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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1, 3-4, 10-11, 16, 19, 22-23, 28, and 32-34 have been examined in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the "Amendment" and Remarks" filed on 12/12/25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 22, 32, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10005654 to Kraenzle in view of US 3946780 to Sellers in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
As per claims 1 and 22, Kraenzle discloses a storage container comprising:
a body (178, 180, 176) that defines an interior of the storage container (Fig. 12);
a bag (166) contained within the interior of the storage container (Fig. 12), wherein the bag includes an opening (Col. 6, Ln. 56-63), and defines a bag interior configured to contain a material (Col. 4, Ln. 39-47), and wherein the bag is constructed of a polymer (Col. 13, Ln. 36-41); and,
an assembly (167 “faucet”) coupled to a portion of the body (Fig. 12), wherein the assembly is coupled to the bag (Fig. 12 – via tube 131 and conduit 112 and fitment 116) and configured to provide fluid communication between the bag interior and an external environment of the storage container (Col. 4, Ln. 60-63).
Kraenzle does not disclose: the polymer being an elastomer; the assembly to comprising a valve; the bag being stretchable between 200% to 1000% of a length of the bag such that a force provided by the material within the bag during an impact or drop on the body causes the bag to temporarily expand to relive the force; the container being “portable”.
In regards to the particular polymer chosen, Kraenzle further discloses the bag being flexible (Col. 9, ln. 55-56), but Kraenzle is silent regarding a particular polymer. Sellers teaches a flexible bag (Col. 1, Ln. 57-59) being formed from ethylene-vinyl acetate (Col. 1, Ln. 60-66), i.e. a known elastomer. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence in Kraenzle to form the bag of Kraenzle from ethylene-vinyl acetate like taught by Sellers.
In regards to the limitation requiring the assembly to comprise a valve, i.e. and thereby constituting a material valve assembly, and the assembly configured to provide the fluid communication between the bag interior and an external environment selectively, Applicant failed to properly traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in the office action dated 09/16/25 and therefore the following is now considered admitted prior art (see MPEP § 2144.03(C)): it is old and well known in the art of fluid dispensing to provide a selectively operated valve for starting and stopping a flow through a dispensing outlet. It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the faucet 167 of Kraenzle to similarly have a selectively operated valve for starting and stopping a flow through a dispensing outlet to an outside environment.
In regards to the limitation drawn to a functionality of the bag to be stretchable, however, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Kraenzle-Sellers-AAPA combination discloses the claimed structure and is capable of functioning where the bag is stretchable between 200% to 1000% of an unstretched length of the bag such that a force provided by the material within the bag during an impact or drop on the body causes the bag to temporarily expand to relieve the force.
In regards to the limitation requiring the storage container to be “portable”, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The container of the Kraenzle-Sellers-AAPA combination is capable of being moved, i.e. “portable”, as claimed.
As per claim 3, Kraenzle further discloses a hose (131) comprising a first end (Col. 4, ln. 61-63) coupled to the material valve assembly, and a second end coupled to the opening of the bag (Fig. 5 – coupled via conduit 112 and fitment 116), wherein the hose is configured to provide fluid communication between the bag interior and the material valve assembly (Col. 4, Ln. 60-63).
As per claim 4, Kraenzle further discloses wherein the material valve assembly comprises a first fitting (169) and the bag comprises a second fitting (112), and the first end of the hose is coupled to the material valve at the first fitting (Fig. 10), and the second end of the hose is coupled to the bag at the second fitting (Fig. 5).
As per claim 10, the Kraenzle-Sellers-AAPA Notice combination discloses the claimed invention except for the hose has a length that allows for the hose to stretch. Applicant failed to properly traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in the office action dated 09/16/25 and therefore the following is now considered admitted prior art (see MPEP § 2144.03(C)): all materials possess elasticity and therefore the hose of Kraenzle inherently allows for the hose to stretch.
As per claim 11, Kraenzle further discloses the bag comprises a spout (108, 112, 116) that includes a mounting portion (116) coupled to the bag, and a receptacle portion (112) configured to couple to the hose (Fig. 5).
As per claim 16, Kraenzle further discloses a chamber in between the body and the bag (Fig. 12); and a pressurized source of gas, e.g. a pump, for adding fluid (e.g., air, etc.) into the pressure vessel (Col. 10, ln. 15-17). Kraenzle does not explicitly disclose a charge gas valve configured to selectively provide fluid communication between a pressurized gas source and the chamber. Applicant failed to properly traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in the office action dated 09/16/25 and therefore the following is now considered admitted prior art (see MPEP § 2144.03(C)): one-way valves are old and well known in the art for maintaining a pressurized environment. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively to provide the pump with a one-way valve to selectively provide fluid communication between the pressurized gas source and the chamber in order to maintain a desired pressure in the chamber.
As per claim 32, Kraenzle discloses a storage container comprising:
a body (178, 180, 176) that defines an interior of the storage container (Fig. 12);
a bag (166) contained within the interior of the storage container (Fig. 12), wherein the bag includes an opening (Col. 6, Ln. 56-63), and defines a bag interior configured to contain a material (Col. 4, Ln. 39-47);
an assembly (167 “faucet”) coupled to a portion of the body (Fig. 12), wherein the assembly is coupled to the bag (Fig. 12 – via tube 131 and conduit 112 and fitment 116) and configured to provide fluid communication between the bag interior and an external environment of the storage container (Col. 4, Ln. 60-63); and
a hose (131) comprising a first end coupled to the assembly (Fig. 12), and a second end coupled to the opening of the bag (Fig. 5 – via conduit 112 and fitment 116), wherein the hose is configured to provide fluid communication between the bag interior and the material valve assembly (Col. 9, ln. 56-60).
Kraenzle does not disclose: the assembly comprising a valve, i.e. and thereby constituting a material valve assembly, and the assembly configured to provide the fluid communication between the bag interior and an external environment selectively; a particular material of the bag and the bag being stretchable between 200% to 1000% of a length of the bag such that a force provided by the material within the bag during an impact or drop on the body causes the bag to temporarily expand to relive the force; the container being “portable”.
In regards to the limitation requiring the assembly to comprise a valve, i.e. and thereby constituting a material valve assembly, and the assembly configured to provide the fluid communication between the bag interior and an external environment selectively, Applicant failed to properly traverse the examiner’s assertion of Official Notice in the office action dated 09/16/25 and therefore the following is now considered admitted prior art (see MPEP § 2144.03(C)): it is old and well known in the art of fluid dispensing to provide an selectively operated valve for starting and stopping a flow through a dispensing outlet. It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the faucet 167 of Kraenzle to similarly have a selectively operated valve for starting and stopping a flow through a dispensing outlet to an outside environment.
In regards to the particular polymer chosen, Kraenzle further discloses the bag being flexible (Col. 9, ln. 55-56), but Kraenzle is silent regarding a particular material. Sellers teaches a flexible bag (Col. 1, Ln. 57-59) being formed from ethylene-vinyl acetate (Col. 1, Ln. 60-66), i.e. a known elastomer. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence in Kraenzle to form the bag of Kraenzle from ethylene-vinyl acetate like taught by Sellers.
In regards to the limitation drawn to a functionality of the bag to be stretchable, however, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The Kraenzle-Sellers-AAPA combination discloses the claimed structure and is capable of functioning where the bag is stretchable between 200% to 1000% of an unstretched length of the bag such that a force provided by the material within the bag during an impact or drop on the body causes the bag to temporarily expand to relieve the force.
In regards to the limitation requiring the storage container to be “portable”, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). The container of the Kraenzle-Sellers-AAPA combination is capable of being moved, i.e. “portable”, as claimed.
As per claim 33, Kraenzle further discloses the hose configured such that the bag is movable relative to the faucet within a space defined by the length of the hose (claim 8). Kraenzle does not explicitly disclose the hose is configured to provide a dampening effect between the body and the bag. However, it has been held that: a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations; a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art; and, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II). In addition, functional claim language that is not limited to a specific structure covers all devices that are capable of performing the recited function. Therefore, if the prior art discloses a device that can inherently perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 may be appropriate. See MPEP §2114(IV). Furthermore, when the structure recited in the prior art is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP §2112.01(I). Kraenzle discloses the claimed structure and is capable of being used as claimed – i.e. such that hose is configured to provide a dampening effect between the body and the bag.
As per claim 34, and as the examiner can understand the claim, Kraenzle further discloses the hose being flexible (Col. 3, Ln. 51). Kraenzle does not explicitly disclose a particular material by which the hose is constructed. Kraenzle additional teaches a flexible part (Col. 9, Ln. 29-31; cover 133) being elastomeric (claim 11) –i.e. constructed of an elastomer. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed, in view of the aforementioned silence of Kraenzle regarding a particular material by which the flexible hose is constructed, to try to construct the flexible hose as Kraenzle constructed another flexible part—from an elastomer.
Claims 19, 23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10005654 to Kraenzle in view of US 3946780 to Sellers in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) in view of US 5305921 to Kock et al.
As per claims 19, 23, and 28, Kraenzle further discloses a dip tube coupled to and extending from the opening of the bag into the bag interior (Col. 4, Ln. 51-53). Kraenzle does not disclose a means for preventing material blockage. Kock teaches a package (Fig. 5) comprising a replaceable inner receptacle formed by a flexible bag (22) wherein the bag has a dip tube (36) extending from an opening of the bag to a bag interior and the dip tube having a plurality of holes (38) along a length of the tube to reduce the resistance of the diptube to fluid flow since all of the fluid does not have to enter the lower end of the diptube (Col. 4, Ln. 29-32). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Kraenzle-Sellers-AAPA combination according to the aforementioned teachings from Kock to similarly reduce the resistance of the diptube to fluid flow since all of the fluid does not have to enter the lower end of the diptube –the presence of a plurality of holes providing a means for preventing material blockage through the diptube, and through the bag opening—i.e. “at the bag opening”, as claimed.
Response to Arguments
In regards to the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112, the amendment filed 12/12/25 appropriately addresses all and they are withdrawn.
In regards to the claim rejections under prior art, the remarks filed 12/12/25 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant requests withdrawal of the claim rejections by providing the following arguments:
The prior art fails to disclose “a material valve assembly coupled to a portion of the body”. The alleged body of Kraenzle is behind a wall where the wall and the alleged body make up a dispenser 200. Therefore the faucet of Kraenzle is not coupled to the alleged body and is instead coupled to the wall.
While the bag in Kraenzle may be described as flexible, that does not imply the bag is also stretchable. A flexible material can be bent or twisted without breaking, but does not necessarily return to its original shape, whereas a stretchable material can be stretched to accommodate axial and planar strains and will return to its original size and form when the force is released.
In response to argument (A), and as previously set forth, it is old and well known in the art of fluid dispensing to provide a selectively operated valve for starting and stopping a flow through a dispensing outlet. It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the assembly (i.e. faucet 167) of Kraenzle to similarly have a selectively operated valve for starting and stopping a flow through a dispensing outlet to an outside environment, where the assembly (167 “faucet”) is coupled to a portion of the body (via inter alia pipe 131 and fitting 108 and bag 166 - Fig. 12), wherein the material valve assembly is coupled to the bag (Fig. 12 – via tube 131 and conduit 112 and fitment 116) and configured to provide fluid communication between the bag interior and an external environment of the storage container (Col. 4, Ln. 60-63).
In response to argument (B), in determining the relative weight to accord to rebuttal evidence, considerations such as whether a nexus exists between the claimed invention and the proffered evidence, and whether the evidence is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, are appropriate. The mere presence of some credible rebuttal evidence does not dictate that an obviousness rejection must always be withdrawn. See MPEP § 2145. Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a stretchable material can be stretched to accommodate axial and planar strains and will return to its original size and form when the force is released) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The prior art made of record in FORM PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 with expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Randy Gruby, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3415. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM.
If any attempt to reach the examiner by telephone is unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paul Durand, can be reached at (571) 272-4459.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patent Data Portal (PDP). Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the (PDP) system. For more information about the PDP system, see https://opsg-portal.uspto.gov/OPSGPortal/. Should you have questions on access to the PDP system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/R.A.G/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 March 4, 2026