DETAILED ACTION
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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter (U.S. Patent No. 9,751,691) in view of Kantz (U.S. Patent No. 5,018,877).
Regarding claim 1: Hunter discloses a container, in particular package, for transporting a powder/granular product, comprising:
a flexible inlet/outlet (Fig. 4; via “cylinder 124 may be flexible”) which, as intended, is clamped with a distal end portion (Figs. 2, 4, 10, and 15; via cylinder 124 extended from opening portion 122; “cylinder 124 that extends from the opening 122”) to a connecting device in order to fill the product into the container or to empty the container;
an accommodating body (Fig. 6; via 108) in which the product is accommodated during transportation (intended use limitations of the body, not given much patentable weight), wherein the proximal end portion is connected to the accommodating body (Fig. 5; via top portion of the inlet/outlet 124 or 128 connected to the body 108).
Hunter may not disclose the amended claims filed on 12/19/2025 referring to the flexible inlet/outlet comprising a distal end portion and a proximal end portion, while having the distal end portion with a different more flexible construction than the proximal end portion. However, Kantz discloses similar container with flexible inlet/outlet comprising a distal end portion (Fig. 3; via end portion of sheet 12) and a proximal end portion (Fig. 3; via opening 10), while having the distal end portion with a different more flexible construction than the proximal end portion (via “sheet 12 is adapted to be crumpled or furled due to its flexibility”; inherently the proximal portion 10 is not as flexible as sheet 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Hunter’s container by having the distal end portion with a different more flexible construction than the proximal end portion, as suggested by Kantz, in order to come up with easier and safer discharge of the material in the bag without contamination (column 2, lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 3: Hunter discloses that the proximal end portion has a coating, (via “liner 108 is manufactured from coated or uncoated fabric, polyethylene, vinyl, etc.”, which proximal portion 122 is portion of the liner 108).
Regarding claim 4: Hunter discloses that the distal end portion of the flexible inlet/outlet is formed of polyethylene film (via “the cylinder 124 is integral with and manufactured from the same material as the liner”, which is made out of polyethylene).
Regarding claim 5: Hunter discloses that the distal end portion of the inlet/outlet is mounted to the proximal end portion of the inlet/outlet in a fusion integrated, in particular welded, manner (Fig. 4; via sealing mechanism 126).
Regarding claim 7: Hunter discloses that the distal end portion of the inlet/outlet is mounted on the proximal end portion such that the proximal end portion extends partially within or outside the distal end portion, see for example (Fig. 2; via 122 extends outside of 124).
Regarding claim 8: Hunter discloses that the container is a big bag (via sleeve 101).
Regarding claim 9: Hunter discloses that a use of a container for transporting a powder/granular product (via “The present invention…for transporting and storing content…any type of content”), wherein both the proximal end portion and the distal end portion are each closed (via “user can manipulate (open and close) the cylinder 124 easily”).
Hunter does not disclose in particular closing by tied, with a closure. However, Kantz discloses the packaging container with the ability to tie the closure, see for example (Fig. 2, closure petals 32).
Regarding claim 10: Hunter does not suggest the use of a specific material for coating to be a metal coating. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Hunter’s coating to be a metal coating, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-5, and 7-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely sole on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731