DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 7, 10-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauers et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0163214) in view of Hans Heinzer, Beringen (CH-542 701).
Regarding claim 7: Hauers discloses a tubular bag machine (Figs. 1-2; via the shown mechanism of forming the tubular bags) comprising a film web (via 1) configured to be unwound from a supply roll (inherently this type of fed web 1 provided in rolls), a shaping shoulder (Figs. 1-2; via the shown shoulder around filling tube 2 of which web 1 is been guided above to be shaped) for shaping the film web (1) into a film tube (rounding web 1 around tube 2), a longitudinal sealing mechanism for sealing the film tube (via 4) along a longitudinal seam, and a transverse sealing mechanism (via 5) having transverse sealing jaws (via 7) for producing bottom seams (via the shown bottom seal of the formed and filled container 10), the transverse sealing jaws (7) being configured to move against each other and transversally seal the film tube (Figs. 1-2; via jaws 7 moving toward-away from each other’s),
characterized in that
the tubular bag machine comprises a pressing stamp whose stamp surface is configured to come into contact with the inner side of the base surface of a block- bottom bag (Figs. 3-5; via jaws 7 pressing against stamp or tube 2; paragraph 0003; “wrapping material is pressed closely and tightly at the surface of the filling material by the inward movement of the two folding members…the tube bag is pressed out”), the pressing stamp being configured to be driven in the conveying direction by a drive, see for example (paragraph 0011; “a single mover is provided which lowers… and lifting device…A slide unit drive means which is responsible for this movement”, and the pressing stamp being configured to be pressed against the inner side of the base surface of the block-bottom bag with a predefined pressure during the movement, see for example (Figs. 1-5; via the bottom of the formed containers 10 shown as being pressed and/or pushed by jaws 7, which inherently pressing and pushing the folded section against the bottom part of tube or press7; paragraph 0003; “wrapping material is pressed closely and tightly at the surface of the filling material by the inward movement of the two folding members…the tube bag is pressed out”).
In case it is not clear that Hauers does not suggest a movable pressing stamp (via moving of tube 7), it is noted that making a part movable and/or adjustable is very old and well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Hauers’s pressing/tubing mechanism via 2 to be a movable tube, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284.
Further, Hauers may not suggest the amended claims as filed on 08/20/2025 referring to the pressing stamp being located inside a forming tube and being driven in the conveying direction by a drive. However, Hans discloses similar tubular bag machine with the use of inside driven pressing stamp moving in the conveying direction, see for example (Figs. 1-3; via 4 moving vertically in direction as shown by 12 and/or 21 inside 4 moving vertically in direction shown by 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Hauers’s apparatus by using a pressing stamp located inside a forming tube and being driven in the conveying direction, as suggested by Hans, in order to gain more control and form stronger pressed bottom sealed section of the formed container.
Regarding claim 10: Hauers does not suggest the claimed tubular bag machine configured to fold the bottom seam over perpendicular to the conveying direction. However, Hans discloses similar bag machine with the movement of the bottom fold seam perpendicularly to the conveying direction (Figs. 7-8; via the movement and bottom fold shown by 63).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Hauers’s folding mechanism, by further one capable of flattening the transverse bottom seam against the bottom flap of the bag, as suggested by Hans, in order to eliminate any extended-out portions of the bottom portion of the bag and come up with stronger folded bottom section.
Regarding claim 11: Hans discloses that the folding mechanism is a shifting mechanism configured to simultaneously shift the transverse sealing jaws perpendicular to the conveying direction as they are moving in the conveying direction, see for example (Figs. 1-7; via the movement of jaws 30/44 and/or 33/34in perpendicular direction in respect to the conveying direction).
Regarding claim 12: Hans discloses that the two transverse sealing jaws are configured to be pressed against each other by a toggle drive, the shifting mechanism being configured to shift the core point of the toggle drive perpendicular to the conveying direction, see for example (Fig. 7; via the movement of jaws 33/34 toward each other’s as being shifted to move away/toward each other’s in perpendicular direction in respect to the conveying direction).
Regarding claim 14: Hans discloses that the pressing stamp is a sealing stamp (Fig. 7; via pressing at the bottom section for sealing);
the sealing stamp is a forming tube (Fig. 1; via tube 4), the film web being guided on the outer side of the forming tube (via web 2 wrapped around tube 4);
the tubular bag machine comprises a folding mechanism configured to fold the bottom seam (via jaws 33/34) over perpendicular to the conveying direction;
the folding mechanism is a shifting mechanism configured to simultaneously shift the transverse sealing jaws perpendicular to the conveying direction as they are moving in the conveying direction, see for example (Figs. 1-7; via the movement of jaws 33/34 toward each other’s as being shifted to move away/toward each other’s in perpendicular direction in respect to the conveying direction),
the two transverse sealing jaws are configured to be pressed against each other by a toggle drive, the shifting mechanism being configured to shift the core point of the toggle drive perpendicular to the conveying direction (Figs. 1-7; via the toggle drive responsible of moving jaws 33/34 in two opposite directions away and towards each other’s perpendicular to the conveying direction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 7, 10-12, and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely sole on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In respect to the latest conducted interview on Aug. 11th., 2025 and filed remarks on Aug. 20th., 2025, the Office as set forth above believes that such use of a pressing stamp to be located inside a forming tube is old and well known in the art as clearly suggested by Hans ‘701, Figs. 1-5; via 4 and/or 21).
Further, another cited art of Bruno Grundler (CH 638-722) also teaches similar mechanism of using inner pressing stamp located inside a forming tube (Figs. 3-6; via 22), see annoted figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
598
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights