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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants amendments filed 03/11/2026 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 fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the prior art fails to teach all elements of amended independent claims 1 and 32. Applicant further argues that the prior art specifically fails to teach the “closed-stick pack having only three welds”. Applicant states that the examiner relies on DeConinck to teach this but argues that DeConinck does not teach a three-weld configuration with a central chamber and only teaches a single film with two seals (top and bottom) forming a closed tube. Applicant further argues that combining DeConinck with Yu would be structurally impossible as Yu requires 4 peripheral welds to maintain the integrity of its two chambers and destroying the lateral seals would destroy the ability of Yu to maintain separated chambers. The examiner respectfully disagrees with both arguments. The examiner notes that as detailed in the previously office action, DeConinck teaches various configurations for a storage bag welding, including various weld amounts (see figures 1-3, see also column 3, lines 36-50)). Specifically, figure 3 shows that either of the embodiments seen in figures 1 or 2 is heat sealed at the top (column 3 lines 47-50). Therefore a bag with only the top and bottom sealed (where there is a one weld at the bottom configuration in figure 2, and the top is subsequently welded in figure 3) is a suitable replacement for a bag having lateral side welds (thus 4 total welds (right, left, bottom, top)), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the two seal configuration bag of DeConinck as the bag of Yu as a means of simple substitution. The examiner notes that therefore the bag would have two welds (Top and bottom) and a third weld separating the chambers (as taught by Yu). Applicant provides no evidence that the bag of Yu, modified to have only two external welds (taught by DeConinck) would fail to maintain the integrity of its two chambers as destroying the lateral seals would destroy the ability of Yu to maintain separated chambers as DeConinck teaches that bags known in the art may be suitably created with multiple weld configurations, and thus said argument is found to be nonpersuasive.
Applicant further argues (see page 16) that the combination is a hindsight combination based on applicant disclosure, as the combination requires art from different fields including medical dosing bags, detergent bags, and lunchboxes, where the arts are used to fill in gaps left by the other. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Yu, DeConinck, and Hill, while directed to different uses, are all storage bags configured to store a substance and open again for access into the bag. As such, the examiner finds the art to be analogous. Horiuchi also teaches a bag, but was combined mainly to teach that medicine stored within bags may be in various forms and include excipients. Therefore as all of the prior art are directed to storage bags, the examiner finds the art analogous.
Also per page 16, applicant argues that the examiner provides no indications as to why a person of ordinary skill would modify Yu’s fully functional five-weld structure to make the claimed three weld structure, where Yu is directed to a powder for medicine and DeConinck is directed to household detergents. The examiner notes that as stated above, both arts are directed to storage bags and are thus analogous, where DeConinck teaches that storage bags may suitably comprise various outer weld amounts and still function properly. As such a simple substitution rationale for a prima facie case of obviousness was applied, where the expected result was storage of a component within the bag.
Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach a tear line provide transverse to the longitudinal axis to simultaneously open both of said storage chambers with a single tear off movements. Applicant argues that Yu teaches that the bag is used for dosing (one chamber is torn open when a child is using whereas both chambers are torn open when an adult is using). Based applicants citation the bag of Yu may have both chambers opened when in use. As such both chambers may be opened through a tear line. However, as the examiner states in the office action there is not a single tear line to open the chambers simultaneously in one motion. As such the examiner relies on Hill. Applicant argues that Hill teaches that simultaneous opening and separate opening is taught by Hill as alternate configurations suited to different applications, allowing for a choice rather than identifying an improvement. Applicant argues that Hill thus teaches equivalent alternatives, not an improvement that would have motivated a skilled artisan to alter Yu’s functionally. The examiner agrees that Hill teaches that a simultaneous opening and separate opening are equivalent alternatives, however, there is no indication in said citation that they are suited to different applications. Rather an equivalent alternative is interpreted to perform the same function in a different manner. Therefore as Yu teaches that the device may be selectively opened (only one chamber) or opened together (open both chambers), where Hill teaches that a tear line provided to open chambers simultaneously is an “equivalent alternative” it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as a matter of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (opening of multiple chambers of a bag) and thus a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Argument C ( page 18) appears to be the same as the previously argument (b) in that the combination of Yu and Hill fails to teach the required tear line and simultaneous opening of the chambers. As such, the same response provided directly above applies to argument C.
Argument D is moot, as argument D states that the dependent claims are allowable for the same reasons as claims 1 and 32. As claims 1 and 32 are not found to be allowable, the dependent claims are not either.
Applicant argues that Igota (applied to claims 5-12) fails to cure the deficiencies of the other cited references. Applicant argues that no reason for the combination of Igota was articulated. The examiner notes that a reason was articulated, that being (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way (See MPEP Section 2143 I).
Applicant argues that Falciani (applied to claims 13) fails to cure the deficiencies of the other cited references. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons provided hereafter and in the previous office action regarding the rejection of claim 13.
Applicant argues that Pelloni (applied to claim 39) is structural and functionally different from “two or more sachets connected by each other by a tear line. The examiner respectfully disagrees as the claim merely requires a sachet (which in the case of claim 36 [from which claim 39]) depends on is one storage section. Therefore as Pelloni discloses two separate storage sections it is interpreted that Pelloni comprises two sachets, where the sachets are connected by a tear line. The examiner notes that while the argument that Pelloni’s tear line is internal and not an external sachet connection, the claim limitations are much broader than that (requiring only a tear line to separate two or more sachets, where, as stated above, the sachet is merely required to be the storage chamber of the claims), and as such Pelloni reads to the claimed limitation.
Applicant argues that claims 11,44 and 45 rejected in view of MPEP 2114 is inapplicable to the powder in said claims. Applicant argues that the content of the bags is a part of the claimed structure, not an intended use. The examiner respectfully disagrees, as the bags provided are structurally capable of holding different components and thus the use of 2114 is upheld. Applicant further argues that Horiuchi fails to teach supplying a powder, and separating the excipients. The examiner notes that Horiuchi was merely combined to show that various materials or excipients (per para. 0135) may be added to powdered medicines. The examiner notes that Horiuchi was used a teaching reference to combine with Yu to teach that excipients can be used with powdered medications. As such the prior art reads to the limitation of “a first excipient present in said storage chamber comprising one or more active principles), and as such rejection is upheld.
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.
The examiner notes that in view of the amendments filed 03/11/2026 the combination of Yu in view of DeConinck teaches that the device has no welds or seals other than said only three welds (that being the top weld, bottom weld, and longitudinal separating weld, as detailed above under the same rejection).
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.
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).
The examiner notes that in view of the amendments filed 03/11/2026 the combination of Yu in view of DeConinck teaches that the device has no welds or seals other than said only three welds (that being the top weld, bottom weld, and longitudinal separating weld, as detailed above under the same rejection).
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, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill 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, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill 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, Yu, DeConinck, Horiuchi and Hill 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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