DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on January 14, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8 and 10-16 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(a), 112(b), 102(a)(2), and 103 rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on September 08, 2025. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome most but not all of the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on September 08, 2025 (the objections which have not been overcome have been reproduced below). However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: “having” in line 8 should read “has”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“panels and” in line 5 should read “panels, and”.
“of gusset” in line 7 should read “of the gusset”.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“method side sealing” in line 1 should read “method of sealing”.
“panels and” in line 4 should read “panels, and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5, 15, and 16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first gusset leg" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a first of the gusset legs”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second gusset leg" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting the limitation as if it instead reads “a second of the gusset legs”.
Claims 2-5, 15, and 16 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend from claim 1.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kan (US 4,055,109).
Regarding claim 1, Kan discloses a web (S in Figures 17 and 18) of packaging material used to create a gusseted package (10 in Figure 4), the web (S) comprising:
a first panel (the front panel of S labeled “first panel” in an annotated version of Figure 17 of Kan, hereinafter Figure 17x, below);
a second panel (the rear panel of S labeled “second panel” in Figure 17x below);
a pair of gusset legs (shown circled in Figure 17x below) between the first panel and the second panel (apparent from Figure 17x below), each gusset leg having a gusset aperture (42 in Figure 18) (apparent when Figures 16-18 are viewed in relation to one another), wherein each gusset aperture having a length (the maximum vertical dimension of 42 in Figure 18) and a width (the maximum horizontal dimension of 42 in Figure 18), and wherein the length is greater than the width (apparent from Figures 18 and 17); and
a seal portion (the heat-fused portion of S shown circled and labeled “seal portion” in an annotated version of Figurer 18 of Kan, hereinafter Figure 18x, below) having a sealing axis (shown in Figure 18x below);
wherein each gusset aperture (42) is positioned entirely within an interior of its respective gusset leg (because the top boundary/edge of each gusset aperture 42 coincides with the top boundary/edge 36 of its respective gusset leg, as is apparent from Figures 17 and 18, and no part of the gusset aperture 42 extends beyond the boundaries of its respective gusset leg) and within the seal portion (shown circled in Figure 18x below) and is elongate in a direction of the sealing axis (apparent from Figure 18x below), and
wherein the first panel (shown in Figure 17x below) is sealed to the second panel (shown in Figure 17x below) through each gusset aperture (42) of the gusset legs (clear when Figures 17x and 18 and Col. 8 lines 32-36 are considered together).
PNG
media_image1.png
667
1432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 17x: an annotated version of Figure 17 of Kan
PNG
media_image2.png
707
1432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 18x: an annotated version of Figure 18 of Kan
In accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of making a product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. Therefore, the limitation “the gusset aperture on the first gusset leg being formed independently of the gusset aperture on the second gusset leg and before any folding of the web occurs” does not patentably distinguish the claimed gusset apertures from the gusset apertures 42 of Kan which meet all the structural limitations. Please note that even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of the product, i.e. the gusset apertures, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. independent forming before any folding of the web occurs. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Federal Circuit 1985).
Regarding claim 3, Kan discloses that each gusset aperture (42) is non-circular (apparent from Figure 18).
Regarding claim 4, Kan discloses that the gusset apertures (apertures 42) of the gusset legs (shown circled in Figure 17x above) are aligned (apparent when Figures 16-18 are viewed in relation to one another).
Regarding claim 5, Kan discloses that the length (the maximum vertical dimension of 42 in Figure 18) of each gusset aperture (42) is at least two times the width (the maximum horizontal dimension of 42 in Figure 18) of each gusset aperture (apparent from Figures 18 and 17).
Regarding claim 15, Kan discloses that each gusset aperture (42) has a periphery (apparent from Figure 18), wherein the seal portion (shown circled in Figure 18x above) has a periphery (apparent from Figure 18x above), and that the periphery of each gusset aperture (42) is spaced inwardly from the periphery of the seal portion (apparent from Figure 18x above).
Regarding claim 16, Kan discloses that each gusset aperture (42) is centered within the seal portion (shown circled in Figure 18x above) (apparent from Figure 18x above).
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kan.
Regarding claim 2, Kan discloses all the limitations of the claim as stated above except: each gusset aperture is obround.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have changed the shape of each gusset aperture to be obround, since it has been held that changing the shape of an object involves only routine skill in the art and since doing so would allow the first and second panels to be sealed to each other equally well. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Please note that in Paragraphs 0011, 0019, and 0022 of the Patent Application Publication of the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 10-14 are allowed.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 15, and 16 have been considered but are moot because they do not apply to the new way of rejecting claim 1 using Kan (in which the limitation “the gusset aperture on the first gusset leg being formed independently of the gusset aperture on the second gusset leg and before any folding of the web occurs” of claim 1 has been interpreted as being a product-by-process limitation which does not patentably distinguish the claimed gusset apertures from the gusset apertures 42 of Kan which meet all the structural limitations) being used in the current rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANZIM IMAM whose telephone number is (571)272-2216. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8:00AM - 4:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached on 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/TANZIM IMAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights