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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/27/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment filed 7/27/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-14 remain pending and are examined below.
Priority
Note that although the instant application comprises continuity data dating back to 6/28/2019, the claimed invention of Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12 and 14 do not appear to comprise support within the parent applications and therefore the effective filing date thereof is 5/27/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “filling device”, “notch-forming device”, and “controller” of Claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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
Claims 4 and 8-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 4, “sealing across” would be better recited as “the sealing across of the first and second flattened ends”.
-Claim 8, line 8 “operates the devices” would be better recited as “operates the system”.
-Claim 9, “sealing across” would be better recited as “the sealing across of”.
-Claim 10, “wherein the jaw pairs are formed” would be better recited as “wherein the transverse sealing jaws devices comprising jaw pairs formed”.
-Claim 11, “sealing across” would be better recited as “the sealing across of the first and second flattened ends”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 8, lines 3 and 6 outline “a forming tube” and “a filling device” respectively. These limitations constitute new matter as there is not sufficient support for a system comprising both a forming tube and a filling device separate from one another as Para. 0019 outlines the “filling via the metallic forming tube” and therefore seems to support the forming tube being also used as a filling device. Therefore it is concluded that there is not sufficient support for such separate structures and therefore this constitutes new matter.
Further regarding Claim 8, line 8 recites “a controller that operates the devices to perform the method of claim 1”. This limitation constitutes new matter as there is not sufficient support for such a controller to control the devices, as claimed, in the original disclosure.
Claims 9-14 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement as the claims depend from Claim 8.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, lines 10-13 recite “positioning the longitudinal sealing adjacent one pouch side edge such that the longitudinal sealing is offset from a longitudinal centerline of the pouch, and folding the longitudinal sealing toward the pouch side edge to form a locally thickened region extending between opposite ends of the tube”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is meant by the sealing being “adjacent one pouch side edge” as the pouch, at this point in the process, is not readily formed therefore it is unclear as to how a sealing can be positioned relative to a structure not existent. While Paragraph 0016 outlines such a limitation, Paragraph 0015 appears to outline that the sealing edges have been formed which would readily form the pouch side edges. In summary, it is unclear as to how features can be positioned relative to a pouch side edge if the pouch is not yet formed. Therefore, such a limitation is viewed as rendering the claim indefinite.
Further regarding Claim 1, line 28 recites “separating approximately one-half of a length”. This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what can be readily viewed as “approximately one-half” and what deviations from “one-half” the term “approximately” is intended to encompass.
Similarly, Claim 1, line 30 recites “substantially bowl-like”. The phrase "bowl-like" renders the claim further indefinite as it is unclear as to what is intended to be encompassed by "bowl-like" and what can be reasonably interpreted as like a bowl. Further, the term “substantially” adds further indefiniteness as it is unclear what deviations from a bowl shape the term is intending to encompass.
Claim 8 includes a controller to perform the method of Claim 1 and therefore is rendered indefinite for the reasoning above.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
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 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frere-Jean (WO 2013/001237-see previously attached PDF for copy of document and attached English translation), in view of Zeiler (US PGPUB 2011/0088352), and in further view of Nilsson (EP 0482574 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Frere-Jean discloses a method for producing a pouch (sachet/bags 1; Figure 9) for a non-liquid a food product (cereal, rice, etc.; Para. 0046) the method comprising:
providing a heat sealable sheet (material 32 of 1; Para. 0074);
forming the sheet (32) into a tube (formed by 31 and 40; Para. 0099, 0102) by overlapping longitudinal edge sections and sealing the longitudinal edge sections to form a longitudinal sealing (13) extending along a longitudinal axis of the tube (Para. 0057; note although explicitly not recited, based on Figure 9 it can be at least implied that the “vertical displacement means 37” or other longitudinal sealing is performed);
positioning the longitudinal sealing (13) adjacent one pouch side edge (edges 20; clearly shown in Figures 1-2) such that the longitudinal sealing (13) is offset from a longitudinal centerline of the pouch (see Figure 2 as the tear initiator 14 is shown offset from the centerline/position of sealing 13), a locally thickened sealing region (at 13 and at intersection of 11, 12 and 13) extending between opposite ends (At 11 and 12) of the tube (note Figures 1-2 clearly show the thickened region extending along 13);
sealing (via ramps 36) across a first flattened end (upper sealing line 11) of the tube to form a first sealing edge(Para. 0102);
introducing (through 31, 40) the non-liquid food product into the tube (Para. 0102);
sealing (via ramps 35) across a second flattened end of the tube to form a second sealing edge (12) arranged substantially orthogonally to the first sealing edge (11; see Figure 10), and
forming a notch (23 including tear initiator 14; Para. 0071-0072) in the first sealing edge (11) adjacent the longitudinal sealing (13; Para. 0071-0072),
wherein the notch (23, 14) and the locally thickened region (13 and intersection of 11/12 and 13) are positioned such that, upon application of tensile force at the notch (23, 14) in a direction toward the second sealing edge (12), the pouch (1) tears from the notch (23, 14) along a tear path (14C, 14D; Figure 8) extending substantially parallel to, and remaining spaced from, the longitudinal sealing (13) throughout the propagation of the tear and guided by the locally thickened region (formed by 13) without crossing the longitudinal sealing (13; note Para. 0073 which outlines the tear initiation being adjacent to the longitudinal sealing 13 which will readily guide such tearing in the manner as claimed and shown in Figure 8), thereby forming a substantially triangular opening (Figure 8) extending from the first sealing edge (11) toward an inner portion of the second sealing edge (12) and forming a bowl-like dispensing opening capable of retaining the food product during consumption (as shown in Figure 8; Para. 0071).
However, Frere-Jean fails to explicitly disclose:
(1) the heat sealable sheet being multi-layered/laminate,
(2) the sheet having a predetermined tear characteristic wherein the notch is positioned relative to the tear characteristic,
(3) folding the longitudinal sealing toward the pouch side edge to form the locally thickened sealing region extending between opposite ends of the tube,
(4) wherein when the pouch is opened, separating approximately one-half of a length of the second sealing edge from an opposing sealed portion to form the opening.
First, attention can be brought to the teachings of Zeiler which includes another method for producing pyramidal shaped pouches (2; Figure 1A) including filling them with a food product (Para. 0003) and utilizing a multi-layered/laminate heat sealable sheet material (600, 650, 680; Figures 15A-15C) and further teaches forming a longitudinal seal (4 via 26, 28; Figure 2; Para. 0046), folding the longitudinal sealing (4) toward a pouch side edge (via 60; Figure 11; Para. 0052) to form the locally thickened sealing region (the fin seal pressed against the tube will readily form a thickened region) extending between opposite ends (at 6, 8) of the tube, wherein the longitudinal sealing (4) extends from a first end (6) to a middle portion of the second end (8).
Utilizing multilayered heat-sealable films is well known in the art of packaging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized multi-layered film materials as taught by Zeiler into the method/system of Frere-Jean. Utilizing a packaging film comprising multiple layers allows for the packaging to be heat sealable on the inside layer while allowing for other processing such as printing on the outer layer in a manner that the printing can be applied and maintained throughout filling and sealing as taught by Zeiler (Para. 0101).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have formed the longitudinal sealing of Frere-Jean in the “fin” type manner as taught by Zeiler to form a more reliable longitudinal seal as taught by Zeiler (Para. 0008) and further fold the longitudinal sealing to form a thickened region as taught by Zeiler in order to ensure proper transverse sealing of the tube.
Note by incorporating the longitudinal sealing of Zeiler into Frere-Jean, when the tearing of Frere-Jean follows the longitudinal sealing (as modified by Zeiler), approximately half of a length of the second sealing edge would be separated from an opposing sealed portion (see Figure 1A of Zeiler showing the position of the longitudinal seal extending to a position near the center of the end seal 8 and therefore the tear line adjacent to the longitudinal seal as disclosed by Frere-Jean would readily follow the longitudinal seal of Zeiler to the position near the center of the end seal).
Further attention is brought to Nilsson which outlines a packaging container (3; Figure 3) which is formed from a sheet (1A; Figure 1) that comprises a predetermined tear characteristic (5, 6) wherein a tearing indicator (7) is aligned with the tear characteristic (5, 6; Col 2, line 40 through Col 3, line 3).
Utilizing tearing characteristics such as perforations or lines of weakness are well known in the art of packaging for creating a tear line to assist in opening of a packaging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated a tear characteristic as taught by Nilsson into the sheet material of Frere-Jean in order to decrease the effort required to tear open the packaging while also maintaining a specific tear direction/path.
Regarding Claim 8, Frere-Jean, as modified by Zeiler and Nilsson (in the manner as outlined in Claim 1), discloses a system (Figure 9) for producing a pouch (1; Figure 9) for non-liquid a food product, the system comprising.
a forming tube (tube 31);
a longitudinal sealing device (26, 28 of Zeiler) configured to form a longitudinal seal (4 via 26, 28; Figure 2; Para. 0046 of Zeiler);
transverse sealing jaws devices (35, 36) configured to form first and second sealing edges (11, 12);
a filling device (40);
a notch-forming device (note although a notch forming device is not explicitly mentioned, Paras. 0071-0072 disclose the notch formation which readily requires or at least implies a device to form such notch); and
a controller that operates the devices to perform the method of claim 1 (See rejection of Claim 1 above as Frere-Jean, as modified, is readily controlled to perform the process as claimed and therefore some form of controller/control system must be present to perform such operations).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Frere-Jean, as modified, discloses the sealing across of the flattened ends is performed by jaw pairs (35, 36) through opening and closing in a sequential pattern (Para. 0091).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Frere-Jean, as modified, discloses the jaw pairs (35, 36) are formed by two opposite jaws (35, 36). However, although Frere-Jean does not readily disclose the jaws being metallic, Zeiler further teaches use of metallic jaws (Para. 0089). While it can be implied that the jaws of Frere-Jean are metallic, 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 metallic material for the jaws as taught by Zeiler for the jaws of Frere-Jean, 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. It is also noted that such metal materials are useful in welding jaws as metal materials are thermally conductive and promote uniform heating as taught by Zeiler (Para. 0089).
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Frere-Jean, as modified, discloses the sealing is performed by cross-sealing through the jaw pairs (35, 36) positioned underneath the metallic forming tube (31 and 40 as modified as clearly shown).
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Frere-Jean, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose the jaw pairs (35, 36).are metallic and electrically heated. Zeiler further teaches use of metallic and electrically heated jaws (Para. 0089). While it can be implied that the jaws of Frere-Jean are metallic and electrically heated, 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 metallic and electrically heated material for the jaws as taught by Zeiler for the jaws of Frere-Jean, 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. It is also noted that such metal materials are useful in welding jaws as metal materials are thermally conductive and promote uniform heating as taught by Zeiler (Para. 0089).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Frere-Jean, as modified, discloses lowering the multi-layered heat sealable laminate sheet by one pouch length after introducing the food product (Para. 0106 outlines feeding the film and it is noted in order for each subsequent sealing, a pouch length must be fed after filling).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frere-Jean (WO 2013/001237-see attached PDF for copy of document and attached English translation), in view of Zeiler (US PGPUB 2011/0088352), and Nilsson (EP 0482574 A1), and in further view of Masuda (US Patent 5,570,569).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Frere-Jean, as modified, discloses several features of the claimed invention but does not readily disclose moving each pouch (1) via a fixed chute to a conveyor belt.
Attention is brought to Masuda which teaches another form fill seal machine (12; Figure 1) comprising a chute (55) and a conveyor belt (54) wherein formed pouches (1) are moved through the chute (55) and onto the conveyor belt (54; Col 9, lines 13-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have utilized a chute and conveyor belt to discharge the finished pouches as taught by Masuda in the method/system of Frere-Jean in order to properly direct and convey the finished pouches to another location such as a casing apparatus as taught by Masuda (Col 9, lines 14-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Pages 7-8 that:
…
PNG
media_image1.png
429
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts that Frere-Jean clearly outlines a tear initiator/notch (14) located adjacent to the longitudinal sealing (13; Para. 0073) which readily allows for a tearing that is substantially parallel thereto (see Figure 8). It is also noted that even though it is not explicitly disclosed that the tearing doesn’t cross the longitudinal sealing, it can be at least readily implied that the tearing does not cross the longitudinal seal due to the increased thickness that must be present due to such seal. Given the structure of the pouch formed, it is clear that such an opening is at least capable of being carried out and note that this is not a method of opening the pouch and therefore the explicit recitation is not required to read on the claimed limitation. Even further, Nilsson is now incorporated to teach the use of a tear characteristic and when incorporated into Frere-Jean, the tear path would clearly be as claimed as the tear characteristic would not be feasible to place in an area of a longitudinal seal. And further, Figure 8 of Frere-Jean clearly already depicts a triangular bowl-like opening.
Lastly, it must be mentioned that the method and system are drawn to producing a pouch, not the actual post-forming opening thereof. Therefore, if the pouch that is produced by the prior art comprises the structure as claimed and is capable of such post forming opening, then there is no patentable distinction.
Note: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). MPEP 2114 (II). Although Claim 1 refers to a method claim, the pouch produced by such a method is also produced by the method of Frere-Jean, as modified. The subsequent manner in which it is opened is viewed as merely intended use of the pouch that is produced by the method and therefore since the pouch produced by Frere-Jean, as modified, does not deviate from such pouch structure claimed and is capable of such opening, it reads on the claimed limitation.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 8 that:
PNG
media_image2.png
237
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts that Frere-Jean as outlined in the 103 rejection above Frere-Jean does not explicitly disclose a tear characteristic, however, since the longitudinal sealing forms a thickened region, the sealing will readily be configured to guide tear propagation as the thickened area will be readily stronger than the non-thickened areas. However, further attention is readily brought to teachings of Nilsson above to teach the use of further tear characteristics that would readily assist in guidance of the tear propagation which would already be guided by the sealing of Frere-Jean.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Pages 8-9 that:
PNG
media_image3.png
21
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
140
615
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts in response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this instance, Frere-Jean does not readily outline specific manner in which the longitudinal seal is formed while Zeiler teaches a well-known method/practice as to how such longitudinal “fin” seals are formed in VFFS machines. As outlined such fin sealing form a more reliable longitudinal seal in comparison to overlap seals as taught by Zeiler (Para. 0008).
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 9 that:
PNG
media_image5.png
230
636
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts Frere-Jean, by itself, discloses such a triangular shaped receptacle/bowl as shown in Figure 8. Note as modified in view of Zeiler and positioning of the longitudinal seal, more of the pouch volume would remain when opened thereby creating a deeper bowl shaped receptacle.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Page 9 that:
PNG
media_image6.png
212
640
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully asserts in response to Applicant's argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1915). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures take as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 110 USPQ 209 (CCVA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA. 1969).
In this case, Frere-Jean discloses a method of making a similar tetrahedral type package with a triangular opening as outlined and further Zeiler teaches a process of forming a longitudinal sealing and positioning thereof as claimed which for the reasons outlined above, provides a stable longitudinal seal in such packages while Nilsson teaches tearing characteristics which would readily assist in opening the package of Frere-Jean as outlined in the rejection above. Such references as a whole would readily lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the pouch and method of producing such pouch as claimed
Further, in response to Applicant's argument that the references are nonanalogous art, it has been held that the determination that a reference is from a nonanalogous art is twofold. First, we decide if the reference is within the field of the inventor's endeavor. If it is not, we proceed to determine whether the reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was involved. In re Wood, 202 USPQ 171, 174. In this case, each reference is within the field of packaging and therefore are clearly analogous references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
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 8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights