DETAILED ACTION
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1 – 12 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 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what the term “its transversal axis around the filter bag” is referring to. Would this be the “an over-wrapping envelope”, the “a sheet of over-wrapping material”, the “a transversal bottom flap”, or something else entirely?
Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the “U” shape sheet”.
Regarding claim 1, line 9, it is unclear what the term “it” is referring to. Would this be two longitudinal flaps, a transversal top flap, the bottom flap, the “U” shape sheet or something else?
Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the two longitudinal flaps”.
Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the folded sheet”.
Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the bottom flap”.
Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the respective lateral edges”.
Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the term “said first and second tracks”.
Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the respective longitudinal flaps”.
Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the term “said third track”.
Regarding claim 1, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the two superposed parts of the sheet”.
Regarding claim 2, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the envelope”.
Regarding claim 2, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the first and the second closing tracks”.
Regarding claim 2, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the top flap”.
Regarding claim 2, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the lateral flaps”.
Regarding claim 3, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the envelope”.
Regarding claim 3, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the first and the second closing tracks”.
Regarding claim 3, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the mechanical deformation grooves”.
Regarding claim 3, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the transversal folding axis”.
Regarding claim 4, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the envelope”.
Regarding claim 5, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the envelope”.
Regarding claim 5, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the first and/or the second track”.
Regarding claim 5, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the third track”.
Regarding claim 6, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the envelope”.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 7, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the “U” shape sheet”.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear what the term “its transversal axis around the filter bag” is referring to. Would this be the “an over-wrapping envelope”, the “a sheet of over-wrapping material”, the “a transversal bottom flap”, or something else entirely?
Regarding claim 7, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the respective lateral edges”.
Regarding claim 7, there is no antecedent basis for the term “said first and second closing tracks”.
Regarding claim 7, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the respective longitudinal flaps”.
Regarding claim 7, there is no antecedent basis for the term “said third track”.
Regarding claim 7, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the two superposed parts of the sheet”.
Regarding claim 8, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the first and second tracks”.
Regarding claim 8, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the third track”.
Regarding claim 9, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the first and second tracks”.
Regarding claim 9, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the third track”.
Regarding claim 10, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the first and second closing tracks”.
Regarding claim 10, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the grooves of the first and second closing tracks”.
Regarding claim 11, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the first and second closing tracks”.
Regarding claim 11, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the top flap”.
Regarding claim 11, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the entire respective lateral edge”.
Regarding claim 11, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the entire top flap”.
Regarding claim 12, line 3, it is unclear what the term “it” is referring to. Would this be the “said sheet of over-wrapping material”, “the filter bag”, or something else entirely?
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.
The factual inquiries 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 – 3, 6, 7, and 9 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welin-Berger US 3,223,229 in view of Rambold US 2,083,124.
Regarding claim 1, Welin-Berger discloses an over-wrapping envelope (4) containing a filter bag (1/2) for an infusion product (tea leaves), in leaf form (col. 2, ln 18 – 31) which over-wrapping envelope comprises a sheet (web 6) of over-wrapping material made of paper (col. 1, ln 67 – 72) folded into a "U" shape along its transversal axis (col. 2, ln 33 – 35 and fig. 1) around the filter bag (1/2) in such a way as to have two parts of the sheet (6) of over-wrapping material superposed with interposed said filter bag (1/2), said sheet (6) folded into a "U" shape having peripherally two longitudinal flaps parallel to each other, a transversal bottom flap at the folding of the "U" shape sheet and a transversal top flap (18) parallel to the bottom flap (fig. 1 and 2). Further Welin-Berger discloses a first closing track (14) and a second closing track (15), parallel to each other, which first and second closing tracks are shown as strongly implying grooves along the respective lateral edges of the two longitudinal flaps of the folded sheet (fig. 2) and a third closing track (18) is also shown as strongly implying a grooved structure along the transversal top flap.
In the event that claim 1 can be construed as differing from Welin-Berger in the first closing track, the second closing track, and the third closing track formed as grooves Rambold discloses that it was conventional and extremely old in the art to provide to provide an over-wrapping envelope (wrapped in a protective covering) containing a filter bag capable of containing an infusion product which over-wrapping envelope would be obtained by mechanical deformation of the closing tracks to comprise grooves (connected together by crimping) (page 2, ln 71 – 75). Once it was known that an over-wrapping envelope would be obtained by mechanical deformation (crimping) to form grooves along the edges of a wrapped sheet to form tracks the substitution of one known way to form the over-wrapping envelope as taught by Welin-Berger, with the use of mechanical deformation to form grooves as taught by Rambold to obtain predictable results would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily artisan (MPEP § 2143 I.A.).
Further regarding claim 1, the limitations “the first and second tracks being obtained by mechanical deformation of the two superposed parts of the sheet at the respective longitudinal flaps and a third closing track formed by grooves along the transversal top flap, said third track being obtained by mechanical deformation of the two superposed parts of the sheet at the transversal top flap” are method limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Welin-Berger in view of Rambold discloses the first, second, and third tracks (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Welin-Berger in view of Rambold discloses the first (14) and the second (15) closing tracks intersect the third closing track (18) in at least one joining zone between the lateral flaps and the top flap (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Welin-Berger in view of Rambold discloses the first (14) and second (15) closing tracks have a respective orientation of the mechanical deformation grooves parallel to or transversal to the transversal folding axis of the envelope (4) and the third closing track (18) has an orientation of the mechanical deformation grooves perpendicular to the orientation of the mechanical deformation grooves of the first (14) and second (15) closing tracks (‘229, col. 2, ln 33 – 66 and fig. 2) (‘124, col. 2, ln 71 – 75).
Regarding claim 6, Welin-Berger in view of Rambold discloses the sheet of over-wrapping material would be in direct contact with the filter bag (1/2) without any other material being interposed (col. 2, ln 50 – 56, fig. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 7, Welin-Berger in view of Rambold discloses a method for forming a package with an over-wrapping envelope (4) of a filter bag (1/2) for an infusion product (tea leaves), in leaf form (col. 2, ln 18 – 31), comprising the steps of preparing a sheet (6) of over-wrapping material made of paper (col. 1, ln 67 – 72), folding the U-shaped sheet (6) (passed beyond a guiding and folding device) (col. 2, ln 33 – 35 and fig. 1), along its transversal axis, about the filter bag (1/2) in such a way as to have two parts of the sheet (6) of over-wrapping material superposed with interposed said filter bag (1/2). The sheet (6) is folded in a U-shape having peripherally two longitudinal flaps (fig. 1 and 2) parallel to each other, and a transversal bottom flap at the folding of the U-shaped sheet and a transversal top flap (18) is parallel to the bottom flap (fig. 2). A first (14) and a second (15) closing track are parallel to each other which first and second closing tracks are shown as strongly implying grooves along the respective lateral edges of the two longitudinal flaps of the folded sheet (fig. 2). Said tracks are obtained by mechanical deformation of the two superposed parts of the sheet (6) at the respective longitudinal flaps and a third closing track (18) is similarly obtained and shown as strongly implying grooves along the transversal top flap (18) (wall are pressed together by means of a pair of backing plates) (col. 2, ln, 33 – 66).
In the event that claim 7 can be construed as differing from the method of Welin-Berger in the first closing track, the second closing track, and the third closing track being formed as grooves Rambold discloses that it was conventional and extremely old in the art to provide to provide an over-wrapping envelope (wrapped in a protective covering) containing a filter bag capable of containing an infusion product which over-wrapping envelope would be obtained by mechanical deformation of the closing tracks to comprise grooves (connected together by crimping) (col. 2, ln 71 – 75). Once it was known that the method of forming a package with an over-wrapping envelope of a filter bag would be obtained by mechanical deformation (crimping) to form grooves along the edges of a wrapped sheet to form tracks the substitution of one known method of forming the over-wrapping envelope as taught by Welin-Berger, with the method of mechanical deformation to form grooves as taught by Rambold to obtain predictable results would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily artisan (MPEP § 2143 I.A.).
Regarding claim 9, Welin-Berger in view of Rambold discloses the step of making the first (14), second (15), and third (18) tracks occur simultaneously (‘229, col. 2, ln 49 – 66),
Regarding claim 10, Welin-Berger in view of Rambold discloses the step of making the first (14) and second (15) closing tracks would be obtained with a mechanical deformation capable of making repeated grooves having an orientation parallel to or transversal to the transversal axis (col. 2, ln 33 – 66 and fig. 2) (‘124, col. 2, ln 71 – 75). Similarly Welin-Berger in view of Rambold discloses the step of making the third closing track (18) is obtained with a mechanical deformation capable of making repeated grooves having an orientation transversal to or parallel to the orientation of the grooves of the first (14) and second (15) tracks (col. 2, ln 33 – 66 and fig. 2) (‘124, col. 2, ln 71 – 75).
Regarding claim 11, Welin-Berger in view of Rambold discloses the step of making the first (14) and second (15) closing tracks comprises the formation of the grooves along the entire respective lateral edge of the two longitudinal flaps of the folded sheet (6), until striking the top flap, and wherein the step of making the third closing track(9) comprises the formation of the grooves (18) along the entire top flap until striking the longitudinal flaps, in such a way that the first (14) and the second (15) closing tracks intersect the third closing track (18) in at least one respective joining zone between the longitudinal flaps and the top flap (col. 2, ln 33 – 66 and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Welin-Berger in view of Rambold discloses said sheet (6) of over-wrapping material is wrapped around the filter bag (4) without any interposing of other material, in direct in contact therewith (col. 2, ln 50 – 56, fig. 1 and 2).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welin-Berger US 3,223,229 in view of Rambold US 2,083,124 in view of Magatti et al. US 2023/0271774.
Claim 4 differs from Welin-Berger in view of Rambold in the sheet of over-wrapping material made of recycled paper.
Magatti discloses with respect to packages capable of storing infusion products it is now conventional and preferable in the art to provide paper-based materials that are recyclable (paragraph [0008] – [0009]). To therefore modify Welin-Berger in view of Rambold and make the sheet of over-wrapping material from a recycled paper material as taught by Magatti would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welin-Berger US 3,223,229 in view of Rambold US 2,083,124 in view of Zoller et al. US 2,965,225
Claim 5 differs from Welin-Berger in view of Rambold in there being at least one weakening notch capable of opening the envelope made on the first and/or the second track and/or on the third track.
Zoller discloses an over-wrapping envelope (11) containing a product which envelope comprises a sheet of over-wrapping material made of paper folded into a “U” shape along an axis around the product contained therein with closing tracks (12/14) formed by grooves along a respective lateral edge and a longitudinal closing track (13) formed by grooves along a transversal top flap (col. 2, ln 19 – 25 and fig. 1). Zoller further discloses there would be a notch (15) made on one of the first, second, or third tracks (col. 2, ln 66 – 70 and fig. 1). Zoller is providing the notch to facilitate the tearing of the over-wrapping envelope and to mark the place where the envelope should be torn which is applicant’s reasons for doing so as well. To therefore modify Welin-Berger in view of Rambold and provide a notch as taught by Zoller to facilitate the tearing of the over-wrapping envelope and to mark the place where the envelope should be torn would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welin-Berger US 3,223,229 in view of Rambold US 2,083,124 view of Bartelt US 2,649,674.
Claim 8 differs from Welin-Berger in view of Rambold in the making of the first and second tracks, and the making of the third track occurring in terms of time in two separate moments.
Bartelt discloses it was common, conventional, and well established in the art to form an over-wrapping envelope from paper folded into a “U” shape which envelope would contain a product. An over-wrapping envelope (11) (fig. 3) if formed containing a product (12) which over-wrapping envelope comprises a sheet (20) of over-wrapping material made of paper folded into a "U" shape along its transversal axis (fig. 2) around the product in such a way as to have two parts of the sheet (20) of over-wrapping material superposed with interposed said product, said sheet (20) is folded into a "U" shape having peripherally two longitudinal flaps parallel to each other (side seams 14), with a transversal bottom flap (15) at the folding of the "U" shape sheet and a transversal top flap (16) parallel to the bottom flap (fig. 6). Further Bartelt discloses a first closing track (14) and a second closing track (14), parallel to each other which are closed in one moment of time, the product is then filled therein, and the third track (16) is then formed closing said envelope (to form the seam 16) in a second, separate moment of time (col. 3, ln 18 – 41 and fig. 2 and 3). Bartelt is making the first and second tracks in a first moment of time and then forming the third track in a separate second moment of time for the art recognized purpose of improving construction and simplifying operation so that the bags may be made and operated at a high speed to package articles.
Once it was known to form the first and second tracks in one moment of time and then form the third track in a second separate moment of time to simplify the construction of the over-wrapping envelope and improve the speed at which said envelopes may be packaged the substitution of one known method of forming the over-wrapping envelope, that is the method of Welin-Berger in view of Rambold, with method of Bartelt to obtain predictable results would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. The express suggestion to substitute one equivalent over-wrapping envelope sealing method for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious (MPEP § 2143 B.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 25 July 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights