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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt is acknowledged of RCE, filed on 03/16/2026, which has been placed of record and entered in the file.
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-5, and 8-10 are pending for examination.
Claims 6-7 is canceled.
Claims 1 is currently amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 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.
Claims 1-5, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodin et al. (US 20220112638 A1) in view of Persson et al. (US 20180255826 A1).
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 2-3mm 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”) by forming a longitudinal seal and a cross seal ([0094]-[0095]: “longitudinal seal and the transverse seals”) of a packaging material ([0074]), the method comprising:
wherein the packaging material comprises 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), and a thermoplastic resin fiber ([0033]: “The fibres of the second type are thermoplastic fibres”),
a sealing temperature at which the longitudinal seal and the cross seal are formed ranges from 140℃ to 155℃ ([0095]: Bodin teaches a broader range of longitudinal and transversal seals set at 160 °C).
Bodin doesn’t teach the longitudinal seal, and the cross seal have a width of 2 millimeters (mm) to 3 mm.
Persson in a related invention teaches the longitudinal seal and the cross seal have a width of 2 millimeters (mm) to 3 mm ([0033] “each pouch comprising a first elongated seal and a second elongated seal, each of said first elongated seal and a second elongated seal having a seal length extending along the transverse direction of the product and a seal width extending along the longitudinal direction of the product, the seal width being equal to or less than 2 mm, such as within the range of from 0.1 mm to 2 mm” which falls in the range of 2-3mm and therefore meets the limitation).
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 sealing widths as taught by Persson in order to allow for the formation of strong, reliable seals without unnecessarily widening the seal area, and the pouch will thus lack protruding unsealed edges which may affect how densely the products spontaneously will pack when randomly filled into an interior container space (Perrson: [0032]).
Bodin in view of Persson 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 160℃ given applicants own data and former claimed ranges.
Bodin in view of Persson further teaches:
Regarding claim 2, wherein the pulp comprises soft pulp ([0038] of Bodin), and the thermoplastic resin fiber comprises polypropylene (PP)/polyethylene (PE) ([0063] of Bodin).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the packaging material comprises 50 to 80% by weight (wt%) of soft pulp, and 20 to 50 wt% of PP/PE ([0046]-[0048] of Bodin teaches ranges that all fall within the range as required by the claim and therefore meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the packaging material comprises 55 to 65 wt% of soft pulp, and 35 to 45 wt% of PP/PE ([0048] of Bodin teaches ranges that all fall within the range as required by the claim and therefore meets the limitation).
Regarding claim 5, Bodin discloses the longitudinal seal but is silent regarding wherein the longitudinal seal is sealed by a lap seal method.
Persson in a related invention teaches the longitudinal seal being sealed by a lap seal method ([0061], [0174] and [0063]).
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 sealing widths as taught by Persson 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 mm to 3 mm ([0033] of Persson), 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).
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 160℃ given applicants own data and former claimed ranges.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 USC 103:
Applicant's arguments, see pages 4-5 of the Remarks, filed on 09/03/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(a) Applicant argues that the Bodin does not teach the numerical ranges of sealing temperature of 140-155 degrees, and that it would have been based on improper hindsight to do so.
This is not found persuasive because 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 160℃ given applicants own data and former claimed ranges. This is not hindsight because A person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to form the longitudinal and cross seals of the PP/PE-containing nonwoven material disclosed in Bodin at a sealing temperature of 140–155°C (instead of the exemplified 160°C) because: the reference expressly teaches selecting temperature with reference to the melting point of the thermoplastic fibres (see atleast [0039], [0059]-[0061] and [0095]); 160°C is disclosed as a working example for the identical PP/PE material and not rigid, critical value but rather a practical operating temperature chosen to ensure adequate seal strength; optimizing temperature slightly lower is a routine adjustment to ensure melting/softening for seal strength, as recognized in the reference and confirmed by applicant’s own results at the range upto 155°C.
Thus, the claimed temperature range of 140–155°C for the 2–3 mm seal embodiment is rendered obvious by the 160°C teaching in Bodin.
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