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
This office action is in response to the submission filed 6/11/2025.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-15, 17-20, and 22-25 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 1-3, 5-6, 18-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. US 2007/0080078 in view of Cannon US 2016/0137325.
Regarding claims 1, 5-6, 18, and 22-23:
Hansen teaches a multi-compartment heat-sealable bag (10) comprising:
(A) a first compartment (20) comprising a first opening (24) on a first edge for receiving a first material into the first compartment;
(B) a second compartment (22) adjacent the first compartment and comprising a second opening (26) on the first edge for receiving a second material into the second compartment; and
(C) an at least partially frangible seal (16a) 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 (e.g., [0003], [0040]); wherein the first compartment is configured for storing a substantially dry product (i.e., the compartments are capable of storing dry products).
Hansen does not teach wherein the first compartment comprises an embossed portion that facilitates vacuum sealing of the bag; the embossed portion is provided at the first opening and throughout the first compartment; and wherein the second compartment does not contain an embossed portion.
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]).
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 Hansen, by providing an embossed portion that facilitates vacuum sealing of the bag, the embossed portion provided at the first open edge and throughout the first compartment, as taught by Cannon, since this would allow the bag to be properly used in a vacuum sealing device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to only use such embossing in compartments where vacuum sealing was desired, and to thus omit the same from compartments that did not require vacuum sealing.
Regarding claims 2 and 19:
The combination of Hansen and Cannon teaches the multi-compartment heat-sealable bag of claim 1 wherein the at least partially frangible seal divides the first edge into the first opening and the second opening (Hansen, see FIG. 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 20:
The combination of Hansen and Cannon teaches the multi-compartment heat-sealable bag of claim 1 wherein the first opening and the second opening are heat-sealable in a single operation (Hansen, [0051], via a single “second platen press”).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Hansen and Cannon teaches the multi-compartment heat-sealable bag of claim 1 wherein the first compartment and the second compartment are of substantially equal size (Hansen, discussed in [0040] based on placement of 16a).
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Hansen and Cannon teaches the multi-compartment heat-sealable bag of claim 1 wherein the first compartment and the second compartment are of different size (Hansen, discussed in [0040] based on placement of 16a).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hansen and Cannon, as applied above, and further in view of Alipour US 2010/0300919.
Regarding claim 24:
The combination of Hansen and Cannon teaches the multi-compartment heat-sealable bag of claim 1, but does not teach 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.
Alipour discloses a related bag having a compartment that comprises a one-way valve for facilitating vacuum sealing (e.g., [0035], [0044]).
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 Hansen and Cannon, by providing the first compartment a one-way valve for facilitating vacuum sealing of the first compartment, as taught by Alipour, since this would allow the bag to be readily connected to a vacuum device for applying vacuum to 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 only include a valve in compartments where vacuum were desired, and to thus omit the same from compartments that did not require vacuum sealing, as it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 II A). In this case, omitting a valve in a compartment that does not require vacuum would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art since it would allow that compartment to function the same as before.
Claims 10, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VanLoocke et al. US 2008/0240628 in view of Cannon 2016/0137325.
Regarding claim 10:
VanLoocke teaches a method for storing foodstuffs within a heat-sealable bag comprising:
(A) providing a first foodstuff ([0036] e.g., breadcrumbs) into a first compartment (42) of the bag;
(B) providing a second foodstuff ([0036] e.g., cheese) into a second compartment (44) 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 in a single operation (i.e., the operation that produces 18; evident from [0038]);
wherein the first foodstuff comprises a dry product and the second foodstuff comprises a liquid foodstuff (e.g., [0051] discusses having one compartment with a dry food product, and the other compartment with a liquid foodstuff), the method comprising not vacuum sealing the second compartment.
VanLoocke does not teach the method comprising vacuum sealing the first compartment.
Cannon discloses a related bag having a compartment and teaches that vacuum sealing “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, as taught by Cannon, since a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize this would allow the contents of the first compartment to be properly preserved for freshness, especially in the case where the contents of the first compartment (e.g., VanLoocke’s dry solid foodstuff) require greater preservation and are conducive to vacuum sealing and the contents of the second compartment are not conducive to vacuum sealing, as is the case with liquids.
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of VanLoocke and Cannon teaches the method of claim 10 comprising breaking the at least partially frangible compartment seal and mixing the first foodstuff and the second foodstuff (VanLoocke, see FIGS. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of VanLoocke and Cannon teaches the method of claim 10 wherein the first foodstuff comprises a meat product and the second foodstuff comprises a liquid marinade (VanLoocke, [0049]).
VanLoocke does not teach wherein the single operation comprises vacuum sealing and wherein the vacuum sealing evacuates the first 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, as taught by Cannon, since this would allow the contents of the bag to be properly preserved for freshness.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of VanLoocke and Cannon, as applied above, and further in view of Hansen et al. US 2007/0080078.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of VanLoocke and Cannon teaches the method of claim 10, but does not teach wherein the heat sealing comprises placing a first edge of the bag into a vacuum sealing device, the first edge comprising the first opening and the second opening.
Examiner first notes that Hansen discloses an analogous heat-sealable bag with two compartments separated by a frangible seal (see rejection of claim 1 above), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to apply VanLoocke’s method to the bag of Hansen, in the event that the additional details of a slider mechanism (28) and upper frangible seal (18) were not required or fiscally non-feasible.
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 the combination of VanLoocke and Cannon, by placing a first edge of the bag into a vacuum sealing device, the first edge comprising the first opening and the second opening, as suggested by Cannon, since this would allow the contents of the bag to be properly preserved for freshness.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of VanLoocke, Cannon, and Hansen teaches the method of claim 11 comprising applying a vacuum to the first edge prior to heat sealing (e.g., Cannon evacuates the bag from the open edge then seals the open end).
Regarding claims 13 and 14:
The combination of VanLoocke, Cannon, and Hansen teaches the method of claim 12, but does not teach wherein the first compartment comprises an embossed portion that facilitates evacuation of the first compartment; the second compartment is smooth so that applying the vacuum to the second compartment closes off the second opening to prevent evacuation of the second compartment.
However, Cannon discloses a related bag having a compartment that comprises an embossed portion that facilitates vacuum sealing of the bag, the embossed portion facilitates evacuation of the first compartment (e.g., see claim 3 and last sentence of [0017]).
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 VanLoocke, Cannon, and Hansen, by providing an embossed portion that facilitates vacuum sealing of the bag, the embossed portion facilitating evacuation of the first compartment, as taught by Cannon, since this would allow the bag to be properly used in a vacuum sealing device. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to only use such embossing in compartments where vacuum sealing was desired, and to thus omit the same from compartments that did not require vacuum sealing, which would remain smooth.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of VanLoocke, Cannon, and Hansen, as applied above, and further in view of Alipour US 2010/0300919.
Regarding claim 25:
The combination of VanLoocke, Cannon, and Hansen teaches the multi-compartment heat-sealable bag of claim 13, but does not teach 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.
Alipour discloses a related bag having a compartment that comprises a one-way valve for facilitating vacuum sealing (e.g., [0035], [0044]).
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 VanLoocke, Cannon, and Hansen, by providing the first compartment a one-way valve for facilitating vacuum sealing of the first compartment, as taught by Alipour, since this would allow the bag to be readily connected to a vacuum device for applying vacuum to 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 only include a valve in compartments where vacuum were desired, and to thus omit the same from compartments that did not require vacuum sealing, as it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 II A). In this case, omitting a valve in a compartment that does not require vacuum would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art since it would allow that compartment to function the same as before.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “The Office instead relies on Cannon which makes a very brief mention in paragraph [0017] that a seal area may include an embossed portion. However, Cannon only describes a single compartment bag and the teachings of Cannon relate to the sealing device, not to the bag itself.”
Examiner notes that Applicant has not provided any teaching of Cannon to support the underlined portion above, and points out that Cannon specifically discloses “An important point to note is that heat-sealing vacuum packing machines that use rubber gaskets 7 to form an airtight seal around the mouth of the vacuum bags, only work with vacuum bags having at least one side embossed, or textured, because otherwise the smooth sides of the bag would shut off air flow out of the vacuum bags.”, which is a description of the requirement of the compartment of the bag in order to be usable with a vacuum sealing device, as referenced in the rejections.
Applicant’s remaining remarks can be summarized as ‘none of the cited references teach or suggest vacuum sealing (or embossing) only one of the compartments, and not the other”.
Examiner takes the position that the prior art as a whole provides all of the necessary pieces to render the current claims obvious. For example, Hansen discloses a multi-compartment bag with frangible seal between the compartments, but is silent about vacuum sealing and embossing. VanLoocke discloses a similar multi-compartment that includes dry foods in one compartment and sauces in the other, but is also silent regarding vacuum sealing. Cannon discloses the embossing and vacuum sealing of a compartment of a bag, which a person having ordinary skill in the art would immediately deem relevant to both references, in the event any compartment (or all) was desired to be vacuum sealed. Since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same function as before involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 II A). In this case, omitting embossing/vacuum sealing in a compartment that does not require vacuum would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art since it would allow that compartment to function the same as before. In the case of VanLoocke, where the first compartment contains dry food and the second contains wet food, a person having ordinary skill in the art intending to use vacuum sealing would not be let to emboss or vacuum seal the second compartment having the wet food, since wet foods are old and well-known to not be conducive to vacuum sealing since they can easily be sucked out of the bag. The dry food first compartment on the other hand would certainly stand to benefit from the embossing and vacuum sealing, since this is what vacuum sealers are typically intended for.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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 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