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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, claims 13-15, in the reply filed on December 24, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that all groups relate to a single general inventive concept because they include the corresponding special technical feature. This is not found persuasive because the technical feature, as identified in the restriction requirement dated 10/29/2025, does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Kopecky et al. (US 5,510,124 A).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Note: Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2, “further comprising at least two predefined folding folds” should be --wherein the at least one predefined folding fold comprises at least two predefined folding folds--.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 4, “cold-sealable adhesive” should be --the cold-sealable adhesives--.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2, “ the respective transverse strip” should be --a respective transverse strip of the plurality of transverse strips--.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: In lines 1-2, “two transverse material weaking rows” should be --wherein the at least one material weaking row comprises two transverse material weaking rows--.
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 20-27 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.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “at least one longitudinal edge strip” and “at least one folding joint”. However, claim 13, from which claim 20 depends, recites the limitations “cold-sealing edge strips” and “at least one predefined folding fold”.
Claim 20 is confusing and indefinite as it fails to define a relationship between the structural features defined with respect to the packaging material web and the structural features previously defined in claim 13 with respect to the packaging pocket. Specifically, it is not clear if the “at least one longitudinal edge strip” introduced in claim 20 and the “cold-sealing edge strips” introduced claim 13 are intended to define the same structure or different structures. Similarly, it is not clear if the “at least one folding joint” introduced in claim 20 and the “at least one predefined folding fold” introduced in claim 13 are intended to define the same or different structures.
Claims 20 is also confusing as the claim further defines the structure of the packaging material web, which as disclosed in the specification is configured to form a plurality of formed packaging pockets (Fig. 1-10). However, claim 13 is directed toward a single formed packaging pocket (Fig. 18). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired cannot be ascertained as it is not clear whether applicant is claiming the single formed packaging pocket or the unformed packaging material web.
For the purpose of examination, the claims will be considered to be directed toward a single formed packaging pocket and the relationship between the packaging material web and the packaging pocket will be considered in light of the specification. It is noted that while the unformed packaging material web may be further defined in the claims, the structure of the packaging material web should have a clear relationship with the single formed packaging pocket.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “a plurality of transverse strips oriented transversely to the web longitudinal direction, and/or arranged at an equidistant distance from one another”. However, claim 13 is directed toward a single formed packaging pocket (Fig. 18) and the plurality of transverse strips arranged at an equidistant distance from one another, as disclosed in the specification, are defined in the packaging material web, not the single formed packaging pocket. That is, upon formation of the single formed packaging pocket, as depicted in figure 18, the single formed packaging pocket merely comprises an opposing pair of the plurality of transverse strips, not the plurality of transverse strips arranged at an equidistant distance from one another. Accordingly, it is not clear how the plurality of transverse strips arranged an equidistant from one another, as defined in the speciation, can be defined in the single formed packaging pocket as claimed.
For the purpose of examination, the packaging pocket will be considered to comprise a plurality of transverse strips oriented transversely to the web longitudinal direction and including a cold-sealable adhesive.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the plurality of transverse strips are each configured to open into the two longitudinal edge strips, a repeating, rectangular or square pattern of the longitudinal edge strips and the plurality of transverse strips provided with a cold-sealable adhesive being formed”. However, claim 13 is directed toward a single formed packaging pocket (Fig. 18) and the repeating pattern as disclosed in the specification, are defined in the packaging material web, not the single formed packaging pocket. Accordingly, it is not clear how a repeating, rectangular or square pattern of the longitudinal edge strips and the plurality of transverse strips can be defined in the single formed packaging pocket.
For the purpose of examination, the plurality of transverse strips will be considered to open into the two longitudinal edge strips, such that a rectangular or square pattern of the longitudinal edge strips and the plurality of transverse strips provided with the cold-sealable adhesives is formed.
Claims 21, 22 and 25-28 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, claim 20 above.
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 comprises: at least one longitudinal edge strip (32) adjoining a longitudinal edge, the at least one longitudinal edge strip including, at least sectionally, a cold-sealable adhesive (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, 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 pocket comprises a plurality of transverse strips oriented transversely to the web longitudinal direction and including a cold-sealable adhesive (paragraphs 22-30 and FIG. 1, 3, 6, 8). See 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding claim 24, Zerfas teaches the packaging pocket of claim 23 above, wherein the plurality of transverse strips are configured to open into the two longitudinal edge strips such that a 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). See 112(b) rejection above.
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).
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.
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 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 the 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.
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 23 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Stivani et al. (US 7,434,371 B2) and Boyd et al. (US 6,001,397 A).
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
Prosecution Insights