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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10 March 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
#10 – strand
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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Lower case cursive “L” in figs. 5a and 5b. This is believed to be “length 1” listed in paragraph 0057 of the Specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 0057 of the specification denotes “a length 1”. It is being interpreted as a transcription error and is deemed to be the length depicted in figs. 5a and 5b. However, the reference character of “1” is being used and that character is already used by the “device 1”.
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 1-2 and 5-19 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the claims recite the limitation "the transport direction" and “the transport device” in in the last paragraph of these respective claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims recite the limitation “each pressing surface” in the last paragraph. This is deemed to be the previously mentioned “flat pressing surface” for each of the aforementioned division plungers.
Additionally, the claims recite, “the entire surface” in the second to last paragraph. This phrase is indefinite because it is not clear which “entire surface” is being referred to. For the purposes of examination, “the entire surface” is being interpreted to refer to the surface of the wrapping material which makes contact with the flat pressing surface”.
Regarding claim 6, the term “a distance X” is deemed to be indefinite as X is not defined. For the purposes of examination, “X” is being treated as some non-zero amount of distance.
Regarding claim 8, the term “the formed pipe section” lacks antecedent basis. The Office deems this to be referring to the previously mentioned “a pipe section is formed on an end”.
Regarding claims 2, 5-15 and 17-19, each of these claims are dependent on a rejected base claims and stand rejected for the same reasons as the rejected base claims.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12, 14-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knodel et al. (US 2022/0361512 A1) hereinafter referred to as Knodel in view of Rado (US Patent 3,001,348).
Regarding claim 1, Knodel discloses a device (1; fig. 1) for producing sachets (5) filled with liquid or pasty filling material (Abstract), comprising:
a coextrusion device (14; fig. 1; paragraph 0069) for coextruding a strand (7) from a wrapping material (13) filled with the filling material (paragraph 0068 – “pasty food mass”); and
opposite circulating division plungers (20, 22; figs. 2-3 and 13), between which the strand is configured to be transported (3; fig. 2) and which, when the division plungers move towards one another on their orbital path, are configured to strip off the filling material from the wrapping material at a division point (23) and press the wrapping material to be flat at the division point to form a sachet (paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0012, 0071, 0073, 0077),
wherein the division plungers each comprise a flat pressing surface (52, figs. 6 and 9; paragraph 0009 – “a substantially flat, constricted constriction point can be created”; paragraph 0012 – “a substantially flat portion allows a flat constriction point to be produced between two sausage ends”; paragraph 0077 – “the sausage casing 13 therebetween is flattened accordingly in constriction region 23 due to the substantially flat portion 52”) in order to press the wrapping material on the division point over the entire surface (The “entire surface” is being interpreted to refer to the surface of the wrapping material which makes contact with the flat pressing surface), and
wherein each pressing surface (52) of each division plunger has a length (left to right in figs. 6 and 9) which extends perpendicular to the transport direction (#3; into the page in figs. 6 and 9) of the transport device (6, 8, 16, 18; figs. 2-3) and which is greater than or equal to a width of the strand (Seen in fig. 3).
Knodel is deemed to disclose wherein the division plungers each comprise a flat pressing surface in order to press the wrapping material on the division point over the entire surface, but does not disclose that it does so smoothly and crease-free.
However, Rado teaches a device (fig. 1) for producing sachets (col. 1 lines 10-11) wherein the division plungers (7, 8) each comprise a flat pressing surface (figs. 2-6) in order to press the wrapping material (9) on the division point (col. 3 lines 50-59) over the entire surface (The “entire surface” is being interpreted to refer to the surface of the wrapping material which makes contact with the flat pressing surface), smoothly and crease-free (as seen in figs. 2-6; col. 4 lines 38-41 – “the tube or tubing walls that are held pressed together between the presser members… are flattened to a greater extend between said presser members”; Claim 2 – “the several jaws of each set being spaced apart to align with complementary jaws of the other set to shape by flattening said tubing and press the opposite sides thereof into engagement”), and wherein each pressing surface of each division plunger has a length (left to right as seen in figs. 5-6) which extends perpendicular to the transport direction (into the page as seen in figs. 5-6) of the transport device and which is greater than or equal to a width of the strand (figs. 5-6 show 7, 8 being greater than or equal to 9 in the left to right direction).
Given the teachings of Rado, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to modify the flat pressing surfaces of Knodel such that they produced a division point over the entire surface that was smooth and crease-free. Knodel already discloses a substantially flat surface (52), albeit not entirely flat. And Knodel further notes that the prior art was known for using pressing surfaces that produced smooth and crease-free division points over the entire surface (see Knodel fig. 18). Rado teaches a similar device utilizing circulating division plungers for producing filled sachets in which the plungers comprise an entirely flat surface resulting in the wrapping material on the division point over the entire surface being smooth and crease-free. This modification would make the device easier to manufacture as the pressing members would not need to have ridges or corrugations. Additionally, having a completely flat and even surface can help to establish more even seals as the wrapping material is less likely to be pinched and have the seal be uniform over the length of the surface.
Regarding claim 2, Knodel discloses wherein the device comprises a transport device (6, 8, 16, 18; figs. 2-3) with opposing, circulating transport means (16, 18) on each of which a respective division plunger (20, 22) is arranged, such that during transport of the sachets (7) in a transport direction (3), the division plungers can further press the wrapping material (13) at the division point (23; paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0012, 0071, 0073, 0077).
Regarding claim 12, Knodel discloses wherein the transport means (6, 8, 16, 18; figs. 2-3) comprises a lower transport means (18) and an upper transport means (16) that are arranged one above the other and the lower transport means is longer than the upper transport means above it or a further transport means adjoins the lower transport means (the further transport means is considered met based on paragraph [0085] of Knodel et al., which states, with emphasis added, that “completely separated in the middle of the respective constriction portions by crimping members or separator members, for example by co-operating blade-like separator members, so that completely separated sausages 5 are then formed which can be conveyed further in conveying direction 3 and then put into packaging, for example.” In this instance, the alternative language used means the claim limitation is met by the implicit teaching of a further transport means adjoins the lower transport means).
Regarding claim 14, Knodel discloses wherein the device comprises a separating device (paragraph 0085) which separates successive sachets (sausages 5) from one another in an area of the division point (23), but does not disclose wherein the separating device is integrated in the division plungers or the separating device is a perforating device which perforates the sachets at the division point.
However, Rado teaches a separating device (21, 24) which separates successive sachets (figs. 2-4; col. 5 lines 41-59) from one another in an area of the division point (figs. 2-6; col. 3 lines 50-59) and wherein the separating device is integrated in the division plungers (7, 8; figs. 2-4) or the separating device is a perforating device (21) which perforates the sachets at the division point.
Given the teachings of Knodel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Knodel as modified by Rado with the separating device of Rado. Knodel is already concerned with separating the satchets. Rado teaches that it was old and well-known to provide a device on the division plungers which provides the desired separation. Doing so would reduce the footprint of the device by not having to have an entirely separate station to effectuate the separating process.
Regarding claim 15, Knodel fails to disclose wherein a distance between the opposing division plungers is adjustable.
However, Rado teaches wherein a distance between the opposing division plungers (7, 8) is adjustable (via 18 and 19; fig. 7; col. 4 line 65 – col. 5 line 2).
Given the teachings of Rado, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the plungers of Knodel as modified by Rado such that they were adjustable like those Rado. Doing so would allow a user to set a desired amount of distance between the pressers so as to not put too much pressure on the wrapping material.
Regarding claim 16, Knodel discloses a method for producing sachets (5) filled with liquid or pasty filling material (Abstract), comprising:
extruding (via 14; fig. 1; paragraph 0069) a strand (7) of a curable wrapping material (13) filled with a filling material (paragraph 0068 – “pasty food mass”) via a coextrusion device (14) and guiding the strand between circulating division plungers (20, 22; figs. 2-3 and 13), wherein
the circulating division plungers (20, 22; figs. 2-3 and 13) move towards one another (fig. 2; paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0012, 0071, 0073, 0077), engage in the strand and in the process strip off the filling material from the wrapping material at a division point and press the not yet completely cured wrapping material to be flat at the division point to form a sachet (paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0012, 0071, 0073, 0077),
wherein the division plungers each comprise a flat pressing surface (52, figs. 6 and 9; paragraph 0009 – “a substantially flat, constricted constriction point can be created”; paragraph 0012 – “a substantially flat portion allows a flat constriction point to be produced between two sausage ends”; paragraph 0077 – “the sausage casing 13 therebetween is flattened accordingly in constriction region 23 due to the substantially flat portion 52”) in order to press the wrapping material on the division point over the entire surface (The “entire surface” is being interpreted to refer to the surface of the wrapping material which makes contact with the flat pressing surface), and
wherein each pressing surface (52) of each division plunger has a length (left to right in figs. 6 and 9) which extends perpendicular to the transport direction (#3; into the page in figs. 6 and 9) of the transport device (6, 8, 16, 18; figs. 2-3) and which is greater than or equal to a width of the strand (Seen in fig. 3).
Knodel is deemed to disclose wherein the division plungers each comprise a flat pressing surface in order to press the wrapping material on the division point over the entire surface, but does not disclose that it does so smoothly and crease-free.
However, Rado teaches a method (fig. 1) for producing sachets (col. 1 lines 10-11) wherein the division plungers (7, 8) each comprise a flat pressing surface (figs. 2-6) in order to press the wrapping material (9) on the division point (col. 3 lines 50-59) over the entire surface (The “entire surface” is being interpreted to refer to the surface of the wrapping material which makes contact with the flat pressing surface), smoothly and crease-free (as seen in figs. 2-6; col. 4 lines 38-41 – “the tube or tubing walls that are held pressed together between the presser members… are flattened to a greater extend between said presser members”; Claim 2 – “the several jaws of each set being spaced apart to align with complementary jaws of the other set to shape by flattening said tubing and press the opposite sides thereof into engagement”), and wherein each pressing surface of each division plunger has a length (left to right as seen in figs. 5-6) which extends perpendicular to the transport direction (into the page as seen in figs. 5-6) of the transport device and which is greater than or equal to a width of the strand (figs. 5-6 show 7, 8 being greater than or equal to 9 in the left to right direction).
Given the teachings of Rado, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to modify the flat pressing surfaces of Knodel such that they produced a division point over the entire surface that was smooth and crease-free. Knodel already discloses a substantially flat surface (52), albeit not entirely flat. And Knodel further notes that the prior art was known for using pressing surfaces that produced smooth and crease-free division points over the entire surface (see Knodel fig. 18). Rado teaches a similar device utilizing circulating division plungers for producing filled sachets in which the plungers comprise an entirely flat surface resulting in the wrapping material on the division point over the entire surface being smooth and crease-free. This modification would make the device easier to manufacture as the pressing members would not need to have ridges or corrugations. Additionally, having a completely flat and even surface can help to establish more even seals as the wrapping material is less likely to be pinched and have the seal be uniform over the length of the surface.
Regarding claim 17, Knodel discloses wherein a transport device (6, 8, 16, 18; figs. 2-3) with opposing, circulating transport means (16, 18), on each of which a respective plurality the division plungers (20, 22) are arranged, transports the separated sachets (5) in a transport direction (3), wherein the division point (23) is further pressed by the division plungers (20, 22; paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0012, 0071, 0073, 0077).
Regarding claim 19, Knodel discloses wherein the wrapping material (casing 13) comprises pieces of a food product (paragraph 0069 - “outer sausage casing 13 made of alginate, which is initially fluid and solidifies to form a slightly elastic casing 13 around sausage strand 7.”).
Claim(s) 5-6, 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knodel (US 2022/0361512 A1) in view of Rado (US Patent 3,001,348) in view of Bachtle et al. (US 2009/0023373) hereinafter referred to as Bachtle.
Regarding claim 5, Knodel does not expressly disclose wherein the coextrusion device (Knodel - 14) comprises a filling pipe for discharging the filling material, and an extrusion nozzle associated with the filling pipe and having an annular extrusion gap for discharging the wrapping material.
However, Bachtle teaches that it is old and well known in the relevant art to provide a similar type of device (fig. 1) which includes a coextrusion device (1) comprising a filling pipe (2) for discharging a filling material (sausage), and an extrusion nozzle (7) associated with the filling pipe (2) and having an annular extrusion gap (4) for discharging a wrapping material (“sausage casing 20”; paragraphs 0025-0027).
Given the teachings of Bachtle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the date of effective filing to have substituted the filling device of Bachtle for that of Knodel, in order to extrude the wrapping material onto the exterior of the filling tube for the filling material to create the coextruded strand. Bachtle’s structural arrangement is a known prior example for achieving the same result as that of the Knodel structural arrangement. Using a pipe to direct a flow of material provides desired direction for the flow of filling material into the casing. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the combination of Knodel with the teachings of Bachtle involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Regarding claim 6, Knodel as modified by Bachtle above discloses the filling pipe (Bachtle - 2) projects over a distance X beyond the extrusion gap (Bachtle - 4) (Bachtle - fig. 3) in such a way that the wrapping material (Bachtle – “casing”) is extruded through the extrusion gap onto the filling pipe and can solidify along the filling pipe (Bachtle - extending filling pipe 8), and the device comprises a lubricant device (Bachtle - 9, paragraph 0027) for supplying a lubricant (Bachtle - at gap 10) between the filling pipe and the discharged wrapping material.
Regarding claim 9, Knodel as modified by Bachtle above discloses wherein the filling pipe (Knodel – 14; Bachtle - 2) and the transport means (Knodel - 6, 8, 16, 18; figs. 2-3) are spatially superimposed, such that an outlet opening of the filling pipe (Knodel – 14; Bachtle - 2) is arranged in a deflection area (Knodel - fig. 2) between the transport means (Knodel - paragraph 0073; see annotated portion of fig. 2 of Knodel below).
PNG
media_image1.png
401
536
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Knodel as modified by Bachtle above discloses wherein a distance between the opposing circulating transport means (Knodel - 6, 8, 16, 18; figs. 2-3) at a rear end viewed in the transport direction is smaller, equal to, or greater than at a beginning.
Regarding claim 11, Knodel in view of Rado and Bachtle above discloses a distance (Knodel - fig. 2) from an outlet opening of the filling pipe (Knodel – 14; Bachtle - 2) to a plane E1, which is perpendicular to the transport direction T (Knodel - 3) and on which at least one of front axes around which the transport means circulate, but does not discloses the distance is about 5-30 mm.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the Knodel in view of Rado in view of Bachtle above, by having had a distance from an outlet opening of the filling pipe to a plane E1, which is perpendicular to the transport direction T and on which at least one of front axes around which the transport means circulate is about 5-30 mm, since applicant has not disclosed that such a distance solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any other reasonable distance.
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 I, II). Having a set distance would allow for the filling pipe to have sufficient clearance relative to the transport device, while still not being so far away that the filled wrapping material would drop in height and not be aligned with the transport device.
Regarding claim 13, Knodel discloses a coextrusion device (14; fig. 1; paragraph 0069) upstream of the circulating transport means (Knodel - 16, 18) when viewed in the transport direction (3), but does not expressly disclose wherein the device has a fixing device for applying a fixing agent upstream of the circulating transport means when viewed in the transport direction.
However, Bachtle teaches that it is old and well known in the relevant art to provide a similar type of device (fig. 1) which includes a coextrusion device (1) in which the device has a fixing device (6; paragraph 0025) for applying a fixing agent to an ejected casing material.
Given the teachings of Bachtle (paragraph 0025), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the Knodel device near the coextrusion device (14) by having incorporated a fixing device for applying a fixing agent upstream of the circulating transport means when viewed in the transport direction, in order to solidify the extruded wrapping material (casing) along the filling pipe prior to the wrapping material and filling material entering the circulating transport means. In this instance, a skilled artisan would have recognized that the combination of Knodel with the teachings of Bachtle involves no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knodel (US 2022/0361512 A1) in view of Rado (US Patent 3,001,348) in view of Bachtle (US 2009/0023373) in view of Mueller et al. (US 2007/002677) hereinafter referred to as Mueller.
Regarding claim 7, Knodel does not disclose wherein a width of an outlet opening of the filling pipe is greater than its height, wherein the outlet opening comprises an oval cross-section or a rectangular cross-section with rounded corners.
However, Mueller teaches that it is old and well known to provide a similar type of device with a filling pipe (21; fig. 2a) wherein a width of an outlet opening (21a) of the filling pipe (21) is greater than its height (fig. 4, lower right), wherein the outlet opening (21a) comprises an oval cross-section or a rectangular cross-section with rounded corners (fig. 4, lower right)
Given the teachings of Mueller (paragraphs 0007-0008, 0015, 0029), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the filling pipe of Knodel as modified by Bachtle with the geometry of the filling pipe of Mueller. Doing so would allow a user to create finished sachets (sausage strands) which are non-circular in shape and of any desired geometric external contour which base on customer preference or use may be more desirable.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knodel (US 2022/0361512 A1) in view of Rado (US Patent 3,001,348) in view of Bachtle (US 2009/0023373) in view of Kleckner et al. (US 2012/0295005 A1) hereinafter referred to Kleckner.
Regarding claim 8, Knodel as modified by Bachtle above discloses a filling pipe (Bachtle – 2; Knodel - 14) facing the transport device (Knodel - 6, 8, 16, 18; figs. 2-3), but fails to disclose wherein a pipe section is formed on an end of the filling pipe facing the transport device, a width of an outlet opening of which is greater than a diameter of the filling pipe and a height of which is less than a diameter of the filling pipe, wherein a cross-sectional area of the filling pipe and of the formed pipe section are essentially the same.
However, Kleckner (fig. 16) teaches wherein a pipe section (78) is formed on an end of the filling pipe (52), a width of an outlet opening of which is greater than a diameter of the filling pipe and a height of which is less than a diameter of the filling pipe (fig. 16; paragraph 0068), wherein a cross-sectional area of the filling pipe and of the formed pipe section are essentially the same (paragraph 0068 – “end portion 78 that has the same circumference as the remainder of the channel 52”).
Given the teachings of Kleckner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to modify the filling pipe of Knodel as modified by Bachtle such that it had a geometry wherein an outlet opening of which is greater than a diameter of the filling pipe and a height of which is less than a diameter of the filling pipe, wherein a cross-sectional area of the filling pipe and of the formed pipe section are essentially the same as taught by Kleckner. Doing so would allow the filling material to be spread out into the casing and make it easier to form flatter shapes which may be more desirable for consumers.
Additionally, applicant admits in the Specification paragraph 0054, page 11, lines 5-9, that the shape in question is a shape of a conventional extrusion head.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the Knodel et al. device, as modified by Bachtle et al. above, by having incorporated wherein a pipe section is formed on an end of the filling pipe facing the transport device, a width of an outlet opening of which is greater than a diameter of the filling pipe and a height of which is less than a diameter of the filling pipe, wherein a cross-sectional area of the filling pipe and of the formed pipe section are essentially the same, in order to make use of a conventional extrusion head for forming a desired geometric external contour.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knodel (US 2022/0361512 A1) in view of Rado (US Patent 3,001,348) in view of Mueller (US 2007/002677).
Regarding claim 18, Knodel discloses wherein the sachets (sausages 5) are separated at their division point (23) and the division points (23), which seal the sachets at a front and rear, extend over the entire width of the sachet (5; fig. 16), but does not expressly disclose the separated sachets have a rectangular flat shape, wherein a height of the sachets is smaller than a width and a ratio of the height to the width is in a range of 1:1.5-1:20.
However, Mueller teaches a similar method of forming sachets in which the separated sachets have a rectangular flat shape (figs. 4 and 5, paragraphs 0011 and 0029 – “quadriform”), wherein a height of the sachets is smaller than a width (fig. 4, lower right; fig. 5, upper right).
Given the teachings of Mueller (paragraph 0029), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Knodel by having the separated sachets have a rectangular flat shape, wherein a height of the sachets is smaller than a width in order to produce a sachet with a desired rectangular flat shape. Doing so would allow the products to be more easily stacked.
Regarding the recitation, a ratio of the height to the width is in a range of 1:1.5-1:20, such is considered to merely be a choice of design as to the cross sectional shape of the sachet, and such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape or form of a component. A change in shape or form is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.05 I, II). Having a range between 1:1.5-1:20 would allow for the product to fall within the generally accepted boundaries of ratios for food products of this type, thus making them easier to package and transport.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments rely on amendments to the claims which are deemed to be obvious in view of the teachings of Rado (US Patent 3,001,348) as detailed above. In short, Knodel is already familiar with the prior art concept of having a surface for the wrapping material at a division point which is smooth and crease-free along the entire surface of that area (see Knodel fig. 18). Rado further teaches the known type of pressing surfaces for division plungers which one of ordinary skill would consider for achieving such a surface.
Applicant’s arguments with regards to awards received does not overcome the teachings of obviousness of the cited combinations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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 at (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 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights