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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/18/2026 has been entered.
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 1-6 and 8-15 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inside" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitation are not readily understood.
Claims 2-6 and 8-15 fail to cure the deficiencies.
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
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) 1-2, 4-6, and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Damme (WO 2017/005746 A1) in view of Zafir et al. (US 10974892 B1; hereinafter Zafir).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, and 12-15, Van Damme discloses a food packaging container (2) an inner bag (B) comprising a sealable container; a closure cap (3) for the container; and a fillable tubular bag, wherein the tubular bag is connected flat to the inside of the container (Page 10 lines 6-29) and a bottom of the container is concave on the inside (20; Page 8 lines 31-35; see Fig. 4a-b). Examiner notes that the bottom 20 is elevated relative to a lowest point of sidewalls 20a; therefore, Examiner considers the bottom to be concave. Van Damme discloses the claimed invention except for gluing the inner bag to the inside of the container.
Zafir teaches an intermediate bulk container cartridge comprising an inner bag adhered to an inside surface of an outer container (Col 2 lines 1-25). Examiner considers the bag to be “glued flat” to the outer container in the portion of the bag where the adhesion takes place. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to modify Van Damme’s bag-in-box container by adhering the inner bag to an inner surface of the outer container in order to ensure that said inner bag does not shift or move within said outer container, as taught by Zafir.
Regarding claim 4, Van Damme, as modified above, discloses a container wherein the closure cap is placed on the container (Van Damme; see Figs 1, 2, and 7).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Van Damme, as modified above, discloses a container wherein the closure cap is made of a recyclable plastic (Van Damme; Page 9 lines 30-35; Examiner considers anything capable of being re-used to be recyclable).
Regarding claims 9-11, Van Damme, as modified above, discloses a container further comprising a dosing aid (Van Damme; Page 6 lines 20-25).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Damme in view of Zafir, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Damme (BR 112017026320 B1; hereinafter Van Damme ‘320).
Regarding claim 3, Van Damme, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the container being made of cardboard. Van Damme ‘320 teaches a food packaging with an inner bag wherein an outer container of the packaging is made of cardboard (see Par. 035). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to further modify Van Damme’s container to be made of cardboard, as a known material substitution in the art of food packaging comprising an inner bag inside of an outer container, as taught by Van Damme ‘320.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art, Van Damme, fails to disclose a concave interior bottom as claimed.
-Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Van Damme’s bottom (20; Page 8 lines 31-35; see Fig. 4a-b) is elevated relative to a lowest point of sidewalls (20a); therefore, Examiner considers the bottom to be concave. Examiner invites Applicant to provide Drawings to depict how the presently claimed concave bottom differs from that of a standard concave bottom found in the art, as exhibited by Van Damme. No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Applicant contends that the prior art also fails to teach that the tubular bag is glued to the inside of the container, as claimed, since the prior art teaching relied upon glues an internal bag to a reinforcing board.
-Examiner considers the reinforcing board of the prior art to be a part of the inside of the container. Examiner notes that the claim recites that “the tubular bag is glued flat to the inside of the container”. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, an internal reinforcing board of a container is not precluded from being considered part of “the inside of the container”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE whose telephone number is (571)270-1982. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday.
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, NATHAN J NEWHOUSE can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R DEMEREE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
