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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15, 17-18, 29-35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, 30, the scope of the claims is unclear as to whether applicant is claiming the combination of an inner bag, an outer shell and a container body or whether applicant is reciting a container body comprising an inner bag and an outer shell. In particular, the claims recite a container body comprising a mouth part, body part, and a bottom part and further recites each of the inner bag and outer shell having a mouth part, body part and a bottom part thus reciting three distinct mouth parts, body part, and bottom parts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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(s) 15, 17-18, 29, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2014/0252032 to Corbett et al. (Corbett).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Corbett discloses a method for pulling out an inner bag (intended use), the method comprising twisting the inner bag (pouch 210) by rotating the mouth part (250) of the inner bag relative to outer shell (110) around a central axis of the mouth part of the outer shell, pulling the inner bag from the container body while twisting the inner bag or after twisting the bag (€0191). IN particular, Corbett discloses the cap combined with the fitment such that twisting the cap breaks the tamper evident seal and in order to break the seal, the cap must be twisted around the central axis of the mouth part of the outer shell. Twisting the cap would result in twisting the bag since the bag is attached to the cap/fitment.
Regarding claim 17, Corbett further discloses body part (220) having a shoulder part whose outer diameter increases as a distance from mouth part (250) increases and inner bag (210) is twisted at least at shoulder part (Fig 2). In particular, the shoulder part would need to be twisted in order for the inner bag to be removed.
Regarding claims 18, 32, Corbett teaches the obvious method of claim 15 but does not teach the recited rotation angle. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to rotate the inner bag to the angle recited before pulling since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 29, Corbett further discloses the container body capable of being biaxially stretch and blow molded since Corbett discloses the body being formed of blow molding (€00143). Note that product by process limitations are given little patentable weight.
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) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0368966 to Bickford et al. (Bickford) in view of US 2014/0252032 to Corbett et al. (Corbett).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Bickford discloses an obvious method for pulling out an inner bag from a container body (intended use), the method comprising twisting inner bag by rotating the mouth part of the inner container (104) relative to outer shell around a central axis of the mouth part of the outer shell and pulling out inner bag (104) from the container body (102) while twisting the inner bag or after twisting the inner bag (€0047). Bickford does not teach the inner container to be a bag. However, Corbett discloses a double container (Fig 10) and in particular discloses the inner container to be a bag (210). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the inner container of Bickford with a flexible bag as suggested by Corbett if one desired to hold liquid since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results would have been obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that applicant does not argue the rejection of the dependent claims. Applicant argues that prior art does not teach twisting the inner bag by rotating the mouth part of the inner bag relative to the outer shell around a central axis of the mouth part of the outer shell. This is not persuasive because Corbett discloses twisting the cap/fitment to open and break the tamper seal which would require twisting the cap around a central axis of the mouth part of the outer shell. Applicant argues that to release the connection between the skeleton and fitment, it is necessary to tilt the fitment. This is not persuasive because the twisting of the inner bag occurs before pulling out the inner bag since the seal would need to be broken before the inner bag can be removed.
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 ROBERT POON whose telephone number is (571)270-7425. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:30 am to 6:00 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/ROBERT POON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3735