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 .
Specification
The filed amended abstract on 08/14/2025 has been accepted and entered by the Office.
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) 1-11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenette (U.S. Patent No. 2,908,463).
Regarding claim 1: Chenette discloses an expander device for keeping a pouch openingelements comprises an inner section and an outer section, see for example (Figs. 1, 2, and 4; via frame elements 6 & 7);
the two elements are rotatably connected to each other about a rotation axis (via rotation by portion 11/12; “the frames may have a pivotal connection with each other”) in a scissor-like manner so that the inner sections together form a member (via formed inner rectangular space not “ring”), by which a central opening is at least partially surrounded, and so that the outer sections of the elements at least partially surround the inner ring sections of the other elemen
so as to be fitted against an inner side surface of a circumferential rim section of the pouch opening, (via the shown outer circumferential of either 6/7 while supporting the bag), and
the ring/rectangular member is convertible between a collapsed position, in which the inner ring/rectangular sections are angled to each other to span an angle α=α collapsed, and an expanded position, in which the inner ring section span an angle α=αexpanded with αcollapsed<αexpanded, see for example (Figs. 2 & 4; via the opened and closed frames 6/7); and
the ring/rectangular member extends within a plane in the expanded position (column 1, lines 21-25; “frame means that are assembled in a manner to form a substantially rectangular frame that has its dimensions such as to snugly engage within the display bag to be expanded”) to keep the pouch open, see for example (Figs. 1, 2, and 5; clearly showing an openable and expandable members). It is noted that what those members used for is not given much patentable weight as it is more of an intended use of the actual “member”.
Chenette does not disclose the claimed inner section and/or the members to be in a ring-shaped member, rather showing them in a rectangular member forming a rectangular section. However, the Office takes an official notice that such coming up with a ring-shaped member to replace a rectangular shaped member, would be nothing more an engineering design choice, to accommodate different shape and/or size of the bags.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Chenette’s frames to be in a ring shape, as a matter of design choice to accommodate circular bags.
Regarding claim 2: wherein, in the expanded position, the rotation axis penetrates an upper rim portion of the expander device or the ring member, and in the expanded position, the rotation axis penetrates the expander device adjacent to outer circumferential fitment section (Figs. 1-3 and 5; the shown rotated frame members 6/7 creating a penetration portion and/or the frame is engaged “within the display bag to be expanded”).
Regarding claim 3: wherein αexpanded is 1800, see for example (Fig. 1-3; via frames 6/7 extends withing a plane).
Regarding claim 4: wherein, at least in the expanded position, the ring/rectangular member or the outer circumferential fitment section extends in a circumferentially closed manner, (Fig. 1-3; via frames 6/7 extends in a circumferentially closed manner).
Regarding claim 5: wherein the outer sections form together an outer ring/rectangular member that at least partially surrounds the ring/rectangular member and its central openingwhen viewed perpendicularly onto the central opening or in the expanded position, and the inner ring section and the outer section of each element form together a circumferentially closed profile, see for example (Figs. 1-4; via 6/7 surround the opening).
Regarding claim 6: wherein, in the expanded position, a gap for receiving the circumferential rim section is located (intended use limitations for the claimed ring) between the ring member or its fitment section on the one hand and the outer sections on the other hand, a gap for receiving the rim section (inherently there will be a gap formed by members 6/7 to receive and display the bag).
Regarding claim wherein the fitment section (via curved sections on 6/7) at least partially comprises an inhibiting feature.
Regarding claim 8: wherein, at least in the expanded position, the expander device has a shape selected from the group consisting of round, circular, oval, square, rectangular, and polygonal shape, see for example (Figs. 1-2 & 5; via the shape of members 6/7 when extended away).
Regarding claim 9: wherein the inner ring/rectangular section and the outer section of each element are formed separately or integrally with each other, (Fig. 1; each of 6 and 7 are separate element).
Regarding claim 10: wherein the inner ring/rectangular section and the outer section of each element
Regarding claim 11: Chenette discloses a package system, comprising
a pouch carrying a food product (“a bag filled with the product to be displayed”; inherently could be filled with food), and an expander device for keeping a pouch opening of a pouch open, the expander device comprising two elements, wherein each of the two elements comprises an inner ring section and an outer section (Fig. 1-2; via device 5 with elements 6 & 7);
the two elements are rotatably connected to each other about a rotation axis in a scissor- like manner so that the inner ring sections together form a member (Fig. 4 and 5; via connecting region 11/14), by which a central opening is at least partially surrounded, and so that the outer sections of the elements at least partially surround the inner ring sections of the other element, respectively, when viewed perpendicularly onto the central opening (Fig. 4; the shown frames one is surrounding the other),
the member comprises an outer circumferential fitment section that at least partially surrounds the central opening and faces away from the central opening so as to be fitted against an inner side surface of a circumferential rim section of the pouch opening (via 6/7 surrounds the central opening), and
the member is convertible between a collapsed position, in which the inner sections are angled to each other to span an angle α=αcollapsed, and an expanded position, in which the inner ring sections span an angle α=αexpanded with αcollapsed<αexpanded to be inserted, in the collapsed position of the ring member, at least with the fitment section into a pouch opening of the pouch to keep the pouch opening open by fitment of the fitment section
the ring/rectangular member extends within a plane in the expanded position (column 1, lines 21-25; “frame means that are assembled in a manner to form a substantially rectangular frame that has its dimensions such as to snugly engage within the display bag to be expanded”) to keep the pouch open, see for example (Figs. 1, 2, and 5; clearly showing an openable and expandable members). It is noted that what those members used for is not given much patentable weight as it is more of an intended use of the actual “member”.
Chenette does not disclose the claimed inner section and/or the members to be in a ring-shaped member, rather showing them in a rectangular member forming a rectangular section. However, the Office takes an official notice that such coming up with a ring shaped member to replace a rectangular shaped member, would be nothing more an engineering design choice, to accommodate different shape and/or size of the bags.
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 Chenette’s frames to be in a ring shape, as a matter of design choice to accommodate circular bags.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chenette (U.S. Patent No. 2,908,463) in view of Varbanov (WO 2012/085117).
Regarding claim 12: Chenette does not disclose a storage container having a container opening for receiving the pouch and the expander device. However, Varbanov discloses similar package system with the use of a storage container having a container opening for receiving the pouch and the expander device, see for example (Figs. 3-5; via outer container 2 holding opened pouch 1).
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 Chenette’s package system with further storing the opened pouch inside a storage container, as suggested by Varbanov, in order to come up with more reinforcement and having easy access and production to the inner pouch.
Regarding claim 13: Varbanov discloses that the expanded position, the expander device, towards or against a circumferential inner wall section of the storage container, see for example (Figs. 2-4; via the shown expanded pouch 1 against inner wall of storage container 2).
Regarding claim 16: wherein the inner section and the outer section are formed by separate brackets, see for example (Figs. 1, 2, and 5; via separate parts 9 & 10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection adjusted to address the newly added limitations and claims.
Applicant argues that the applied art of Chenette ‘463 does not disclose the claimed “extend within a plane in the expanded position” as its parts inserted inside empty bag. The Office as set forth above believes that ‘463 indeed “expand” its parts withing the bag (column 1, lines 21-25; “frame means that are assembled in a manner to form a substantially rectangular frame that has its dimensions such as to snugly engage within the display bag to be expanded”). The applied art clearly discloses that the elements inserted in the empty bag in order to get “expanded” and display the bag.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 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 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
