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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a storage space configured to store contents in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukari (JP-2015-134626).
Regarding claim 1: Yukari discloses a pouch container comprising:
a pair of film sheet parts bonded to each other at a seal portion, see for example (Fig. 1; via container 105, bonding area 104), wherein the pouch container includes
a storage space configured to store contents (via space 105), and
a peripheral portion located outside the storage space and provided with the seal portion (via peripheral portion B, 101/102, and 104),
the peripheral portion includes a first cut line portion forming a tongue portion (via cut line & tongue portion A),
the first cut line portion includes a first end portion and a second end portion (via upper 109/107 and lower 110 portions of A);
the first end portion includes a first curled portion curled toward the second end portion (Figs. 1-4; via the curved-curled portion 107),
the second end portion includes a second curled portion curled toward the first end portion (Figs. 4; via the lower curved-curling portion below the shown fold line 110),
the seal portion includes a first curled portion seal area sealing the first curled portion and a second curled portion seal area sealing the second curled portion, see for example (Figs. 1-4; via the curled upper and lower portions are being sealed prior to cutting them), and
the peripheral portion includes an unsealed area in which the pair of film sheet parts are not sealed, the unsealed area including a portion located between the first curled portion seal area and the second curled portion seal area, see for example (Figs. 1-4; via the shown unsealed area of the handle portion).
Yukari does not disclose the amended claims as filed on 10/24/2025, referring to the first curled portion seal area is an area where the pair of film sheet parts are bonded together in an area including the first curled portion and surroundings of the first curled portion. and
the second curled portion seal area is an area where the pair of film sheet parts are bonded together in an area including the second curled portion and surroundings of the second curled portion. 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 Yukari’s pouch by positioning the first and second curled portions seal areas in an areas where the pair of film sheet parts area bonded together, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Further, see for example WO 2004/110875, Figs. 4 and 6 showing formed curled portions of 18 positioned on areas where the pair of film sheet parts bonded together via 17.
Regarding claim 2: wherein at least one of the first curled portion seal area and the second curled portion seal area is formed in an island shape inside the unsealed area, see for example (Figs. 1-4; via the shown curled portion 107 and/or the lower curled portion at the end of fold line 110 are in the unsealed area).
Regarding claim 3: wherein the pouch container includes a bottom portion and a ceiling portion (Fig. 1; via bottom region below 103 & ceiling portion the shown top portion of 105),
the first end portion is located closer to the ceiling portion than the second end portion (via curled top portion 107 is closer to top portion of the bag than the lower curled portion at the end of fold line 110),
the first curled portion seal area is formed in an island shape inside the unsealed area, see for example (Figs. 1-4; via the shown upper curled portion 107 positioned in the unsealed area).
Yukari does not suggest the claimed second curled portion seal area is located outside the unsealed area, rather positioned inside the unsealed area. 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 Yukari’s pouch by positioning the second curled portion seal area to be located outside the unsealed area, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 4: wherein the pouch container includes a bottom portion and a ceiling portion, (Fig. 1; via bottom region below 103 & ceiling portion the shown top portion of 105),
the first end portion is located closer to the ceiling portion than the second end portion, (via curled top portion 107 is closer to top portion of the bag than the lower curled portion at the end of fold line 110),
the first cut line portion includes an extending portion connected to the first end portion and extending toward the storage space (via the shown upper left curved extending portion of 109), and
the extending portion includes a bulging portion bulging toward an inside of the unsealed area (via the shown shape of 109 and upper left curved section toward the unsealed area).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yukari (JP-2015-134626) in view of JP. 2009-173334).
Regarding claim 5: Yukari discloses, a fold line connecting the first curled portion and the second curled portion at the shortest distance, see for example (Fig. 4; via fold line 110 connecting upper curled portion with the lower curled portion).
Yukari does not suggest that the first cut line portion includes multiple microjoint portions connecting an outer side and an inner side of the first cut line portion, nor being
located close to the storage space. However, JP ‘334 discloses similar pouch container with the use of multiple microjoint portions connecting outer and inner sides of a cut line and being close to the storage space, see for example (Fig. 5; via Z).
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 Yukari’s pouch by having a multiple microjoint portions connecting outer and inner sides of a cut line, as suggested by ‘334, in order to make it easier and faster penetrating the unsealed region and separating the cut line without damaging the pouch’s body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection modified to address the newly added limitations.
As set forth above, the amin applied art of Yukari ‘626 shows the claimed cut line portion with first and second end curled portions (Figs. 1-4 via curled portions 107 and 110). The Office believes that an exact location of those curled portions to be withing a film sealed area would be nothing more than a design choice and re-arranging of location of parts. Further, the Office believes that such location of cutting line to be withing a sealed area of films suggested by WO 2004/110875, Figs. 4 and 6; via curled portions of 18 positioned on ponded area 17 of the films 17.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it is believed that as the ‘626 suggests all claimed elements, only missing exact location of those elements, that would be obvious to those skilled in the art to re-arrange parts as a matter of design choice.
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