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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on pages 6 and 7 of the Remarks that Zaksenberg in view of Perell does not two breachable points; however, as explained in this Action, each of the aforementioned references teach separate breachable points.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaksenberg (U.S. Pat. 6,357,631) in view of Perell (U.S. Pub. 2010/0326989).
Regarding claim 1, Zakensberg discloses a package comprising:
a flexible container (10) having an interior volume (12) for receiving a flowable substance, the flexible container defining a sealed periphery (20);
a breachable point located along the sealed periphery of the flexible container, the breachable point having a weaker seal (18) than the remainder of the sealed periphery;
a fluid channel (through 14) comprising a fluid outlet (at 18 when 16 is detached) and at least one valve-like passageway (14), the fluid outlet being located adjacent to the breachable point, the at least one valve-like passageway being in fluid communication with the interior volume of the flexible container;
a single valve (memory valve, col. 4, lines 27-29) positioned between the fluid outlet and the interior volume of the flexible container, the single valve comprising a self-closinq valve (col. 1, lines 20-22: “The present invention provides a positive sealing valve arrangement so that after each dispensing the contents are positively sealed within the body of the container”), the self-closing valve comprising a barrier member (30, 32) positioned between the fluid outlet and the interior volume of the flexible container, the at least one valve-like passageway being formed between the barrier member and the sealed periphery, and wherein pressure applied to the flexible container causes the self-closing valve to open for dispensing controlled amounts of the flowable substance from the interior volume of the container and wherein, when pressure is no longer applied, the self-closing valve solely inhibits further flow of the flowable substance from the interior through the fluid outlet (col. 2, lines 58-65), and further
wherein, when pressure is no longer applied, the self-closing valve is in fluid communication with an ambient environment that does not inhibit environmental air from entering through the self-closing valve and into the volume of the flexible container (col. 4, line 64 – col. 5, line 4).
Zakensberg discloses a breachable point to breach for dispensing controlled amounts of the flowable substance from the interior volume of the container but is silent in regards to a breachable bubble.
Perell discloses a flexible container with a breachable bubble (Fig. 2: 18) that when pressure is applied to the breachable bubble causes the breachable point (32) to breach along a bubble seal (30). (¶ [0008])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the breachable bubble including a first breachable point (along the bubble seal) with Zakensberg’s second breachable point along the sealed periphery of the flexible container, to insure the integrity of the contents prior to the first dispensing. (¶ [0008]: “The bubble seal prevents the contents of the container housing from exiting the container through the pour channel. The locking bubble, however, is breachable when subjected to sufficient pressure. For instance, a user can breach the bubble by squeezing the bubble between one's fingers.”)
Regarding claim 2, the combination, as modified by Perell, discloses that the fluid channel initially contains trapped air (¶ [0015]: “the fold may be pressed into sealing engagement around the edges to trap ambient air within the bubble”) that causes the second breachable point to breach when pressure is applied to the flexible container, the trapped air being released through the fluid outlet before the flowable substance is dispensed.
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses that the fluid channel includes a first valve-like passageway located on one side of the barrier member and a second valve-like passageway located on an opposite side of the barrier member. (Zakensberg, Fig. 1: above and below the dotted oval lines in 14)
Regarding claim 4, Zakensberg discloses that the self-closing valve may have a triangular shape (col. 2, lines 36-37: “However it can be polygonal in shape having two, three or more sides.”).
Regarding claim 6, Zakensberg discloses that the barrier member has a shape that forms folds (Fig. 4A: 30, 32) in the flexible container walls to prevent liquid flow through the valve-like passageway absent external pressure.
Regarding claim 7, Zakensberg discloses that the flexible container includes a top and a bottom, the fluid outlet and second breachable point being located in a middle of the top. (seen in Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 8, Zakensberg discloses that the flexible container includes a top and a bottom, the fluid outlet and second breachable point being located in a middle of the top (seen in Fig. 1) but does not disclose that the breachable point is located at a top corner of the flexible container.
Perell teaches that the breachable point “may be positioned in a corner of the container or along the middle of an edge” (¶ [0015]) and illustrates that it is located at a top corner of the flexible container. (Fig. 4, 22 and 32)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Perell to position the breachable point and passageway to a top corner of the flexible container, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Zakensberg does not specify the volume of the interior of the container; however, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed choose a size for the container, such as 0.5 ounces to about 5 ounces or 5 ounces to about 64 ounces, based on the application and user preferences. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Regarding claim 11, Zakensberg discloses that the barrier member is transverse to an end of the fluid channel.
Regarding claim 12, Zakensberg discloses that the barrier member may have a rectangular shape (col. 2, lines 36-37: “However it can be polygonal in shape having two, three or more sides.”).
Regarding claim 13, Zakensberg discloses that the barrier member is formed by attaching together opposing container walls (24, 28 at 30, 32).
Regarding claim 14, Zakensberg discloses that the flexible container is made by separately thermoforming an upper sheet of film and a lower sheet of film but does not specify that it is a flexible polymer film. Perell teaches that a flexible container may be manufactured by polymer film (¶ [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teachings of Perell to manufacture flexible container of known materials, such as polymer film, on the basis of their suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 15, Zakensberg discloses that the flexible container is made by separately thermoforming an upper sheet of film and a lower sheet of film but does not specify that it is a flexible metalized film. Perell teaches that a flexible container may be manufactured by metalized film (¶ [0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teachings of Perell to manufacture flexible container of known materials, such as metalized film, on the basis of their suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) MPEP 2144.07
Regarding claim 19, the combination discloses that the modified package in claim 1 is capable of performing the following steps during normal use of opening the package comprising:
applying pressure to the breachable bubble (as modified by Perell) causing one of the breachable points to breach and subsequently applying pressure to the interior volume of the flexible package causing the other breachable point to breach and thereby placing the fluid outlet in communication with the outside environment; and
applying further pressure to the flexible container to cause the flowable substance contained within the interior volume to exit the flexible container through the self-closing valve and the fluid outlet, as disclosed by Zakensberg.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakensberg and Perell (‘989 Pub) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cox, et al. (U.S. Pat. 9,694,965).
Regarding claim 5, Zakensberg discloses a barrier member but does not disclose that it comprises a bubble filled with gas.
Cox discloses a flexible container and teaches barriers (1634) are an expansion volume (bubble) filled with gas. (col. 13, lines 46-53)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Zakensberg’s barrier with Cox’s barrier, which is a bubble filled with gas, since doing so would be a mere substitution of one known barrier for another known barrier with the expected results that the substituted barrier would control the flow from the container (see MPEP 2143 I B).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zakensberg and Perell (‘989 Pub) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perell (U.S. Pub. 2007/0235369).
Regarding claim 16, the combination is silent in regards to a strip containing a plurality of packages. Perell ‘369 discloses a strip containing a plurality of packages (Fig. 1A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to borrow the teaching of Perell ‘369 to manufacture a strip of packages to to provide a series of sequential storage units for presenting small components such as parts or medication in an easy to open storage unit.
Regarding claim 17, the combination, as modified by Perell ‘369, discloses the flexible packages (Perell ‘369: Fig. 1A: LOY) include a top and a bottom and wherein the top of a flexible package is connected to the bottom of an adjacent flexible package.
Regarding claim 18, the combination, as modified by Perell ‘369, discloses that the flexible packages are separated by lines of perforations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J MELARAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-7735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8 am - 5 pm +/- flex.
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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/MJM/ Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 May 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights