DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the response filed 11/11/2025.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly US 2011/0103716.
Regarding claim 1:
Reilly teaches a storage bag comprising: a strip-shaped sealed portion (40) extending approximately parallel to an edge of the bag, formed by two end sections of a film are overlapped and joined together ([0013]), wherein the strip-shaped sealed portion includes a single non-joined portion in which the two overlapped end sections of the film is not joined together in part ([0013]), and wherein the non-joined portion forms a single vent passage (46) communicating an inside and an outside of the bag ([0034]).
Reilly does not explicitly teach the bag being a coffee storage bag for storing 60 g to 500 g of coffee, having a length of about 10 cm to 60 cm and a width of about 10 cm to 40 cm; 3the strip-shaped sealed portion having a width of 5 mm to 15 mm; and the vent passage having a length of 100 mm to 400 mm, and a width of 0.5 mm to 3 mm.
However, Examiner takes the position that the bag of Reilly, by virtue of being configured for storing liquids, would be capable of storing 60g to 500g of coffee as a matter of intended use, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the dimensions of the bag such that the bag has a length of about 10 cm to 60 cm and a width of about 10 cm to 40 cm; the strip-shaped sealed portion having a width of 5 mm to 15 mm; and the vent passage having a length of 100 mm to 400 mm, and a width of 0.5 mm to 3 mm, all of which lie in expected ranges for storing contents, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). In this case, Reilly even suggests variability in the bag size based on its intended use (e.g., [0039]-[0040]), which would be even more reason for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the dimensions of the portions of the bag to optimize for the preservation of its contents.
Regarding claim 2:
Reilly teaches the coffee storage bag as recited in claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the film is composed of a barrier film (i.e., the film acts as a barrier to the environment).
Regarding claim 3:
Reilly teaches the coffee storage bag as recited in claim 1, as discussed above, but does not specifically teach wherein a ratio of an area of the vent passage to an area of the strip-shaped sealed portion is 0.05 to 0.50.
However, the area of the vent passages shown in FIG. 3 appear to be more than 5% and less than 50% of the area of the strip seal. In any case, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the vent passage of Reilly by having the ratio of an area of the vent passage to an area of the strip-shaped sealed portion to any fraction, including 0.05 to 0.50, depending on how much gas the stored product is expected to produce and desired to be expelled.
Regarding claim 4:
Reilly teaches the coffee storage bag as recited in claim 1, as discussed above, wherein the strip-shaped sealed portion is an ultrasonically joined portion formed by joining the overlapped end sections of the film by means of ultrasonic joining ([0034]).
Regarding claim 5:
Modified Reilly teaches a coffee storage method, comprising the step of storing 60 g to 500 g of coffee in the coffee storage bag as recited in claim 1 (addressed in claim 1 rejection).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reilly, as applied above, and further in view of Hiyoshi US 2002/0054938.
Regarding claim 6:
Reilly teaches the coffee storage method as recited in claim 5, as discussed above, but does not teach wherein the step of storing is performed in a state in which nitrogen gas is charged inside the bag.
Hiyoshi teaches a related method disclosing “as an attempt to prevent deterioration of quality during storage, food is enclosed under vacuum or nitrogen substitution or a deoxidizer is enclosed together with the food so that oxidization is slowed” ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Reilly wherein the step of storing is performed in a state in which nitrogen gas is charged inside the bag, as taught by Hiyoshi, since this would prevent deterioration of quality during storage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered and are persuasive. Thus, a new non-final rejection is made above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408) 918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731