DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 13-14, and 16-19 are currently pending and being examined.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenland US 6,245,176 in view of Cannon 2016/0137325.
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 13, and 16-17:
Greenland teaches a multi-compartment heat-sealable bag comprising:
(A) a first compartment (15) comprising a first open end (16a) on a first edge for receiving a first material into the first compartment (col. 3, lines 52-55);
(B) a second compartment (16) adjacent the first compartment and comprising a second open end (15a) on a second edge opposite the first edge for receiving a second material into the second compartment (col. 3, lines 52-55); and
(C) an at least partially frangible seal (17) between the first compartment and the second compartment that can be broken to allow mixing of the first material and the second material within the bag (col. 3, lines 31-55); wherein the first compartment is configured for storing a substantially dry product (i.e., the compartments are capable of storing dry products), wherein the second compartment does not have any embossed portion (Greenland does not disclose any embossed portions).
Greenland does not teach wherein the first compartment comprises an embossed portion that facilitates vacuum sealing of the first compartment.
Cannon discloses a related bag having a compartment that comprises an embossed portion that facilitates vacuum sealing of the bag, the embossed portion is provided at the first open edge and throughout the first compartment (e.g., see claim 3 and last sentence of [0017]).
In the event that a user would seek to vacuum seal the contents of the first compartment, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the bag of Greenland, by providing the first compartment with an embossed portion that facilitates vacuum sealing of the bag, the embossed portion is provided at the first open edge and throughout the first compartment, as taught by Cannon, since this would allow the first compartment of the bag to be properly used in a vacuum sealing device.
Regarding claims 2 and 14:
The combination of Greenland and Cannon teaches the multi-compartment heat-sealable bag of claim 1 wherein the first open end and the second open end are heat-sealable (Greenland, addressed in col. 3, lines 31-55).
Regarding claims 6 and 7:
The combination of Greenland and Cannon teaches the multi-compartment heat-sealable bag of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the first compartment and the second compartment are of substantially equal size or are of different size.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the bag of Greenland by either having the first compartment and the second compartment of substantially equal size or of different size, depending on the amounts of each material were required to be filled in each compartment.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Greenland and Cannon, as applied above, and further in view of Brownfield US 2016/0137396.
Regarding claims 18 and 19:
The combination of Greenland and Cannon teaches the multi-compartment heat-sealable bag of claims 1 and 13, as discussed above, wherein the first compartment comprises a one-way valve for facilitating vacuum sealing of the first compartment, wherein the second compartment does not comprise a one-way valve.
Brownfield discloses a multi-compartment heat-sealable bag having a first compartment (115) comprising a one-way valve (30) for facilitating vacuum sealing of the first compartment ([0046]), wherein a second compartment (125) does not comprise a one-way valve.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the bag of the combination of Greenland and Cannon, by providing the first compartment with a one-way valve for facilitating vacuum sealing of the first compartment, since this would aid in the one-way vacuum sealing process, as discussed by Brownfield.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanLoocke et al. US 2008/0240628 in view of Cannon US 2016/0137325.
Regarding claim 8:
VanLoocke teaches a method for storing foodstuffs within a heat-sealable bag comprising:
(A) providing a first foodstuff (e.g., [0036]) into a first compartment (42) of the bag;
(B) providing a second foodstuff (e.g., [0036]) into a second compartment (42) of the bag, the second compartment adjacent the first compartment and separated from the first compartment by an at least partially frangible seal (16); and
(C) heat sealing the first compartment and the second compartment ([0038]); wherein the first foodstuff comprises a meat product and the second foodstuff comprises a liquid marinade ([0049]),
VanLoocke does not teach the method comprising vacuum sealing the first compartment and not vacuum sealing the second compartment.
Cannon discloses a related bag having a compartment and teaches that vacuum sealing “them helps preserve food freshness, texture, and taste” ([0003]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the bag of VanLoocke, by vacuum sealing the first compartment or not vacuum sealing the second compartment, depending on the desired freshness, as taught by Cannon, since this would allow the contents of the bag to be properly preserved for freshness.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of VanLoocke and Cannon teaches the method of claim 8 comprising breaking the at least partially frangible compartment seal and mixing the first foodstuff and the second foodstuff (VanLoocke, see FIG. 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the passage of claim 1 on page 1 of the remarks, Applicant argues “There is no explicit or direct teaching of any such combination. Rather, the Office has used improper hindsight to drawn inferences from three separate references (Greenland, Van Loocke, and Cannon). The Office has used the teachings of the current application to cherry pick elements from the references to allegedly achieve the present invention. In fact, the cited references do not offer a clear teaching, suggestion or motivation to achieve the present invention.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The references used in the rejections are all within the same field of endeavor and are naturally linked as storage bags. The rejections detail the contributions of each reference, and how each reference would add features known in the art of food storage. Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion by any of the references that a dual compartment bag where one compartment is embossed for facilitating vacuum sealing or a dry product, such as a meat product, while the second compartment is unembossed to receive a liquid product, such as a marinade, that could then be heat sealed without vacuum sealing. As discussed in the previous office action, Examiner disagrees and takes the position that the prior art, when viewed as a whole, discloses all of the claimed elements, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of the prior art to arrive at Applicant’s claimed invention. For example, Greenland discloses a substantially identical bag but does not contemplate any vacuum sealing nor what types of materials would be stored in the dual compartment bag. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the great many possibilities of what could be stored in the compartments, and would look to the prior art as a whole to understand how to best perform the storage (e.g., vacuum sealing compartments that would benefit from such; not vacuum sealing compartments that would not benefit, or would introduce difficulties if they were vacuum sealed). Cannon’s disclosure is important because it discloses that embossing is required when vacuum sealing solids to allow the air to be evacuated. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in a dual compartment bag, any compartment desired to be vacuum sealed, should be provided with embossing to allow such, based on Cannon’s teachings. Likewise, any compartment not desired to be heat sealed would not require embossing. VanLoocke discloses a scenario where dry and liquid components are stored in adjacent compartments of a dual compartment bag. Examiner takes the position that based on Cannon’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to vacuum seal the compartment where the dry goods are stored.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408) 918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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, ANNA KINSAUL can be reached on 571-270-1926. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731