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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of Claims, filed on 07/08/2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 5, and 8-11 are pending for examination.
Claims 2-4, and 6-7 is canceled.
Claims 1 is currently amended.
New claim 11 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodin et al. (US 20220112638 A1) in view of Heinrich (US 5173154 A), and in further view of Aspgren et al. (US 20180271146 A9).
Attention is directed to Applicants use of alternative language, “or” which means that only one of the requirements (A or B) is needed to meet the claim, In this instance case, the office is only required to meet the requirement of option A - ranges of 2.2-3mm and 140-155 °C.
Regarding claim 1, Bodin discloses a method of packaging a nicotine pouch (Abstract: “a packaging material for use in an oral pouched snuff product”) comprising:
forming a longitudinal seal and a cross seal of a packaging material ([0094]-[0095]: “longitudinal seal and the transverse seals”) of a packaging material ([0074], [0082]),
wherein the packaging material comprises soft pulp ([0050]: “The fibres of the first type, which may be dispensed with, may be natural cellulose fibres or a man-made cellulose-based fibres….see also [0035] “fibres of the first type may be selected to be soft,…), and polypropylene (PP)/polyethylene (PE) ([0063], [0095]), and
a sealing temperature at which the longitudinal seal and the cross seal are formed ranges from 140°C to 155°C ([0095]: Bodin teaches a broader range of longitudinal and transversal seals set at 160 °C…and that seal temperature is chosen from the material’s melting point. PE melts at 110-150°C [0094] and “the second type may have a melting point within the range of 110-150° C.” [0060]),
Bodin does not expressly teach 55 to 65 wt% of soft pulp, and 35 to 45 wt% of polypropylene (PP)/polyethylene (PE)
Heinrich in a related invention teaches tea bag paper comprises a first phase of natural fibers in a weight percentage of from 60% to 85%, and a second phase of heat-sealable synthetic fibers with the remainder of the weight percentage of from 15% to 40% (Abstract and Col 2 lines 17-29; Heinrich teaches 60% to 85% which overlaps the claimed range of 55 to 65, and 15 to 40% for the PP/PE which overlaps the claimed range of 35 to 45). Heinrich further teaches natural fibers, such as hemp, Manila hemp, jute, sisal and others, as well as long-fiber wood pulp may be used for the first layer. Preferred materials for the second layer of heat-sealable fibers are polyethylene, polypropylene or copolymers of vinyl chloride and vinyl acetate (Col 2 lines 42-47).
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 Bodin by incorporating the percent weight of the pulp and PP/PE as taught by Heinrich in order to obtain a light weight, heat-sealable web with substantially enhanced diffusion that can be processed on high-speed automatic machines (Abstract). Additionally, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have 55 to 65 wt% of soft pulp, and 35 to 45 wt% of polypropylene (PP)/polyethylene (PE), 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. Routine optimization to the precise claimed range is obvious and an obvious matter of design choice since applicants have not disclosed that the specific ranges solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well given applicants own data and claimed ranges.
Bodin as modified by Heinrich does not teach the longitudinal seal and the cross seal have a width of 2.2 mm to 3 mm.
Aspgren teaches a longitudinal seal and the cross seal have a width of 2.2 mm to 3 mm ([0108]-[0109]; “transverse fin seams each one having a width of about 2 to 3 mm…. a longitudinal fin seam having a width of 2 to 4 mm” which falls in the range of 2-3mm and therefore meets the limitation…see also [0101] and [0105]).
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 Bodin as modified by incorporating sealing widths as taught by Aspgren in order to allow for more tidier, more visually appealing and more discrete seals ([0102]).
Bodin as modified further does not disclose the specific range of sealing temperature are formed ranges from 140℃ to 155℃.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sealing temperature at which the longitudinal seal and the cross seal are formed ranges from 140℃ to 155℃, 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. The 160℃ is adjacent to the claimed range (<=5℃); routine optimization to the precise claimed range is obvious and an obvious matter of design choice since applicant has not disclosed that the specific range of 140℃ to 155℃, solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a range of 140℃ to 155℃ given applicants own data and former claimed ranges.
Bodin as modified further teaches:
Regarding claim 5, Bodin discloses the longitudinal seal but is silent regarding wherein the longitudinal seal is sealed by a lap seal method.
Aspergen in a related invention teaches the longitudinal seal being sealed by a lap seal method ([0086], [0101], [0104] and [0105]; Fig. 2a-2c).
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 Bodin as modified by incorporating a lap seal method as taught by Aspergen in order to allow for reduced film consumption and improved aesthetics.
Regarding claim 8, wherein the longitudinal seal and the cross seal have a seal strength of 0.2 newtons per millimeter (N/mm) or greater ([0069] of Bodin).
Regarding claim 9, A nicotine pouch manufactured by the method of packaging a nicotine pouch of claim 1 (Abstract of Bodin: “packaging material for use in an oral pouched snuff product”).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the longitudinal seal and the cross seal have a width of 2.2 mm to 3 mm (Aspergen-[0108]-[0109]; “transverse fin seams each one having a width of about 2 to 3 mm…. a longitudinal fin seam having a width of 2 to 4 mm” which falls in the range of 2-3mm and therefore meets the limitation…see also [0101] and [0105]) but Bodin as modified does not teach the sealing temperature at which the longitudinal seal and the cross seal are formed ranges from 140°C to 150C (Note: Bodin teaches a range up to 160°C and teaches that seal temperature is set to material melting point. PE melts at 110-150°C, preferably 120-140°C [0063]-[0063], [0094]-[0095]).
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sealing temperature at which the longitudinal seal and the cross seal are formed ranges from 140℃ to 150℃, 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. The 160℃ is adjacent to the claimed range; routine optimization to the precise claimed range is obvious and an obvious matter of design choice through routine experimentation and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a range of 140℃ to 150℃ given applicants own data and former claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 11, wherein the longitudinal seal and the cross seal have a width of 2.5 mm to 3 mm (Aspergen-[0108]-[0109]; “transverse fin seams each one having a width of about 2 to 3 mm…. a longitudinal fin seam having a width of 2 to 4 mm” which falls in the range of 2-3mm and therefore meets the limitation…see also [0101] and [0105]) but Bodin as modified does not teach the sealing temperature at which the longitudinal seal and the cross seal are formed ranges from 140°C to 155°C (Note: Bodin teaches a range up to 160 and teaches that seal temperature is set to material melting point. PE melts at 110-150 [0063]-[0064], [0094]-[0095]).
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have sealing temperature at which the longitudinal seal and the cross seal are formed ranges from 140℃ to 155℃, 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. The 160℃ is adjacent to the claimed range; routine optimization to the precise claimed range is obvious and an obvious matter of design choice through routine experimentation and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with a range of 140℃ to 155℃ given applicants own data and former claimed ranges.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination used in the current rejection that is due to the newly added claim amendments.
Applicant has amended claim 1 and therefore the Bodin in view of Persson reference for the 103 rejection no longer applies. Application of Bodin in view of Heinrich and Aspgren is now relied upon for teaching the newly added subject matter of claim 1. Please see the new rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sebastian et al. (US 20220386689 A1) shows a method of packaging a nicotine pouch ([0017], [0073]) of a packaging material ([0026]-[0027]), wherein the packaging material comprises soft pulp and polypropylene (PP)/polyethylene (PE) ([0009], [0012], [0044] [0050]), and a sealing temperature at which the longitudinal seal and the cross seal ([0073], [0067])
Williams (US 9820507 B2) shows a method of packaging a nicotine pouch (10) includes a pouch wrapper formed of a web having a longitudinal integrated fin and lap seal. The pouch wrapper contains a filling material including tobacco material and optional additives.
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 on (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 IGBOKWE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3731
/ANDREW M TECCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights