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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/24/25 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants amendments filed 10/24/2025 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,4-13,15-16,19,32,34,36-39,44-45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,4,6-12,15-16,19,44-45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu CN 105947431, hereafter Yu in view of DeConinck (provided in the previous office actions), Horiuchi et. al US 2015/0320712, and Hill US 5024536, hereafter Horiuchi and Hill, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses
Packing device for the preparation and oral administration of an effervescent powder comprising one or more active principles (abstract, para. 0022 disclosing granule or powdered medications figures 1-2), wherein said packing device provided with two storage chambers (figure 1-2, chambers (2)) physically separated from each other (by center seal (4)). Yu further discloses comprising defining a line of folding and/or tearing around a longitudinal axis and delimiting said two storage chambers physically separated from each other (the examiner notes that per paragraph 0032 center seal 4 divides the bag in two and is thus interpreted as defining a line of folding). Yu further discloses the device comprises no apertures (see figure 1)
The examiner notes that while Yu defines clear sealed lines to form the structure it is not disclosed that said lines are welded. Yu teaches that seal lines include top and bottom (81 and 82) and left and right (31 and 32) and longitudinal (4). As such, Yu also fails to teach wherein said packing device is a closed stick-pack having only three welds (Yu discloses 5) and formed by a pipe of poly-coupled polymer-metal material on which there are two transverse closing welds, upper and lower, and a central separation weld defining a folding line around a longitudinal axis, said separation weld delimiting said two storage chambers.
DeConinck teaches a method for sealing a flexible storage bag and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. DeConinck teaches a that the bag is made from an outer film of PET, polyamide aluminum, or paper for the outer layer, and polyethylene for the inner layer (column 2 lines 49-60, column 3, lines 5-8). Further column 3 lines 35-50 shows that such bags may be sealed in various ways including a dual film configuration with 3 seals (figure 1, left, right, and bottom sealed), a single film system comprising one seal (figure 2, bottom only sealed), and a single film comprising a seal at the top and bottom (figure 3). The examiner notes that per the same citation, the closures are formed by heat sealing and thus interpreted as welds. The examiner notes that the configuration see in figure 2 and 3 and both interpreted as a pipe. Therefore as Yu teaches a storage bag comprising various seals (top, bottom, left, right and longitudinal), and DeConinck teaches that storage bags comprising poly-coupled polymer-metal material are known in the art and may be sealed welding in various configurations include all sides sealed (like as seen in Yu), one side sealed, or a top and bottom sealed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such a poly-coupled polymer-metal material bag with a single film layer (pipe) as the bag of Yu, thus only requiring the sealing (weld) of the top and bottom. As such, said bag would only comprise three seals (two transverse closing welds (top and bottom), and a lateral separating weld). Doing so would achieve the predictable result of forming a bag for storing material.
While Yu teaches the chambers may comprise a powdered or granule drug, there is no disclosure of a first or second excipient.
Horiuchi teaches a storage device, where said storage includes the storage of medicine (para. 0054) and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Horiuchi teaches that medicine stored within the device may be powdered or granule and may comprise additives including excipients, binders, disintegrating agents, and more (para. 0135) and said compositions can further include vitamins and minerals (para. 0129). The examiner notes that specific examples of excipients may include calcium carbonate and light anhydrous silicic acid, where citric acid may be used as a sweetener (per para. 0135). Therefore as Horiuchi teaches that stored powdered medicines may include excipients or other various additives as needed (binders, lubricants, sweeteners), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include additives, such as excipients, in the powdered medicine of Yu.
Further, While Yu teaches the use of tear lines (6), it is not taught that the tear lines are a single line to simultaneously open said storage chambers with a single tear-off movement along said tear line.
Hill teaches a storage bag and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Hill teaches that said bag (1) comprises a vertical seal line (15) and closure line (11). Per column 2 lines 33-39, the vertical seal runs from the bottom of the bag to the closure line (11) allowing for both compartments to be opened together (through opening of the seal line). Per the same citation, the vertical seal can alternatively continue past the closure forming two separate compartments thus allowing for the compartments to be opened separately. Therefore, while Yu teaches that both compartments are opened separately lines of opening, Hill teaches construction of a bag where the two compartments may be formed and open separately or may be opened together based on the length of the vertical seal line. As such it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yu to have the tear line extend across both compartments, allowing for simultaneously opening of the compartments. The examiner notes that as Hill teaches that the single closure line or two separate closure lines are both capable of providing the same function, said combination would be applying simple substitution of one known element (multiple closure lines) for another (single closure line) to obtain predictable results (that being maintaining storage of the bag while allowing opening for access into the bags).
Regarding claim 4, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device as in claim 2, wherein said two storage chambers (Yu figure 1) have a common central joining side along said longitudinal axis and said folding line (4) and two respective external lateral edges (periphery (best labeled by 31 and 32))
Regarding claim 11, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device as in claim 4, wherein said two storage chambers (as seen in Yu) can be positioned on top of each other by means of rotation around said folding line along said longitudinal axis (4), in order to assume an overlapping condition, laterally delimited on one side by a joining edge defined along a common joining line (24) between said two storage chambers along the longitudinal axis and on an opposite side by an overlapping edge of the respective external lateral edges (outside (left/right) edge) of said two storage chambers, wherein the overall transverse bulk of said packing device is substantially halved. The examiner notes that per the MPEP section 2114 section II “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Therefore as Yu teaches a drug storage bag comprising two chambers, each with a lateral side, and common joining line along a longitudinal access, and the folding of the bag is functional language, it is interpreted that Yu reads to the claimed limitation. The examiner notes that as seen in the figures that as the joining line (4) is placed in the middle of the bag, folding the bag along said line would result in the bulk being substantially halved.
Regarding claim 15, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device as in claim 1, wherein said storage chambers (see Yu figure 1) are physically separated from each other by an intermediate sealing strip (4).
Regarding claim 16, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device as in claim 1, wherein said active principles comprise one or more of pharmacological substances, vitamins, minerals, probiotics, amino acids, trace elements, antioxidants and plant extracts. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, it was found obvious to use the additives to powdered medications, where said substances may include vitamins, minerals, and more amino acids (para. 0129-0135 of Horiuchi).
Regarding claim 19, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device as in claim 1, wherein said storage chambers are in a controlled environment (Yu and DeConinck per the rejection of claim 1). The examiner notes as detailed under the rejection of claim 1 the combination of Yu and Deconinck teach a sealed bag, where the only means of accessing the bag is to tear off a portion of the bag using tear lines. Therefore it is interpreted that the sealed bag provides a controlled environment prior to opening, as there is no access into the bag.
Regarding claim 32, Yu discloses
A packing device for the preparation and oral administration of an effervescent powder comprising one or more active principles (abstract, para. 0022 disclosing granule or powdered medications figures 1-2), wherein said packing device provided with two storage chambers (figure 1-2, chambers (2)) physically separated from each other (by center seal (4)).
Yu further discloses the device comprises no apertures (see figure 1).
The examiner notes that while Yu defines clear sealed lines to form the structure it is not disclosed that said lines are welded. Yu teaches that seal lines include top and bottom (81 and 82) and left and right (31 and 32) and longitudinal (4). As such, Yu also fails to teach wherein said packing device is a closed stick-pack having only three welds (Yu discloses 5) and formed by a pipe of poly-coupled polymer-metal material on which there are two transverse closing welds, upper and lower, and a central separation weld defining a folding line around a longitudinal axis, said separation weld delimiting said two storage chambers.
DeConinck teaches a method for sealing a flexible storage bag and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. DeConinck teaches a that the bag is made from an outer film of PET, polyamide aluminum, or paper for the outer layer, and polyethylene for the inner layer (column 2 lines 49-60, column 3, lines 5-8). Further column 3 lines 35-50 shows that such bags may be sealed in various ways including a dual film configuration with 3 seals (figure 1, left, right, and bottom sealed), a single film system comprising one seal (figure 2, bottom only sealed), and a single film comprising a seal at the top and bottom (figure 3). The examiner notes that per the same citation, the closures are formed by heat sealing and thus interpreted as welds. The examiner notes that the configuration see in figure 2 and 3 and both interpreted as a pipe. Therefore as Yu teaches a storage bag comprising various seals (top, bottom, left, right and longitudinal), and DeConinck teaches that storage bags comprising poly-coupled polymer-metal material are known in the art and may be sealed welding in various configurations include all sides sealed (like as seen in Yu), one side sealed, or a top and bottom sealed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such a poly-coupled polymer-metal material bag with a single film layer (pipe) as the bag of Yu, thus only requiring the sealing (weld) of the top and bottom. As such, said bag would only comprise three seals (two transverse closing welds (top and bottom), and a lateral separating weld). Doing so would achieve the predictable result of forming a bag for storing material.
The examiner notes that as seen in Muramatsu, the prior art does disclose a central separation weld defining a folding line around a longitudinal axis (figure 1, weld (24)), said separation weld delimiting said two storage chambers (para. 0025, chambers 26-1 and 26-2), and discloses that the top and bottom of the bag is welded (two transverse welds). As detailed above under the same rejection of claim 32, Muramatsu upon combination with Brandl found it obvious to have powdered excipients and active ingredients within each of the two chambers. However Muramatsu fails to teach that these are the only welds and that the body is a pipe made from poly-coupled polymer-metal material, thus not requiring the side (lateral) welds.
DeConinck teaches a method for sealing a flexible storage bag and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. DeConinck teaches a that the bag is made from an outer film of PET, polyamide aluminum, or paper for the outer layer, and polyethylene for the inner layer (column 2 lines 49-60, column 3, lines 5-8). Further column 3 lines 35-50 shows that such bags may be sealed in various ways including a dual film configuration with 3 seals (figure 1, left, right, and bottom sealed), a single film system comprising one seal (figure 2, bottom only sealed), and a single film comprising a seal at the top and bottom (figure 3). The examiner notes that per the same citation, the closures are formed by heat sealing and thus interpreted as welds. The examiner notes that the configuration see in figure 2 and 3 and both interpreted as a pipe. Therefore as DeConinck teaches that storage bags comprising poly-coupled polymer-metal material may be sealed in various configurations include all sides sealed, one side sealed, or a top and bottom sealed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use such a poly-coupled polymer-metal material bag with a single film layer (pipe) as the bag of Muramatsu, thus only requiring the sealing of the top and bottom. As such, said bag would only comprise three seals (two transverse closing welds, and a lateral separating weld).
Further, While Yu teaches the use of tear lines (6), it is not taught that the tear lines are a single line to simultaneously open said storage chambers with a single tear-off movement along said tear line.
Hill teaches a storage bag and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Hill teaches that said bag (1) comprises a vertical seal line (15) and closure line (11). Per column 2 lines 33-39, the vertical seal runs from the bottom of the bag to the closure line (11) allowing for both compartments to be opened together (through opening of the seal line). Per the same citation, the vertical seal can alternatively continue past the closure forming two separate compartments thus allowing for the compartments to be opened separately. Therefore, while Yu teaches that both compartments are opened separately lines of opening, Hill teaches construction of a bag where the two compartments may be formed and open separately or may be opened together based on the length of the vertical seal line. As such it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yu to have the tear line extend across both compartments, allowing for simultaneously opening of the compartments. The examiner notes that as Hill teaches that the single closure line or two separate closure lines are both capable of providing the same function, said combination would be applying simple substitution of one known element (multiple closure lines) for another (single closure line) to obtain predictable results (that being maintaining storage of the bag while allowing opening for access into the bags).
Regarding claim 34, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device (10) as in claim 32, wherein said storage chambers are in a controlled environment (Yu and DeConinck per the rejection of claim 1). The examiner notes as detailed under the rejection of claim 1 the combination of Yu and Deconinck teach a sealed bag, where the only means of accessing the bag is to tear off a portion of the bag using tear lines. Therefore it is interpreted that the sealed bag provides a controlled environment prior to opening, as there is no access into the bag.
Regarding claim 35, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device as in claim 32, wherein it comprises closing welds defining a line of folding and/or tearing around a longitudinal axis and delimiting said two storage chambers physically separated from each other (the examiner notes that per paragraph 0032 center seal 4 divides the bag in two and is thus interpreted as defining a line of folding).
Regarding claim 36, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device as in claim 32 wherein said two storage chambers are made in a single sachet (Yu figure 1, where the periphery is interpreted as the single sachet) .
Regarding claim 37, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device as in claim 36, wherein said two storage chambers (Yu figure 1) are separated by a transverse division or membrane (4) inside said sachet (within the single bag).
Regarding claim 38, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device as in claim 36, wherein it comprises a single sachet (Yu figure 1, where the periphery is interpreted as the single sachet).
Regarding claim 44, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device as in claim 1, wherein a first excipient is present in said storage chamber containing said one or more active principles and a second excipient is present in said other storage chamber containing said one or more active principles. The examiner notes that per the rejection of claim 1, Yu (figure 1) has the chambers physically separated from each other (by weld (4)). The examiner notes that while the bag is interpreted to comprise active principles (see rejection of claim 1 where Yu discloses powdered medicine and where Horiuchi teaches that powdered medicines may comprise additives including excipients). As such it is interpreted that the first chamber would comprise an active ingredient (powdered medicine) and an excipient (per Horiuchi para. 0135) and the second chamber would comprise an active ingredient and excipient. Should applicant argue that the first and second active ingredients and excipients are different, the examiner notes that this language is not claimed, and if it were, the holding of the ingredients is functional language. Per MPEP Section 2114 “A claim containing 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. Therefore as per claim 1, the structural limitations of the claimed limitation are taught by the prior art, and the storing of two different materials in two separate chambers of a bag is functional language, the combination of arts reads to the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 45, Muramatsu, Brandl, and Hardy teach
The packing device as in claim 1, wherein said powder composition is an effervescent powder, said first excipient is for effervescence and said second excipient is for effervescence, wherein when said first excipient has a basic nature, said second excipient has an acidic nature, or vice versa. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, it was found obvious to include additives such as excipients for powdered medicine (Yu in view of Horiuchi). Per the rejection of claim 1, Horiuchi teaches that examples of additives include excipients including calcium carbonate and silicic acid or alternatively citric acid (para. 0135). As such said substances included an acidic substance and a basic substance, where said acidic excipient substances includes citric acid. However while calcium carbonate is disclosed, potassium, magnesium, nor sodium carbonate/bicarbonate is disclosed. Per MPEP Section 2114 “A claim containing 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim”. Therefore as per claim 1, the structural limitations of the claimed limitation are taught by the prior art, and the storing of basic excipients such as calcium carbonate is taught, the storing of a different carbonate is understood to be functional language, and the device of Yu and Horiuchi would be capable of storing such excipients.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of DeConinck, Horiuchi, and Hill and further in view of Igota et al. US 8118158, Igota.
Regarding claim 5, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill teach
The packing device as in claim 3, but fails to specifically teach wherein one or the other of said transverse closing welds, upper or lower, has a protruding nose welding portion facing toward the inside and disposed centrally in correspondence with said longitudinal axis.
Igota teaches a sealed storage bag and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Igota teaches such storage bags may include welded portions (See figure 2, portions (10)) in addition to top welded portion (5), as a means for reinforcement of the bag by limiting outward displacement of the bag (column 7 lines 43-67). Therefore, as a means to provide the bag structure of Yu with further reinforcement, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide welded portions (such as those seen as (10) in Igota) by use of known technique to improve similar devices (storage bags) in the same way (providing reinforcement to limit outward displacement). The examiner notes that as said weld extends away from the top welded line and into the bag, the additional welds are interpreted as nose welding portions.
Regarding claim 6, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi, Hill, and Igota teach
The packing device as in claim 5. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, Yu teaches that said bag may comprises tear line (6)) configured to open the chamber (para. 0037). Yu further teaches aid packing device comprises a pre-cut (5) disposed along said longitudinal axis (Y) and transverse thereto, and configured to define a tear-off lead-in in order to open said chambers along said tear line (20) transverse to said longitudinal axis (Y) (para. 0037). The examiner notes that 5 is defined as an easy tear line, that when used the bag is torn along line (5), causing tear line (6) to open the seal (7) in the device, allowing for access in the chamber (this process is defined in para. 0037). As such the easy tear line (5) is interpreted as a precut defining a lead in to open the package.
Regarding claim 7, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi, Hill, and Igota teach
The packing device as in claim 6, wherein said pre-cut is made astride said joining side. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claims 6, easy tear line (5) is interpreted as the pre-cut. As seen in figure 1, said line (5) is at least astride a joining side as it touches the “left” or “right” side of the bag.
Regarding claim 8, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi, Hill, and Igota teach
The packing device as in claim 6, wherein said pre-cut is made as a through incision from side to side through the material of said pipe. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 6, a precut was disclosed by Yu. Further, as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, it was found obvious to make the tear line of Yu a single tear line extending across both chambers, and as such said precut would extends through the entire length of the top of the device. As such it is interpreted that said precut is from side to side through a material of the device.
Regarding claim 9, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi, Hill, and Igota teach
The packing device as in claim 6, wherein said pre-cut is disposed inside the welding area of one or the other of said transverse closing welds, upper or lower. The examiner notes that as seen in figure 1 of Yu, the pre-cut (5) extends to and through seam (81). Per the rejection of claim 1, (81) is the upper closing weld. As such the precut is disposed inside the welding area.
Regarding claim 10, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi, Hill, and Igota teach
The packing device as in claim 6, wherein said pre- cut is provided in said protruding nose welding portion. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 6, the pre-cut extends across the entire bottom of the bag. As the interpreted nose runs from the top weld into the bag the precut would extend across the nose and thus the precut is interpreted to be providing in the nose portion.
Regarding claim 12, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi, Hill, and Igota teach
The packing device as in claim 6, wherein in said overlapping condition said pre-cut is astride said joining edge so that, by tearing said pre-cut, the simultaneous opening of both of said two storage chambers is determined along said tear line. The examiner notes that as detailed under the rejection of claim 1, the tear line would extend across the entire top of Yu and thus would be astride the joining side and thus allow for simultaneous opening of both chambers, as tearing the precut would open both chambers.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of DeConinck, Horiuchi, and Hill, and further in view of Falciani US 4700838, hereafter Falciani provided in the previous office action.
Regarding claim 13, Muramatsu and Brandl teach
Packing device as in claim 1. As detailed under the rejection of claim 1, DeConinck teaches the bag is made from an film of PET, polyamide aluminum, or paper for the outer layer, and polyethylene for the inner layer (column 2 lines 49-60, column 3, lines 5-8). Per the rejection of claim 1, it was found have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use PET as the outermost layer of the bag. As such the bag would therefore comprise and outer PET later, and an inner polyethylene layer.
However, the combination of arts as applied in the rejection of claim 1 fails to teach an intermediate aluminum layer.
Falciani teaches a medical storage container and is thus considered analogous to the claimed invention. Falciani teaches that the device comprises a bag wherein the bag is made from an innermost layer of polyethylene, an intermediate layer of aluminum, and an outermost layer made from polyester (abstract, see claim 1). Therefore as Falciani teaches that medical storage bags are known in the art to comprised a multilayer configuration made from polyethylene, aluminum, and a polyester it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the polyester outer layer (PET) and polyethylene inner layer of the device (in view of DeConinck) with an aluminum intermediate layer, as such a construction is known in the art to form storage bags.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of DeConinck, Horiuchi, and Hill and further in view of Pelloni EP 1859771, hereafter Pelloni, provided in the previous office action and IDS.
Regarding claim 39, Muramatsu, Brandl, and Hardy teach
The packing device as in claim 36, but fails to teach wherein it comprises two or more sachets connected to each other by a tear line. The examiner notes that Yu is interpreted as a single sachet with a seal delimiting the two chambers.
Pelloni teaches a device comprising two chambers separated by a tear line (abstract, see figure 2, para. 0012). Pelloni further teaches that said bag is bipartite and that the two chambers (21 and 22) and separate and further separable by tear line (23)(para. 0009-0011). Therefore it is interpreted that the device of Pelloni is a two sachet bag comprising two separate chambers with a tearable line connecting the two. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bag of Yu with two sachets connected by an external tear line, thus delimiting two separate sachets as compared the current one sachet with an internal tear line, as both configurations allow for the storage, and access of medication.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20080240628 A1 disclosing a multicompartment storage bag.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew Wrubleski whose telephone number is (571)272-1150. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00 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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached on 571-270-5879. 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.
/MATTHEW WRUBLESKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/ARIANA ZIMBOUSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights