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
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.
Claims 1 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berge (US PN 9,938,050) in view of Umenaka (US PG PUB 2008/0135513) and Katsumi (JP 2008062943) (see attached machine translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-7, Berge teaches a spout and cap assembly (item 10, figure 1) put between and attached to a bag (item 16, figure 1) made a pair of plane parts (see figure 21) comprising front and rear surfaces, the spout comprising:
a hollow and tubular tube part (item 50, figure 9); and
a flange part (items 62, 64, figure 9) comprising a top flange near the top end of the spout and a base-end flange closed to the base end, provided on an outer peripheral surface of the tube part on a side of a base end thereof,
wherein a cap (item 12, figure 1) having a cap body (figure 2) and a tamper-proof ring (item 32, figure 3A) connected to the cap body is attached to the tube part on a topside thereof (figure 1),
the tamper-proof ring circumferentially splits into a plurality of pieces (items 36, 51, figure 3A) with the connection to the cap body partially maintained (band 32 is connected at intermittent distance to cap body 12, see figures 3A-6), and
a topmost top flange (item 64, figure 9) of the plurality of flanges is equal to or larger than the tamper- proof ring in outer diameter in a front-rear direction of the bag body (figures 2 and 39, the flange 64 comprises a slightly larger diameter than band 32).
Berg does not explicitly teach that the top flange has two straight sections parallel to the pair of plane parts, a base-end flange nearer the base end than the top flange is: shorter than the top flange in length in the front-rear direction of the bag body, and has two straight sections parallel to the pair of plane parts, and wherein the two straight sections of the base-end flange are longer than the two straight sections of the top flange.
Umenaka teaches another cap and spout assembly (figure 1) comprising a flange section (items 24, 25, 26, figure 1) with a top flange (item 24, figure 1) and a base-end flange (item 26, figure 1) near a base end (figure 1), wherein the base end flange is shorter in length than the top flange in a front-rear direction of the bag body (see annotated figure 1 below). Umenaka also teaches that both the top flange and the base-end flange comprise two straight sections (see figures 1 and 6 where the flange cross-section shows and octagonal shape with two straight sections in each flange) parallel to the pair of plane parts
PNG
media_image1.png
536
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 9 of Umenaka
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Berge as taught by Umenaka such that the top flange is longer than the base-end flange in the front- rear directions and comprises two straight sections parallel to the pair of plane parts in order to provide straight grabbing surfaces for machines during the manufacturing process. Modifying the grabbing surface to match the grabbers of the machine is within the range of one of ordinary skill in the art and can be achieved by trial and error.
Not only that, Katsumi teaches another cap and spout assembly (figure 1) with a tubular spout (item 10, figure 1(b)) that comprises a flange section (item 8, figure 1(b)) including a top flange and a base-end flange near a base end (see annotated figure 2 below), wherein the both the top flange and the base-end flange comprises at least two straight sections (see annotated figure 2 below), and two straight sections of the base-end flange are longer than the two straight sections of the top flange (see annotated figure 2 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
433
422
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Fig. 1(b) of Katsumi
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Berge as taught by Umenaka and Katsumi such that the top flange is longer than the base-end flange in the front- rear directions and comprises two straight sections (the base end straight sections being longer in length than the top end straight sections) parallel to the pair of plane parts in order to provide straight grabbing surfaces for machines during the manufacturing process. Modifying the grabbing surface to match the grabbers of the machine is within the range of one of ordinary skill in the art and can be achieved by trial and error.
Regarding claim 4, Berge teaches that the base-end flange nearer the base end than the top flange is formed with a hollow (bottom surface of flange 62 has hollowed out portions, figure 16) in a direction perpendicular to the pair of plane parts.
Berge does not teach that the base-end flange comprise a hollow in a direction parallel to the pair of plane parts.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flange section of Berge such that the base-end flange comprises a hollow in the direction parellel to the two plane parts of the bag. Doing so only involves changing the shape of the flange and such configurations can be changed based on how the machines are grabbing these flanges during manufacturing. It has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results (See MPEP § 2144.04 (IV)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-7 under Berge and Umenaka have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record.
Applicant amended claim 1 to include limitations regarding the top flange and the base-end flange both include two straight sections and the two straight sections of the base-end flange are longer than the top flange parellel to the pair of plane parts. This required further search and consideration which resulted in a new grounds of rejection.
Prior art Katsumi is combined with Berge and Umenaka to teach each and every limitation of claim 1 thus rendering it obvious. As discussed in the previous rejection, Berge teaches most of the invention of claim 1 including a bag with a pair of plane parts, a tubular cap and spout assembly, a tamper proof ring, and a flange section with a top flange and a base-end flange. Berge is silent to the top flange being longer than the base-end flange in a front-rear direction, the top flange and the bottom flange having two straight sections parallel to the pair plane parts, and that the base end straight sections are longer than the top end flange straight sections.
Here, Umenaka is relied upon to teach that the base end flange is shorter in a front-rear direction than the top flange and that both of the flanges comprise two straight sections. Furthermore, in figures 1(a) and 1(b), Katsumi also teaches two flange sections with two straight sections wherein the straight section of the bottom flange is longer than the straight section of the top flange. As a result, the combination of prior arts teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 and thus claim 1 remains rejected. Dependent claims 4-7 are also taught by the same combination and thus also remain rejected.
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 VISHAL J PANCHOLI whose telephone number is (571)272-9324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday (9 am - 7 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, Paul Durand can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/Vishal Pancholi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754