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
Claims 1-14 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Note that although the instant application comprises continuity data dating back to 6/28/2019, the claimed invention of Claims 1-14 does not comprise support within the parent applications and therefore the effective filing date thereof is 5/27/2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Paragraphs 0039, 0050, and 0079 (two recitations) each recite “sealed or welted” but would better recite “sealed or welded”.
-Paragraph 0012 outlines “a third sealing edge substantially orthogonally to the first sealing edge, the third sealing edge being a second sealing edge for another of the two pouches” however, previously in Para. 0012, the specification recites “a first sealing edge, the first sealing edge being a first sealing edge for both of two adjacent pouches” and “a second sealing edge substantially orthogonally to the first sealing edge, the second sealing edge being a second sealing edge for one of the two pouches”. See the “Annotated View of Figure 6” below as it would appear that the “first sealing edge” and “the third sealing edge” are forming sealing edges in different pouches and only the “second sealing edge” forms sealing edges of two adjacent pouches.
-Paragraph 0019 outlines similar details of Paragraph 0012 and therefore also presents a similar objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated View of Figure 6
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 7A-7C comprise shading that does not assist in understanding the invention per 37 CFR 1.84 (m). Figures 8A-8C comprise photographs which are not permitted as outlined by 37 CFR 1.84 (b). 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.
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
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 9-10 recite “sealing across the tube to generate a first sealing edge and forming an opening, the first sealing edge being a first sealing edge for both of two adjacent pouches”, lines 12-14 recite “sealing across the tube to close the opening and generate a second sealing edge …the second sealing edge being a second sealing edge for one of the two pouches” and lines 15-17 recite “sealing across the tube to generate a third sealing edge substantially orthogonally to the first sealing edge after filling …the third sealing edge being a second sealing edge for another of the two pouches”. These limitations, in combination, render the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to how the “first sealing edge” comprises a sealing edge for two adjacent pouches as well as how “the second sealing edge” and “the third sealing edge” form edges of two different pouches of the claimed “two pouches” and orthogonal to the “first sealing edge”. Refer to the “Specification” section above which outlines the lack of consistency between the Figures and the written portion of the specification and therefore appears to be contributing to the lack of clarity of the claimed limitations.
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 and 9, line 1 recites “wherein sealing is performed by jaw pairs”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear as to which “sealing” is being referred to as several “sealing” steps are claimed in Claim 1. Similarly, it is unclear as to what “sealing” is referring to in Claim 4 and Claim 11.
Further regarding Claim 8, the claim recites “A system for producing pyramidal shaped pouches…comprising a machine configured to perform a method comprising…” followed by essentially the same method outlined in Claim 1. While the claim does recite “holding…on a reel”, “unwinding…via rolls”, and “forming…via a forming shoulder and a metallic forming tube”, it is unclear if these structures (reel, rolls, shoulder, tube) are intended to be encompassed by the claimed machine or system as the structures are outlined in a functional limitation. Further later functional recitations of “sealing”, “filling”, “creating a notch”, and “cutting” are outlined in the claim but no structures for performing such functions are outlined in the claim and therefore rendering the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear what structures are being encompassed by such functional limitations.
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.
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 Miyahara (WO 2010/140242-see attached PDF for copy of document and attached English translation with annotated Paragraph numbering (provided by IP.com)), and in further view of Zeiler (US PGPUB 2011/0088352).
Regarding Claim 1, Frere-Jean discloses a method for producing pyramidal shaped pouches (sachet/bags 1; Figure 9) and filling them with a food product (cereal, rice, etc.; Para. 0046) the method comprising:
providing a heat sealable material (material 32 of 1; Para. 0074) on a reel (Paras. 0098 and 0101 disclose an “unwinder” which readily implies the material was wound on a reel structure);
unwinding the material (32; “conveying step” performed by “unwinder”; Para. 0106);
forming a tube from the material (32) via a forming tube (formed by 31 and 40) on which the material is wrapped (Para. 0099, 0102);
sealing along a longitudinal direction where the material overlaps to form a longitudinal sealing (13; 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);
sealing (via ramps 36) across the tube to generate a first sealing edge (upper sealing line 11) and forming an opening, the first sealing edge (11) being a first sealing edge for both of two adjacent pouches (1 depicted in Figure 10; Para. 0102);
filling via the forming tube (31, 40) the food product in the opening (Para. 0102);
sealing (via ramps 35) across the tube to close the opening (via lower sealing lines 12) and generate a second sealing edge (12) substantially orthogonally to the first sealing edge (11; see Figure 10), the second sealing edge (12) being a second sealing edge (12) for one of the two pouches (6 depicted in Figure 10; Para. 0102);
sealing (via 35) across the tube to generate a third sealing edge (12 formed in subsequent pouch) substantially orthogonally to the first sealing edge (11) after filling in the food product, the third sealing edge being a second sealing edge for another of the two pouches (note the 112 rejections above as it is unclear as to how the claimed “third sealing edge” and “second sealing edge” form sealing edges of separate pouches orthogonal to the “first sealing edge” and the two pouches comprising edges formed by the “first sealing edge”);
creating a notch (23 including tear initiator 14; Para. 0071-0072) in the first sealing edge (11) adjacent the longitudinal sealing (13) to form a tear area for generating an opening on each of the two adjacent pouches (Para. 0071; see Figure 11 for reference), the tear area extending substantially along the longitudinal sealing (13; see Figure 8; Paras. 0071-0072); and
cutting laterally along the first sealing edge (11) to separate the two adjacent pouches (1), each filled with the food product (Para. 0103).
However, Frere-Jean fails to explicitly disclose (1) the heat sealable material (32) being multi-layered, (2) unwinding being via rolls, and while Frere-Jean discloses forming via a former and filling tool (31, 40) but does not explicitly disclose (3) forming a tube via a forming shoulder and a metallic forming tube (formed by 31 and 40) on which the material is wrapped.
Attention is be brought to Miyahara which teaches another method for producing pyramidal shaped pouches (sachet/bags 6; Figure 1) and filling them with a food product (Para. 22) the method comprising:
-unwinding a heat sealable material (5) via rolls (74; Para. 42);
-forming a tube from the material (5) via a forming shoulder (72) and a forming tube (73) on which the material (5) is wrapped (Para. 42).
Feeding rollers and forming shoulders/tubes are well known in form, fill and seal machines. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have incorporated feeding rolls for unwinding the material and further utilizing a forming shoulder and forming tube to shape the material as taught by Miyahara into the system/method of Frere-Jean. By modifying Frere-Jean in this manner, the material can be readily formed into a tube repeatedly and consistently and the feeding of the material can be controlled at a constant speed as taught by Miyahara (Para. 42).
Further, although Miyahara does not readily disclose the forming tube being a metallic material, 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 forming tube, 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.
Further attention can be brought to the teachings of Zeiler which includes another method for producing pyramidal shaped pouches (2; Figure 1A) and filling them with a food product (Para. 0003) utilizing a multi-layered heat sealable material (600, 650, 680; Figures 15A-15C).
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).
Regarding Claim 8, Frere-Jean, as modified by Miyahara and Zeiler (in the manner as outlined in Claim 1), discloses a system for producing pyramidal shaped pouches (1; Figure 9) and filling them with 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 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 material by one pouch length after sealing and filling in 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).
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 Miyahara (WO 2010/140242-see attached PDF for copy of document and attached English translation with annotated Paragraph numbering (provided by IP.com)) and Zeiler (US PGPUB 2011/0088352), 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).
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 1/16/2026