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 .
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment and documents received on March 31, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 and 6-12 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ring-shaped region" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner has understood the phrase “the ring-shaped region” to be the previously recited “chamber in a shape of a ring”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the region” of the packaging tray in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, Examiner has understood the phrase “the region” of the phrase to be an introductory phrase to a region below the upper tool as opposed to a region of the packaging machine that is positioned upstream or downstream of the upper tool.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the entire surface” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. According to Applicant’s disclosed invention, the embodiment of figures 3a-5 the indentation is defined by a flat central surface and an arcuate surface(s) extending from the central surface. For the purpose of examination, Examiner has understood the phrase “the entire surface” of the phrase to be an entire surface of the central surface/region recited in claim 7 from which claim 8 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PERDUE et al. (US 3,950,919).
In reference to claims 7 and 8, PERDUE et al. discloses a method for producing a skin pack comprising: providing a packaging tray 46 and contents 48 (figure 4); drawing (column 6 lines 30-38) an upper film web 16 into an indentation (cavity) of an upper tool 14 by means 42 of a negative pressure (see Diagram I of figure 3 above; VAC); applying a product vacuum 28 to the packaging tray 46 and the contents 48; using aeration (figure 5) to reduce the negative pressure across an entire central upper surface region of the indentation of the upper tool to facilitate forming of the upper film web 16 in the direction of the packaging tray 46 and the contents 48, thereby enclosing the packaging contents 48 between the upper film web 16 and the packaging 46 tray (figure 7).
Regarding claim 9, figure 5 of PERDUE et al. further disclose the complete aeration of the indentation occurring at the edge of the central upper surface, where the central surface meets inclined surfaces 15 of the indentation.
PNG
media_image1.png
221
421
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Diagram I
With respect to claims 10 and 12, figure 5 of PERDUE et al. illustrates a first state in reducing the negative pressure (aerating) the central region of the of the upper tool, and movement of the upper tool away from the packaged contents is a second state in which the pressure of the central regions is reduced in a controlled state based on a predetermined threshold of pressure (column 4 lines 56-66, column 5 lines 54-56, column 10 lines 50-63).
In reference to claim 11, figure 3 of PERDUE et al. further discloses the upper film initially positioned (contact point) against the packaging tray 46 in the central region (see Diagram I of figure 3 above).
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAPRIOTTI et al. (US 2018/0346167) in view of PERDUE et al. (US 3,950,919).
In reference to claim 1, CAPRIOTTI et al. discloses an upper tool 7 comprising: an indentation (see Diagram II below) in which an upper film web 3 can be formed, the indentation having at least two groups of openings 21, each group of openings 21 connected to a negative pressure source by a respective chamber1 20; a ring shaped chamber that extends about the chambers of the group openings; and a pressure sensor (paragraph [0030]) configured to send a signal initiating the negative pressure source. CAPRIOTTI et al. does not disclose the pressure sensor and chambers in communication with an aeration source.
PNG
media_image2.png
517
596
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Diagram II
PERDUE et al. teaches an upper tool 14 comprising: an indentation (cavity) having a group of gas through-openings 38 that are connected 42 to a negative pressure source (column 8 lines 7-15); and a chamber 40 connected to the group of through openings 38 of the indentation. PERDUE et al does not disclose the group of through-openings divided into at least two groups, each group of through openings connected to independent negative pressure sources; and an aeration source. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the upper tool of CAPRIOTTI et al. to include an aeration source in communication with the through openings and the pressure sensor, since column 10 lines 41- of PERDUE et al. states such a modification would facilitate conforming of the upper film web about the article.
With respect to claim 6, figure 1 of CAPRIOTTI et al discloses a packaging machine having a sealing station 2 downstream of a product 102 filling station, the sealing station including an upper tool 7 comprising: an indentation (see Diagram II above) in which an upper film web 3 can be formed, the indentation having at least two groups of openings 21, each group of openings 21 connected to a negative pressure source by a respective chamber2 20; a ring shaped chamber that extends about the chambers of the group openings; and a pressure sensor (paragraph [0030]) configured to send a signal initiating the negative pressure source. CAPRIOTTI et al. does not disclose the pressure sensor and chambers in communication with an aeration source.
PERDUE et al. teaches an upper tool 14 comprising: an indentation (cavity) having a group of gas through-openings 38 that are connected 42 to a negative pressure source (column 8 lines 7-15); and a chamber 40 connected to the group of through openings 38 of the indentation. PERDUE et al does not disclose the group of through-openings divided into at least two groups, each group of through openings connected to independent negative pressure sources; and an aeration source. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the upper tool of CAPRIOTTI et al. to include an aeration source in communication with the through openings and the pressure sensor, since column 10 lines 41-49 of PERDUE et al. states such a modification would facilitate conforming of the upper film web about the article.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached PTO-892 for a notice of references cited and recommended for consideration based on their disclosure of limitations related to the claimed invention. In particular, Examiner has found PERDUE et al. (US 3,694,991), figure 4B of ICKERT (US 2020/0198817), figure 4 of SANFILIPPO et al. (US 2001/0017021), figure 2 of FOULKE, JR (US 2003/0196412), GARWOOD (US 5,323,590) and SCHIAVINA (US 10,150,584) to be closely related to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA R WEEKS whose telephone number is (571)272-4473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-2pm & 5pm-7pm EST.
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.
Other helpful telephone numbers are listed for applicant's benefit:
Allowed Files & Publication (888) 786-0101
Assignment Branch (800) 972-6382
Certificates of Correction (703) 305-8309
Fee Questions (571) 272-6400
Inventor Assistance Center (800) PTO-9199
Petitions/special Programs (571) 272-3282
Information Help line 1-800-786-9199
/GLORIA R WEEKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
February 24, 2026
1 An enclosed chamber (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chamber)
2 An enclosed chamber (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chamber)