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 07/27/2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 5-25, and 27-28 are pending for examination.
Specification and Drawings:
Amendments to the specification and drawings have been submitted with the amendment filed on 07/27/2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this
application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set
forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action
has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on
08/11/2026 has been entered.
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, 6-12, 14-15, 19-21 and 27 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 a method of forming a pouch (14), comprising: 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), multiple surfaces of a second portion (See annotated Fig. 4 below; the bottom surface of 10 that extends into the cavity has multiple surfaces along its bottom surface) of the oxygen scavenger (10) extending into and being exposed to 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 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 27, wherein the crimping crimps such that some of the multiple surfaces of the second portion of the oxygen scavenger are orthogonal to each other (Fig. 4 of Jones).
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, 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) and multiple surfaces of a second portion (See annotated Fig. 4 below; the bottom surface of 10 that extends into the cavity has multiple surfaces along its bottom surface, for non-limiting example, see surface 26, 22, and 24) of the oxygen scavenger (10) extending into and being exposed to the sealed inner cavity (cavity of 12)
as recited in the rejection above.
PNG
media_image2.png
406
334
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 22-23 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. No teaching of a distinct matrix material in which the scavenger is dispersed, and no teaching of that matrix being partially adhered within the seam.
Conclusion
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