DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the AIA first to file provisions. 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 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.
Application Status
This office action is in response to the claims filed 3/3/2026.
Claims 1 and 4-21 are currently pending and being examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 5/31/2024 has been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 forms.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 recites “the width of the outlet channel being less than or equal to 10 mm over at least a portion of its length at least 5 mm long”, however the underlined portion is unclear rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by “at least 5 mm long” in the claim.
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan et al. US 4,974,732.
Regarding claim 21:
Sullivan teaches a flexible sachet (FIGS. 6-8; 20C) containing at least one composition (F), having at least two walls that are welded to one another (e.g., col. 2, lines 47-49) and together define at least one compartment containing the composition, the sachet having a first opening zone (28C/32C) that is to be cut in order to form a first opening for dispensing a limited amount of composition (col. 4, lines 29-37) in order to carry out a patch test (by dispensing through 28C, a patch test may be carried out as a matter of intended use), the sachet having welding zones (26C) on the walls that are disposed so as to delimit between them an outlet passage of reduced width (24C), communicating with said compartment and extending at least partially in the first opening zone, the sachet having a second opening zone (30C) that is to be cut in order to form a second opening for emptying the sachet (i.e., if a user cut along 30C from one side to the other), the second opening zone cutting the compartment upstream of the outlet passage (envisaged in FIGS. 6 and 7), each of the first opening zone and the second opening zone having a visual guide constituting a cut line (notch 32C and slit 30C act as visual guides for cut lines).
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan et al. US 4,974,732 in view of Welch et al. US 2018/0327168.
Regarding claim 1:
Sullivan teaches a flexible sachet (FIGS. 6-8; 20C) containing at least one composition (F), having at least two walls that are welded to one another (e.g., col. 2, lines 47-49) and together define at least one compartment (22C) containing the composition, the sachet having a first opening zone (28C/32C) that is to be cut in order to form a first opening for dispensing a limited amount of composition (col. 4, lines 29-37), the sachet having welding zones (e.g., 26C) on the walls that are disposed so as to delimit between them an outlet passage of reduced width (24C), communicating with said compartment and extending at least partially in the first opening zone, the sachet having a second opening zone (30C) that is to be cut in order to form a second opening for emptying the sachet, the second opening zone cutting the compartment upstream of the outlet passage (precut line 30C can be extended by cutting along 30C, through the wider and upstream portion of the spout just above the upper surface of the composition F), the outlet passage forming an outlet channel (see 24C in FIGS. 6-8).
Sullivan does not teach the width of the outlet channel being less than or equal to 10 mm over at least a portion of its length, as Sullivan is silent as to exact dimensions of the sachet.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the dimensions of the outlet channel, including its length and width, in order to better control the dispensing of the composition, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.). In the instant case, the outlet channel has wide and relatively narrow portions (25) for controlling the discharge rate (col. 4, lines 38-62) which would be obvious to modify to tailor the passage for the characteristics of the fluid being dispensed (e.g., narrower for less viscous composition, and vice versa).
Sullivan also does not teach the at least one composition being hair composition in order to carry out a patch test.
Welch discloses a similar sachet containing at least one composition, being a hair dye composition, teaching “[the] container or sachet contents can then be used to provide a patch test for allergies, a compatibility test and/or a colour test for cosmetics, topical applications, colourants, dyes and bleach hair products before deciding whether to use the main contents of the package. The sachet provides quick and convenient testing prior to full use of the hair product.” ([0128]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sachet of Sullivan, by having the at least one composition be a hair composition in order to carry out a patch test, as taught by Welch, so that a user can patch test hair products via the first opening zone before deciding whether to use the main contents of the package via the larger second opening zone, providing a quick and convenient testing prior to full use of the hair product, as suggested by Welch ([0128]).
Regarding claim 4:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 1, as discussed above, having a precut line (32C) extending in the first opening zone, the first opening being made by cutting off a portion of the sachet extending between a free edge thereof and said precut line (col. 4, lines 29-37).
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 2, as discussed above, the outlet channel having the shape of a 90° bend (Sullivan, see 24C in FIGS. 6-8).
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 1, as discussed above, the first opening zone and/or the second opening zone having a visual guide constituting a cut line (Sullivan, shown in FIGS. 6-8).
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 1, as discussed above, the sachet having a peripheral welding zone with a width w1 at least in certain locations, the one of the welding zones bordering the outlet channel extending in the form of a wide strip of width w2>w1 (Sullivan, compare widths of 44 and portion comprising 34C in FIGS. 6-8).
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 7, as discussed above, the welding zone which extends in the form of a wide strip being traversed by a precut line (30C).
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 7, as discussed above, the welding zone which extends in the form of a wide strip having a tear starting point (34C may be considered a tear starting point).
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 1, as discussed above, the one of the welding zones forming an extension that extends from a peripheral welding zone adjoining a free edge of the sachet (Sullivan, 26C/30C, as shown in FIGS. 6-8).
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 11, as discussed above, said extension extending substantially parallel to a terminal portion of the outlet passage (Sullivan, 26C/30C is parallel to 24C).
Regarding claim 13:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 11, as discussed above, having a precut line (30C) extending along said extension as far as the free edge of the sachet (shown in FIGS. 6-8, where 30C extends to the free edge of 20C).
Regarding claim 15:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach the sachet being formed by folding a single sheet on itself and welding it to itself.
However, Examiner takes official notice that forming sachets by folding a single sheet on itself and welding it to itself, is old and well-known in the art as one of a very limited number of ways to form similar sachets, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sachet of the combination of Sullivan and Welch, by using this method to form the sachet, since it would preclude the need for two different supplies of sheet material to form the sachet.
Regarding claim 17:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches a hair dyeing method, having a step including
removing a test dose of hair composition from a sachet as defined in claim 1, by dispensing said dose through the outlet passage after having opened the sachet there (see claim 1 rejection above; “[the] container or sachet contents can then be used to provide a [] colour test for [] dyes and bleach hair products before deciding whether to use the main contents of the package. The sachet provides quick and convenient testing prior to full use of the hair product.” ([0128]).
The combination does not explicitly disclose, then in dispensing the rest of the composition in a different way than through the outlet passage, by making a new opening in the sachet.
Jamison discloses a related method of dispensing a composition from a sachet (100), where multiple possible openings (106, 108, 110, 112, 114) are provided, “having a series of preformed parallel score lines 106 to 114. The pouch may be opened at any of these score lines so that opening along score line 106 gives the fastest discharge rate for low viscosity liquid while opening the pouch along 114 gives the slowest discharge rate.” (page 11, lines 26-30).
Given Jamison’s teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of the combination of Sullivan and Welch, by dispensing the rest of the composition in a different way than through the outlet passage, by making a new, larger opening in the sachet, as suggested by Jamison, in cases where the first, smaller opening is found to be insufficient for properly dispensing the composition.
Regarding claim 18:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 1, as discussed above, containing a hair composition (Welch, [0128]).
Regarding claims 19, and 20:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 2, as discussed above, the width of the outlet channel being less than or equal to 10 mm over at least a portion of its length; the channel having a length greater than or equal to 5 mm.
Sullivan is silent as to exact dimensions of the sachet.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the various dimensions of the sachet and outlet channel, including its length and width, in order to better dispense the composition, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sullivan and Welch, as applied above, and further in view of Rodman US 2018/0319562.
Regarding claim 14:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach the walls being formed from a complex having at least one gas-barrier layer.
Rodman discloses a related sachet, teaching “[i]t will be appreciated that also other materials and layers are possible, such a gas barrier layer or a light barrier layer.” ([0046]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sachet of the combination of Sullivan and Welch, by providing at least one gas-barrier layer, as taught by Rodman, since this would serve to better preserve the contents of the sachet.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Sullivan and Welch, as applied above, and further in view of Bunce et al. US 2018/0244451.
Regarding claim 16:
The combination of Sullivan and Welch teaches the flexible sachet according to claim 1, as discussed above, but does not teach having a bottom with a certain width, and two uprights that meet at this bottom by way of a fold line at their lower end, and are fixed to one another over a certain height from their upper end.
Bunce discloses a related sachet having a bottom with a certain width, and two uprights that meet at this bottom by way of a fold line at their lower end, and are fixed to one another over a certain height from their upper end (FIGS. 6, 7; [0051]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the sachet of the combination of Sullivan and Welch, by having a bottom with a certain width, and two uprights that meet at this bottom by way of a fold line at their lower end, and are fixed to one another over a certain height from their upper end, as taught by Bunce, since this would provide a way to ensure both walls have matching geometries after fixing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been carefully considered but are not to be persuasive.
Applicant’s main argument is that “Neither the Sullivan nor Welch reference describes a second opening zone that is to be cut in order to form a second opening for emptying the sachet, the second opening zone cutting the compartment upstream of an outlet passage”, remarking “in Sullivan, the user is not aware of the internal architecture of the bag. If a user makes a second cut, it would be made blindly and would not necessarily allow a cut upstream of passage 28”. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this narrow interpretation of Sullivan, because, as a matter of intended use, a user may cut along 28C to access the first opening, and/or cut along 30C from the left side of the sachet to the right side to access a second, wider opening, upstream of the first opening, for quickly dispensing larger quantities of the composition, satisfying the current claim language.
Applicant argues “Since Sullivan does not seek to use the sachet in two cuts, but rather in a single cut allowing the total application of the composition, one of ordinary skill in the art has no reason to severely limit the flow rate in Sullivan after the single cut as in the presently claimed arrangement. Otherwise, the extraction time of the composition would be too long.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that since the claims are drawn to a product, and not a method of using the product, It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this case, while Examiner agrees that Sullivan does not explicitly teach making two cuts, since the sachet has the capability of multiple cuts, and in the manner claimed, it does not differentiate itself from the claimed sachet.
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 extension fee 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 DARIUSH SEIF whose telephone number is (408) 918-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 PM PST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DARIUSH SEIF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights