners. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Cover part of Schalk as modified by incorporating forming it from one piece or unitary rather than from separate components, as it has been held that where the sub-components are used in the same way, constructing formerly separate structures as a one piece construction is a matter of obvious engineering choice and involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04, subsection V, paragraph B & In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the cover part (body of 11 and/or 3) includes a funnel section (section that adjoins with 3) defining a cross section tapering from the feed in the direction of the shaping device (9; Figs. 1-2 and 8), wherein the cover part (body of 11 and/or 3) adjoins the feed (3) and comprises a hood section (section that covers 9) integrally formed with the funnel section, wherein the hood section encloses the shaping device (9) and the dispensing device ((inside 9; [0032] and [0061] of Schalk). it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hood section of Schalk as modified by incorporating forming the hood section integrally formed with the funnel section, as it has been held that where the sub-components are used in the same way, constructing formerly separate structures as a one piece construction is a matter of obvious engineering choice and involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP §2144.04, subsection V, paragraph B & In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 5, further comprising a base part, including a base plate (19 of Schalk), coupled to the cover part (11 of Schalk) and configured to support the feed, the shaping device (9) and the dispensing device (Fig. 10 of Schalk).
Regarding claim 6, further comprising a base part (19 of Schalk) coupleable to the cover part (11 of Schalk), wherein the cover part (11 of Schalk) includes a first assembly interface (25 of Schalk) and the base part (19 of Schalk) includes a second assembly interface (27 of Schalk) corresponding in shape to the first assembly interface, wherein the cover part is configured to be plugged onto the base part (Fig. 2 of Schalk).
Regarding claim 11, Schalk discloses a system (100) comprising:
a roll (5) of packaging material web (6, 40) ; and
a packaging material production machine (Fig. 20) configured to draw packaging material from an inner side of the roll of packaging material web ([0087] “the packaging material supply is, a web of packaging material rolled up into a roll 6, the roll 6 being configured in such a way that it can be pulled off from a hollow inner side 8.”), the packaging material production machine comprising:
a feed (3) configured to introduce packaging material ([0061]),
a shaping device (9) disposed downstream of the feed (3) in a conveying direction, the shaping device configured to shape the packaging material web into a packaging material product ([0032], [0046], and [0049]-“Forming device”); and
a dispensing device ([0032] and [0061]) configured to dispense the packaging material product ([0032] “and/or a delivery/cutting device for cutting packaging material products of desired length from the web-shaped or tubular packaging material strand” and [0061] “a packaging material processing device 9, such as a forming device, an embossing/punching device and/or an dispensing/cutting device, downstream of the feed funnel 3”).
Schalk teaches compactness as an object of the invention ([0035]) and teaches working dimensions inside its compact unit such as (feed funnel 3 has a length c of 30 mm to 900 mm, for example of about 200 mm, considered in conveying direction F, funnel vertical height d can be in the range from 20 mm to 300 mm, for example at about 120 mm [0067], and deflection shaft total longitudinal extension z as approximately 400 mm ([0084])
Schalk does not expressly disclose that (a) a total length of the packaging material production machine in the conveying direction is less than 500 millimeters (mm), and (b) wherein a production distance, defined from a first deflection of the packaging material web by the packaging material production machine to a downstream shaping of the packaging material web to form the packaging material product in the conveying direction, is less than 400 mm.
Murphy teaches a compact cushioning conversion machine (20) that converts flat-folded sheet-like stock material 22 into a three-dimensional cushioning product, or pad, 24. Murphy further teaches that preferred embodiment (excluding the operating handle) is about 18 inches in length, about 18 inches in width and about 12 inches in height (about 457 mm in length/conveying direction) for an overall volume reduction of about 85% when compared to the above mentioned AUTOPAD machine that produces a pad of approximately the same width and height (Col 4 lines 42-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the machine of Schalk by incorporating a total length of the packaging material production machine in the conveying direction is less than 500 millimeters as taught by Murphy in order to allow for a great reduction in the size, and particularly the length and width of the machine, as compared to conventional machines which provides various advantages such as lower shipping costs, easier delivery, more efficient service procedures, decreased need for storage space, etc. (Col 1 lines 59-65 and Col 4 lines 42-59 of Murphy).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the machine size of Schalk or Schalk in view as murphy by incorporating a total length of the packaging material production machine in the conveying direction is less than 500 millimeters and distance, defined from a first deflection of the packaging material web by the packaging material production machine to a downstream shaping of the packaging material web to form the packaging material product in the conveying direction, is less than 400 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and/or since applying known compact machine to Schalk is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable (machine length) with a reasonable expectation of success and no change in principle of operation (Please see MPEP 2144.05). Schalk’s own compactness goal ([0035]) and Murphy’s demonstrated 85 percent volume reduction versus older pad machines. Shortening an already short hopper and former stack to fit and fall within the claimed ranges is treated as routine optimization of a result-effective variable (path length).
Regarding claim 13, Schalk as modified wherein the total length of the packaging material production machine is less than 500 mm but not less than 450 mm.
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the machine size of Schalk or Schalk in view of murphy by incorporating the total length of the packaging material production machine is less than 500 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and/or since applying known compact machine to Schalk is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable (machine length) with a reasonable expectation of success and no change in principle of operation (Please see MPEP 2144.05). Schalk’s own compactness goal ([0035]) and Murphy’s demonstrated 85 percent volume reduction versus older pad machines. Shortening an already short hopper and former stack to fit and fall within the claimed ranges is treated as routine optimization of a result-effective variable (path length).
Regarding claim 14, Schalk as modified wherein the total length of the packaging material production machine is less than 500 mm but not less than 360 mm.
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the machine size of Schalk or Schalk in view of murphy by incorporating the total length of the packaging material production machine is less than 360 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and/or since applying known compact machine to Schalk is a routine optimization of a result-effective variable (machine length) with a reasonable expectation of success and no change in principle of operation (Please see MPEP 2144.05). Schalk’s own compactness goal ([0035]) and Murphy’s demonstrated 85 percent volume reduction versus older pad machines. Shortening an already short hopper and former stack to fit and fall within the claimed ranges is treated as routine optimization of a result-effective variable (path length).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk et al. (US 20230138470 A1; DE 102019135629 A1 priority date of 06/24/2021 and provided in the IDS is relied upon for the rejection, however US 20230138470 A1 is used for English equivalence and relied upon for the claim mapping and rejection below) in view of Murphy et al. (US 6015374 A) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Christman et al. (US 20210023809 A1).
Regarding claim 3, The Schalk packaging material production machine (1), as modified by Murphy does not expressly disclose wherein the cover part is formed from plastic, by injection molding, or formed from a fiber composite material.
However, the Christman reference discloses a machine (10) for producing package void fill material from sheets of a selected substrate, having a cover part (30, 32, 34, 48) formed from plastic, by injection molding, or formed from a fiber composite material. ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the Schalk machine as modified by incorporating cover part formed from plastic, by injection molding, or formed from a fiber composite material, as suggested by Christman, as art recognized and interchangeable manufacturing choices for this type of housing shell and selecting among finite number of known, interchangeable materials as identified by the prior art is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art and well known before the effective filing date of the invention.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk et al. (US 20230138470 A1; DE 102019135629 A1 priority date of 06/24/2021 and provided in the IDS is relied upon for the rejection, however US 20230138470 A1 is used for English equivalence and relied upon for the claim mapping and rejection below) in view of Murphy et al. (US 6015374 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Armington et al. (US 20030092552 A1).
Regarding claim 7, The Schalk packaging material production machine (1), as modified by Murphy including a housing (body of 11 of Schalk) configured to receive the shaping device (9) and the dispensing device (inside 9; [0032] and [0061] of Schalk) but does not expressly disclose the housing receiving a power supply unit.
However, the Armington reference discloses packaging material production machine (Figs. And 80) having a housing receiving a power supply unit (680; [0217]’ “the machine 500 where it cannot be readily connected to an external source of electrical power, the normally used AC motor may be replaced by a DC motor that may be powered by a battery 680 housed in or carried by the machine”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the Schalk machine as modified by incorporating disposing a power supply unit in a housing of the machine, as suggested by Armington, in order to provide an energy storage device for storing and providing power to the machines motor, and having the power supply unit inside the housing further improves the compactness of the machine.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk et al. (US 20230138470 A1; DE 102019135629 A1 priority date of 06/24/2021 and provided in the IDS is relied upon for the rejection, however US 20230138470 A1 is used for English equivalence and relied upon for the claim mapping and rejection below) in view of Murphy et al. (US 6015374 A) and of Armington et al. (US 20030092552 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Carlson et al. (US 20100273624 A1).
Regarding claim 8, The Schalk packaging material production machine (1), as modified by Murphy including a housing (body of 11 of Schalk) configured to receive the shaping device (9) and the dispensing device (inside 9; [0032] and [0061] of Schalk) and a housing receiving a power supply unit (680 of Armington) but does not expressly disclose a connection for connecting the power supply unit to a power supply plug.
However, the Carlson reference discloses packaging material production machine (Figs. 8) having a connection for connecting the power supply unit to a power supply plug ([0045] “The power cord for the motor includes a quick disconnect connection for connection to a power supply” see also [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the Schalk machine as modified by incorporating disposing a connection, as suggested by Armington, in order to provide quick disconnect connection for connection to a power supply.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk et al. (US 20230138470 A1; DE 102019135629 A1 priority date of 06/24/2021 and provided in the IDS is relied upon for the rejection, however US 20230138470 A1 is used for English equivalence and relied upon for the claim mapping and rejection below) in view of Murphy et al. (US 6015374 A) and Armington et al. (US 20030092552 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Davis (US 4319298 B1) and Carlson et al. (US 20100273624 A1).
Regarding claim 9, The Schalk packaging material production machine (1), as modified by Murphy disclose a motor activated by switch 35 ([0068] Schalk) and a power supply unit (680 of Armington) but does not expressly disclose controller with a first overload cut-off, the first overload cut-off including at least one of an overcurrent circuit or an overtemperature circuit, wherein the power supply unit includes a second overload cut-off, the second overload cut-off including at least one of an overcurrent circuit or an overtemperature circuit, wherein a first cut-off threshold associated with the power supply unit is higher than a second cut-off threshold associated with the motor controller.
However, Davis reference discloses motor protection device that monitors motor current and motor temperatures, and provides overtemperature, overload, and instantaneous overcurrent protection (Col 1 lines 5-16 and Col 2lines 5-19). Processor (1) compares measured values to field settable trip points, and when exceeded, trip relay (55) is activated and external control circuits interrupt power to the motor (Col 4 lines 19-40 and Col 5 lines 1-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the Schalk machine as modified by incorporating a motor controller having an overcurrent and/or overtemperature overload cut off as taught by Davis, in order to stop the forming motor before a jam or stall heat damages or burns out the motor (Col 1 lines 5-30).
Schalke as modified does not teach that the power supply unit includes a second overload cut off including an over current circuit or an overtemperature circuit
Carlson further discloses a machine (Fig. 1) comprising a motor (150), controller (203), and power supplies (200, 202). Each power supply includes one or more fuses (210) and an emergency stop (208). The supply is limited to a current of no more than about six and a half amperes and provides approximately one hundred to one hundred fifty watts of power to the motor 150 ([0046]-[0047]). The fuse 210 is an overcurrent cut-off assigned to the power supply.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the Schalk machine as modified by incorporating a second overload cut off on the power supply unit as taught by Carlson, in order to protect the supply unit a short or sustained overcurrent independent of the motor controller trip (Col 1 lines 5-30).
Schalke as modified does not teach that the cut-off threshold associated with the power supply unit is higher than a cut-of threshold associated with the motor controller. However, Davis’s trip points are load site protectors on the motor. Carlsons’s fuse 210 and 6.5 Amperes cap are source side protectors on the power supply. In a machine having both supply side and load side protectors, the supply side threshold is set higher that the load side threshold so that a jam or stall trips the motor controller first and the power supply fuse serves a s a backup.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the Schalk combined machine as modified so that the cut off threshold associated with the power supply unit is higher than a cut-of threshold associated with the motor controller. Doing so is well known coordination of source side protector and load side protector, so that a jam or stall trips the motor controller first and the power supply fuse remains as backup.
Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk et al. (US 20230138470 A1; DE 102019135629 A1 priority date of 06/24/2021 and provided in the IDS is relied upon for the rejection, however US 20230138470 A1 is used for English equivalence and relied upon for the claim mapping and rejection below) in view of Murphy et al. (US 6015374 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Davis (US 4319298 B1).
Regarding claim 10, The Schalk packaging material production machine (1), as modified by Murphy, disclose a motor activated by switch 35 ([0068] Schalk) but does not expressly disclose further comprising a motor controller with an overload cut-off, the overload cut-off including at least one of an overcurrent circuit or an overtemperature circuit, the motor controller configured to operate the packaging material production machine; and a safety circuit associated with the motor controller, wherein, in an event of a triggered overload cut-off, the motor controller can only be activated again when, unlocking of the safety circuit is activated.
However, Davis reference discloses motor protection device that monitors motor current and motor temperatures, and provides overtemperature, overload, and instantaneous overcurrent protection (Col 1 lines 5-16 and Col 2lines 5-19). Processor (1) compares measured values to field settable trip points. When a trip point is exceeded, trip relay 55 is activated and external control circuits interrupt power to the motor (Col 4 lines 20-33, Col 5 lines 8-20 and Col 8 lines 1-5). Reset switch 92 “allows the trip relay to be manually reset after a trip has occurred” (Col 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the Schalk machine as modified by incorporating comprising a motor controller with an overload cut-off, the overload cut-off including at least one of an overcurrent circuit or an overtemperature circuit, the motor controller configured to operate the packaging material production machine; and a safety circuit associated with the motor controller, wherein, in an event of a triggered overload cut-off, the motor controller can only be activated again when, unlocking of the safety circuit is activated, as suggested by Davis, in order to stop the motor on overload or overtemperature and to prevent automatic restart into a jam (Col 1 lines 8-28 and Col 8 lines 1-35). Schalk already provides switch 35 as an on/off control on housing. Davis supplies the missing trip and hold until restart function for the motor.
Regarding claim 15, wherein unlocking of the safety circuit is manual (via reset switch 92 of Davis).
Claim 16 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Schalk et al. (US 20230138470 A1; DE 102019135629 A1 priority date of 06/24/2021 and provided in the IDS is relied upon for the rejection, however US 20230138470 A1 is used for English equivalence and relied upon for the claim mapping and rejection below) in view of Davis (US 4319298 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Schalk discloses a method for operating a packaging material production machine ([0008), but fails to disclose further comprising: determining if an overload cut-off condition is met; and based on determining that an overload cut-off condition is met, deactivating a motor controller configured to operate the packaging material production machine.
Davis teaches comparing motor currents and temperature to trip points and when a trip point is exceeded, activating trip relay (55) so that external circuits interrupt power to the motor (Col 2 lines 5-19 and Col 4 lines 15-40).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the Schalk machine as modified by incorporating determining if an overload cut-off condition is met; and based on determining that an overload cut-off condition is met, deactivating a motor controller configured to operate the packaging material production machine, as suggested by Davis, in order to stop the motor on overload or overtemperature and to prevent automatic restart into a jam (Col 1 lines 8-28 and Col 8 lines 1-35).
Regarding claim 17, Schalk discloses a method for operating a packaging material production machine ([0008),but fails to disclose further comprising: unlocking a safety circuit associated with the overload cut-off condition being met; and based on the safety circuit being unlocked, activating the motor controller.
motor protection device that monitors motor current and motor temperatures, and provides overtemperature, overload, and instantaneous overcurrent protection (Col 1 lines 5-16 and Col 2lines 5-19). Processor (1) compares measured values to field settable trip points. When a trip point is exceeded, trip relay 55 is activated and external control circuits interrupt power to the motor (Col 4 lines 20-33, Col 5 lines 8-20 and Col 8 lines 1-5). Reset switch 92 “allows the trip relay to be manually reset after a trip has occurred” (Col 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the Schalk machine as modified by incorporating comprising a motor controller with an overload cut-off, the overload cut-off including at least one of an overcurrent circuit or an overtemperature circuit, the motor controller configured to operate the packaging material production machine; and a safety circuit associated with the motor controller, wherein, in an event of a triggered overload cut-off, the motor controller can only be activated again when, unlocking of the safety circuit is activated, as suggested by Davis, in order to stop the motor on overload or overtemperature and to prevent automatic restart into a jam (Col 1 lines 8-28 and Col 8 lines 1-35). Schalk already provides switch 35 as an on/off control on housing. Davis supplies the missing trip and hold until restart function for the motor.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk et al. (US 20230138470 A1; DE 102019135629 A1 priority date of 06/24/2021 and provided in the IDS is relied upon for the rejection, however US 20230138470 A1 is used for English equivalence and relied upon for the claim mapping and rejection below) in view of Davis (US 4319298 B1) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view Carlson et al. (US 20100273624 A1).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Schalk as modified teaches the method of claim 16 and a first overload cut-off associated with the motor controller but is silent regarding wherein the overload cut-off condition is associated with at least one of: a first overload cut-off associated the motor controller, or an overload cut-off associated with a power supply, or that each of two cut offs includes an overcurrent circuit or an overtemperature circuit.
Carlson further discloses a machine (Fig. 1) comprising a motor (150), controller (203), and power supplies (200, 202). Each power supply includes one or more fuses (210) and an emergency stop (208). The supply is limited to a current of no more than about six and a half amperes and provides approximately one hundred to one hundred fifty watts of power to the motor 150 ([0046]-[0047]). The fuse 210 is an overcurrent cut-off assigned to the power supply. Davis already supplies the teaching of overcurrent and overtemperature cut offs on the motor controller
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the method of Schalk as modified by incorporating a so that the overload cut off condition is associated with a motor controller cut off and/or a power supply cut off, each including overcurrent and overtemperature protection, as taught by Carlson, in order to protect the supply unit a short or sustained overcurrent independent of the motor controller trip (Col 1 lines 5-30).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the first overload cut-off and the second overload-cutoff each include at least one of an overcurrent circuit or an overtemperature circuit.
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 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.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schalk et al. (US 20230138470 A1; DE 102019135629 A1 priority date of 06/24/2021 and provided in the IDS is relied upon for the rejection, however US 20230138470 A1 is used for English equivalence and relied upon for the claim mapping and rejection below).
Regarding claim 12, Schalk discloses a method for operating a packaging material production machine ([0008], [0033], [0087]; Figs. 1 and 20-25), the method comprising: introducing, via a feed (3) and along a conveying direction (Fig. 1 and 20), a roll of packaging material web into a packing material production machine; shaping, via a shaping device (9) disposed downstream of the feed in the conveying direction, the packaging material web into a packaging material product ([0061], [0087]); and dispensing, via a dispensing device ([0032] and [0061]), the packaging material product ([0032]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, and to overcome the rejection(s) 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached on (571) 270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS IGBOKWE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
.
Prosecution Insights