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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/27/2026 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1, lines 14 and 15 both recite “sealing across a first flattened end of the tube to form a first sealing edge” but one recitation should be removed as this is duplicative.
-Claim 1, lines 12-13 recite “a locally thickened sealing region” but would be better recited as “a locally thickened region”. Lines 29 and 33 also recite the same limitation.
-Claim 8, lines 15 and 16 both recite “sealing across a first flattened end of the tube to form a first sealing edge” but one recitation should be removed as this is duplicative.
-Claim 8, lines 13-14 recite “a locally thickened sealing region” but would be better recited as “a locally thickened region”. Lines 30 and 34 also recite the same limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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 11-13 recite “positioning the longitudinal sealing asymmetrically adjacent a pouch side edge and folding the longitudinal sealing toward the pouch side edge to form a locally thickened sealing 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 “asymmetrically adjacent a pouch side edge” as the pouch, at this point in the process is not readily formed. 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.
Further regarding Claim 1, lines 35-36 recite “releasing approximately half of a length of the second sealing edge, and forming a bowl-like opening configured to retain the food product”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to what is meant by “releasing approximately half of a length of the second sealing edge” and specifically, how an edge can be “released” and what such limitation encompasses. Further, 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.
Claim 8 recites essentially the same limitations, and although Claim 8 is a system claim, the claim is still rendered indefinite for the reasoning above.
Regarding Claims 2, 4, 9 and 11, line 1 recites “wherein sealing across is performed by …”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to which “sealing across” is being referred to as several “sealing across” steps are claimed in Claim 1 and 8.
Further regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “A system for producing a pouch…comprising a machine configured to perform a method comprising…” followed by essentially the same method outlined in Claim 1. No further structures are defined in the Claim to define the machine and system and therefore it is unclear as to what structure is intended to be encompassed by such functional limitations.
Note, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Further note “when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)”. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claims 3, 5-7, 10, and 12-14 are 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.
Note, while the Examiner might speculate as to what is meant by the claim language, the uncertainty provides the Examiner with no proper basis for making the comparison between that which is claimed and the prior art. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should not be based upon considerable speculation as to the meaning of terms employed and assumptions as to the scope of the claims. In re Steele, 134 USPQ 292. When no reasonably definite meaning can be ascribed to certain terms in a claim, the subject matter does not become obvious, but rather the claim becomes indefinite. In re Wilson, 165 USPQ 494. However, in an effort to expedite prosecution, Examiner has attempted to evaluate the patentability of the claims in view of the closest prior art references below.
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 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) asymmetrically adjacent a pouch side edge (edges 20; clearly shown in Figures 1-2) and form 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 sealing 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 spaced from the longitudinal sealing (13) and guided by the locally thickened sealing 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 opening configured to retain the food product (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, approximately half of a length of the second sealing edge is released.
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 released (see Figure 1A of Zeiler showing the sealing position).
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 for producing a pouch (1; Figure 9) for non-liquid a food product, the system comprising a machine (Figure 9) configured to perform the method as outlined in Claim 1 (see above).
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Frere-Jean, as modified, discloses sealing across 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 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 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on Pages 9-10 that:
PNG
media_image1.png
123
567
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
364
564
media_image2.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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. see “Notice of References Cited”.
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 5/21/2026
Prosecution Insights