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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 5/15/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-31 are cancelled.
Claims 33-37, 39, 56-57, 60 and 61 are now also cancelled.
Claims 32, 38, 40-55, 58-59, and 62-63 remain pending.
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 32, 38, 40-55, 58-59, and 62-63 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 32, lines 5-6 recite “products comprising at least one product”. Claim 32 recites this multiple times throughout the claim and this limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to how plural “products” can include the alternative of “one product” which is included in the recitation “at least one product”.
Claims 49, 50, and 55 also recite “the products comprising at least one product” which therefore renders the claim indefinite for the same reasoning as above.
Further regarding Claim 32, lines 20-21 recite “at least two of said at least three dispensing units include a plurality of dispensers”. Further lines 30-31 recite “a third dispensing group of said at least three dispensers comprises at least one dispenser”. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to whether or not a first and second group of dispensers was intended to be defined by the “at least two of said at least three dispensing units” and further it is unclear if “said at least three dispensers” in lines 30-31 is referring to the “at least three dispensing units” of lines 20-21. Lastly, lines 30-31 refer to “a third dispensing group” whereas lines 20-21 refer to “at least two of said at least three dispensing units” and therefore it is unclear if the “at least two” are also referring to two “dispensing groups” similar to the “third dispensing group”. In general, the language with which the details of the dispensing device is used is inconsistent, hence leading to indefiniteness.
Claim 55 recites similar limitations to that as outlined above and therefore is rendered indefinite for the same reasoning as outlined above.
Lastly regarding Claim 32, lines 48-55 recite “wherein the at least one dispenser is configured to apply a line of sealant to an area of the web material corresponding to a paper wrapping sheet along a direction parallel to one of the two sides parallel to the sheet feeding direction, and the said at least one dispenser is configured to apply a line of sealant along a direction parallel to each of the two sides transverse to the sheet feeding direction”. These limitations render the claims further indefinite as it is unclear what dispenser both “the at least one dispenser” and “the said at least one dispenser” are referring to. Based on the claim language it would appear this is referring to different dispensers but it is also unclear which dispensers are being referred to. It is unclear if this is referring to “at least two of said at least three dispensing units” and the “third dispensing group” or the individual dispensers thereof.
Claim 55 recites similar limitations to that as outlined above and therefore is rendered indefinite for the same reasoning as outlined above
Regarding Claims 41 and 42, both claims recites “the at least one dispenser” but such a recitation is recited multiple times in Claim 32 and recited with respect to different dispensers (see above) and therefore the claims are rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claim 46, line 2 recites “a sealant supply system” which is already defined in Claim 32 and therefore it is unclear if this is referring to the same system and therefore the claim is rendered indefinite.
Regarding Claims 58 and 59, the claims recite “the first line of sealant” and “the second line of sealant” which both lack antecedent basis within the claim and therefore render the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 63, line 2 recites “a sealant”, however this renders the claim indefinite as several different sealants are mentioned in Claim 55 and therefore it is unclear what sealant is being referred to or if this is referring to a different sealant.
Further regarding Claim 63, the claim recites “the cooling step is carried out on the web material before cutting”, however, this is not consistent with Claim 55 which outlines “a sealant is applied to the single paper wrapping sheets” wherein the sheets are generated by cutting as define in Claim 55. Therefore such a limitation in Claim 63 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to how the sealant can be cooled if not applied.
Claims 38, 40, 43-45, 47-48, 51-54, and 62 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite as the claims depend from at least one of the claims outlined above.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations including “a feeding station for feeding”, “a wrapping station for wrapping”, “a sealing device for sealing”, “a wrapping sheet feeding station for feeding” in Claim 32 are being interpreted as NOT invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the limitations do not recite the generic placeholder “means” and while terms such as “station” and “device” can be viewed as generic placeholders, given the state of the art, “feeding station”, “wrapping station”, “sealing device”, “wrapping sheet feeding station” one of ordinary skill in the art can readily determine the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification without limiting them to the specific structures of the specification.
For similar reasoning, “a cutting unit for cutting” and “an unwinding device for unwinding” as outlined in Claim 32 and “a detection device for detecting” in Claim 43 and the “folding device” limitations in Claim 50 are being interpreted as NOT invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim limitation “a first adjusting means for adjusting” and “a second adjusting means for adjusting” of Claim 42 are interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Paragraph 0083 of the specification recites “The support structure 34 may comprise means, not shown, for adjusting the transverse position of the dispensers 33.1, 33.2, 33.3 relative to the feed direction fN of the paper web material N. For example, the L-shaped brackets 39 can slide along a linear guide and be blocked thereon by means of screws or other suitable systems. In a further configuration, also not shown for the sake of simplicity, the L-shaped brackets 39 or in general the dispensers 33.1, 33.2, 33.3 can be adjusted by means of motors in order to simplify the product changeover, i.e., the switching to packages that require different sizes of paper wrapping sheets F. Additionally, the dispensing device 33 can be height-adjustable, either manually or automatically, with respect to the feed path P”.
In view of this portion of the specification, the “adjusting means” will be interpreted as a “linear guide” with a fastener or “motor” or equivalents thereof.
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.
Claims 32, 38, 40, and 45-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US Patent 5,575,135-cited in IDS; note Nordstrom US Patent 5,038,549 is incorporated by reference per Col 7, lines 38-43), in view of Ferber (US PGPUB 2004/0161531).
Regarding Claim 32, Nordstrom discloses a packaging machine (10; Figure 1) for wrapping products (30; Figure 3) with a paper wrapping sheet (sheet of 82 formed by cutting shear 22; Col 7, lines 44-48), the machine (10) comprising:
- a feeding station (roll infeed conveyor 120) for feeding, one by one in succession, products comprising at least one product (30) comprising at least one product (30; see “input conveyor 20” of Nordstrom USP 5038549 (Col 4, lines 35-40 thereof));
- a wrapping station (station “40” including upstream portion of overhead conveyor 90 where folds are formed in machine 20 shown in Figure 3) for wrapping paper wrapping sheets (82) around the products comprising at least one product (30; Col 4, lines 44-52);
- a sealing device (heating plates 201, 206, heat sinks 210, belts 212 and 214; Figure 2) for sealing the paper wrapping sheets (82) around the products comprising at least one product (30; Col 7, line 53 through Col 8, line 3);
- a wrapping sheet feeding station (glue application station 50 including roll 60 and portion of 20 having shear 22) for feeding, one by one, the paper wrapping sheets (formed at 22 from paper 82) along a sheet feeding direction (path of 82 as shown) towards the wrapping station (40; Col 7, lines 44-52);
wherein the wrapping sheet feeding station (glue application station 50 including roll 60 and portion of 20 having shear 22) comprises a dispensing device (glue application station 50 including nozzles 56, 58) for applying sealant to the paper wrapping sheets (of 82; Col 5, lines 56-67);
wherein the dispensing device (50) comprises at least three dispensers (56, 58; Col 5, lines 56-67 discloses “end seal glue nozzles 56” and “bottom seal glue nozzles 58” and given the plurality of the term “nozzles” there must be at least 4 nozzles disclosed),
wherein at least two (i.e. “end seal glue nozzles 56”) of said at least three dispensers include a plurality of dispensers (see above; Col 5, lines 56-67 discloses “end seal glue nozzles 56”);
a sealant supply system (reservoir of 11 as shown in Figure 1 and feed lines 54) associated with the dispensing device (50);
wherein the plurality of dispensers (“end seal glue nozzles 56”) are adapted to dispense sealant (11, 12) for a first time interval, thus generating spaced strokes of a line of sealant (see Col 5, lines 62-67 discloses the control of the dispensing and are clearly capable of such dispensing),
wherein each stroke is formed by adjacent areas of sealant (given the control of the dispensers, the nozzles 56 are clearly capable of such strokes of adhesive), and
wherein a third dispensing group (“bottom seal glue nozzles 58”) of said at least three dispensers (56, 58) comprises at least one dispenser (58) adapted to dispense sealant for a second time interval longer than the first time interval (note given the configuration of the system of Nordstrom, the bottom seal sealant 11 would extend longitudinally and therefore would be readily longer than the transverse lines formed by the ”end seal glue nozzles 56”), thereby generating a continuous line of sealant orthogonal to the line of sealant of the first time interval (of 56; as outlined on Col 5, lines 62-67; note that the nozzles are clearly capable of providing a continuous line as shown in Figure 10),
wherein the wrapping sheet feeding station (50, 22) is provided upstream of the wrapping station (of 20) along the sheet feeding direction (path of 82 as shown in Figure 1);
wherein the wrapping sheet feeding station (50, 22) further comprises a cutting unit (shear 22) for cutting single paper wrapping sheets (of 82) from a web material (82) unwound from a reel (60; Col 7, lines 43-48) and an unwinding device (formed by roll 60, booster roller 53, dancer roller 51; Figure 12) for unwinding the reel (60) of web material (82; Col 5, lines 10-18);
wherein the dispensing device (50) is provided upstream of the cutting unit (22) along the sheet feeding direction (of 82 as shown);
wherein the paper wrapping sheet (of 82) is defined by two parallel sides and two sides transverse to the sheet feeding direction towards the wrapping station (of 20; note a wrapping sheet cut from a web will readily comprise a rectangular shape in the manner as claimed), and
wherein the at least one dispenser (“bottom seal glue nozzles 58”) is configured to apply a line of sealant (i.e. 11 as shown in Figure 10; along end seal) to an area (along longitudinal edges) of the web material (82) corresponding to a paper wrapping sheet (of 82) along a direction parallel to one of the two sides parallel to the sheet feeding direction (of 82), and the said at least one dispenser (“end seal glue nozzles 56”) is configured to apply a line of sealant along a direction parallel to each of the two sides transverse to the sheet feeding direction (“end glue seal nozzles 56” provides glue for the end seals which are readily formed near the edges of the wrapper 82 transverse to the feeding direction as shown in Figure 1).
Note: given the configuration of the machine 10, the overhead conveyor “90” clearly extends into the plane of view of Figure 1 and therefore the sides of the wrapper that are draped around the objects and folded under the objects readily form an area of the bottom seal which will be parallel to the feeding direction of 82 of Figure 1. Therefore, the two edges of the sheet transverse to the feeding direction in Figure 1 will readily comprise lines of adhesive extending parallel thereto in order to form the “end seals”.
However, Nordstrom does not readily disclose the sealant supply system (11, 54) includes for each of said plurality of dispensers a valve that allows supplying or not supplying from a respective dispenser.
Attention is brought to Ferber which teaches a dispensing device (23; Figure 2) for applying adhesive/glue to a packaging material (21) wherein the dispensing device (23) comprises a sealant supply system (shown in Figure 3) which includes for each of a plurality of dispensers (nozzle openings 25, 26 of 24) a valve (29, 30) that allows supplying or not supplying from a respective dispenser (25, 26; Para. 0020, 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated valves as taught by Ferber into the sealant supply system of Nordstrom in order to allow for accurate control and regulation of the glue application as taught by Ferber (Para. 0020, 0022).
Regarding Claim 38, Nordstrom discloses either of the lines of sealant (11 applied by “end seal glue nozzles 56” or “bottom seal glue nozzles 58”) is continuous or discontinuous and have a length equal to, or shorter than, a length of respective sides of the paper wrapping sheet (82; note in order to apply glue/sealant lines to form end seals and bottom seals, the sealant lines must be a length approximately the length of the side/edge applied thereto or selectively shorter).
Regarding Claim 40, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose either of the first or second line of sealant is spaced from a respective side by a distance comprising between 0.5 mm and 50 mm.
However, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have positioned the sealant as claimed because Applicant has not disclosed that dimensions/spacing provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the sealant arrangement of Nordstrom because in either instance, the bottom seals and the end seals are properly formed.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Nordstrom to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Note: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 45, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses the sealant supply system (11, 54) comprising a pumping apparatus (“pumped by known means”; Col 5, line 59-60) for feeding the sealant (11) to said at least one dispenser (56, 58), having a sealant feed rate which is variable depending on feed speed of the web material (82) to which the sealant is to be applied (as outlined on Col 5, lines 62-67; note that the nozzles are clearly capable of providing a continuous line as shown in Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 46, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses a sealant supply system (52, 54 and pump associated therewith) associated with the dispensing device (50), the sealant supply system (52, 54) comprising a pumping apparatus (“pumped by known means”; Col 5, lines 58-62) for feeding the sealant (11) to said at least one dispenser (56, 58; Col 5, lines 58-62), wherein sealant feed rate is variable depending on feed speed of the web material (82) to which the sealant is to be applied and/or on production speed of the packaging machine (10; see Col 5, lines 64-67).
Regarding Claim 47, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including the paper wrapping sheet comprising a thickness comprising between 10 µm and 500 µm (Col 7, lines 20-22 discloses “2 mils” thickness which is approx. 50µm) but does not readily disclose the paper wrapping sheet has a grammage comprising between 10 g/m2 and 100 g/m2, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a wrapping paper comprising such density/grammage, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 48, Nordstrom discloses the dispensing device (50) is adapted to dispense the sealant (11) in a manner providing a quantity of sealant on each paper wrapping sheet (of 82) comprising between 30% and 1% of the weight of the sheet (note while such weights are not specifically disclosed, the nozzles 56, 58 of the dispensing device 50 are clearly capable of providing such sealant amounts).
.
Regarding Claim 49, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses the feeding station (120) for feeding products comprising at least one product comprises an elevator (shown in Figure 3) for lifting a products comprising at least one product (30) toward the wrapping station (40 of 20 including 92), the products comprising at least one product (30) touching the paper wrapping sheet (82) that is arranged parallel to a plane transverse with respect to lifting direction (as shown in Figure 3) of the products comprising at least one product (30) during upward movement toward the wrapping station (40), the paper wrapping sheet (82) forming, around the products comprising at least one product, a partial wrapping shaped like an overturned U (see Figure 3 within 92), when the elevator has lifted the products comprising at least one product up to a level of the wrapping station (40; see elevator 50 of Figure 2 of USP 5,038,549 and Col 6, lines 8-14 of USP 5,038,549 incorporated by reference).
Claims 41, 53 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US Patent 5,575,135), in view of Ferber (US PGPUB 2004/0161531), as applied to Claim 32, and in further view of Johnson (US Patent 1,946,697).
Regarding Claim 41, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose the at least one dispenser (56, 58) is a spreading dispenser for dispensing by touching a surface to which the sealant is to be applied.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Johnson which includes another packaging machine (Figure 1) comprising a dispensing station (9, 10) including a spreading dispenser (roller 9) for dispensing by touching a surface to which sealant is to be applied to a web (c) of packaging material (Page 2, lines 57-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the dispensers of Nordstrom to be of a contact spreading type dispenser as taught by Johnson. By modifying Nordstrom in this manner, the adhesive can be applied more accurately along the desired positions.
Regarding Claim 53, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including a cooling device (drying section 70) for cooling the sealant (11) applied to the paper wrapping sheets (82; Col 3, lines 16-26 and Col 6, lines 55-67), however, Nordstrom does not readily disclose the cooling device (70) is of an air type including at least one air ejection nozzle directed toward an area occupied by at least one paper wrapping sheet.
Attention can be brought to the teachings of Johnson which includes another packaging machine (Figure 1) comprising a web (c) of packaging material wherein the machine comprises a cooling device (a fan or blower as it leaves 9; Page 2, lines 107-112) for cooling adhesive applied (at 9) of an air type (a fan or blower) including at least one air ejection nozzle (of a fan or blower) directed toward an area occupied by the packaging material (Page 2, lines 107-112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified Nordstrom to include a fan/blower as taught by Johnson in its cooling device/drying section. By modifying Nordstrom in this manner, the adhesive will be dried in a quicker time and therefore the size of the drying section can thereby by reduced. With such an air application, fouling of other components such as the cutter or transport mechanisms can be avoided as taught by Johnson (Page 2, lines 107-112).
Regarding Claim 54, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses the cooling device (as taught by Johnson) includes at least one air ejection nozzle (i.e. of a blower of Johnson) directed toward a section of a web material path downstream of an area where the sealant (11 of Nordstrom) is applied and upstream of a cutting unit (22 of Nordstrom) for said web material wherein the cooling device is adapted to form a laminar airflow (“current of air”) over the paper web material (see Page 2, lines 107-112 of Johnson); and
the cooling device (blower of Johnson) comprises at least one surface (of the blower) facing at least one section of the web material path and defining with the web material (82 of Nordstrom) a channel for the airflow coming from the at least one air ejection nozzle (note Page 2, lines 107-112 of Johnson outlines forming a “current of air” and a channel to some extent must be formed between the web and the blower form such current). Alternatively, assuming arguendo that Johnson cannot be readily upon for teaching a channel formed by the cooling device and the web material, in which the Examiner does not readily concede to, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have arranged the blower of Johnson to form such a channel with the web because Applicant has not disclosed that such an arrangement provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the blower of Johnson incorporated into Nordstrom because in either instance the glue/adhesive is effectively cooled by a current/laminar airflow.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Nordstrom to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US Patent 5,575,135), in view of Ferber (US PGPUB 2004/0161531), as applied to Claim 32, and in further view of May (US PGPUB 2016/0368641).
Regarding Claim 42, Nordstrom discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose the dispensing device comprises a first adjusting means for adjusting distance between the at least one dispenser and the paper wrapping sheets and a second adjusting means for adjusting the at least one dispenser transversally with respect to the wrapping sheet feeding direction.
May teaches another packaging machine (Figure 1) including a dispensing device (nozzle assembly 100a; Figure 14C, 14D; Para. 0185) comprises a first adjusting means (246) for adjusting distance between a at least one dispenser (nozzle 39) and the packaging and a second adjusting means (341u 341b, 342 or cylinder 241) for adjusting the at least one dispenser (39) transversally with respect to a packaging feeding direction (See Paras. 0188-0192).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate adjustability features as taught by May into the dispensing device of Nordstrom, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves routine skill in the art . In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
It is noted that with such adjustability, packaging of different sizes and different adhesive placements can be accommodated for.
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US Patent 5,575,135), in view of Ferber (US PGPUB 2004/0161531), as applied to Claims 32 and 55, and in further view of Pipes (US PGPUB 2009/0255835).
Regarding Claim 43, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention and discloses the at least one dispenser (56, 58) applies the sealant (11) phased with respect to a rate/speed of the wrapping (see Col 5, lines 64-67 which outline measuring the rate at which the paper is moving and timing the application of adhesive accordingly and in order to detect a rate, a displacement/position must be determined) but does not disclose detecting a position of the paper wrapping sheets, with a detection device, along the sheet feeding direction and applying a sealant phased with a position of the wrapping sheets when the detecting of a position of the web material and applying the sealant phased with the position of the web material when the cutting of the paper wrapping sheets occurs after the preparing of the paper wrapping sheet with the sealant.
Attention can be brought to Pipes which includes a package manufacturing system/method (Figure 5) wherein wrapper blanks (100) are fed from a hopper (610) and the position of the blank (100) is detected by a blank sensor (641) and an adhesive dispenser (542) dispenses adhesive in phase with the detected position (Para. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a position sensor such that the dispensers dispense in phase with the detected position of the wrapper as taught by Pipes within the machine of Nordstrom. By modifying Nordstrom in this manner, the adhesive can be placed precisely as outlined by Pipes (Para. 0035).
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US Patent 5,575,135), in view of Ferber (US PGPUB 2004/0161531) and May (US PGPUB 2016/0368641), as applied to Claim 42, and in further view of Pipes (US PGPUB 2009/0255835).
Regarding Claim 44, Nordstrom, as modified, the at least one dispenser applies the sealant (11) phased with respect to a rate/speed of the wrapping (see Col 5, lines 64-67 which outline measuring the rate at which the paper is moving and timing the application of adhesive accordingly and in order to detect a rate, a displacement/position must be determined) but does not disclose the dispensers being in phase with a position of the paper wrapping sheets.
Attention can be brought to Pipes which includes a package manufacturing system (Figure 5) wherein wrapper blanks (100) are fed from a hopper (610) and the position of the blank (100) is detected by a blank sensor (641) and an adhesive dispenser (542) dispenses adhesive in phase with the detected position (Para. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a position sensor such that the dispensers dispense in phase with the detected position of the wrapper as taught by Pipes within the machine of Nordstrom. By modifying Nordstrom in this manner, the adhesive can be placed precisely as outlined by Pipes (Para. 0035).
Claim 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US Patent 5,575,135), in view of Ferber (US PGPUB 2004/0161531), as applied to Claim 32, and in further view of Gorrieri (US PGPUB 2009/0139185).
Regarding Claim 50, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention including the wrapping station comprising folding means (see abstract) including a bottom folding device (see 11 of Figure 2 and Col 6, lines 35-42 of US Patent 5,038,549) for completing partial wrapping of the paper wrapping sheet (82) around the products comprising at least one product (30), forming a tube open at two opposite sides of the products comprising at least one product (30), the open tube having flaps of paper wrapping sheet (82) to be folded that project from each of two sides of the products comprising at least one product (30; after the bottom folding, side portions of a tube will readily extend). However, although side flap folding devices are well known in the art, Nordstrom does not specifically disclose the wrapping station comprises the following:
- a front side folding device for each of two sides of the products comprising at least one product to fold against each side a portion of the flaps of paper wrapping sheet, thus forming a front fold;
- a back side folding device for each of the two sides of the products comprising at least one product to fold against each side a portion of the flaps of paper wrapping sheet, thus forming a back fold;- a top side folding device for each of the two sides of the products comprising at least one product to fold against each side a portion of the flaps of paper wrapping sheet, thus forming a top fold;
- a bottom side folding device for each of the two sides of the products comprising at least one product to fold against each side a portion of the flaps of paper wrapping sheet, thus forming a bottom fold.
Attention is brought to Gorrieri which teaches another packaging machine for a products comprising at least one product (P; Figure 1) comprising a wrapping station comprising:
- a front side folding device (9) and a back side folding device (13) for each of two sides of the products comprising at least one product to fold against each side a portion of the flaps (204, 204’) of a wrapping sheet, thus forming a front and back fold (of 204, 204’; see end of Para. 0016-“the vertical folding flaps 204 of these projecting parts of the wrapping, cooperating with the folding devices 9, 9' of the drum 7, are folded on the lateral faces of the product P” and Para. 0018-“the lateral flaps with vertical folding 204' of the wrapping sheet are folded on the lateral faces of the product P by the folding device 13”);
- a top side folding device (17) and a bottom side folding device (16) for each of the two sides of the products comprising at least one product to fold against each side a portion of the flaps of paper wrapping sheet, thus forming a top fold and bottom fold (Para. 0018-“the packed product is once again moved forward by the conveyors 11, 11', while the lateral folding devices 16 and subsequent folding devices 17 fold, on the lateral faces of the product, first said flaps 304 as illustrated in FIG. 6 and then the corresponding upper flaps 304' also with horizontal folding, which are placed reciprocally over each other and over the flaps with vertical folding 204, 204', as illustrated in FIG. 7”).
In order to form the package shown in Figure 3 of Nordstrom, one can readily imply such folding devices as taught by Gorrieri but regardless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated such folding devices as taught by Gorrieri into the machine of Nordstrom to effectively form such folded sides of the package.
Claims 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US Patent 5,575,135), in view of Ferber (US PGPUB 2004/0161531), as applied to Claim 32, and in further view of Fincke (US Patent 2,114,833)
Regarding Claims 51 and 52, Nordstrom discloses several features of the claimed invention including the sealing station comprises a feeding channel (between belts 212, 214) and a pair of sealing members (belts 212, 214) provided opposite each other on two sides of the feeding channel (as shown in Figure 2), each sealing member of the pair of sealing members being flexible and having a uniform sealing surface (as shown) and each sealing members (212, 214) being driven between-at least two return members (pulleys thereof; see Col 7, line 62 through Col 8, line 3).
However, Nordstrom does not disclose the sealing surfaces are made of ferromagnetic material or containing paramagnetic material and each sealing member being respectively associated with an electromagnetic inductor.
Attention can be brought to Fincke which outlines a sealing station comprising a feeding channel formed by two flexible sealing members (belts 23; Figure 2) comprising sealing surfaces are made a metal material (wire mesh or sheet metal; Page 2, lines 5-13) and each sealing member (23) being respectively associated with an electromagnetic inductor (56, 57; Figure 6; Page 2, Col 2, lines 15-25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have embodied the sealing members of Nordstrom to of materials heated by an electromagnetic inductor as taught by Fincke in order to allow for efficient and controllable heat sealing of the ends of the packaging. Further, although Fincke doesn’t explicitly teach using ferromagnetic material or paramagnetic material it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use such materials since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Please note that in the instant application, page applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. It is also noted that use of magnetic (i.e. ferromagnetic) materials would render the heating more efficient from an induction source.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US Patent 5,575,135), in view of Ferber (US PGPUB 2004/0161531) and Johnson (US Patent 1,946,697), and in further view of Starcevic (US PGPUB 2022/0185522).
Alternatively regarding Claim 54, as outlined above Nordstrom, in view of Johnson, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose a channel being formed between a surface of the cooling device and the web material.
Attention is brought to Starcevic which outlines packaging machine comprising a dispensing device (12; Figure 3) for applying glue to a web (5; Figure 2) and a cooling device (formed by fans 13 and surfaces of consoles 11) comprising a cooling fan (13) and surfaces (of 11) which form a channel with the web material (5; see Figures 3, 5, 7; abstract and Para. 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized such surfaces as taught by Starcevic with the cooling device as incorporated into Nordstrom in order to effectively direct the cooling air to the glue to gain efficient drying thereof.
Claims 55, 58, 59, 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US Patent 5,575,135), in view of Neri (US Patent 4,406,251) and in further view of Ferber (US PGPUB 2004/0161531).
Regarding Claim 55, Nordstrom discloses a method (Figure 1) for packaging a products comprising at least one product (30; Figure 3) with a paper wrapping sheet (formed from 82), the method comprising steps of:
- feeding one by one, in succession, products comprising at least one product (30) including at least one product (30; see “input conveyor 20” of Nordstrom USP 5038549 (Col 4, lines 35-40 thereof)),
- forming and feeding (Col 7, lines 43-52), one by one, the paper wrapping sheets (from 82 at shear 22) along a sheet feeding direction (of 82), toward a wrapping station (station “40” including upstream portion of overhead conveyor 90 where folds are formed in machine 20 shown in Figure 3), wherein the forming of the paper wrapping sheets comprises unwinding a continuous paper wrapping web (82; Col 5, lines 10-18) and cutting the continuous paper wrapping web into single paper wrapping sheets (of 82; Col 7, lines 43-48),
- wrapping one of the paper wrapping sheets (of 82) around the products comprising at least one product (30; Col 4, lines 44-52);
- sealing the one of the paper wrapping sheets (82 via heating plates 201, 206, heat sinks 210, belts 212 and 214; Figure 2) around the products comprising at least one product (30; Col 7, line 53 through Col 8, line 3 to form 150),
wherein during the forming and feeding of the paper wrapping sheets (82), a sealant (11; Figure 10 via nozzles 56,58 of Figure 1) is applied to the paper wrapping web (82; Col 5, lines 56-67);
wherein each of the paper wrapping sheets (of 82) is defined by two parallel sides and two sides transverse to the sheet feeding direction towards the wrapping station (of 20; note a wrapping sheet cut from a web will readily comprise a rectangular shape in the manner as claimed);
wherein during the applying of the sealant to said each of the paper wrapping sheets (of 82), a first line of sealant (i.e. 11 as shown in Figure 10; along end seal) is dispersed along a direction parallel to one of the two sides parallel (along longitudinal edges) to the sheet feeding direction and a second line of sealant is dispensed along a direction parallel to each of the two transverse sides with respect to the sheet feeding direction (“end glue seal nozzles 56” provides glue for the end seals which are readily formed near the edges of the wrapper 82 transverse to the feeding direction as shown in Figure 1),
wherein the sealant is applied from a dispensing device (50) comprising at least three dispensing units (56, 58; Col 5, lines 56-67 discloses “end seal glue nozzles 56” and “bottom seal glue nozzles 58” and given the plurality of the term “nozzles” there must be at least 4 nozzles disclosed), wherein at least two (i.e. “end seal glue nozzles 56”) of said at least three dispensing units include a plurality of dispensers (see above; Col 5, lines 56-67 discloses “end seal glue nozzles 56”), and a sealant supply system (reservoir of 11 as shown in Figure 1 and feed lines 54) associated with the dispensing device (50), wherein the plurality of dispensers (“end seal glue nozzles 56”) dispense the sealant (11) for a first time interval, thus generating spaced strokes of a line of sealant (see Col 5, lines 62-67 discloses the control of the dispensing and are clearly capable of such dispensing), wherein each stroke is formed by adjacent areas of sealant (given the control of the dispensers, the nozzles 56 are clearly capable of such strokes of adhesive),, and wherein a third dispensing group (“bottom seal glue nozzles 58”) of said at least three dispensers comprises at least one dispenser (58) which dispenses the sealant for a second time interval longer than the first time interval (note given the configuration of the system of Nordstrom, the bottom seal sealant 11 would extend longitudinally and therefore would be readily longer than the transverse lines formed by the ”end seal glue nozzles 56”), thereby generating a continuous line of sealant orthogonal to the line of sealant of the first time interval (of 56; as outlined on Col 5, lines 62-67; note that the nozzles are clearly capable of providing a continuous line as shown in Figure 10).
Note: given the configuration of the machine 10, the overhead conveyor “90” clearly extends into the plane of view of Figure 1 and therefore the sides of the wrapper that are draped around the objects and folded under the objects readily form an area of the bottom seal which will be parallel to the feeding direction of 82 of Figure 1. Therefore, the two edges of the sheet transverse to the feeding direction in Figure 1 will readily comprise lines of adhesive extending parallel thereto in order to form the “end seals”.
However Nordstrom fails to disclose
(1) wherein during the forming and feeding of the paper wrapping sheets (82), a sealant (11; Figure 10 via nozzles 56,58 of Figure 1) is applied to the single paper wrapping sheets; and
(2) wherein the sealant supply system includes for each of said plurality of dispensers, a valve that supplies or does not supply from a respective dispenser.
First, attention is brought to Neri which outlines forming wrapping sheets (F; Figure 1) from a wrapping web material (N) by cutting the web (N) and subsequently applying glue/sealant (via 170, 270; Figure 5) to the singular cut sheets (F; Col 10, lines 19-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Nordstrom to have cut the web prior to sealant application as taught by Neri. By modifying Nordstrom in this manner, the sealant will not readily interfere with cutting and the cutting tools of the web.
Further, attention is brought to Ferber which teaches a dispensing device (23; Figure 2) for applying adhesive/glue to a packaging material (21) wherein the dispensing device (23) comprises a sealant supply system (shown in Figure 3) which includes for each of a plurality of dispensers (nozzle openings 25, 26 of 24) a valve (29, 30) that allows supplying or not supplying from a respective dispenser (25, 26; Para. 0020, 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated valves as taught by Ferber into the sealant supply system of Nordstrom in order to allow for accurate control and regulation of the glue application as taught by Ferber (Para. 0020, 0022).
Regarding Claim 58, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses the first line of sealant (11 applied by “end seal glue nozzles 56”) and/or the second line of sealant (11 applied by “bottom seal glue nozzles 58”) is continuous or discontinuous and has a length equal to, or shorter than, a length of respective sides of the paper wrapping sheet (82; note in order to apply glue/sealant lines to form end seals and bottom seals, the sealant lines must be a length approximately the length of the side/edge applied thereto or selectively shorter).
Regarding Claim 59, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not disclose either of the first or second line of sealant is spaced from a respective side by a distance comprising between 0.5 mm and 50 mm.
However, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have positioned the sealant as claimed because Applicant has not disclosed that dimensions/spacing provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the sealant arrangement of Nordstrom because in either instance, the bottom seals and the end seals are properly formed.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Nordstrom to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
Note: In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 63, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses cooling (Col 3, lines 16-26 and Col 6, lines 55-67), through an airflow (air flowing over the web 82 through section 70), a sealant (11) provided on the paper wrapping sheets (82), after the sealant (11) has been applied;
wherein the cooling step is carried out on the web material (82) before cutting (At 22) if the sealant is applied to the paper wrapping sheets (82) before the paper wrapping sheets are cut from the web material (82; Col 3, lines 16-26 and Col 6, lines 55-67).
Claim 62 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordstrom (US Patent 5,575,135), in view of Neri (US Patent 4,406,251) and Ferber (US PGPUB 2004/0161531), as applied to Claim 55, and in further view of Pipes (US PGPUB 2009/0255835).
Regarding Claim 62, Nordstrom, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention and discloses the at least one dispenser (56, 58) applies the sealant (11) phased with respect to a rate/speed of the wrapping (see Col 5, lines 64-67 which outline measuring the rate at which the paper is moving and timing the application of adhesive accordingly and in order to detect a rate, a displacement/position must be determined) but does not disclose detecting a position of the paper wrapping sheets, with a detection device, along the sheet feeding direction and applying a sealant phased with a position of the wrapping sheets when the detecting of a position of the web material and applying the sealant phased with the position of the web material when the cutting of the paper wrapping sheets occurs after the preparing of the paper wrapping sheet with the sealant.
Attention can be brought to Pipes which includes a package manufacturing system/method (Figure 5) wherein wrapper blanks (100) are fed from a hopper (610) and the position of the blank (100) is detected by a blank sensor (641) and an adhesive dispenser (542) dispenses adhesive in phase with the detected position (Para. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to incorporate a position sensor such that the dispensers dispense in phase with the detected position of the wrapper as taught by Pipes within the machine of Nordstrom. By modifying Nordstrom in this manner, the adhesive can be placed precisely as outlined by Pipes (Para. 0035).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that:
PNG
media_image1.png
387
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
306
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts that Nordstrom discloses a dispensing unit (58) which provides a line of sealant (11) on one side of the material and further discloses two other dispensing units (56) which are disclosed as “end seal glue nozzles 56” and given the plural form of “nozzles” it is clear that multiple nozzles are included to provide end seal sealant (12) on the opposite side of the sealant line (11) formed by the opposing dispensing unit (58). Such a sealant is clearly shown in Figure 11. The multiple of “end seal glue nozzles” readily forms a plurality of dispensers of the interpreted two dispenser units. It is noted that the claims do not readily include that each dispensing unit comprises a plurality of dispensers.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that:
PNG
media_image3.png
204
555
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts that the claim does not readily include that the dispensers are adjacent to one another along a line. Further as outlined above, it is clear that the “end seal glue nozzles 56” includes a plurality of nozzles and hence dispensers.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that:
PNG
media_image4.png
203
571
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
378
575
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts that the “end seal glue nozzles 56” form a plurality of dispensers which individually make up one of the “at least two” dispensing unit and as shown in Figure 11, spaced strokes are formed as shown by “12” in Figure 11. On the opposing side the sealant line “11” is shown as continuous and is formed by the interpreted third dispensing unit/group which is interpreted as the “bottom seal glue nozzles 58”. See below for reference
PNG
media_image6.png
139
324
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
Note previously cited Zagnoni (US PGPUB 2024/0174392) discloses dispensing unit with multiple dispensers (GD; Figures 9-10)
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 JOSHUA G KOTIS whose telephone number is (571)270-0165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6am-430pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 7/7/2026
Prosecution Insights