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
The amendment filed 23 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-12, and 18-45 are currently pending in the application. Claims 9-12 and 18-31 are withdrawn. The rejections of record from the office action dated 24 July 2025 not repeated herein have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the air" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of this office action it will be interpreted as the interior volume includes 50% or less relative humidity at 20°C.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8 and 32-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 2014/0154370 A1) in view of Hagemeyer (US 2005/0260309 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2, 5-8 and 32-37, Wood discloses a containers, webs, sheets films, wrappings, bags, pouches formed of thermoplastic material, comprising a coating comprising a cyclodextrin inclusion complex, a carrier and an olefinic inhibitor, wherein the complex may be a α-cyclodextrin/1-MCP complex, wherein in one embodiment the coating may be exposed to an enclosed or partially enclosed volume within a produce package (i.e. a coated thermoplastic pouch having an exterior surface and an interior surface defining an interior volume that is excluded from free exchange with the atmosphere, and a coating affixed to at least a portion of the interior surface, the coating comprising a carrier and a particulate, the particulate comprising a clathrate of 1-methylcyclopropene with α-cyclodextrin (1-MCP/CD))([0009]-[0011], [0035]-[0036], [0078]-[0079]). Wood discloses an embodiment wherein a laminate is impermeable to the olefinic inhibitor on one side and permeable to the olefinic inhibitor on the other side and permeable to water on one side and not the other (i.e. at least a portion of the thermoplastic pouch is permeable to 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) gas and at least a portion of the coated thermoplastic pouch is permeable to water vapor)([0084]). It would have been obvious to provide this permeability to the pouch embodiment in order to provide activation of the olefinic inhibitor via water vapor and allow the olefinic inhibitor to reach the produce in the package to prevent spoilage.
Wood does not specifically disclose that the interior volume comprises a pressure in excess of atmospheric pressure or that the interior volume comprises a pressure that is 0.1 kPa to 140 kPa in excess of atmospheric pressure.
Hagemeyer discloses a food container pressurized with 138-345 kPa CO2 to prevent spoilage (i.e. the interior volume comprises a pressure in excess of atmospheric pressure; the interior volume comprises a pressure that overlaps 0.1 kPa to 140 kPa in excess of atmospheric pressure; the interior volume comprises CO2)([0011]).
Hagemeyer and Wood are analogous art because they both teach about food containers for preventing spoilage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the container/bag of Wood having the CO2/pressure as disclosed by Hagemeyer in order to provide a container/bag that has the advantage of preventing food spoilage and because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known design in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 2, Wood discloses an atmosphere containing 1 ppm of 1-MCP in an enclosed volume of 1 liter and the targeted weight range of the 1-MCP/CD is 25 micrograms to 1 milligram per 1 liter of enclosed volume (i.e. comprising an interior volume of 50 mL to 2000 mL of a gas that is not 1-MCP per milligram of 1-MCP present within the interior coating as 1-MCP/CD)([0142]). Additionally, it is noted that Wood discloses that one can adjust the amount of 1-MCP depending on many factors including the type of substrate and desired respiration rate of the product and therefore, it is the examiner’s position that this amount could be adjusted depending on the end use and thereby arrive at the claimed amount.
Regarding claim 6, Wood discloses that the substrate or substrates may be permeable to both 1-MCP and water vapor ([00134]). Given that the substrate or substrates may be a container, it is the examiner’s position that the entirety of the container would be permeable to both 1-MCP and water vapor.
Regarding claim 7, Wood discloses an embodiment wherein a laminate is impermeable to the olefinic inhibitor on one side and permeable to the olefinic inhibitor on the other side and permeable to water on one side and not the other (i.e. a first portion of the thermoplastic pouch is permeable to 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) gas and a second portion of the coated thermoplastic pouch is permeable to water vapor)([0084]). It would have been obvious to provide this permeability to the pouch embodiment in order to provide activation of the olefinic inhibitor via water vapor and allow the olefinic inhibitor to reach the produce in the package to prevent spoilage.
Regarding claims 32-37, it is clear from Figure 6 that Wood discloses embodiments comprising a kit comprising two or more coated thermoplastic pouches, wherein the pouches are joined in an array, wherein the array is detachably joined, wherein the array is in a strip format, a sheet format and a roll format. (Figure 6, [0175]-[0176]). It would have been obvious to provide the pouches in this format since it is disclosed by Wood.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 2014/0154370 A1) and Hagemeyer (US 2005/0260309 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Saari et al. (US 2003/0203081 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Modified Wood discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wood does not disclose that the interior volume includes 50% or less relative humidity at 20°C.
Saari discloses controlling humidity in a food package to less than 5% RH to prevent mold (abstract, claim 2).
Wood and Saari are analogous art because they both teach about food packaging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the relative humidity in the package of Wood as taught by Saari in order to provide the advantage of mold prevention. Further it would have been obvious to do this at 20°C which is close to room temperature which is a common temperature for storing and shipping food packages.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 32-37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 2014/0154370 A1) in view of Hiyoshi (US 2002/0054938 A1).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 6-8, 32-37, and 39, Wood discloses a containers, webs, sheets films, wrappings, bags, pouches formed of thermoplastic material, comprising a coating comprising a cyclodextrin inclusion complex, a carrier and an olefinic inhibitor, wherein the complex may be a α-cyclodextrin/1-MCP complex, wherein in one embodiment the coating may be exposed to an enclosed or partially enclosed volume within a produce package (i.e. a coated thermoplastic pouch having an exterior surface and an interior surface defining an interior volume that is excluded from free exchange with the atmosphere, and a coating affixed to at least a portion of the interior surface, the coating comprising a carrier and a particulate, the particulate comprising a clathrate of 1-methylcyclopropene with α-cyclodextrin (1-MCP/CD))([0009]-[0011], [0035]-[0036], [0078]-[0079]). Wood discloses an embodiment wherein a laminate is impermeable to the olefinic inhibitor on one side and permeable to the olefinic inhibitor on the other side and permeable to water on one side and not the other (i.e. at least a portion of the thermoplastic pouch is permeable to 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) gas and at least a portion of the coated thermoplastic pouch is permeable to water vapor)([0084]). It would have been obvious to provide this permeability to the pouch embodiment in order to provide activation of the olefinic inhibitor via water vapor and allow the olefinic inhibitor to reach the produce in the package to prevent spoilage.
Wood does not specifically disclose that the interior volume comprises a pressure in excess of atmospheric pressure.
Hiyoshi discloses a food packaging and that it is common to inject air or nitrogen into the packaging at a pressure slightly higher than atmospheric pressure (i.e. the interior volume comprises a pressure in excess of atmospheric pressure; the interior volume comprises air, N2)(abstract, [0029]).
Wood and Hiyoshi are analogous art because they both teach about food packaging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to inject air or nitrogen into the package of Wood because this is a well-known technique in forming food packaging and doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known technique in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 2, Wood discloses an atmosphere containing 1 ppm of 1-MCP in an enclosed volume of 1 liter and the targeted weight range of the 1-MCP/CD is 25 micrograms to 1 milligram per 1 liter of enclosed volume (i.e. comprising an interior volume of 50 mL to 2000 mL of a gas that is not 1-MCP per milligram of 1-MCP present within the interior coating as 1-MCP/CD)([0142]). Additionally, it is noted that Wood discloses that one can adjust the amount of 1-MCP depending on many factors including the type of substrate and desired respiration rate of the product and therefore, it is the examiner’s position that this amount could be adjusted depending on the end use and thereby arrive at the claimed amount.
Regarding claim 6, Wood discloses that the substrate or substrates may be permeable to both 1-MCP and water vapor ([00134]). Given that the substrate or substrates may be a container, it is the examiner’s position that the entirety of the container would be permeable to both 1-MCP and water vapor.
Regarding claim 7, Wood discloses an embodiment wherein a laminate is impermeable to the olefinic inhibitor on one side and permeable to the olefinic inhibitor on the other side and permeable to water on one side and not the other (i.e. a first portion of the thermoplastic pouch is permeable to 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) gas and a second portion of the coated thermoplastic pouch is permeable to water vapor)([0084]). It would have been obvious to provide this permeability to the pouch embodiment in order to provide activation of the olefinic inhibitor via water vapor and allow the olefinic inhibitor to reach the produce in the package to prevent spoilage. .
Regarding claims 32-37, it is clear from Figure 6 that Wood discloses embodiments comprising a kit comprising two or more coated thermoplastic pouches, wherein the pouches are joined in an array, wherein the array is detachably joined, wherein the array is in a strip format, a sheet format and a roll format. (Figure 6, [0175]-[0176]). It would have been obvious to provide the pouches in this format since it is disclosed by Wood.
Regarding claim 39, It is recognized that the phrase “consisting essentially of” narrows the scope of the claims to the specified materials and those which do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, absent a clear indication of what the basic and novel characteristics are, “consisting essentially of” is construed as equivalent to “comprising”. Further, the burden is on the applicant to show that any additional ingredients, would in fact be excluded from the claims and that such ingredients would materially change the characteristics of the applicant’s invention, See MPEP 2111.03. Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the interior volume consists essentially of air and the coating.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 2014/0154370 A1) and Hiyoshi (US 2002/0054938 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hagemeyer (US 2005/0260309 A1).
Wood discloses all of the claim amendments as set forth above. Wood does not specifically disclose that the interior volume comprises a pressure that is 0.1 kPa to 140 kPa in excess of atmospheric pressure.
Hagemeyer discloses a food container may be pressurized to 138-345 kPa ([0011]).
Hagemeyer and Wood are analogous art because they both teach about food containers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the container/bag of Wood having the pressure as disclosed by Hagemeyer in order to provide a container/bag because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known design in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 2014/0154370 A1) and Hiyoshi (US 2002/0054938 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Saari et al. (US 2003/0203081 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Modified Wood discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wood does not disclose that the interior volume includes 50% or less relative humidity at 20°C.
Saari discloses controlling humidity in a food package to less than 5% RH to prevent mold (abstract, claim 2).
Wood and Saari are analogous art because they both teach about food packaging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce the relative humidity in the package of Wood as taught by Saari in order to provide the advantage of mold prevention. Further it would have been obvious to do this at 20°C which is close to room temperature which is a common temperature for storing and shipping food packages.
Claims 40 and 42-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 2014/0154370 A1).
Regarding claims 40 and 42-45, Wood discloses a containers, webs, sheets films, wrappings, bags, pouches formed of thermoplastic material, comprising a coating comprising a cyclodextrin inclusion complex, a carrier and an olefinic inhibitor, wherein the complex may be a α-cyclodextrin/1-MCP complex, wherein in one embodiment the coating may be exposed to an enclosed or partially enclosed volume within a produce package (i.e. a coated thermoplastic pouch having an exterior surface and an interior surface defining an interior volume that is excluded from free exchange with the atmosphere, and a coating affixed to at least a portion of the interior surface, the coating comprising a carrier and a particulate, the particulate comprising a clathrate of 1-methylcyclopropene with α-cyclodextrin (1-MCP/CD))([0009]-[0011], [0035]-[0036], [0078]-[0079]). Wood discloses an embodiment wherein a laminate is impermeable to the olefinic inhibitor on one side and permeable to the olefinic inhibitor on the other side and permeable to water on one side and not the other (i.e. at least a portion of the thermoplastic pouch is permeable to 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) gas and at least a portion of the coated thermoplastic pouch is permeable to water vapor)([0084]). It would have been obvious to provide this permeability to the pouch embodiment in order to provide activation of the olefinic inhibitor via water vapor and allow the olefinic inhibitor to reach the produce in the package to prevent spoilage.
It is noted that the recitation in the claims that the pouch is “configured to be inflated with a gas and then sealed to define an internal volume therein that is excluded from free exchange with the atmosphere and comprises the gas at a pressure in excess of atmospheric pressure” is merely an intended use. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2103(I)(C) which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Wood discloses a pouch/container as presently claimed, it is clear that the pouch/container of Wood would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. inflated with a gas and then sealed to define an internal volume therein that is excluded from free exchange with the atmosphere and comprises the gas at a pressure in excess of atmospheric pressure, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Given that the container/pouch would be expected to have some strength, and given that “in excess of atmospheric pressure” could be a very small amount above atmospheric pressure, it is the examiner’s position that it would be capable of maintaining an inner volume at a pressure in excess at atmospheric pressure.
Regarding claim 42, Wood discloses that the substrate or substrates may be permeable to both 1-MCP and water vapor ([00134]). Given that the substrate or substrates may be a container, it is the examiner’s position that the entirety of the container would be permeable to both 1-MCP and water vapor.
Regarding claim 43, Wood discloses an embodiment wherein a laminate is impermeable to the olefinic inhibitor on one side and permeable to the olefinic inhibitor on the other side and permeable to water on one side and not the other (i.e. a first portion of the thermoplastic pouch is permeable to 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) gas and a second portion of the coated thermoplastic pouch is permeable to water vapor)([0084]). It would have been obvious to provide this permeability to the pouch embodiment in order to provide activation of the olefinic inhibitor via water vapor and allow the olefinic inhibitor to reach the produce in the package to prevent spoilage.
Regarding claim 44, while there is no specific disclosure of the amount of 1-MCP/CD based on the weight of the coating, given that the amount of 1-MCP-CD will affect the improvement of the shelf life (Wood [0005]) and increase the cost of the packaging, it is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the amount of 1-MCP/CD in the coating depending on the desired cost, improvement of shelf life and end use of the packaging and thereby arrive at the claimed amount.
Regarding claim 45, given that this limitation is part of the intended use, it is the examiner’s position that the pouch/container would be capable of being inflated with any of air, CO2, N2, O2, Ar, Ne, He, or a mixture thereof.
Claims 40-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al. (US 2014/0154370 A1) in view of Hagemeyer (US 2005/0260309 A1).
Regarding claims 40-45, Wood discloses a containers, webs, sheets films, wrappings, bags, pouches formed of thermoplastic material, comprising a coating comprising a cyclodextrin inclusion complex, a carrier and an olefinic inhibitor, wherein the complex may be a α-cyclodextrin/1-MCP complex, wherein in one embodiment the coating may be exposed to an enclosed or partially enclosed volume within a produce package (i.e. a coated thermoplastic pouch having an exterior surface and an interior surface defining an interior volume that is excluded from free exchange with the atmosphere, and a coating affixed to at least a portion of the interior surface, the coating comprising a carrier and a particulate, the particulate comprising a clathrate of 1-methylcyclopropene with α-cyclodextrin (1-MCP/CD))([0009]-[0011], [0035]-[0036], [0078]-[0079]). Wood discloses an embodiment wherein a laminate is impermeable to the olefinic inhibitor on one side and permeable to the olefinic inhibitor on the other side and permeable to water on one side and not the other (i.e. at least a portion of the thermoplastic pouch is permeable to 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) gas and at least a portion of the coated thermoplastic pouch is permeable to water vapor)([0084]). It would have been obvious to provide this permeability to the pouch embodiment in order to provide activation of the olefinic inhibitor via water vapor and allow the olefinic inhibitor to reach the produce in the package to prevent spoilage.
Wood does not specifically disclose that the pouch is capable of maintaining an interior volume at a pressure in excess of atmospheric pressure or that the interior volume comprises a pressure that is 0.1 kPa to 140 kPa in excess of atmospheric pressure.
Hagemeyer discloses a food container pressurized with 138-345 kPa CO2 to prevent spoilage ([0011]).
Hagemeyer and Wood are analogous art because they both teach about food containers for preventing spoilage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the container/bag of Wood having the CO2/pressure as disclosed by Hagemeyer in order to provide a container/bag that has the advantage of preventing food spoilage and because doing so would amount to nothing more than using a known design in a known environment to accomplish an entirely expected result.
Regarding claim 42, Wood discloses that the substrate or substrates may be permeable to both 1-MCP and water vapor ([00134]). Given that the substrate or substrates may be a container, it is the examiner’s position that the entirety of the container would be permeable to both 1-MCP and water vapor.
Regarding claim 43, Wood discloses an embodiment wherein a laminate is impermeable to the olefinic inhibitor on one side and permeable to the olefinic inhibitor on the other side and permeable to water on one side and not the other (i.e. a first portion of the thermoplastic pouch is permeable to 1-methylcyclopropene (1-MCP) gas and a second portion of the coated thermoplastic pouch is permeable to water vapor)([0084]). It would have been obvious to provide this permeability to the pouch embodiment in order to provide activation of the olefinic inhibitor via water vapor and allow the olefinic inhibitor to reach the produce in the package to prevent spoilage.
Regarding claim 44, while there is no specific disclosure of the amount of 1-MCP/CD based on the weight of the coating, given that the amount of 1-MCP-CD will affect the improvement of the shelf life (Wood [0005]) and increase the cost of the packaging, it is the examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the amount of 1-MCP/CD in the coating depending on the desired cost, improvement of shelf life and end use of the packaging and thereby arrive at the claimed amount.
Regarding claim 45, Hagemeyer discloses CO2 ([0011]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues regarding claim 1 that Wood does not disclose including a pressure in excess of atmospheric pressure.
It is noted that Hagemeyer is now used to teach this limitation.
Applicant argues regarding claim 40 that Wood does not disclose that the packages are configured to be inflated with a gas.
As set forth above, it is noted that the recitation in the claims that the pouch is “configured to be inflated with a gas and then sealed to define an internal volume therein that is excluded from free exchange with the atmosphere and comprises the gas at a pressure in excess of atmospheric pressure” is merely an intended use. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2103(I)(C) which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Wood discloses a pouch/container as presently claimed, it is clear that the pouch/container of Wood would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. inflated with a gas and then sealed to define an internal volume therein that is excluded from free exchange with the atmosphere and comprises the gas at a pressure in excess of atmospheric pressure, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Given that the container/pouch would be expected to have some strength, and given that “in excess of atmospheric pressure” could be a very small amount above atmospheric pressure, it is the examiner’s position that it would be capable of maintaining an inner volume at a pressure in excess at atmospheric pressure.
Alternatively, Hagemeyer is used to teach this limitation.
Applicant argues that the motivation of Hagemeyer is inapplicable to Wood because it requires a perishable organic liquid in the container.
Contrary to applicant’s assertion, both Wood and Hagemeyer are directed to food packagings and the benefit provided by Hagemeyer would be applicable to any food.
Applicant argues that Wood teaches away from having a perishable organic liquid in the container.
Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive given that examiner does not argue putting a perishable organic liquid in the container of Wood.
Applicant argues regarding claim 40 that an inflatable pouch is not obvious over Wood and Hagemeyer because suitable configurations for obtaining and maintaining a sealed pressure are not suggested by Wood.
Applicants argument is unpersuasive because Given that the container/pouch would be expected to have some strength, and given that “in excess of atmospheric pressure” could be a very small amount above atmospheric pressure, it is the examiner’s position that it would be capable of maintaining an inner volume at a pressure in excess at atmospheric pressure.
Further, it is noted that in light of Hagemeyer and the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, one would be able to make a container/pouch capable of obtaining a sealed pressure.
Applicant argues that Hagemeyer teaches transport tanks and bulk pressure transport vessels and these are not thermoplastic pouches.
However, note that while Hagemeyer does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Hagemeyer is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely a food container pressurized with 138-345 kPa CO2 to prevent spoilage ([0011]), and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
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 JAMES C YAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-3880. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6 EST M-F.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/JAMES C YAGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782