DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous claim objections and 112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 14, 20, 23-25 and 28 have been amended. Claims 1-12, 16 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 32-34 have been added. Claims 13-15, 17, 18 and 20-34 remain pending in the application with claims 17 and 18 withdrawn from consideration.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 13, 20-24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zerfas et al. (US 2016/0023828 A1, hereinafter Zerfas).
Regarding claim 13, Zerfas teaches a packaging pocket comprising:
an envelope (FIG. 2, 7) made of a packaging material web (FIG. 3, 8) and configured to be closed to form a packaging cavity by cold-sealing edge strips (28, 30, 32) of the packaging material web, the packaging cavity including at least one predefined folding fold (18) introduced into the packaging material web and which is configured to extend into the packaging cavity (FIG. 2),
wherein an inner wall bounding the packaging cavity is at least sectionally free (36) of a cold-sealable adhesive coating and/or the folding fold is at least sectionally free (36) of a cold-sealable adhesive (FIG. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8) (paragraphs 21-31, 39-123 and FIG. 1-3, 6-8).
Regarding claim 20, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 13 above, wherein the packaging material web from which the envelope is made comprises: at least one longitudinal edge strip (32) adjoining a longitudinal edge, the at least one longitudinal edge strip including, at least sectionally, the cold-sealable adhesive and forming at least one of the cold-sealing edge strips (paragraph 24 and FIG. 3, 8); and at least one folding joint (18) extending in a web longitudinal direction and arranged centrally with respect to a width dimensioned transversely to the web longitudinal direction (FIG. 3, 8), the at least one folding joint defining a folding axis along which two longitudinal web sections connected by the at least one folding joint are configured to be folded over to form the at least one predefined folding fold, wherein the packaging material web is free of cold-sealable adhesive at least sectionally along the at least one folding joint (FIG. 1-3, 6-8) (paragraphs 21-31, 39-123 and FIG. 1-3, 6-8).
Regarding claim 21, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 20 above, wherein the at least one folding joint is a singular piece with the two longitudinal web sections and/or is formed as a film hinge (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 22, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 20 above, wherein the at least one folding joint is configured as a material weakening including a perforation-material web row, or as a longitudinal groove (paragraph 22).
Regarding claim 23, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 20 above, wherein the packaging material web further comprises a plurality of transverse strips oriented transversely to the web longitudinal direction and arranged an equidistant distance from one another, each of the plurality of transverse strips including a cold-sealable adhesive, and wherein the envelope is closed to form the packaging cavity by an opposing pair of the plurality of transverse strips (paragraph 29 and FIG. 1, 3, 6, 8). It is noted that as the claims are directed toward a single packaging pocket, the packaging material web is only being considered to the degree that it relates to the single packaging pocket.
Regarding claim 24, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 23 above, wherein the plurality of transverse strips are each configured to open into two longitudinal edge strips such that a rectangular or square pattern of the longitudinal edge strips of the packaging material web such that a repeating, rectangular or square pattern of the longitudinal edge strips and the plurality of transverse strips provided with the cold-sealable adhesives is formed (paragraphs 22-30 and FIG. 1, 3, 6, 8). It is noted that as the claims are directed toward a single packaging pocket, the packaging material web is only being considered to the degree that it relates to the single packaging pocket.
Regarding claim 26, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 23 above, wherein the plurality of transverse seals are at least sectionally free of the cold-sealable adhesive (paragraph 29 and FIG. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8).
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Golledge (GB 2 325 449 A).
Regarding claims 32-34, Golledge teaches a packaging pocket comprising:
an envelope (FIG. 3) made of a packaging material web (FIG. 1, 2) and configured to be closed to form a packaging cavity by cold-sealing edge strips (9/22) of the packaging material web, the packaging cavity including at least one predefined folding fold (3/21) introduced into the packaging material web and which is configured to extend into the packaging cavity (FIG. 1-3),
wherein an inner wall bounding the packaging cavity is at least sectionally free of a cold-sealable adhesive coating and/or the folding fold is at least sectionally free of a cold-sealable adhesive (pages 1-11 and FIG. 1-3), and
wherein the cold-sealing edge strips each include a cold-sealable adhesive configured to form a permanent and destructive-to-open bond between surfaces of the packaging material web that cannot be released without destroying the packaging material web (abstract, page 5 paragraph 2)
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerfas, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Rowe (US 3,741,778 A).
Regarding claim 14, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 13 above, but fails to teach the at least one predefined folding fold comprising at least two predefined folding folds introduced into the packaging material web, the at least two predefined folding folds being oriented parallel to one another and/or configured such that the packaging cavity is adaptable to a packaging article to be packaged. Rowe teaches an analogous packaging pocket (100) comprising an envelope configured to be closed to form a packaging cavity, wherein the packaging cavity includes at least one predefined folding fold (116, 120, 124). Rowe further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the packaging cavity with at least two predefined folding folds oriented parallel to one another and configured such that the packaging cavity is adaptable to a packaging article to be packaged in order to form an expandable bottom gusset that allows the packaging pocket to hold relatively larger articles without the packaging pocket being seriously deformed (column 8 lines 1-12 and Fig. 1-10).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Zerfas by providing at least two predefined folding folds introduced into the packaging material web, the at least two predefined folding folds being oriented parallel to one another and/or configured such that the packaging cavity is adaptable to a packaging article to be packaged, as taught by Rowe, in order to form an expandable bottom gusset that allows the packaging pocket to hold relatively larger articles without the packaging pocket being seriously deformed.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerfas, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Spertus (US 3,546,055 A).
Regarding claim 15, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 13 above, but fails to teach the packaging cavity partially including filler material and/or cushioning material. Spertus teaches a packaging container forming a packaging cavity and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to partially fill packaging cavities with a filler material and/or cushioning material in order to protect articles packaged in the packaging cavity (column 1 line 11-column 2 line 32, column 4 lines 17-22 and FIG. 9).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Zerfas by partially including filler material and/or cushioning material in the packaging cavity, as taught or suggested by Spertus, in order to protect articles packaged in the packaging cavity.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerfas, as applied to claim 23 above, in view of Weder et al. (US 5,588,530 A, hereinafter Weder).
Regarding claim 25, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 23 above, but fails to teach the plurality of transverse strips including an indicator configured to indicate a respective transverse strip of the plurality of transverse strips, wherein the indicator includes a material weakening or a color marking. Weder teaches an analogous packaging material web including transverse adhesive strips and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the transverse adhesive strips to be colored to create colored adhesive that visually indicates to a user where the adhesive is positioned on the packaging web material (column 5 lines 15-29).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Zerfas by configuring the plurality of transverse strips with an indicator configured to indicate the respective transverse strip of the plurality of transverse strips, wherein the indicator includes a color marking, as taught by Weder, in order to visually indicate to a user where the adhesive of the respective transverse strip is positioned on the packaging material web.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerfas, as applied to claim 23 above, in view of Gagne et al. (US 2013/0182977 A1, hereinafter Gagne).
Regarding claim 27, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 23 above, but fails to teach at least one material weaking row oriented in the web longitudinal direction and/or transversely to the web longitudinal direction configured to form a target tear line. Gagne teaches an analogous packaging pocket comprising an envelope made of a packaging material web and configured to be closed (FIG. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9). Gagne further teaches that it is known in the prior art to provide at least one material weaking row (34) oriented in the web longitudinal direction and/or transversely to the web longitudinal direction and configured to form a target tear line for providing the packaging pocket with an opening means (paragraphs 24-26 and FIG. 1-9).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Zerfas by providing at least one material weaking row oriented in the web longitudinal direction and/or transversely to the web longitudinal direction and configured to form a target tear line, as taught by Gagne, in order to provide the packaging pocket with an opening means.
Regarding claim 28, Zerfas as modified by Gagne teaches the packaging pocket of claim 27 above, wherein the at least one material weaking row comprises two transverse (transverse with respect to the plurality of transverse strips) material weakening rows formed identically, oriented parallel to one another and arranged directly adjacent to each transverse strip of the plurality of transverse strips, wherein the packaging material web defines a conveying direction and the two transverse material weaking rows are arranged upstream and/or downstream of the transverse strip in the conveying direction (Gagne: paragraphs 24-26 and FIG. 1-9).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerfas, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Krampe et al. (US 6,099,682 A, hereinafter Krampe).
Regarding claim 29, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 13 above, but fails to teach an amount of the cold-sealable adhesive being at least 5 g/m2. Krampe teaches an analogous packaging pocket comprising an envelope made of a packaging web material configured to be closed to form a packaging cavity by cold-sealing edge strips (16, 14) (Fig. 1, 3). Krampe further teaches that it is well-known in the prior art to coat the cold-sealable adhesive of the cold-sealing edge strips in an amount of at least 5 g/m2 (column 11 lines 23-26).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Zerfas by configuring an amount of the cold-sealable adhesive to be at least 5 g/m2, as taught by Krampe, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a common and effective coating weight.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerfas, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Weder.
Regarding claim 30, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 13 above, but fails to teach the cold-sealable adhesive being mixed with a contrast agent. Weder teaches an analogous packaging material web including transverse adhesive strips and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to mix an ink, dye and/or pigment with the adhesive to create colored adhesive that visually indicates to a user where the adhesive is positioned on the packaging web material (column 5 lines 15-29).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Zerfas by mixing the cold-sealable adhesive with a contrast agent, as taught by Weder, in order to visually indicate to a user where the adhesive of the plurality of transverse strip is positioned on the packaging material web.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zerfas, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Daelmans et al. (US 6,374,583 B1, hereinafter Daelmans).
Regarding clam 31, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 13 above, but fails to teach the packaging material web being hydrophobized. Daelmans teaches an analogous packaging pocket comprising an envelope made of a packaging web material configured to be closed to form a packaging cavity by cold-sealing edge strips and further teaches that analogous packaging material webs are known in the prior art to be formed from waxed paper (i.e., hydrophobized material) (column 4 lines 7-14).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Zerfas by alternatively forming the packaging material web from waxed paper (i.e., hydrophobized material), as taught by Daelmans, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known and common material for forming analogous packaging material webs and as 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Zerfas teaches a cohesive that adheres only to itself and is designed to minimize adhesion to other surfaces, is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the cold-sealing edge strips producing a permanent bond) are not recited in the previously rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 13 merely requires cold-sealing edge strips. As supported by the prior art references of Yannuzzi, Jr. (US 5,952,025 A), Kopecky et al. (US 5,510,124 A) and Story (US 2005/0181205 A1), cohesives are cold seals. Accordingly, the structure disclosed by Zerfas sufficiently meets claim 13.
Additionally, while cold-seal adhesives can have a structure that forms a permanent bond, cold-seal adhesives do not exclusively have a structure that forms a permanent bond, as supported by Golledge.
Further, the specification of the present invention discloses that “the cold-sealable adhesive is capable of producing a permanent bond…the cold-sealable adhesive…may be characterized by the fact that the bond cannot be released in a non-destructive manner…the cold-sealable adhesive may be characterized in that…cannot be pulled off or removed from one another without damaging or destroying the packaging material to be bonded” (page 2 line 29-page 3 line 3). Accordingly, the language “capable of” and “may be” in the specification does not explicitly limit the cold seal to a permanent seal.
Conclusion
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 NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
