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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-20, 24, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant now provides in claim 17 a device with serrations at ends of the pouch with a subset of compartments that include other serrations and heat seals. Applicant has failed to disclose the above combination and instead discloses serrations without heat seals and heat seals without serrations. Claims 18-20, 24, 27 is/are rejected as being dependent on the above rejected claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11-13, 15-16, 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigoda (US 4655026 A) in view of Beck (5947920)
The claims are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as for example but not limited to claims that include “printed”) and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
Wigoda discloses:
1. A pouch (figs 1-9; see annotated figure below as well; the Office notes that thefreedictionary.com defines pouch as a sealed plastic or foil container used for packaging food or drink, and therefore by definition the prior art discloses a pouch) for packaging a plurality of medications (capable of performing the above intended use), the pouch comprising: a plurality of discrete compartments (adjacent 26; see annotated figure below as well), each compartment including a sub-batch of medications (78s); serrations at opposite ends of the pouch to separate the pouch from adjacent pouches (adjacent 74 but not all 74; see annotated figure below as well); and a continuous identifier that spans a subset of the plurality of discrete compartments to provide an appearance of one continuous pouch, the identifier between the serrations, the continuous identifier is disposed between the serrations (adjacent 22 as in fig 1, 3; see annotated figure below as well).
With respect to wherein the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is separated by heat seals without serrations, the Office notes that Beck discloses similar art with respect to a pouch with compartments and an identifier (figs 1-7) and further discloses wherein the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is separated by heat seals without serrations (col 6: 11-36: the Office notes that Beck discloses that the entire resealable seal element includes the above heat sealing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wigoda in view of Beck (by providing heat seals to separate the compartments) in order to provide a surface whereby the identifier can be used again and again as the device is resealable.
PNG
media_image1.png
809
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Combined Reference discloses:
4. The pouch of claim 1, wherein the continuous identifier includes printed indicia (Wigoda, as in fig 1, 3).
5. The pouch of claim 4, wherein the printed indicia is printed on a label adhesively coupled to the pouch (Wigoda, such as via 20).
6. The pouch of claim 1, wherein the discrete compartments each has a pouch length between 1 inch and 3 inches. The Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
8. The pouch of claim 1, wherein the plurality of discrete compartments correspond to a single administration time (capable of performing the above intended use).
Wigoda discloses:
9. A pouch (figs 1-9; the Office notes that thefreedictionary.com defines pouch as a sealed plastic or foil container used for packaging food or drink, and therefore by definition the prior art discloses a pouch) for packaging a plurality of medications (capable of performing the above intended use), the pouch comprising: a plurality of discrete compartments (adjacent 26), each compartment including a sub-batch of medications (78s), a first compartment of the plurality of discrete compartment having a first length adjacent a second compartment of the plurality of discrete compartments adjacent the first compartment having a second length different from the first length (with respect to different sizes, the Office notes that it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide different sizes to accommodate different size medications; further, the Office notes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device); serrations at opposite ends of the pouch to separate the pouch from adjacent pouches (adjacent 74 but not all 74); and a continuous identifier that spans a subset of the plurality of discrete compartments to provide an appearance of one continuous pouch and the continuous identifier is disposed between the serrations (adjacent 22 as in fig 1, 3; see annotated figure below as well).
With respect to wherein the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is separated by heat seals without serrations, the Office notes that Beck discloses similar art with respect to a pouch with compartments and an identifier (figs 1-7) and further discloses wherein the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is separated by heat seals without serrations (col 6: 11-36: the Office notes that Beck discloses that the entire resealable seal element includes the above heat sealing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wigoda in view of Beck (by providing heat seals to separate the compartments) in order to provide a surface whereby the identifier can be used again and again as the device is resealable.
PNG
media_image1.png
809
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Combined Reference discloses:
11. The pouch of claim 9, wherein the continuous identifier includes a border within the opposite ends of the pouch (as in claim 3).
12. The pouch of claim 9, wherein the continuous identifier includes printed indicia (as in claim 4).
13. The pouch of claim 12, wherein the printed indicia is printed on a label adhesively coupled to the pouch (as in claim 5).
15. The pouch of claim 9, comprising serrations between the discrete compartments (as in claim 7).
16. The pouch of claim 9, wherein the plurality of discrete compartments correspond to a single administration time (as in claim 8).
22. The pouch of claim 1, wherein each discrete compartment of the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is defined by:(i) a first portion and a second portion formed from material of a single feedstock roll, the first portion formed from one folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the second portion formed from another folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the first portion and the second portion coupled together at four edges, at least three of the four edges being heat sealed, or (ii) a first segment from a first feedstock roll and a second segment from a second feedstock roll, the first segment and the second segment coupled together by heat sealing at four edges (see below). Claims 22-24 are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with respect to be defined by, formed from material of a single feedstock roll, formed from, formed from , being heat sealed, segment coupled by heat sealing at four edges, etc). and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Furthermore, the prior art already discloses the same resulting structure of compartment of a subset with portions, and four edges with a heat seal (all the structure already provided above).
23. The pouch of claim 9, wherein each discrete compartment of the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is defined by:(i) a first portion and a second portion formed from material of a single feedstock roll, the first portion formed from one folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the second portion formed from another folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the first portion and the second portion coupled together at four edges, at least three of the four edges being heat sealed, or (ii) a first segment from a first feedstock roll and a second segment from a second feedstock roll, the first segment and the second segment coupled together by heat sealing at four edges (see below). Claims 22-24 are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with respect to be defined by, formed from material of a single feedstock roll, formed from, formed from , being heat sealed, segment coupled by heat sealing at four edges, etc). and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Furthermore, the prior art already discloses the same resulting structure of compartment of a subset with portions, and four edges with a heat seal (all the structure already provided above).
25. (New) The pouch of claim 4, wherein the printed indicia is printed on the pouch.
26. (New) The pouch of claim 12, wherein the printed indicia is printed on the pouch.
With respect to the location of the indicia as in the above claim(s), the Office notes that the prior art already discloses indicia on as provided in the above claims as the pouch is the broadest element and the label is part of the pouch. Further, in order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide and/or move indicia to provide additional information to the user in order to assist the user in using the device.
Claim(s) 17-20, 24, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigoda (US 4655026 A) in view of Bernay (20140124510) and further in view of Holmes (US 20170015445 A1)
The claims are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as for example but not limited to claims that include “printed”) and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
Wigoda discloses:
17. A pouch for packaging a plurality of medications, the pouch comprising: a plurality of discrete compartments, each compartment including a sub-batch of medications, wherein the plurality of discrete compartments correspond to a single administration time; a first plurality of serrations at opposite ends of the pouch to separate the pouch from adjacent pouches; and a continuous identifier that spans a subset of the plurality of discrete compartments to provide an appearance of one continuous pouch (all of the same features already provided above in claim 1, 8), the continuous identifier is disposed between the first serrations (adjacent 22 as in fig 1, 3; see annotated figure below as well; the Office notes that thefreedictionary.com defines pouch as a sealed plastic or foil container used for packaging food or drink, and therefore by definition the prior art discloses a pouch).
The Office notes Bernay discloses similar art with respect to pouch with compartments and identifier (figs 1-7), and further discloses a second plurality of serrations separating the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments (such as adjacent 450, but not limited thereto). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wigoda in view of Bernay (by providing serrations for each compartment) in order to permit the device to be sealed while also being independent use of each compartment.
Holmes discloses the plurality of discrete compartments is separated by heat seals (as in fig 19 with 437; paragraph 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Holmes (by providing heat seals in combination with the serrations) in order to provide a particular means of attachment such as one that provides more secure attachment. The Office further notes that Holmes discloses a pouch (figs 1-19, such as pouches adjacent 434).
The Combined Reference discloses:
18. The pouch of claim 17, wherein the continuous identifier includes printed indicia (as in claim 4).
19. The pouch of claim 18, wherein the printed indicia is printed on a label adhesively coupled to the pouch (as in claim 5).
20. The pouch of claim 19, wherein indicia include a first indicia regarding the first medication printed on the portion of the label directly over the first compartment and a second indicia regarding the second medication printed on the portion of the label directly over the second compartment (as in fig 1, 3 where the indicia relates to the medication within).
24. The pouch of claim 17, wherein each discrete compartment of the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is defined by:(i) a first portion and a second portion formed from material of a single feedstock roll, the first portion formed from one folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the second portion formed from another folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the first portion and the second portion coupled together at four edges, at least three of the four edges being heat sealed, or (ii) a first segment from a first feedstock roll and a second segment from a second feedstock roll, the first segment and the second segment coupled together by heat sealing at four edges (see below). Claims 22-24 are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with respect to be defined by, formed from material of a single feedstock roll, formed from, formed from, being heat sealed, segment coupled by heat sealing at four edges, etc). and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Furthermore, the prior art already discloses the same resulting structure of compartment of a subset with portions, and four edges with a heat seal (all the structure already provided above).
27. (New) The pouch of claim 18, wherein the printed indicia is printed on the pouch.
With respect to the location of the indicia as in the above claim(s), the Office notes that the prior art already discloses indicia on as provided in the above claims as the pouch is the broadest element and the label is part of the pouch. Further, in order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide and/or move indicia to provide additional information to the user in order to assist the user in using the device. If there is any question to the above, Holmes also discloses the above indicia (paragraphs 35, 51, 62, 63, 74).
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, 9, 11-13, 14-20, 22-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wigoda (US 4655026 A) in view of Beck (5947920) and Holmes (US 20170015445 A1)
The claims are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as for example but not limited to claims that include “printed”) and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above).
Wigoda discloses:
1. A pouch (figs 1-9; see annotated figure below as well; the Office notes that thefreedictionary.com defines pouch as a sealed plastic or foil container used for packaging food or drink, and therefore by definition the prior art discloses a pouch) for packaging a plurality of medications (capable of performing the above intended use), the pouch comprising: a plurality of discrete compartments (adjacent 26; see annotated figure below as well), each compartment including a sub-batch of medications (78s); serrations at opposite ends of the pouch to separate the pouch from adjacent pouches (adjacent 74 but not all 74; see annotated figure below as well); and a continuous identifier that spans a subset of the plurality of discrete compartments to provide an appearance of one continuous pouch, the identifier between the serrations, the continuous identifier is disposed between the serrations (adjacent 22 as in fig 1, 3; see annotated figure below as well).
With respect to wherein the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is separated by heat seals without serrations, the Office notes that Beck discloses similar art with respect to a pouch with compartments and an identifier (figs 1-7) and further discloses wherein the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is separated by heat seals without serrations (col 6: 11-36: the Office notes that Beck discloses that the entire resealable seal element includes the above heat sealing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wigoda in view of Beck (by providing heat seals to separate the compartments) in order to provide a surface whereby the identifier can be used again and again as the device is resealable.
PNG
media_image1.png
809
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Office notes that the Combined reference discloses the claimed subject matter. In order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, and if there is any question to the pouch, the Office notes that Holmes also discloses a pouch (figs 1-19, such as pouches adjacent 434). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Holmes (by replacing one type of container structure for another type of container structure) in order to provide a desired type of container such as bag type structure that permits the user to fill the container in a desired manner and a more efficient manner such as permitting the device to be held vertically and loaded from the top end. The Office notes that the above device is well known in the art and may be more easily carried and stored as well.
The Combined Reference discloses:
4. The pouch of claim 1, wherein the continuous identifier includes printed indicia (Wigoda, as in fig 1, 3).
5. The pouch of claim 4, wherein the printed indicia is printed on a label adhesively coupled to the pouch (Wigoda, such as via 20).
6. The pouch of claim 1, wherein the discrete compartments each has a pouch length between 1 inch and 3 inches. The Office notes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a specific range because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
8. The pouch of claim 1, wherein the plurality of discrete compartments correspond to a single administration time (capable of performing the above intended use).
Wigoda discloses:
9. A pouch (figs 1-9; the Office notes that thefreedictionary.com defines pouch as a sealed plastic or foil container used for packaging food or drink, and therefore by definition the prior art discloses a pouch) for packaging a plurality of medications (capable of performing the above intended use), the pouch comprising: a plurality of discrete compartments (adjacent 26), each compartment including a sub-batch of medications (78s), a first compartment of the plurality of discrete compartment having a first length adjacent a second compartment of the plurality of discrete compartments adjacent the first compartment having a second length different from the first length (with respect to different sizes, the Office notes that it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide different sizes to accommodate different size medications; further, the Office notes that It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the size/proportion because it has been held that a change in size proportion on the basis of its suitability for the intended use was an obvious extension of the prior teachings. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) In Gardnerv.TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit 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 was not patentably distinct from the prior art device); serrations at opposite ends of the pouch to separate the pouch from adjacent pouches (adjacent 74 but not all 74); and a continuous identifier that spans a subset of the plurality of discrete compartments to provide an appearance of one continuous pouch and the continuous identifier is disposed between the serrations (adjacent 22 as in fig 1, 3; see annotated figure below as well).
With respect to wherein the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is separated by heat seals without serrations, the Office notes that Beck discloses similar art with respect to a pouch with compartments and an identifier (figs 1-7) and further discloses wherein the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is separated by heat seals without serrations (col 6: 11-36: the Office notes that Beck discloses that the entire resealable seal element includes the above heat sealing). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wigoda in view of Beck (by providing heat seals to separate the compartments) in order to provide a surface whereby the identifier can be used again and again as the device is resealable.
PNG
media_image1.png
809
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Office notes that the Combined reference discloses the claimed subject matter. In order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, and if there is any question to the pouch, the Office notes that Holmes also discloses a pouch (figs 1-19, such as pouches adjacent 434). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Holmes (by replacing one type of container structure for another type of container structure) in order to provide a desired type of container such as bag type structure that permits the user to fill the container in a desired manner and a more efficient manner such as permitting the device to be held vertically and loaded from the top end. The Office notes that the above device is well known in the art and may be more easily carried and stored as well.
The Combined Reference discloses:
11. The pouch of claim 9, wherein the continuous identifier includes a border within the opposite ends of the pouch (as in claim 3).
12. The pouch of claim 9, wherein the continuous identifier includes printed indicia (as in claim 4).
13. The pouch of claim 12, wherein the printed indicia is printed on a label adhesively coupled to the pouch (as in claim 5).
15. The pouch of claim 9, comprising serrations between the discrete compartments (as in claim 7).
16. The pouch of claim 9, wherein the plurality of discrete compartments correspond to a single administration time (as in claim 8).
22. The pouch of claim 1, wherein each discrete compartment of the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is defined by:(i) a first portion and a second portion formed from material of a single feedstock roll, the first portion formed from one folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the second portion formed from another folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the first portion and the second portion coupled together at four edges, at least three of the four edges being heat sealed, or (ii) a first segment from a first feedstock roll and a second segment from a second feedstock roll, the first segment and the second segment coupled together by heat sealing at four edges (see below). Claims 22-24 are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with respect to be defined by, formed from material of a single feedstock roll, formed from, formed from , being heat sealed, segment coupled by heat sealing at four edges, etc). and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Furthermore, the prior art already discloses the same resulting structure of compartment of a subset with portions, and four edges with a heat seal (all the structure already provided above).
23. The pouch of claim 9, wherein each discrete compartment of the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is defined by:(i) a first portion and a second portion formed from material of a single feedstock roll, the first portion formed from one folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the second portion formed from another folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the first portion and the second portion coupled together at four edges, at least three of the four edges being heat sealed, or (ii) a first segment from a first feedstock roll and a second segment from a second feedstock roll, the first segment and the second segment coupled together by heat sealing at four edges (see below). Claims 22-24 are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with respect to be defined by, formed from material of a single feedstock roll, formed from, formed from , being heat sealed, segment coupled by heat sealing at four edges, etc). and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Furthermore, the prior art already discloses the same resulting structure of compartment of a subset with portions, and four edges with a heat seal (all the structure already provided above).
Wigoda discloses:
17. A pouch for packaging a plurality of medications, the pouch comprising: a plurality of discrete compartments, each compartment including a sub-batch of medications, wherein the plurality of discrete compartments correspond to a single administration time; a first plurality of serrations at opposite ends of the pouch to separate the pouch from adjacent pouches; and a continuous identifier that spans a subset of the plurality of discrete compartments to provide an appearance of one continuous pouch (all of the same features already provided above in claim 1, 8), the continuous identifier is disposed between the first serrations (adjacent 22 as in fig 1, 3; see annotated figure below as well; the Office notes that thefreedictionary.com defines pouch as a sealed plastic or foil container used for packaging food or drink, and therefore by definition the prior art discloses a pouch).
The Office notes Bernay discloses similar art with respect to pouch with compartments and identifier (figs 1-7), and further discloses a second plurality of serrations separating the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments (such as adjacent 450, but not limited thereto). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Wigoda in view of Bernay (by providing serrations for each compartment) in order to permit the device to be sealed while also being independent use of each compartment.
Holmes discloses the plurality of discrete compartments is separated by heat seals (as in fig 19 with 437; paragraph 72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Holmes (by providing heat seals in combination with the serrations) in order to provide a particular means of attachment such as one that provides more secure attachment. The Office further notes that Holmes discloses a pouch (figs 1-19, such as pouches adjacent 434). The Office notes that the Combined reference discloses the claimed subject matter. In order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, and if there is any question to the pouch, the Office notes that Holmes also discloses a pouch (figs 1-19, such as pouches adjacent 434). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Holmes (by replacing one type of container structure for another type of container structure) in order to provide a desired type of container such as bag type structure that permits the user to fill the container in a desired manner and a more efficient manner such as permitting the device to be held vertically and loaded from the top end. The Office notes that the above device is well known in the art and may be more easily carried and stored as well.
The Combined Reference discloses:
18. The pouch of claim 17, wherein the continuous identifier includes printed indicia (as in claim 4).
19. The pouch of claim 18, wherein the printed indicia is printed on a label adhesively coupled to the pouch (as in claim 5).
20. The pouch of claim 19, wherein indicia include a first indicia regarding the first medication printed on the portion of the label directly over the first compartment and a second indicia regarding the second medication printed on the portion of the label directly over the second compartment (as in fig 1, 3 where the indicia relates to the medication within).
24. The pouch of claim 17, wherein each discrete compartment of the subset of the plurality of discrete compartments is defined by:(i) a first portion and a second portion formed from material of a single feedstock roll, the first portion formed from one folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the second portion formed from another folded portion of the material from the single feedstock roll, the first portion and the second portion coupled together at four edges, at least three of the four edges being heat sealed, or (ii) a first segment from a first feedstock roll and a second segment from a second feedstock roll, the first segment and the second segment coupled together by heat sealing at four edges (see below). Claims 22-24 are being treated as product-by-process limitations (such as with respect to be defined by, formed from material of a single feedstock roll, formed from, formed from, being heat sealed, segment coupled by heat sealing at four edges, etc). and the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. (Same cite as above). Furthermore, the prior art already discloses the same resulting structure of compartment of a subset with portions, and four edges with a heat seal (all the structure already provided above).
25. (New) The pouch of claim 4, wherein the printed indicia is printed on the pouch.
26. (New) The pouch of claim 12, wherein the printed indicia is printed on the pouch.
27. (New) The pouch of claim 18, wherein the printed indicia is printed on the pouch.
With respect to the location of the indicia as in the above claim(s), the Office notes that the prior art already discloses indicia on as provided in the above claims as the pouch is the broadest element and the label is part of the pouch. Further, in order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, it is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide and/or move indicia to provide additional information to the user in order to assist the user in using the device. If there is any question to the above, Holmes also discloses the above indicia (paragraphs 35, 51, 62, 63, 74)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that Wigoda in view of Beck do not disclose a pouch. The Office notes that thefreedictionary.com defines pouch as a sealed plastic or foil container used for packaging food or drink, and therefore by definition the prior art discloses a pouch. Nevertheless, the Office further notes that Holmes discloses a pouch (figs 1-19, such as pouches adjacent 434). The Office notes that the Combined reference discloses the claimed subject matter. In order to expedite prosecution for Applicant, and if there is any question to the pouch, the Office notes that Holmes also discloses a pouch (figs 1-19, such as pouches adjacent 434). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Combined Reference in view of Holmes (by replacing one type of container structure for another type of container structure) in order to provide a desired type of container such as bag type structure that permits the user to fill the container in a desired manner and a more efficient manner such as permitting the device to be held vertically and loaded from the top end. The Office notes that the above device is well known in the art and may be more easily carried and stored as well. Accordingly, Applicant/Appellant has not demonstrated error in the factual findings or reasoning set forth by the Office and the Office must maintain the 103 rejections.
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 ANDREW D PERREAULT whose telephone number is (571)270-5427. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-5:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ANDREW D PERREAULT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights