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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/20/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 6, 7 and 10-14 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 6 and 7 are drawn to a distinct invention with a sidewall defining a closeable opening in the upper portion of the elongate bag with a screw cap. Claims 10-14 are directed to a method of storing and dispensing liquids which is distinct from a packaging in claims 1-5.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 10-14 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGruder (US 2009/0034885).
Regarding claim 5, McGruder discloses a packaging for the storage and dispensing of liquids and fluidic materials, the packaging comprising: an elongate bag (1) having first and second ends and a sidewall extending therebetween; a perforation (14) extending transversely across the elongate bag and configured to separate the elongate bag into an upper portion including the first end and a lower portion including the second end; and first and second ziplock seals (10 and other 10) extending transversely across the elongate bag on opposite sides of the perforation and configured to seal the upper and lower portions when separated. See Fig. 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGruder (US 2009/0034885) in view of Chang (US 2012/0275727) and Bell (US 2005/0079251).
Regarding claim 1, McGruder discloses packaging for the storage and dispensing of liquids and fluidic materials, the packaging comprising: a bag-shaped body (area between 12 and 18), a first end (bottom) of the bag-shaped body being formed as a supporting element made of a material of the body, the body having a closable opening (302) for the removal of a product stored in the packaging; wherein, at a second end (top) of the bag-shaped body opposite the first end; wherein, on the bag-shaped body a perforation strip (17) is formed extending in the standing position transversely to the bag-shaped body for dividing the bag-shaped body in two parts; wherein first and second ziplock seals (10 and other 10) extend transversely across the elongate bag on opposite sides of the perforation which are configured to seal the upper and lower portions when separated at the perforation strip. See Fig. 1. McGruder does not disclose the standing features or a tab as claimed.
Chang, which is drawn to a packaging, discloses a first and second end (12 and 31) with a supporting element configured to hold the packaging in a standing position. See Fig. 2. Thus, it 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 to have the ends of McGruder have a shape/design of Chang in order to allow the bag to stand on either end.
Bell, which is also drawn to a packaging, discloses at least one tear tab (72 and 70) that is connected to a perforation strip formed on a body of the packaging. See Fig. 2. Thus, it 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 to have a tab, as disclosed by Bell, on the packaging of McGruder in order to facilitate the gripping and separation of the packages.
Regarding claim 2, the supporting elements can be considered to be supporting flanges made of the material of the body. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 3, as modified above, the tear tab is formed integrally with the perforation strip, extending beyond the body. See Bell, Fig. 2.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGruder, Chang, and Bell as applied above in further view of Branson (US 4,892,512).
Regarding claim 4, McGruder does not disclose the zip locks as claimed. Branson, which is drawn to a package, discloses zip locks (150, 156) that are formed on the body at both edges of a perforation strip (at 182) along an entire width of the body. See Figs. 1-4. Thus, it 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 to have the zip locks of McGruder be located as disclosed by Branson in order to have packages that are initially closed before items are placed therein. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the zip locks of McGruder be located as claimed in order to have initially sealed bags before items are placed therein, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGruder as applied above in further view of view of Chang (US 2012/0275727).
McGruder does not disclose the standing features as claimed. Chang, which is drawn to a packaging, discloses a first and second end (12 and 31) configured to hold the packaging in a standing position. See Fig. 2. Thus, it 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 to have the ends of McGruder have a shape/design of Chang in order to allow the bag to stand on either end.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGruder as applied above in further view of view of Bell (US 2005/0079251).
McGruder does not disclose a tab. Bell, which is also drawn to a packaging, discloses at least one tear tab (72 and 70) that is connected to a perforation. See Fig. 2. Thus, it 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 to have a tab, as disclosed by Bell, on the packaging of McGruder in order to facilitate the gripping and separation of the packages.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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