DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response filed 1 April 2026.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings filed 1 April 2026 are objected to because they are deemed to introduce new matter and have several reference character labeling errors.
Regarding issues of new matter, figs. 4 and 5 have amended the drawings to include reference characters 11.1 and 11.2 which are not deemed to point to point to the first and second protection elements disclosed in the specification and shown in original fig. 3 of 3 October 2024. It is not clear that the first and second protection elements (11.1 and 11.2) were shown in figs. 2 and 4-6 of the original drawings. In the drawings of 1 April 2026, fig. 4 just appears to have 11.1 and 11.2 pointing to arms of 7.1 and 7.2, and fig. 5 appears to have 11.1 and 11.2 pointing to unseen elements beneath a frame of the device.
Regarding issues of reference character labeling, figs. 4 and 5 of the drawings of 1 April 2026 are replete with reference characters (e.g. at least 1, 4, 6.1, 6.2 in fig. 4 and 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 200 in fig. 5) that either are duplicates or point to nothing or the wrong/different element than they did in the original drawings. This appears to be a drafting error involving an offset that was applied to the reference characters that was not corrected for.
For these reasons, the Office is going to address further objections to the drawings as if the drawings of 3 October 2024 are the drawings of record.
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.
The drawings of 3 October 2024 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).
“first and second compacting tools facing each other and configured to move in respective first and second directions opposite one another in the horizontal direction between a first position in which they are arranged a first distance apart, and a second position in which they are arranged a second distance apart, the second distance being smaller than the first distance and smaller than the outlet width of the outlet of the forming tube, the first distance being smaller than the outlet width of the outlet of the forming tube (claim 7)”. Figs. 5 and 6 of the drawings of 3 October 2024 are deemed to show a second distance smaller than a first distance (the distance of figs. 2 and 4) that is smaller than the outlet width (1.1), but figs. 2 and 4 have a distance which is greater than the outlet width (1.1) and therefore the drawings would not be deemed to show the claimed first distance.
“the distribution assembly is arranged to press against the protection assembly to hold it in the operational position” (claim 11).
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 3 of claim 1 it reads, “in which they clamp opposite sides of the film tube together:” The use of the colon rather than a semi-colon is deemed to be grammatically incorrect as what follows is not deemed to be part of the third paragraph but its own unique element. Appropriate correction is required. Claims dependent on claim 1 are objected to for having incorporated this same objected to claim language.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 9-10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon (US Patent 5,054,270) in view of Maxfield (US Patent 2,145,941) in view of Komatsu (US Patent 6,254,911) in further view of Harima et al. (US Patent 4,015,021) hereinafter referred to as Harima.
Regarding claim 1, McMahon discloses a vertical packaging machine (fig. 1; col. 2 lines 49-50) comprising:
a hollow forming tube (10) through which a product (C) to be packaged is supplied, the forming tube being configured to give a tubular shape to a film (12), the hollow forming tube including an outlet (seen in fig. 1) with an outlet width (width between top of elements 24 in fig. 1) in a horizontal direction;
a longitudinal sealing assembly (15; col. 2 lines 57-62) configured to longitudinally seal (17) together two facing ends of the tubular shaped film and to generate a film tube;
a transverse actuation assembly (20, 21, 22) arranged downstream (fig. 1) of the forming tube and including two actuation tools (20, 22) facing each other and configured to move in the horizontal direction (28) between a first position (fig. 2) in which they allow the passage of the film tube through them and a second position (figs. 3-4) in which they clamp opposite sides of the film tube together: and
a compacting assembly (33, 34; or 39, 41-45) arranged downstream (figs. 3-4) of the transverse actuation assembly and that is configured to move in the horizontal direction to compact the product in the film tube (col. 3 line 50 – col. 4 line 10; col. 4 lines 36-43).
McMahon fails to disclose an extraction assembly distinct and separate from the compacting assembly that is configured to extract gas from the film tube.
However, Maxfield teaches a vertical packaging machine (figs. 1-4) comprising an extraction assembly (4, 6, 8) distinct and separate from the compacting assembly (Extraction assembly 4, 6 and 8 is located in the forming tube 1 away from the transverse actuation assembly 10 which would therefore be separate and distinct from the compacting assembly of McMahon located beneath their transverse actuation assembly) that is configured to extract gas from the film tube (T; pg. 2 col. 1 lines 1-25).
Given the teachings of Maxfield, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of McMahon with the forming-tube-located extraction assembly of Maxfield. Doing so would allow a user to remove air and then input a desired type of atmosphere for the packaging as might be wanted for different types of products. Such a combination would result in an extraction assembly distinct and separate from the compacting assembly that is configured to extract gas from the film tube.
McMahon fails to disclose a distribution assembly arranged downstream of the outlet port of the forming tube and outside the film tube.
However, Komatsu teaches a vertical packaging machine (fig. 1) comprising a distribution assembly (21) arranged downstream (fig. 1) of the outlet port of the forming tube (11) and outside the film tube (F; fig. 1), and which in use is configured to modify the distribution of the product inside the film tube (col. 8 lines 20-34), the distribution assembly including a first distribution element (21 on the left in fig. 1) and a second distribution element (21 on the right in fig. 1) facing each other in the horizontal direction and which are continuously spaced from each other in the horizontal direction by a separation distance which allows the product to pass through (fig. 1), the first distribution element comprising a first rotatory element (21 on the left in fig. 1) that is configured to press against an outside of the film tube (col. 8 lines 20-34).
Given the teachings of Komatsu (col. 8 lines 20-34), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to time of effective filing to modify the invention of McMahon to include the distribution assembly of Komatsu. Doing so will help to spread out the product and help to remove unwanted air prior to sealing.
McMahon as modified by Komatsu discloses first and second distribution elements which are continuously spaced from each other in the horizontal direction by a separation distance which allows the product to pass through, but does not disclose the separation distance is which is smaller than the outlet width of the outlet of the forming tube.
However, Harima teaches a first distribution element (9; fig. 3 bottom) and a second distribution element (9; fig. 3 top) facing each other and which in use are spaced from each other by a separation distance which is smaller than the outlet width of the outlet (4; fig. 3) of the forming tube and which allows the product to pass through, the first distribution element comprising a first rotatory element (9; fig. 3 bottom) that is configured to press against an outside of the film tube (5; col. 3 lines 10-20).
Given the teachings of Harima (col. 3 lines 10-20), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of McMahon as modified by Komatsu have the separation distance smaller than the outlet width of the outlet of the forming tube. Harima discloses the benefit of having an adjustable separation distance and shows one such setting that has the distribution elements spaced closer to one another than the outlet width of the forming tube. Doing so allows for the final package to be compressed to a desired width and hold a desired weight of product.
Regarding claim 4, McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu and Harima discloses wherein the second distribution element (Komatsu - 21 on the right in fig. 1; Harima - 9; fig. 3 top) comprises a second rotatory element (Komatsu - 21 on the right in fig. 1; Harima - 9; fig. 3 top) that is configured to press against the outside of the film tube (Komatsu - col. 8 lines 20-34; Harima - col. 3 lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 7, McMahon discloses wherein the compacting assembly (33, 34; or 39, 41-45) comprises first and second compacting tools (33, 34; or 39) facing each other and configured to move in respective first and second directions opposite one another in the horizontal direction between a first position (figs. 1 and 2) in which they are arranged a first distance apart, and a second position (figs. 3-4) in which they are arranged a second distance apart (figs. 3-4; they are still deemed to be “apart” given that while they may overlap in profile, they do not contact one another, see spacing in fig. 6), the second distance being smaller than the first distance and smaller than the outlet width of the outlet of the forming tube (10), the first distance being smaller than the outlet width of the outlet of the forming tube.
Regarding claim 9, McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu and Harima discloses wherein the first and second said distribution elements (Komatsu - 21) are respectively upstream (Komatsu 21 are located upstream of the horizontal sealer 16a and McMahon 33, 34, 39 are downstream of horizontal sealer 20, 22. As such the combination results in the distribution elements being located upstream of the compacting tools) of the first and second compacting tools (McMahon - 33, 34; or 39).
Regarding claim 10, McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu and Harima discloses wherein the distribution assembly (Komatsu – 21; Harima – 9) is arranged between the outlet of the forming tube (McMahon – 10; Komatsu – 11; Harima - 4) and the transverse actuation assembly (McMahon - 20, 21, 22; Komatsu – 16a is equivalent to McMahon 20, 21, 22).
Regarding claim 13, McMahon as modified by Maxfield discloses wherein the extraction assembly (Maxfield - 4, 6, 8) is configured to extract gas from the film tube (Maxfield - T) after (Maxfield – pg. 2, col. 1 lines 9-25 – “After the clamping tools 2, 2 have moved to the position indicated in Figs. 3 and 5 to effect a temporary seal, the valve 8 is opened to exhaust the air from the container C…”) the compacting assembly (McMahon - 33, 34; or 39, 41-45) has moved in the horizontal direction to compact the product in the film tube.
Regarding claim 14, McMahon as modified by Maxfield discloses wherein the extraction assembly (Maxfield - 4, 6, 8) is configured to extract gas from the film tube (Maxfield - T) after (Maxfield – pg. 2, col. 1 lines 9-25 – “After the clamping tools 2, 2 have moved to the position indicated in Figs. 3 and 5 to effect a temporary seal, the valve 8 is opened to exhaust the air from the container C…”) the first and second compacting tools (McMahon - 33, 34; or 39, 41-45) have assumed the second distance apart.
Regarding claim 15, McMahon as modified by Maxfield discloses wherein the extraction assembly (Maxfield - 4, 6, 8) is located at or near the outlet of the forming tube (Maxfield – 1; fig. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 16, McMahon as modified by Maxfield discloses an extender (McMahon - 24) attached to and protruding from the forming tube (McMahon – 10; Maxfield - 1), the extender being configured to stretch the film tube from the inside of the film tube (McMahon – col. 3 lines 5-9), at least a portion of the extraction assembly (Maxfield – 4, 6, 8) being located inside a perimeter formed by the extender (McMahon’s extenders 24 are located at the outside edge of the forming tube. Maxfield’s extraction assembly 4, 6, 8 is located within the boundary of this outside edge).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon (US Patent 5,054,270) in view of Maxfield (US Patent 2,145,941) in view of Komatsu (US Patent 6,254,911) in further view of Harima (US Patent 4,015,021) in view of Tsuruta (US Patent 6,145,282) hereinafter referred to as Tsuruta ‘282.
Regarding claim 2, McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu and Harima discloses a rotation of the first rotatory element (Komatsu - 21 on the left in fig. 1; Harima - 9; fig. 3 bottom), but fails to disclose a drive configured to cause an advancement of the film tube in an advance direction at an advancing speed, a rotation of the first rotatory element being synchronized with the drive so that a tangential component in the advance direction of a turning speed of the first rotatory element is equal to the advancing speed of the film tube.
However, Tsuruta ‘282 teaches a vertical packaging machine (figs. 12-13) comprising a drive (116) configured to cause an advancement of the film tube (101; col. 10 lines 45-47) in an advance direction at an advancing speed, a rotation of the first rotatory element (117 – left side fig. 13) being synchronized (col. 10 lines 48-64) with the drive (116) so that a tangential component in the advance direction of a turning speed of the first rotatory element is equal to the advancing speed of the film tube (col. 10 lines 48-64; col. 13 lines 44-48).
Given the teachings of Tsuruta ‘282 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the drive and synchronization of the drive and rotatory element of Tsuruta ‘282 with the rotatory elements of McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu and Harima. Doing so would help to propel the film throughout the packaging machine at a steady and desired rate and to do so without having the film bunch or overly stretch which would be generally undesirable.
Claim(s) 3, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon (US Patent 5,054,270) in view of Maxfield (US Patent 2,145,941) in view of Komatsu (US Patent 6,254,911) in further view of Harima (US Patent 4,015,021) in view of Tsuruta ‘282 (US Patent 6,145,282) in view of Klinkel et al. (US Patent 4,757,668).
Regarding claim 3, McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu, Harima and Tsuruta ‘282 above discloses wherein the distribution assembly (Komatsu – 21; Harima – 9; Tsuruta ‘282 - 117) is configured to cause the first rotatory element (Komatsu – 21 on the left in fig. 1; Harima - 9; fig. 3 bottom; Tsuruta ‘282 - 117 – left side fig. 13) to rotate, the vertical packaging machine is configured to cause the drive (Tsuruta ‘282 – 116, col. 10 lines 45-47) to act on the film tube, and configured to cause the first rotatory element to rotate and also being configured to synchronize actions of itself with actions of the drive (Tsuruta ‘282 – 116, col. 10 lines 45-64).
McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu, Harima and Tsuruta ‘282 above does not disclose a drive actuator, a first actuator or a control unit.
However, Klinkel teaches the vertical packaging machine comprising a drive actuator (col. 6 lines 8-14 – “drive mechanism”; 44, 46, col. 6 lines 49-54; fig. 4) that is configured to cause the drive (25) to act on the film tube, and a control unit (84, 86; col. 11 lines 24-46) communicated with the drive actuator (col. 9 lines 62-68), an actuator (10) being configured to cause a rotatory element (7) to rotate and also being configured to synchronize actions of itself with actions of the drive actuator (col. 5 lines 57-64).
Given the teachings of Klinkel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu, Harima and Tsuruta ‘282 to have a drive actuator, an actuator for the first rotatory element, and a control unit. It is necessary for the drive (Tsuruta ‘282 - 116) that acts on the film tube of McMahon as modified by Tsuruta ‘282 to have a drive actuator in order to effectuate the motion necessary to create the rotation of that prior art. Doing so would allow the drive to be rotated at the necessary desired speed. Secondly, it is necessary for the first rotatory element of the distribution assembly (Komatsu – 21; Harima – 9; Tsuruta ‘282 - 117) of the prior art to have a first actuator for the same reason of effectuating the motion necessary to create the rotation of that prior art. While the actuator (10) of Klinkel is not driving a distribution assembly, it is still driving a rotating element that needs to work synchronously with the drive regarding the movement of a film tube. These synchronous motions are taught to be controlled by a controller (Klinkel – 84, 86). The advantage of having this function in a controller is that it can be programmed to meet desired production guidelines. In short, the combination of McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu, Harima and Tsuruta ‘282 discloses the first rotatory element and the drive working synchronously with one another. And Klinkel teaches having those elements powered by actuators and controlled by a controller for the reasons provided above. This then is deemed to result in the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu, and Harima above discloses wherein the distribution assembly (Komatsu – 21; Harima – 9; Tsuruta ‘282 - 117) comprises a second actuator (Tsuruta ‘282 – col. 10 lines 51-56 – “a driving means”) is configured to move at least one of the first and second distribution elements in the horizontal direction to adjust the separation distance between the first and second distribution elements (Harima – col. 3 lines 10-20), but does not disclose a second actuator.
Given the teachings of Tsuruta ‘282 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to include the second actuator configured to move at least one of the first and second distribution elements in the horizontal direction of Tsuruta ‘282 with the invention of , McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu, and Harima. , McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu, and Harima is already concerned about moving the first and second distribution elements in a horizontal direction (see Harima – col. 3 lines 10-20). Tsuruta ‘282 teaches that it would have been obvious to include an actuator to achieve such a motion as was notoriously well-known in the art before the time of effective filing. Doing so allows for controlled motion at desired speeds and for desired positions to be achieved and maintained.
Regarding claim 6, McMahon as modified by Maxfield, Komatsu, Harima, Tsuruta ‘282 and Klinkel discloses wherein the second actuator (Tsuruta ‘282 – col. 10 lines 51-56 – “a driving means”) is configured to simultaneously move the first and second distribution elements (Komatsu – 21; Harima – 9; Tsuruta ‘282 - 117) in respective first and second directions in the horizontal direction, the first and second directions being opposite one another (Harima – col. 3 lines 13-17 – “The spacing between the two rolls 9 can be adjusted together”; Tsuruta ‘282 – Fig. 13, direction A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the drawings are not persuasive as the amended drawings are deemed to introduce new matter and raise additional issues. The maintained objections are detailed in the action above.
The Applicant’s arguments as they pertain to the prior art rejection are deemed moot as they are directed toward a combination of prior art references which are no longer being relied upon. This change in the rejection of record is due to the Applicant’s amendments of the independent claim.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights