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
Receipt is acknowledged of claim amendment, filed on 02/11/2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1 and 5-26 are pending for examination.
Claims 2-4 are canceled.
Addition of Claims 21-26 are acknowledged.
Specification and Drawings:
Amendments to the specification and drawings have not been submitted with the amendment filed on 02/11/2026.
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 following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
the first portion has a second longitudinal length (claim 26)
the second portion has a third longitudinal length (claim 26)
First longitudinal length of the seam (Claim 1)
Second longitudinal length (Claim 21)
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.
Claims 21, 22, and 26 are 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 way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites “wherein the crimping crimps such that the seam runs along a second longitudinal length of the pouch.” This language is not present anywhere in the Specification. The application discloses the general concept of a seam, but not the specific narrowing process of wherein the crimping crimps such that the seam runs along a second longitudinal length of the pouch. As such the claim as written is not deemed to have the full support of the Specification.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites “wherein the adhering adheres such that a portion of the matrix material and an inner surface of the pouch material are melted together during the adhering,” This language is not present anywhere in the Specification. The specific narrowing process of a portion of the matrix material and an inner surface of the pouch material are melted together during the adhering is not described in the specification to convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As such the claim as written is not deemed to have the full support of the Specification.
Regarding claim 26, the claim recites “wherein the first portion has a second longitudinal length, and the second portion has a third longitudinal length, the second longitudinal length being equal to the third longitudinal length.” This language is not present anywhere in the Specification. The application discloses the general concept of a scavenger who one portion in the seam and another extending into the cavity, but not the specific narrowing feature that those two portions have equal longitudinal lengths. As such the claim as written is not deemed to have the full support of the Specification.
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 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6-15, 19-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Jones et al (US 5,882,749) in view of Lui et al (US 20180354702 A1), and in further view of Garrill et al. (US 6119853 A).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses adhering a first portion (portion of 10 within the horizontal dash line; Fig. 4) of an oxygen scavenger (Strip 10; “Other materials which can be added to a layer of the strip are oxygen scavenging, moisture absorbers or desiccants”-Col 11 lines 49-55) to a pouch material (14), the adhering including
adhering ends (M) of the pouch material (14) to a seam (@24) that includes the first portion of the oxygen scavenger (10; the portion of 10 within the dotted horizontal line at the Margin, M-Fig. 4),
the first portion (the portion of 10 within the dotted horizontal line at the Margin, M-Fig. 4) extending along a first longitudinal length of the seam (the first portion is captured and embedded longitudinally within the heat sealed seam; See also Fig. 16 showing strip positioned lengthwise between the two panels in the seam region),
the adhering causing the pouch material to define a sealed inner cavity (cavity of 12), a second portion (See annotated Fig. 4 below) of the oxygen scavenger (10) extending into the sealed inner cavity (cavity of 12)
PNG
media_image1.png
406
334
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jones does not disclose the pouch material being gas and moisture impermeable.
Lui in a related invention teaches that it is old and well known to have a pouch material being gas and moisture impermeable (Para [0019], [0070] and [0103]-[0105]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jones to incorporate a pouch material being gas and moisture impermeable surface as taught by Lui because these properties are often desired for maintaining the integrity of the product therein (Para [0019] of Lui).
However, Jones in view of Lui is silent regarding the adhering including
crimping ends of the pouch material to a seam.
Garrill in a related invention teaches an adhering process that includes crimping ends (Fig. 2) of the pouch material (22) to a seam (32; Col 7 lines 32-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jones in view of Lui to incorporate crimping ends of pouch to form a seam in a pouch as taught by Garrill because crimping is a known, reliable method for producing gas-tight and moisture-tight seals in multi-layer flexible packaging materials.
Jones as modified further teaches:
Regarding claim 6, wherein the crimping crimps by applying heat to the oxygen scavenger (10 of Jones) and pressing the first portion (the portion of 10 within the dotted horizontal line at the Margin, M-Fig. 4) of the oxygen scavenger (10) against a first section of an inner surface (inner surface of 18 of Jones) of the pouch material, the oxygen scavenger (10 of Jones) including a matrix material (Col 5 lines 1-50 of Jones), the matrix material including at least one first polymer material (Col 5 lines 1-10 of Jones).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the inner surface of the pouch material includes at least one first polymer layer (Col 6 lines 5-40 of Jones).
Regarding claim 8, further comprising: forming the at least one first polymer layer to include a sealant that is a polymer- based sealant, a resin-based sealant, or a polymer-based sealant and a resin-based sealant (Col 6 lines 5-40 of Jones).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the at least one first polymer material is polyethylene (Col 6 lines 5-40 of Jones).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the crimping crimps (Col 7 lines 32-64 of Garrill) such that a first surface of a first polymer layer forms an inner surface of the sealed inner cavity (18; Fig. 4 of Jones), the adhering adheres the first portion of the oxygen scavenger (10 of Jones) into a first section of the first surface (Fig. 4 of Jones).
Regarding claim 11, Jones discloses wherein the adhering adheres a first polymer layer to the pouch material (14 of Jones), the first polymer layer forming an inner surface of the sealed inner cavity (Cavity of package 16).
Jones does not disclose the oxygen scavenger including at least one active element dispersed within the first polymer layer.
Lui in a related invention teaches that it is old and well known to have oxygen scavenger including at least one active element dispersed within the first polymer layer (Para [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jones to incorporate one active element dispersed within the first polymer layer as taught by Lui in order to further minimize oxygen exposure (Para [0024]).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the adhering adheres a matrix material (Col 5 lines 1-10 of Jones) to a first surface of the pouch material (14 of Jones), the first surface forming an inner surface of the sealed inner cavity (Fig. 4 of Jones).
Regarding claim 13, Jones as modified discloses wherein the adhering at least partially adheres a matrix material (Material of 12 and/or 10) within the seam (Col 7 lines 32-64 as modified), but is silent regarding the oxygen scavenger including at least one active element dispersed within the matrix material
Lui further discloses the oxygen scavenger including at least one active element dispersed within a matrix material ([0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jones as modified to incorporate one active element dispersed within the first polymer layer as taught by Lui in order to further minimize oxygen exposure (Para [0024]).
Regarding claim 14, Jones as modified discloses wherein the pouch material but is silent regarding having a foil layer between a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer.
Lui further discloses pouch material includes a foil layer (114) between a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer (Fig. 1; [0063]-[0064], [0098]-[0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jones as modified to incorporate a foil layer between a first polymer layer and a second polymer layer as taught by Lui in order to retain hydrogen and facilitates achieving an oxygen-free headspace of the package (Para [0063]).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the pouch material further includes at least one polymer layer (Col 6 lines 5-40 of Jones), and the adhering adheres the at least one polymer layer to the oxygen scavenger (10; Fig. 4 of Jones).
Regarding claim 19, Jones teaches reducing an oxygen level in the sealed inner cavity (via scavenger 10).
Jones is silent regarding further comprising: reducing an oxygen level of ambient air that is in the sealed inner cavity to a level that is 2% oxygen or less within a period of 30 days or less, an initial gas in the sealed inner cavity being ambient air.
Lui in a related invention teaches that it is old and well known to reducing an oxygen level in the sealed inner cavity to a level that is 2% oxygen or less within a period of 30 days or less, an initial gas in the sealed inner cavity being ambient air ([0042]-[0043], [0076], [0096] and [0112]-[0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jones to incorporate reducing an oxygen level in the sealed inner cavity to a level that is 2% oxygen or less as taught by Lui In this way, a product storage space or headspace that is sufficiently oxygen-free (sufficiently oxygen-free being dependent on the application) for many oxygen-sensitive products can be achieved ([0042]), and additionally modifying the initial condition to ambient air would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because Liu already teaches reducing oxygen levels from oxygen-containing package headspace conditions to 2 percent oxygen or less, using the disclosed oxygen scavenging system. Such modification would merely involve the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to obtain the predictable and expected result of oxygen reduction within the sealed cavity Additionally, substituting ambient air for flushed air atmosphere would have been an obvious matter of design choice because the reference expressly teaches that the scavenging reaction consumes oxygen remaining within the package, thereby rendering the precise source of oxygen noncritical to operation of the disclosed system.
Regarding claim 20, Jones teaches further comprising: enclosing a consumable item within the pouch material (Col 8 lines 23-26),
Jones is silent regarding the consumable item being an e-vaping cartridge with a pre-vapor formulation.
Lui in a related invention teaches that it is old and well known to enclosing a consumable item within the pouch material, the consumable item being an e-vaping cartridge with a pre-vapor formulation (Para [0022], [0037], [0072]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jones to incorporate the consumable item being an e-vaping cartridge as taught by Lui in order to maintain the integrity of the product.
Regarding claim 21, wherein the crimping crimps (Fig. 2) such that the seam runs along a second longitudinal length of the pouch (32; Col 7 lines 32-64 of Garill).
Regarding claim 22, wherein the adhering adheres such that a portion of the matrix material (Material of 12 and/or 10 of Jones) and an inner surface (inner surface of 18 of Jones) of the pouch material are melted together during the adhering, the matrix material (Col 4 lines 6-15, Col 5 lines 1-65, Col 6 lines 5-41, and Col 8 lines 1-65, Col 15 lines 1-9, Col 21, Example IV, and Col 22 Example VIII of Jones) and the inner surface being made from a same material (Col 8 lines 1-65 and Col 20-22; both polyethylene based material).
Regarding claim 23, wherein the same material is a polyethylene-based sealant (Col 4 lines 15-23, Col 5 lines 1-65, Col 6 lines 5-41, and Col 8 lines 1-65 of Jones).
Regarding claim 26, wherein the first portion (the portion of 10 within the dotted horizontal line at the Margin, M-Fig. 4) has a second longitudinal length and the second portion (See Annotated Fig. 4 above) has a third longitudinal length, the second longitudinal length being equal to the third longitudinal length (Fig. 4 of Jones; Jones strip 10 having the first and second portion are parts of the same continuous strip, so they inherently have equal longitudinal lengths along the seam direction).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Jones et al (US 5,882,749) in view of Lui et al (US 20180354702 A1) and Garrill et al. (US 6119853 A), and in further view of Dalpe et al. (US 20120207954 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Jones as modified discloses the crimping process (Col 7 lines 32-64 of Garrill).
However, Jones as modified does not disclose applying heat to the joined ends of the pouch material to bring the joined ends to a temperature between about 137 °C and 205 °C, and applying pressure to the joined ends, the pressure being between about 20 psi and 40 psi, the applying the heat and pressure occurring over a duration of less than 1 minute.
Garrill in a related invention teaches applying heat to the joined ends of the pouch material to bring the joined ends to a temperature between about 137 °C and 205 °C, and applying pressure to the joined ends, the pressure being between about 20 psi and 40 psi, the applying the heat and pressure occurring over a duration of less than 1 minute ([0058]-[0060] of Dalpe).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Jones as modified to incorporate applying heat to the joined ends of the pouch material to bring the joined ends to a temperature between about 137 °C and 205 °C, and applying pressure to the joined ends, the pressure being between about 20 psi and 40 psi as taught by Dalpe in order to form strong seals ([0060] of Dalpe).
Claims 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (US 5,882,749) in view of Lui et al (US 20180354702 A1) and Garrill et al. (US 6119853 A), and in further view of Frisk (US 6071626).
Regarding claim 16, Jones as modified discloses the method of forming a pouch as rejected above in claims 1 including the oxygen scavenger in a matrix material (oxygen scavenger in the matrix material of 10; Fig. 4 of Jones) including at least one first polymer but does not expressly disclose an oxygen scavenger including iron fragments.
Frisk in a related invention oxygen scavenger including iron fragments (Col 3 lines 40-60 to Col 4 lines 1-9)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jones as modified by incorporating iron fragments in the oxygen scavenger as taught by Frisk, in order to accelerate the scavenging process (Col 4 lies 1-9 of Frisk).
Claim 17-18 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al (US 5,882,749) in view of Lui et al (US 20180354702 A1) and Garrill et al. (US 6119853 A), and in further view of Beckwith et al. (US 20050239200 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Jones as modified discloses the method of forming a pouch as rejected above in claims 1 but does not expressly disclose infusing a light-sensitive activator into at least one first portion of an inner surface of the pouch material, the light-sensitive activator being configured to bind with free-oxygen to activate the oxygen scavenger following an exposure to a light source.
Beckwith in a related invention teaches infusing a light-sensitive activator into at least one first portion of an inner surface of the pouch material, the light-sensitive activator being configured to bind with free-oxygen to activate the oxygen scavenger following an exposure to a light source (Para [0070]-[0079], [0096], [0108]-[0109] and [0118])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jones as modified by incorporating light sensitive activator as taught by Beckwith in order to control oxygen levels and extend shelf life of the packaging.
Regarding claim 18, infusing a light-sensitive activator within the oxygen scavenger, and exposing the light-sensitive activator to a light source to cause the light-sensitive activator to bind with free-oxygen to activate the oxygen scavenger (Para [0070]-[0079], [0096], [0108]-[0109] and [0118]).
Regarding claim 24, Jones as modified discloses the method of forming a pouch as rejected above in claims 18 but does not expressly disclose infusing a light-sensitive activator into at least one first portion of an inner surface of the pouch material, the light-sensitive activator being configured to bind with free-oxygen to activate the oxygen scavenger following an exposure to a light source.
Beckwith in a related invention teaches infusing a light-sensitive activator into at least one first portion of an inner surface of the pouch material, the light-sensitive activator being configured to bind with free-oxygen to activate the oxygen scavenger following an exposure to a light source (Para [0070]-[0079], [0096], [0108]-[0109] and [0118])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jones as modified by incorporating light sensitive activator as taught by Beckwith in order to control oxygen levels and extend shelf life of the packaging.
Regarding claim 25, Jones as modified discloses the method of forming a pouch as rejected above in claim 20 but does not expressly disclose infusing a light-sensitive activator into at least one first portion of an inner surface of the pouch material, the light-sensitive activator being configured to bind with free-oxygen to activate the oxygen scavenger following an exposure to a light source.
Beckwith in a related invention teaches infusing a light-sensitive activator into at least one first portion of an inner surface of the pouch material, the light-sensitive activator being configured to bind with free-oxygen to activate the oxygen scavenger following an exposure to a light source (Para [0070]-[0079], [0096], [0108]-[0109] and [0118])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Jones as modified by incorporating light sensitive activator as taught by Beckwith in order to control oxygen levels and extend shelf life of the packaging.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-9 of the Remarks, filed on 02/11/2026, with respect to the rejection of independent claim under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the “Applicant asserts that the newly amendments to claims overcome the current prior art on record
In response to applicant's argument, Examiner has noted in the rejection above that Jones is deemed to teach this subject matter and points to the fact that Jones does disclose a second portion (the portion that extends beyond the two horizontal dashed line in Fig. 4) of the Oxygen Scavenger (10) extending into the sealed inner cavity (Cavity of 18) as explained in the rejection above, and in the annotated Fig. 4 below, including the first portion (the portion of 10 within the dotted horizontal line at the Margin, M-Fig. 4) extending along a first longitudinal length of the seam (the first portion is captured and embedded longitudinally within the heat sealed seam; See also Fig. 16 showing strip positioned lengthwise between the two panels in the seam region, thereby evidencing that the seam-embedded portion extends longitudinally along the seam as recited in claim 1) as recited in the rejection above.
PNG
media_image2.png
406
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE whose telephone number is (571)272-1124. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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.
/NICHOLAS E IGBOKWE/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights