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 .
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Phrases that can be implied, such as “The invention relates” (see line 1) and “The invention further relates” (see the last sentence) should not be present therein;
The abstract should be submitted on a separate sheet with no other verbiage theron; and
The abstract should be limited to 150 words or less.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regard to claim 2, on line 5, “the applying” should be “applying” since the applying of the separation has not been previously defined.
In regard to claim 4, it is unclear as to how a “third hole” (see line 2) can be defined when first and second holes have not been previously defined.
In regard to claim 9, on line 2, “the dimensions” should be “dimensions” since the dimensions have not been previously defined.
In regard to claim 13, on line 6, “the packaging” should be “each packaging since a plurality of packagings have already been defined (see line 5).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan et al. (U.S. Patent 4,974,732, hereinafter Sullivan, as cited by the Applicant).
In regard to claim 1, the Sullivan reference discloses a packaging for a liquid, the packaging comprising an area of two layers of flexible material which are arranged superimposed on each other and sealed together to form or closes a pouch (see column 2, lines 38-43),
wherein the two layers are furthermore sealed together in a sealing region 26C (see Figure 7) wherein the sealing region extends at a distance from an edge of the packaging and leaves a transition region free from sealing (viewing Figure 7, the transition region is defined by the open area direction to the right of the sealing region 26C),
the sealing region 26C thereby forming a delimitation between a receptacle 22C for holding the liquid and an outlet channel (within spout 24C) which outlet channel is in fluid communication with the receptacle via the transition region,
wherein the sealing region 26C comprises a splitter 30C extending along a part of the sealing region, the splitter being shaped and arranged so that it is configured to provide a spout 24C comprising the outlet channel, and
wherein the spout is obtained by providing a separation extending from the edge (beginning at notch 32C) to the splitter and wherein the sealing region has a shape comprising at least one bulge 25 protruding in a plane of the sealing region.
In regard to claim 4, the splitter 30C is in the form of an elongate and through going hole extending along the sealing region (see column 3, lines 23-35).
In regard to claim 6, the packaging is provided with a notch 32C extending from the edge in the direction of the splitter 30C.
In regard to claim 7, the overall shape of the packaging is rectangular (see Figure 7).
In regard to claim 9, the dimensions of the transition region and the outlet channel, as well as any sealing adjacent thereto is predetermined in order provide a stiffness of the flexible material forming the transition region and the outlet channel resulting in a self-closing effect of the outlet channel so that, after the spout has been obtained by applying the separation, there is no flow of liquid out of the receptacle when no pressure is applied to the packaging (see column 4, lines 48-62).
In regard to claim 10, there are two or more bulges 25 distributed along the outlet channel.
In regard to claim 11, additional stiff will be provided to the packaging by heating of the layers (during the sealing thereof) and one or more stiffening bands (defined by the heat-sealed edge of the packaging.
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 2, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan.
In regard to claims 2, 3 and 5, although the Sullivan reference does not disclose the claimed structure of the splitter, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the splitter 30C in the Sullivan device can be formed by any suitable structure which would enable the sealing region to split, including holes, elongated holes, weakened lines, partial cuts, etc., without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated the specific type of splitter structure is critical to the overall operation of the device (as evidence by the various types of disclosed splitters; see Figures 2, 4 and 5) and the Sullivan reference does not limit the structure of the splitter.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view of JP 2013 224167A (hereinafter ‘167, as cited by the Applicant, partial translation attached).
In regard to claim 8, although the Sullivan device does not include a sealing next to the outlet channel as claimed, attention is directed to the ‘167 reference, which discloses an analogous packaging wherein a sealing 12 (see Figure 1 is positioned next to the outlet channel and comprises a slit for receiving a free end of the spout in order to seal the spout when not in use (see paragraphs 0030-0031 of the attached partial translation). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the Sullivan device can include such a sealing slit in order to enable the spout to be sealed when not in use.
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan in view of Carlisle (U.S. Patent 4,113,169).
In regard to claims 12 and 13, as discussed above, the Sullivan reference discloses a packaging structured as claimed. Although the Sullivan reference does not disclose the specifically claimed method of making the packaging, attention is directed to the Carlisle reference, which discloses a method of making a series of packages comprising sealing edges of layers of material while omitting part of the seal at 12b to provide a filling region (see column 3, lines 41-42), filling the receptacle with liquid via the filling region (via nozzle 14; see column 3, lines 42-49), sealing the filling region (see column 4, lines 3-5) and cutting along outer circumferences of the packagings (see column 2, lines 15-17) in order to effectively form and fill a plurality of liquid containers. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the packagings disclosed in the Sullivan reference can be made by such a method in order effectively product a quantity of packagings. It is further noted although the Sullivan reference does not disclose the splitter is formed by cutting, it is the examiner’s position it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the splitter can be formed by any suitable and known method, including cutting, without effecting the overall operation of the device, especially since the Applicant has not indicated the manner in which the splitter is formed is critical to the overall operation of the device and the Sullivan reference does not limit the manner in which the splitter may be formed.
In regard to claims 14-17, although the Sullivan reference does not disclose the fluid in the packaging is one of those claimed or the filling is performed under aseptic conditions, as claimed, the examiner takes official notice that such packagings are commonly used to dispense beverages, i.e., fruit juice (wherein the packagings are obviously filled under aseptic conditions) in order to provide a user with a sanitary beverage package which can be conveniently stored, carried, etc. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made the Sullivan packaging can be used to store and dispense a beverage (such as fruit juice) and the filling of the packaging can be done under aseptic conditions in order to enable a user to conveniently store and carry and sanitary beverage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The Steele and Warr references are cited as being directed to the state of the art as teachings of other flexible fluid packagings having integral spouts formed therewith.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J WALCZAK whose telephone number is (571)272-4895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30-4:00.
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, David Angwin can be reached at 571-270-3735. 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.
DJW
1/27/26
/DAVID J WALCZAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754