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 .
Response to Amendment / Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 7-12) in the reply filed on 8/4/2025 was previously acknowledged. Claims 1-6, drawn to the non-elected Group I, were cancelled.
Claims 7-12 remain pending.
Claims 13-26 are new and now also pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2025 and 2/2/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 9 and 21-26 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 Claim 9, the claim recites “the seaming and severing knife has an edge radius kr of 2 mm to 5 mm, the radius being selected to ensure that the affixed regions that form edge seams in compact feminine hygiene pad packages are resistant to failure during carrying and handling prior to intentional opening of the feminine hygiene pad packages”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as the claim outlines the radius is selected based on the seams being resistant to failure during carrying and handling and because it is unclear as to what type of stress/force the “carrying and handling” is intending to encompass, it is also unclear as to what “resistant to failure” is intending to encompass with respect to the seams.
Further the limitation “that the affixed regions that form edge seams in compact feminine hygiene pad packages” renders it unclear if the Applicant is attempting to claim that “compact feminine hygiene pad packages” are the packages formed. Note for examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as requiring the packages formed as being in the form of “compact feminine hygiene pad packages”. Examiner notes that if the “compact feminine hygiene pad packages” are included within the preamble, this would render it clear and definite that the pad packages are being positively claimed.
Regarding Claim 21, the claim includes similar limitations as outlined in Claim 9 above and therefore is rendered indefinite for the same reasoning.
Claims 22-26 are dependent on Claim 21 and therefore are also rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-8, 10-12, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (US Patent 4,433,527), in view of Kane Jr. (US PGPUB 2004/0173492).
Regarding Claim 7, Ramsey discloses a process for forming individual packages (wrapped articles 37; Figure 1) containing a product (26), the packages (37) being formed of polymeric film (22), comprising the steps of:
effecting phased spacing of individual quantities of product (26) being conveyed (via 13) along a machine direction (Col 2, lines 39-40 discloses a continuous succession of articles),
conveying the spaced individual quantities of product (26) along the machine direction, into a flow wrapping unit (former 12; Col 2, lines 40-42);
flow wrapping the spaced individual quantities (26) in the polymeric film (22) along the machine direction (along 13; Col 2, lines 40-42);
conveying the flow-wrapped, spaced individual quantities (26) into a seaming and severing unit (“heat sealer and cut-off device 16”), wherein the seaming and severing unit (16) comprises:
a first roller (formed by anvil assembly 39; note the shaft 42 forms a roller structure with the anvil 50; Figures 3-4) comprising a first seaming and severing element (anvil 50, specifically anvil surface 44; Col 2, lines 62-66); and
a second roller (formed by knife and clamping assembly 40) comprising a second seaming and severing element (45 including knife 47 and clamping bars 46; Figure 2; Col 2, line 68 through Col 3, line 1 and lines 18-21),
wherein the first and second rollers (39, 40) have axes of rotation (of 41, 42) oriented along a cross direction (Col 3, lines 28-47);
wherein the first roller (39), the second roller (40), the first seaming and severing element (50) and the second seaming and severing element (45) are configured such that the first seaming and severing element (50) will contact and oppose the second seaming and severing element (45) along a line of contact oriented in the cross direction, in a transitory nip between the rollers (39, 40 shown in Figure 2; Col 3, line 62 through Col 4, line 5); and
wherein at least one of the first roller (39), the second roller (40), the first seaming and severing element (50) and the second seaming and severing element (45) is associated with a pliant mechanism (resilient surface 44, resilient materials 65-66, and springs 56; Col 3, lines 31-44 and Col 4, lines 6-27) configured to enable one or both of the first seaming and severing element (50, specifically 44) and the second seaming and severing element (45, specifically 46) to displace radially toward the axis of rotation of its associated roller (of 41, 42), in response to radial force exerted by the opposing seaming and severing element (45, 50) in the transitory nip (see Col 4, lines 1-5 which describes the anvil surface being pressed by the knife 47 and lines 10-27 describe the bars 46 being displaced radially);
conveying the flow-wrapped, spaced individual quantities (26) into the transitory nip (of 45, 50; Col 2, lines 56-57), and thereby:
compressing first and second portions of the polymeric film (22) together in the transitory nip and plasticly expressing material thereof away from the transitory nip (of 45, 50) along the machine direction (note that given the pressure applied such as outlined in Col 5, lines 23-27, some portion of the film will be readily moved away from the nip), thereby forming affixed regions wherein the first and second portions of the film (22) are affixed to each other, and simultaneously, respective leading and trailing packages (37) are effectively severed from one another (Col 5, lines 36-49).
However, Ramsey does not readily disclose in the effecting phased spacing step, the individual quantities of product (26) are regularly spaced apart along the machine direction (along 13).
Further attention can be brought to the teachings of Kane Jr. which includes another system and method for flow wrapping an product (36; Figure 3) which is fed into a flow wrapping station (35) at an effected regular spacing along the machine direction (Para. 0103).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have effectuated a regular spacing as taught by Kane Jr. of the products of Ramsey to be packaged. By modifying Ramsey in this manner, the feeding/input of the products can be driven in a timed relationship with the web/wrapper corresponding to the size of the wrapper as taught by Kane Jr. (Para. 0103, 0108).
Regarding Claim 8, Ramsey, as modified, discloses at least one of the first and second seaming and severing elements (45, 50) is a seaming and severing knife (47; Col 3, line 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Ramsey, as modified, discloses another of the first and second seaming and severing elements is an anvil (50; Col 3, lines 12-13).
Regarding Claim 11, Ramsey, as modified, discloses several features including the anvil (50) has a substantially flat acting surface (44) opposing seaming and severing knife (47) in the transitory nip (as shown in Figure 3, the surface 44, while comprising a curvature, is substantially flat given the large radius of curvature relative to the axles; further note Page 27, lines 29-30 of Applicant specification which outlines “substantially flat” can include a curvature). Alternatively, assuming arguendo that the anvil surface (44) of Ramsey cannot be readily viewed as “substantially flat”, in which the Examiner does not concede to, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to have embodied the anvil surface of Ramsey as being substantially flat because Applicant has not disclosed that that such shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the surface of Ramsey because in either instance, the packages will be sealed and severed.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Ramsey to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Regarding Claim 12, Ramsey, as modified, discloses the second roller (40), and the second seaming and severing element (45) is associated with a heating element (heating means 60) configured to heat acting surfaces of the first seaming and severing element (39; surface 44 will readily be heated when contacted with the knife 47) and/or the second seaming and severing element (knife 47 is heated and due to proximity, bars 46 will readily be heated; Col 3, lines 48-61).
Regarding Claim 17, Ramsey, as modified, discloses the pliant mechanism (65, 66) has a spring constant (as outlined in Col 3, lines 31-44 the resilient members will readily provide an elastic force comprising a spring constant), wherein a value of the spring constant is selected to cause complete expression of the first and second portions of the film (22) from the transitory nip without causing excessive resistance to rotation through the transitory nip (see Col 3, lines 31-44 as the anvil supports will provide a resilient/elastic force when engaged by the knife and based on the cutting and pressure applied the material is completely expressed and further based on the apparatus capable of such operation, the expression must not cause the “excessive resistance”).
Regarding Claim 18, Ramsey, as modified, discloses no adhesive material is added to the first and second portions of the polymeric film (22) to form the affixed regions (Ramsey does not disclose any glue or adhesive used and instead outlines heat sealing thermoplastic material 22; Col 1, lines 5-10).
Regarding Claim 20, Ramsey, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose the polymeric film comprises a plurality of layers, said plurality of layers comprising: a first layer configured to form an inside surface of the individual packages containing the product; and a second layer to form an outside surface of the individual packages containing the product; wherein the first layer has a greater ductility and a lower melting point than the second layer; and wherein the second layer has a greater tensile strength than the first layer.
Attention is again brought to Kane Jr. which teaches a polymeric film packaging material (31; Figure 3) wherein the polymeric film material (31) comprises a plurality of layers (Para. 0057), said plurality of layers comprising: a first layer (“innermost layer”; Para. 0064) configured to form an inside surface of the individual packages (60) containing the product (36; Para. 0064); and a second layer (“outermost structural or abuse layer”) to form an outside surface of the individual packages (60) containing the product (36; Para. 0058); wherein the first layer (innermost layer) has a greater ductility and a lower melting point (Para. 0064) than the second layer (outermost layer; “unaffected by the sealing temperature” per Para. 0058); and wherein the second layer (outermost layer) has a greater tensile strength than the first layer (innermost layer; note Para. 0058 outlines that the stiffness of the pouch is controlled by the outer layer; Para. 0060, 0064 outline such materials such that the strength of the outer layer is clearly greater).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to utilized such layered material as taught by Kane Jr. as the material of Ramsey since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. In this particular instance, multilayer films in packaging is known, especially in the heat sealed packaging materials, as by using an inner sealant layer, the package film can be sealed together while the outermost maintains stiffness/protection of the package and product thereof and further allows for printing/other processing thereon.
Claims 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (US Patent 4,433,527), in view of Kane Jr. (US PGPUB 2004/0173492), as applied to Claims 7 and 10, and in further view of Uttaro (US PGPUB 2010/0263336).
Regarding Claims 13 and 15-16, Ramsey, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including the second seaming and severing element comprises a knife (47) and the pliant mechanism (resilient materials 65-66; Col 3, lines 31-44) comprises pliant anvil supports (65, 66) mounted to a body of the associated roller (39) of the anvil but does not readily disclose:
(1) wherein the anvil has a flat surface opposing the seaming and severing knife in the transitory nip,
(2) wherein the pliant mechanism is configured to enable the knife to displace radially towards the axis of rotation of its associated roller, and (3) wherein the pliant anvil supports comprise spring members that are elastically flexible so to permit the anvil to move radially toward the axis of its associated roller in response to radial force exerted on the anvil by the seaming and severing knife.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Uttaro which includes a process for forming a package including feeding products (20; Figure 2) wrapped in a film (24) into a sealing and cutting station (16) comprising a first seaming and severing element (pressure pad 32; Figure 6) and a second seaming and severing element (upper seal bar 30) mounted on respective rotary drum assemblies (36, 38), wherein the first seaming and severing element (32) forms an anvil and has a flat surface (as shown) opposing the second seaming and severing element (30), comprising a knife (see Figure 2), in a transitory nip, wherein a pliant mechanism (134a-f) is configured to enable the second seaming and severing element (30) to displace radially towards an axis of rotation (140) of its associated drum assembly (36; i.e. Para. 0042), and further comprising pliant pad/anvil supports (136a-c; Figure 5) comprise spring members (136a-c) that are elastically flexible so to permit the pad/anvil to move radially toward the axis (142) of its associated drum assembly (38) in response to radial force exerted on the pad/anvil (32) by the seaming and severing knife (30; Para. 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have further modified the method of Ramsey such that anvil comprises a flat surface, is supported by elastic spring members, and the knife is also supported by a pliant/spring mechanism as taught by Uttaro. By modifying Ramsey in the manner, the anvil and knife can maintain contact for a defined angle of rotation and linear length to thereby create a stronger seal as taught by Uttaro (Para. 0007, 0026, 0041).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (US Patent 4,433,527), in view of Kane Jr. (US PGPUB 2004/0173492), as applied to Claim 8, and in further view of Fosshage (US Patent 5,894,709) and Peregi (US PGPUB 2019/0366646).
Regarding Claim 14, Ramsey, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention and discloses the seaming and severing knife (47) has an edge radius of .3 to .6 mm but does not disclose the edge radius of 2 mm to 5 mm.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Fosshage which includes another flow wrapping system (Figure 1) including a seaming and severing unit (39, 80; Figure 2) which includes a seaming and severing knife (41a, 41b; Figure 3) with a knife edge (43) comprising an edge radius for forming an edge seal wherein the radius is selected based on the several factors including the thickness of the film, the qualities of the film, as well as the thickness of product being packaged, and the speed of the products through the sealing assembly (Col 7, line 43 through Col 8, line 3).
Further attention can be brought to Peregi which exemplifies selection of a seaming tool (300; Figure 5-7) comprising an edge portion (304) comprising a radius (309) of 2.5-5mm (Para. 0048) based on application to a thinner packaging portion (i.e. see Para. 0050).
Therefore, based on the teaching of Fosshage that is it know to select an appropriate edge radius based on packaging material and the product and the example taught by Peregi to utilize a radius between 2.5 and 5mm, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modified the radius of the knife edge of Ramsey to be between 2mm and 5mm as taught by Peregi, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Please note that in the instant application, page 27, lines 25-29, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations other than what is taught by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). It is also noted that with such edge radius (increased relative to Ramsey), the size of the seam can be increased thereby ensuring the sealing of the product.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (US Patent 4,433,527), in view of Kane Jr. (US PGPUB 2004/0173492), as applied to Claim 7, and in further view of Persson (US PGPUB 2018/0255826).
Regarding Claim 19, Ramsey, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose dimensions of the first seaming and severing element and the second sealing and severing element are selected such that a width of the affixed regions is 200 µm to 1000 µm, wherein the width is measured between a location at which affixation between the first and second portions of the film begin on an inside of the affixed regions and an outside severed edge of the affixed regions.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Persson which outlines a method of forming packages (43; Figure 3G) wherein the packages are formed with transverse seals (6; Figure 1) by an anvil (3) and sonotrode (5), which forms a heat seal, wherein the seals range between .1mm (100µm) and 1mm (1000µm ; Para. 0160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the sealing and severing elements of Ramsey such that the affixed regions comprise a width as taught by Persson. By modifying Ramsey in this manner, the side of the package can be minimized and therefore cost of material can also be minimized.
Note in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). MPEP 2144.05(I)
Claims 7-8, 10-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saraf (US PGPUB 2005/0115665), in view of Kane Jr. (US PGPUB 2004/0173492).
Regarding Claim 7, Saraf discloses a process for forming individual packages (92; Figure 1) containing a product (78; Figure 2A; Para. 0040), the packages (92) being formed of polymeric film (60; Para. 0048), comprising the steps of:
effecting phased spacing of individual quantities (78) of product being conveyed along a machine direction (126; Para. 0041-0042, 0047);
conveying the spaced individual quantities of product (78) along the machine direction (126);
conveying the wrapped (78 in 60), spaced individual quantities into a seaming and severing unit (20; Figure 1), wherein the seaming and severing unit (20) comprises:
a first roller (28 including shaft 30; Figure 3-4) comprising a first seaming and severing element (28 including bonding member 42 and knife 36); and
a second roller (50; Figures 6-7) comprising a second seaming and severing element (anvil 50 including surfaces 52),
wherein the first and second rollers (28, 50) have axes of rotation (of axles 34) oriented along a cross direction (as shown in Figure 1A);
wherein the first roller (28), the second roller (50), the first seaming and severing element (36, 42) and the second seaming and severing element (52 of 50) are configured such that the first seaming and severing element (36, 42) will contact and oppose the second seaming and severing element (52) along a line of contact oriented in the cross direction, in a transitory nip (56) between the rollers (of 28, 50; see Figure 1A; Para. 0036, 0073); and
wherein at least one of the first roller (of 28), the second roller (of 50), the first seaming and severing element (36, 42) and the second seaming and severing element (52 of 50) is associated with a pliant mechanism (resilient insert member 64 and shaft 30; Para. 0072) configured to enable the first seaming and severing element (36, 42) to displace radially (along 24; Figure 1) toward the axis of rotation of its associated roller (of 28), in response to radial force exerted by the opposing seaming and severing element (52, 50) in the transitory nip (56, Para. 0072);
conveying the wrapped, spaced individual quantities (78) into the transitory nip (Para. 0036, 0064, 0074), and thereby:
compressing first and second portions (74, 76; Figure 2A) of the polymeric film (60) together in the transitory nip (56) and plasticly expressing material thereof away from the transitory nip (56) along the machine direction (126; given the crimping being applied and the types of film material, when the pressure is applied by crimping, material will readily displace as claimed), thereby forming affixed regions (bonded regions 72) wherein the first and second portions (74, 76) of the film are affixed to each other (Para. 0047, 0066), and simultaneously, respective leading and trailing packages are effectively severed from one another (Shown in Figure 1; Para. 0067).
However, Saraf fails to explicitly disclose effecting phased spacing of individual quantities such that the individual quantities of product are regularly spaced apart along the machine direction and is further silent on conveying the spaced product into a flow wrapping unit and flow wrapping the spaced individual quantities in the polymeric film along the machine direction.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Kane Jr. which includes another system and method for flow wrapping an product (36; Figure 3) which is fed into a flow wrapping unit/station (35) at an effected regular spacing along the machine direction (Para. 0103).
First, Saraf mentions continuously bonding the wrapped film and use of “suitable wrapping or folding systems are well known” (Para. 0043). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a flow wrapping step and unit as taught by Kane Jr. in the method/system of Saraf. By modifying Saraf in this manner, the process can be rendered continuous as taught by Kane Jr. (Para. 0009) and thereby increasing throughput of the system. It is noted that this is a common benefit of flow wrapping.
Second, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have effectuated a regular spacing as taught by Kane Jr. of the products of Saraf to be packaged. By modifying Saraf in this manner, the feeding/input of the products can be driven in a timed relationship with the web/wrapper corresponding to the size of the wrapper as taught by Kane Jr. (Para. 0103, 0108).
Regarding Claim 8, Saraf, as modified, discloses the first seaming and severing element (36, 42) is a seaming and severing knife (36, 42; Para. 0034).
Regarding Claim 10, Saraf, as modified, discloses the second seaming and severing elements is an anvil (50; Para. 0036).
Regarding Claim 11, Saraf, as modified, discloses the anvil (50) has a substantially flat acting surface (52 shown as “substantially flat” in Figures 6-7) opposing seaming and severing knife (36, 42) in the transitory nip (56; Para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 12, Saraf, as modified, discloses at least one of the first roller (of 28), the second roller (of 50), the first seaming and severing element (36, 42) and the second seaming and severing element (52) is associated with a heating element (100; Figures 3, 7) configured to heat acting surface of the first seaming and severing element (36, 42) and the second seaming and severing element (52; Para. 0080).
Regarding Claim 13, Saraf, as modified, discloses the anvil (50) has a flat surface (52 shown as “substantially flat” in Figures 6-7) opposing the seaming and severing knife (36, 42) in the transitory nip (56; Para. 0073).
Regarding Claim 17, Saraf, as modified, discloses the pliant mechanism (resilient insert member 64 and shaft 30; Para. 0072) has a spring constant (the resilient nature of insert 64 will readily comprise a spring constant given the elastic nature thereof), wherein a value of the spring constant is selected to cause complete expression of the first and second portions (74, 76) of the film (60) from the transitory nip without causing excessive resistance to rotation through the transitory nip (see Para. 0072 as the insert will provide a resilient/elastic force when engaged and based on the cutting and pressure applied the material is completely expressed and further based on the apparatus capable of such operation, the expression must not cause the “excessive resistance”). .
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saraf (US PGPUB 2005/0115665), in view of Kane Jr. (US PGPUB 2004/0173492), as applied to Claims 7 and 10, and in further view of Uttaro (US PGPUB 2010/0263336).
Regarding Claims 15-16, Saraf, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including the second seaming and severing element comprises a knife (36) but does not readily disclose:
(1) the pliant mechanism (resilient materials 65-66; Col 3, lines 31-44) comprises pliant anvil supports (65, 66) mounted to a body of the associated roller (39) of the anvil wherein the pliant mechanism is configured to enable the knife to displace radially towards the axis of rotation of its associated roller, and (2) wherein the pliant anvil supports comprise spring members that are elastically flexible so to permit the anvil to move radially toward the axis of its associated roller in response to radial force exerted on the anvil by the seaming and severing knife.
Attention is brought to the teachings of Uttaro which includes a process for forming a package including feeding products (20; Figure 2) wrapped in a film (24) into a sealing and cutting station (16) comprising a first seaming and severing element (pressure pad 32; Figure 6) and a second seaming and severing element (upper seal bar 30) mounted on respective rotary drum assemblies (36, 38), wherein the first seaming and severing element (32) forms an anvil and has a flat surface (as shown) opposing the second seaming and severing element (30), comprising a knife (see Figure 2), in a transitory nip, wherein a pliant mechanism (134a-f) is configured to enable the second seaming and severing element (30) to displace radially towards an axis of rotation (140) of its associated drum assembly (36; i.e. Para. 0042), and further comprising pliant pad/anvil supports (136a-c; Figure 5) comprise spring members (136a-c) that are elastically flexible so to permit the pad/anvil to move radially toward the axis (142) of its associated drum assembly (38) in response to radial force exerted on the pad/anvil (32) by the seaming and severing knife (30; Para. 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have further modified the method of Saraf such that the anvil is supported by elastic spring members and the knife is also supported by a pliant/spring mechanism as taught by Uttaro. By modifying Saraf in the manner, the anvil and knife can maintain contact for a defined angle of rotation and linear length to thereby create a stronger seal as taught by Uttaro (Para. 0007, 0026, 0041).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 9 and 21, none of the prior art references, alone or in combination, disclose or render obvious the combination of limitations outlined by each claim. A combination of Ramsey (US Patent 4,433,527), in view of Kane Jr. (US PGPUB 2004/0173492), Fosshage (US Patent 5,894,709) and Peregi (US PGPUB 2019/0366646) disclose and/or render obvious several features of the claimed invention (i.e. see the rejection of Claim 14 above). Further/alternatively to Peregi, one can look to Coleman (US Patent 5,546,732) which outlines a blade (of 120; Figures 1, 15, 16) radius of 1/64in to 3/32in (about .4mm to 2.4mm; Col 5, lines 13-18).
However, none of the references disclose/teach forming feminine hygiene pad packages (note the 112 rejections above) and while other references such as Johnson (US Patent 3,775,203) and Teranishi (US Patent 6,302,872) teach packaging methods for such packages, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to further modify Ramsey to form such pad packages without the use of improper hindsight.
While the formation of hygiene pad packages, by itself does not render the claimed invention allowable over the prior art, the combination of such formation of pad packages with other claimed limitations renders the claim allowable.
While various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s outlines arguments pertaining to the 103 rejection of Ramsey, in view of Kane Jr., on Pages 5-13, Applicant outlines details of Ramsey and Kane Jr. (on Pages 5-7), then outlines details of Applicant’s invention (on Pages 7-9), and then outlines three supposed differences between the prior art and the Applicant’s invention.
(1) First Applicant outlines (Page 10):
PNG
media_image1.png
182
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In which the Examiner respectfully asserts that Kane Jr. is relied upon for teaching the spacing of the products to be packaged.
(2) Second Applicant argues (Pages 10-11):
PNG
media_image2.png
380
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
76
621
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In which the Examiner respectfully asserts that both the pressure between the clamping bars 46 and the anvil surface 44 as well as the knife 47 and anvil surface 44 readily will compress the films and express material away from the nip. Further it is noted that the mere cutting/severing the films will readily plastically express the material in such directions. See Col 5, lines 23-49 outline the compression and cutting of such films.
(3) Third the Applicant argues (Pages 11-12):
PNG
media_image4.png
454
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
102
622
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In which the Examiner respectfully asserts that (1) the anvil/the first seaming and severing element 50 includes resilient materials 65, 66 as outlined in Col 3, lines 31-44 which readily allows the anvil surface to be radially moveable when engaged by the knife 47 and (2) although the knife 47 of the second seaming and severing element 45 does not readily move radially, the clamping bars 46 which are interpreted as part of the second seaming and severing element 45 are moved radially due to the springs 56 as outlined in Col 4, lines 6-27. Further, see Col 4, lines 1-5 which describes the anvil surface being pressed by the knife 47 and lines 10-27 describe the bars 46 being displaced radially.
Further, Applicant argues (Pages 12-13) that:
…
PNG
media_image6.png
278
624
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
418
620
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts that Kane Jr. is merely relied upon for teaching regular spaced/timed product feed and such a modification as outlined would not readily require an inclusion of a fin seal/zipper as also taught by Kane Jr. Even further, Examiner respectfully disagrees that modifying operation of Ramsey based on the product spacing would ruin its intended purpose. In order for proper sealing, it is known to synchronize the speeds of an anvil roller and a knife roller to properly align such to form a proper seal and severing. Such synchronized movement would not preclude one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed from further synchronizing the rollers with the spaced feeding/input of the products.
In response to Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 103 rejection of Claim 9 over Ramsey, in view of Kane Jr., Fosshage and Peregi on Pages 14-16 that:
…
PNG
media_image8.png
330
610
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
329
623
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
159
617
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
332
624
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
327
623
media_image12.png
Greyscale
In response to Applicant's piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPG 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP 2145 (IV). In this instance, Ramsey discloses a knife comprising a radius less than what is claimed. Fosshage outlines selecting radius of a knife based on several factors of the packaging process and Peregi, although teaches an ultrasonic sealer, recites an merely example of sealer comprising radii within the claimed radius range. As outlined above, it would have been obvious to modify Ramsey, in view of Fosshage and Peregi, to comprise such a knife radius as taught by Peregi based on conditions of the packaging process as outlined by Fosshage and which will also readily increase the width of the seal and hence, integrity of the seal as outlined. Further, Applicant’s argument that such a modification would disrupt the operation of Ramsey is merely speculation and would preclude one from such a modification.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 103 rejection of Saraf, in view of Kane Jr., on Pages 16-19, Applicant outlines details of Saraf and Kane Jr. (on Pages 16-17) then outlines:
PNG
media_image13.png
521
630
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
273
625
media_image14.png
Greyscale
In which the Examiner respectfully asserts that Kane Jr. is relied upon for teaching a flow wrapping unit and the spacing of the products to be incorporated into the invention of Saraf. This does not eliminate the use of the adhesive application and sealing of Saraf. In fact, Kane Jr. outlines use of adhesive to form the seals in the flow wrapping apparatus (See Para. 0045). In conclusion, incorporation of a flow wrapping unit/former into Saraf does not preclude one from utilizing the adhesive as already disclosed by Saraf and would not decrease throughput as suggested by Applicant.
Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1915). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures take as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 110 USPQ 209 (CCVA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA. 1969). In this instance, as outlined above, the regular spacing and flow wrapping of Kane Jr. readily allows for continuous packaging at a high rate and it would have been readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize such concepts in a system such as Saraf given the motivations outlined.
However, it is noted that the amendment to Claim 9 to include the type of package renders this claim as allowable subject matter but Examiner’s response still applies to Claim 14.
Lastly, regarding Applicant’s arguments pertaining to the 103 rejection of Saraf, in view of Kane Jr. and Fosshage and Peregi, on Pages 19-20, the arguments are persuasive and the corresponding rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See “Notice of References Cited”.
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 JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached 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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 2/24/2026