DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-12 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 9/19/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because the do not include reference numbers to the “third” and “fourth” ends. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “third” and “fourth” ends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huseman et al. (US 2003/0068101) in view of Loeb (US 6,935,492).
Regarding claim 1, Huseman discloses a multi-compartment storage device, comprising: a container body comprising: a first surface (12) extending from a first end (Fig. 13, top; or right side depending on orientation) to a second end (Fig. 13, middle; or left side depending on orientation) and defining, at least in part, a first compartment (top 10) ; a second surface (at bottom 12) extending from a third end (Fig. 13, middle or left side) to a fourth end (Fig. 13, bottom or right side) and defining, at least in part, a second compartment (other 10) adjacent the first compartment; and a divider wall (66) positioned adjacent the second end and the third end and defining, at least in part, the first compartment and the second compartment, wherein: each of the first compartment and the second compartment is independently accessible; the first surface comprises first perforations (74) adjacent the second end configured to enable at least a portion of the first surface to be separated from the divider wall; the second surface comprises second perforations (other 74) adjacent the third end configured to enable at least a portion of the second surface to be separated from the divider wall; a first seal (38) coupled to the first compartment; and a second seal coupled to the second compartment, wherein: at least one of the first seal or the second seal is a closure element configured to be accessed without breaking the other seal. Huseman does not necessarily disclose the common element of a reusable closure element.
Loeb, which is drawn to a storage device, discloses using a seal that is a reusable closure element. See col. 1, ll. 24-26. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to use a seal that is a reusable closure element, as disclosed by Loeb, on the device of Huseman in order to open and close the bag multiple times.
Regarding claim 2, the first surface comprises a first material and the second surface comprises the first material. See [0035].
Regarding claim 3, Huseman discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first surface comprise a first material and the second surface comprise a second material, wherein the first material is different from the second material in order to have a desired qualities for different items, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 4, as modified above, the first seal comprises a first resealable zip closure. See Loeb, col. 1, ll. 24-26.
Regarding claim 5, as modified above, the second seal can comprise a first resealable zip closure.
Regarding claim 6, the container body comprises at least one of a polymer, a plastic film, a foil, or a mylar. See [0035].
Regarding claim 7, first pleats (16) are at the first end adjacent the first seal, second pleats (other side) at the fourth end adjacent the second seal, and third pleats at the divider wall. See Fig. 15.
Regarding claim 8, a first surface area of the first surface is within substantially the same as a second surface area of the second surface. See Fig. 13.
Regarding claim 9, Huseman discloses the claimed invention except for different surface areas. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have different surface areas, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. 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.
Regarding claim 10, the divider wall comprises a first layer coupled to the first surface and a second layer coupled to the second surface. See Fig. 13.
Regarding claim 11, depending on orientation the divider wall is oriented perpendicular to an axis extending from the first end to the fourth end. See Fig. 13.
Regarding claim 12, the first compartment, second compartment, and divider wall comprise a unitary body. See Fig. 13.
Regarding claim 15, Huseman, as modified above, discloses a product container comprising: a first surface extending from a first end to a second end and defining, at least in part, a first compartment; a second surface extending from a third end to a fourth end and defining, at least in part, a second compartment adjacent the first compartment; and a divider wall positioned adjacent the second end and the third end and defining, at least in part, the first compartment and the second compartment, wherein: each of the first compartment and the second compartment are independently accessible; the first surface comprises first perforations adjacent the second end configured to enable at least a portion of the first surface to be separated from the divider wall; the second surface comprises second perforations adjacent the third end configured to enable at least a portion of the second surface to be separated from the divider wall; a first seal coupled to the first compartment; and a second seal coupled to the second compartment, wherein at least one of the first seal or the second seal is a reusable closure element configured to be accessed without breaking the other seal. See above.
Regarding claims 16-20, Huseman, as modified above, sufficiently discloses the claimed invention. See above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734