DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response filed 17 July 2026.
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 Interpretation
Claims 1 and 16 have new limitations that have not been indicated as being added. Claim 1 now claims, “wherein the device comprises a transport device with opposing, circulating transport means on each of which a respective division plunger is arranged, such that during transport of the sachets in a transport direction, the division plungers can further press the wrapping material at the division point” which was not previously present in claim 1 but has not been indicated as amended with an underline. Claim 16 now claims, “wherein a transport device with opposing, circulating transport means, on each of which a respective plurality the division plungers are arranged, transports the separated sachets in a transport direction, wherein the division point is further pressed by the division plungers” which was not previously present in claim 16 but has not been indicated as amended with an underline. For examination purposes, these limitations are being treated as amendments to claims 1 and 16.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “the outlet opening of the filling pipe is arranged in the deflection area in a region between a first plane E1 perpendicular to the transport direction on which at least one front axis around which the transport means circulates lies, and a second plane E2 perpendicular to the transport direction on which at least one front deflection point of the transport means lies, wherein the filling pipe extends into the deflection area without collision with the division plungers.” (claim 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant’s drawings (notably figs. 1, 2 and 7) all show the outlet opening outside the region between E1 and E2 and not extended into this region. Furthermore, it is not shown how the filling pipe would be in the position described and not collide with the division plungers as they already nearly collide as shown in fig. 2. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a wdeflectionay as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites, “the outlet opening of the filling pipe is arranged in the deflection area in a region between a first plane E1 perpendicular to the transport direction on which at least one front axis around which the transport means circulates lies, and a second plane E2 perpendicular to the transport direction on which at least one front deflection point of the transport means lies, wherein the filling pipe extends into the deflection area without collision with the division plungers”. However, the specification does not recite the outlet opening of the filling pipe is arranged in a region between plane E1 and plane E2 and the drawings do not show this.
According to the definition of planes E1 and E2 set forth in the claim, Applicant’s figure 2 is deemed to be an accurate representation of these planes. However, the outlet opening (12) of the filling pipe (9) is clearly shown to be outside the region between them. Turning to the Specification, the Office deems that the claim is trying to reference subject matter cited in paragraph 0049 which reads:
[0049] In this embodiment, the outlet opening 12 of the filling pipe 9 protrudes so far in the transport direction T that the outlet opening 12 of the filling pipe is arranged in a deflection area between the transport means, i.e. in this case in an area behind a plane E2 on which at least one of the front deflection points P of the transport belts lies and which runs perpendicular to the transport direction T, i.e. here perpendicular to the image plane. However, the filling pipe 9 only extends so far into the deflection area that there is no collision with the division plungers 6a, 6b. The distance from the outlet opening 12 to the plane E1, which is perpendicular to the transport direction T and on which at least one of the front axes A1a, A1b around which the transport means 5a, 5b circulate, is approximately 5-30 mm. (Emphasis added)
The Office deems that the term “between the transport means” refers to a location of the pipe that is vertically between 5a and 5b as depicted in fig. 2. This does not necessitate the filling pipe being located between the planes E1 and E2, but can simply be that filling pipe is located in the position shown in figs. 1, 2 and 7.
The term “in an area behind a plane E2” is at best ambiguous as to which direction is considered “behind” the plane of E2. The transport direction (T) which is referenced in this paragraph appears to be the best representation of what would be considered to create directionality. However, this direction is to the left in fig. 2. This would mean that an area “behind a plane E2” would be an area to the right of E2 which is where the pipe is shown in figs. 1, 2 and 7.
Additionally, while the cited paragraph notes that the filling pipe (9) “extends… into the deflection area”, it is noted that the “deflection area” is not defined by the paragraph or the Specification as a whole to only include the area between the planes E1 and E2. Applicant’s Specification, Paragraph 0008, notes that the deflection area includes areas where the opposing plungers circulate and are not aligned in parallel with one another. Paragraph 0011 further notes that the deflection area comprises the area the plungers are moved toward one another but are not yet parallel to one another. Movement out of the deflection area occurs once the plungers are parallel.
Based on this, the deflection area is deemed to be any area swept through or between opposing division plungers in which they are moving toward one another but are not yet parallel to one another (i.e. the area between the division plungers while they are deflecting to their eventual parallel orientation). The deflection area therefore includes the region between E1 and E2, but also includes the space upstream from points P shown in fig. 2 because the division plungers reach out to the right of these points. Thus the filling pipe (9) depicted in fig. 2 is considered to be in the “deflection area”, but is not between the smaller section of the deflection area located between planes E1 and E2.
For these reasons, while the original disclosure supports the filling pipe (9) and its outlet (12) being in the “deflection area”, it is not deemed to be supportive of it being specifically located between planes E1 and E2 as claimed.
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, 6, 10-16, 19-20 and 22 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) in view of Bachtle et al. (US 2009/0023373) hereinafter referred to as Bachtle.
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 an entire surface of the wrapping material at the division point (paragraph 0077; fig. 3), and
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), wherein the coextrusion device (14) and the transport means (16, 18) are spatially superimposed, such that an outlet opening of the coextrusion device is arranged in a deflection area (The deflection area is not defined by the claim and is deemed to be any area swept through or between opposing division plungers in which they are moving toward one another but are not yet parallel to one another; see 35 USC 112a above for interpretation of “deflection area”; see annotated fig. 2 below) between the transport means (paragraph 0073; see annotated portion of fig. 2 of Knodel below. Outlet opening of Knodel 14 is shown between the vertical positions of 16 and 18 in a similar manner as the Applicant’s filling pipe 9 is shown in Applicant’s fig. 2), 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).
PNG
media_image1.png
812
561
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 an entire surface of the wrapping material at the division point (col. 3 lines 50-59; figs. 3-6), 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 extent 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.
Knodel discloses wherein the coextrusion device (14) and the transport means (16, 18) are spatially superimposed, such that an outlet opening of the coextrusion device is arranged in a deflection area (The deflection area is not defined by the claim and is deemed to be any area swept through or between opposing division plungers in which they are moving toward one another but are not yet parallel to one another; see 35 USC 112a above for interpretation of “deflection area”; see annotated fig. 2 above) between the transport means (paragraph 0073; see annotated portion of fig. 2 of Knodel above. Outlet opening of Knodel 14 is shown between the vertical positions of 16 and 18 in a similar manner as the Applicant’s filling pipe 9 is shown in Applicant’s fig. 2).
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. The cited combination would therefore result in 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 and wherein the filling pipe and the transport means are spatially superimposed, such that an outlet opening of the filling pipe is arranged in a deflection area between the transport means.
Regarding claim 6, Knodel as modified by Bachtle above discloses the filling pipe (Bachtle - 2) projects over a distance 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 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 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 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.
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 an entire surface of the wrapping material at the division point (paragraph 0077; fig. 3), and
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 (7) sachets in a transport direction (3), wherein the division point (23) is further pressed by the division plungers (paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0012, 0071, 0073, 0077), wherein the coextrusion device (14) and the transport means (16, 18) are spatially superimposed, such that an outlet opening of the coextrusion device is arranged in a deflection area (The deflection area is not defined by the claim and is deemed to be any area swept through or between opposing division plungers in which they are moving toward one another but are not yet parallel to one another; see 35 USC 112a above for interpretation of “deflection area”; see annotated fig. 2 above) between the transport means (paragraph 0073; see annotated portion of fig. 2 of Knodel above. Outlet opening of Knodel 14 is shown between the vertical positions of 16 and 18 in a similar manner as the Applicant’s filling pipe 9 is shown in Applicant’s fig. 2), 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.
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 an entire surface of the wrapping material at the division point (col. 3 lines 50-59; figs. 3-6), 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 extent 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.
Knodel discloses wherein the coextrusion device (14) and the transport means (16, 18) are spatially superimposed, such that an outlet opening of the coextrusion device is arranged in a deflection area (The deflection area is not defined by the claim and is deemed to be any area swept through or between opposing division plungers in which they are moving toward one another but are not yet parallel to one another; see 35 USC 112a above for interpretation of “deflection area”; see annotated fig. 2 below) between the transport means (paragraph 0073; see annotated portion of fig. 2 of Knodel below. Outlet opening of Knodel 14 is shown between the vertical positions of 16 and 18 in a similar manner as the Applicant’s filling pipe 9 is shown in Applicant’s fig. 2).
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. The cited combination would therefore result in 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 and wherein the filling pipe and the transport means are spatially superimposed, such that an outlet opening of the filling pipe is arranged in a deflection area between the transport means.
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.”).
Regarding claim 20, Knodel discloses wherein the deflection area is a region in which the opposing division plungers are not yet aligned parallel to each other as they circulate on the transport means and converge toward one another (see annotated fig. 2 in rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 22, Knodel as modified by Rado above discloses wherein the circulating division plungers (Knodel - 20, 22) engage (Knodel - at least on surface 54 or 56) the strand in the deflection area while oriented at an angle α (paragraph 0078 – “the first leg surface 54 being at least partly arranged substantially at an angle to the central region and the second leg surface 56 being at least partly arranged substantially at an angle to the central region 43”) to each other such that the division plungers are not yet aligned parallel to each other (Knodel - paragraph 0078; figs 2-3 – for surfaces 54, 56 to begin engaging, the flat surface 52 are not yet parallel to each other), and wherein as the division plungers converge in the deflection area they strip off the filling material from the wrapping material at the division point, and thereafter, as the division plungers exit the deflection area and become aligned parallel to each other, the division plungers press the wrapping material flat (Knodel - paragraphs 0009, 0010, 0012, 0071, 0073, 0077) and crease-free (Rado - 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 extent 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”) at the division point.
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 Bachtle (US 2009/0023373) 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.
Claim(s) 21 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 Krompholz et al. (EP 1095569 A2) hereinafter referred to as Krompholz.
Regarding claim 21, Knodel fails to disclose wherein the outlet opening of the filling pipe is arranged in the deflection area in a region between a first plane E1 perpendicular to the transport direction on which at least one front axis around which the transport means circulates lies, and a second plane E2 perpendicular to the transport direction on which at least one front deflection point of the transport means lies, wherein the filling pipe extends into the deflection area without collision with the division plungers.
However, Krompholz (fig. 3) teaches wherein the outlet opening of the filling pipe (8) is arranged in the deflection area in a region between a first plane E1 (see annotated fig. 3 below) perpendicular to the transport direction on which at least one front axis (axis of 40 in fig. 3) around which the transport means (36) circulates lies, and a second plane E2 (see annotated fig. 3 below) perpendicular to the transport direction on which at least one front deflection point (right end of 36 in fig. 3) of the transport means lies, wherein the filling pipe extends into the deflection area without collision with the division plungers (42).
PNG
media_image2.png
634
837
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Given the teachings of Krompholz 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 with the filling pipe arrangement of Krompholz. Having the tube closer outlet between the planes of E1 and E2 would put it closer to a division point where the plungers meet. This would mean that there would be less of a possibility of the filled wrapping material drooping down and being moved out of position before it was divided. This would result in the sachets being more uniform in shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not consider modifying Knodel with the teachings of Rado because they operate in fundamentally different technical contexts that would require different engineering challenges. The Office is not persuaded by the Applicant’s argument. Knodel is concerned about a coextrusion process for strands of wrapping material. Knodel is concerned about sealing and dividing created sachets and doing so with a “substantially flat” plunger. Knodel does disclose that this plunger creates creases. Rado is likewise creating sachets from strands of a tubular wrapping material. Rado also makes uses of plungers to divide and separate the contents of these sachets. Rado does so with a plunger design that doesn’t make use of a creasing feature. This plunger geometry is deemed to be applicable to Knodel because it provides the benefit of being 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.
The Office deems Knodel and Rado to both be broadly concerned with a similar problem (i.e. dividing tubular sachets and sealing them) and with Rado teaching an alternative solution as to geometry of the flat surface of the plunger.
The Office citing Knodel as disclosing the prior art having a crease free surface (Knodel – fig. 18), isn’t an example of hindsight. It is the prior art being suggestive of what is being claimed. The Office has not argued simple design choice as a motivation for the combination. The Office has noted that such “crease-free” surfaces where an existing part of the noted prior art as suggested by fig. 18 of Knodel. The Office has further used the teachings of an analogous reference in Rado to teach a similar division plunger with a completely flat surface which would result in the smooth, crease-free surface claimed. The reasons for this combination were stated as being making the plunger easier to manufacture and providing for a more even and uniform seal which would be a consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing.
Regarding the inclusion of the language of claim 9 into the independent claim, the Office has further clarified, in the rejection above, its pre-existing position as to how this limitation is being interpreted. The claim language of claims 1 and 16 does not define the boundaries of the deflection area. As best understood, Knodel as modified by Bachtle is deemed to disclose the cited limitations. The deflection area is deemed to be any area swept through or between opposing division plungers in which they are moving toward one another but are not yet parallel to one another. Thus Knodel meets the cited limitation as seen in annotated fig. 2 above.
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 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