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 .
The elected invention is the invention of Group I, originally claims 1-10 and 20. The elected species is the species of Group 1 represented by Fig 2. Applicant made the elections with traverse in the reply filed on 2/17/25. Claims 1-10 and 20 were found by the examiner to also read on the elected species and were examined in the first Office action of 4/25/25.
The claims now in the application are claims 1-5, 9-15, 19-21, 23-24 and 26-28. Claims 11-15, 19, 24 and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Accordingly, the claims for consideration herein are 1-5, 9-10 and 20-21, 23 and 27-28 and they are treated on their merits below.
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 23 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. This dependent claim drawn to the package of claim 1 requires that the single roll of film be dispensed from a roller before being folded or sealed. The claim is indefinite because it is not clear how the recited method steps therein are intended to further limit the package of claim 1.
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) 1-5, 9-10, 20-21, 23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonelli (6,207,048) as applied last time in view of Dews (4,205,750).
As indicated in the last Office action and with regard to Bonelli alone:
Bonelli discloses a package system in at least Fig. 1 that has most of the features of the claimed package system including water treatment tablets that are stacked in a multi-layer array (Fig 1 shows a two-by-one array of twelve layers of tablets). Additionally, the reference Figs 1 and 2 show that the Bonelli package system also encloses the plurality of tablets as required in the claims. Still further, the Bonelli drawings show that the material of the package system has a generally planar upper surface, a generally planar lower surface, two or more sealed edges and a folded edge, as recited in the claims (for example, see the material of the package surfaces immediately adjacent handle 20. Thus, the generally planar upper surface is the surface in the Fig 1 view, and the generally planar lower surface is the obverse surface and the material is sealed along at least two of its four edges as shown in the figures and is folded along the edge having the living hinge).
However, Bonelli does not expressly disclose the noted material of the package system is a layer of film, and that the film also has at least one folded edge and two or more sealed edges, as recited in claim 1. Said a little differently, what Bonelli is missing regarding claim 1 is film and that the film is folded and sealed along edges as claimed (as opposed to the molded structure of the Bonelli package that arguably has edges that are folded and sealed as claimed). Bonelli is also missing some of the features of the dependent claims. On the other hand, the other references of record show the missing features to be conventional or well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the relevant art to provide.
In other words, and with regard to claim 1, although the Bonnelli package is a folded along at least one edge (the edge having the living hinge) and sealed along two or more other edges, the prior art of record shows that it is also conventional to use a single film to package tablets, the film being folded along at least one edge and sealed along two or more other edges. For example, Dews (4,205,750) cited last time shows that it is conventional to package tablets in a single layer of film (plastic bag 13) having folded and sealed edges. Alternatively, Schneider (2,976,988) also cited last time shows the same thing, that is, tablets contained within a flexible pouch folded at a bottom edge 14 and sealed on at least two other edges. Alternatively, look at Ichikawa (8,061,897) Fig 8 and compare to Fig 1. What this reference clearly shows is that in a bag or pouch for storing tablets the pouch or bag can be made from a single layer of film folded along one edge 21 and sealed along at least two other edges (Fig 8), or it can be made from two layers of film sealed along all edges (Fig 1). As should also be evident from this commentary without the examiner having to go into any more detail, the missing features of claim 1 are alternatively also shown by multiple other references of record. Look in the prior art of record for bags or pouches formed from a single film of plastic, so that the bags are folded along one edge (such as a bottom edge) and sealed along two or more edges (such as side and top edges). Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of Bonelli to provide for the package material therein to be a single layer of film folded and sealed to enclose the tablets, as recited in claim 1, in order to more economically, conveniently and/or attractively package the water treatment tablets in the reference.
Same for the missing features of some of the dependent claims. That is to say, the prior art of record shows these missing features to also be conventional. For example, any one of Thimmesch (2013/0233877), Cushman (2010/0142859), Runyon et al. (2010/0054634), each cited last time, disclose bags or pouches having sealed edges, and handles and closing mechanisms situated as claimed in the bags or pouches. Likewise, any one of the newly cited references disclose the same and features such as the claimed uncoupling guide (something like a line or perforation line to guide opening of the pouch such as by cutting the bag or pouch along the line or tearing the bag or pouch along the line) a closing mechanism (such as zippers to close the bag or pouch), etc. Look at the newly cited prior art for these features. In a specific example, Ali (2006/0210199) shows a bag or pouch formed from thin film that has an uncoupling guide (perforated line 17), a handle (handle openings 60) and a closing mechanism (seal 18 to reseal the bag or pouch), all in the same bag or pouch. As applicant should now be able to clearly appreciate, these features are notorious in the relevant art as shown multiple citations in the subject application. Therefore, it would also have been obvious in view of Bonelli to provide the system disclosed therein with the missing features of the dependent claims, in order to more economically, conveniently and/or attractively package the water treatment tablets in the reference.
In view of the latest amendments to claim 1 requiring a caustic chemical for the water treatment tablets and polyvinyl chloride for the single layer of film, the examiner finds as follows:
Not only do water treatment tablets in general conventionally comprise caustic chemicals, but the tablets contemplated for use in the Bonelli invention also comprise caustic chemicals. Note the prior art disclosure in Bonelli as well as the description of the invention of Bonelli in the reference specification. Therefore, the base reference to Bonelli discloses the claim requirement for caustic chemicals or alternatively, it would have been obvious to provide for the water treatment tablets of Bonelli to comprise caustic chemicals in order to conveniently package such tablets.
Regarding the requirement for polyvinyl chloride, Dews (4,205,750) already of record, discloses a single layer packaging film comprising polyvinyl chloride for use in packaging tablets (tablets 11). For example, in Dews see bags 13 and 19. It would also have been obvious in view of Dews to construct the single layer of film discussed above from polyvinyl chloride, for the purpose of providing a more economical package for the tablets and/or for the purpose of more adequately preventing contamination of the packaged tablets by the environment.
Regarding new dependent claim 27, the prior art of record also shows that water treatment tablets formed from caustic chemicals can conventionally be light sensitive. See Mastio et al. (2014/0339176). Additionally, regarding claim 27, the prior art of record also shows that a single layer of packaging film can conventionally be opaque for various reasons including allowing for masking the contents of the package formed from the film and preventing damage to packaged light sensitive products. See Rush (8,256,958) or Perell (2007/0235369), both of record, respectively. Therefore, it would have also have been obvious to provide these features to the package of Bonelli in order to mask the contents of the package (for example, to provide a more attractive package) and/or in order to prevent damage to the packaged tablets from light.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonelli (6,207,048) in view of Dews (4,205,750) and Mastio et al. (2014/0339176) and further in view of either Rush (8,256,958) or Perell (2007/0235369). Note the commentary above for how the secondary references are combined with Bonelli.
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/22/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as to any remaining issues.
Regarding the indefiniteness rejection, applicant argues that the limitations of claim 23 are abundantly clear to one skilled in the art when read in light of the specification. Applicant then cites to specification [0030] to support the argument. However, the problem with these responses is apparent, and therefore, applicant’s argument is clearly unconvincing. Applicant has not addressed the grounds of the rejection. That is to say, neither applicant’s argument nor specification [0030] indicate exactly how the method steps encompassed in claim 23 are intended to further limit the package system of claim 1.
Regarding the prior art rejection, applicant initially mischaracterizes the rejection of previous claims 1-5, 9-10, 20-21 and 23 as one for obviousness over Bonelli in view of Schneider, Ichikawa, Thimmesch, Cushman, Runyon and Ali. However, as the record shows, and as the applicant is also no doubt aware, all of the noted references are not applied in a rejection of all of the limitations of the noted claims taken together. For example, from the commentary in the rejection itself, it is apparent that previous claim 1 was considered by the examiner to be rejectable over Bonelli in view of Dews, Bonelli in view of Schneider, Bonelli in view of Ichikawa, etc., even though the claim was also considered by the examiner to be rejectable over Bonelli alone, and in fact the claim was rejected over this grounds only. Likewise, it is also apparent from the commentary above, that new claim 1 is considered rejectable over Bonelli in view of any other appropriate reference that discloses polyvinyl chloride, not just Bonelli in view of Dews that is the actual applied rejection. Why exactly would applicant mischaracterize what the examiner is doing?
Also regarding the prior art rejection, applicant’s arguments for patentability based on the latest amendments to claim 1 and on new claims 27 and 28 are noted. New independent claim 28 appears to recite the same features as amended claim 1 and new dependent claim 27 taken together. The problem with the claim 1 amendments vis-à-vis the prior art, as indicated in the rejection itself, is that water treatment tablets including those contemplated in Bonelli comprise caustic chemicals and polyvinyl chloride is a notorious packaging material for forming wrappers to wrap content such as tablets. The problem with claims 27 and 28 as they relate to the prior art, is that water treatment tablets are often light sensitive (not just formed of caustic chemicals), and making a wrapper opaque for various reasons (including protecting light sensitive content or to make a more attractive package) is also very well known in the art. Thus, it is apparent that applicant has amended the claims for examination (including submitting new claims for examination) in a way that does not avoid the prior art already of record in the subject application, much less avoid the prior art not of record but that would be well known to those of ordinary skill in the relevant art.
Finally, in view of the commentary above, reference is now also specifically made to the examiners’ answers to applicant’s arguments in the last Office action for commentary that remains relevant to the issues in the subject application, including for context as it relates to the prosecution in the subject application. These answers are specifically incorporated herein by reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB K ACKUN whose telephone number is (571)272-4418. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 11am-7pm.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JACOB K ACKUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736