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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/854,112. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the both claim packages with a valve comprising a though hole with grooves.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/854,106. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the both claim packages with a valve comprising a though hole with sealing liquid and a polymer that is water-soluble.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “package” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabounjian (US 8,066,433) in view of Overby et al. (US 6,070,728).
Regarding claim 1, Sabounjian discloses a pressure-relief valve, the valve
comprising a cup shaped main body (Fig. 2c), with a bottom (at 60) and a circumferential wall, equipped to be fastened to a flexible package material (20), the bottom having at least one through hole (59) forming a passage through the main body, wherein the circumferential wall has, on its outer surface, a plurality of indentations (56). See Figs. 1-2c. Sabounjian does not disclose a membrane as claimed.
Overby, which is drawn to valve, discloses a valve membrane (at 12 or 44) lying against the main body on a package side in a region around the at least one through hole, and a sealing liquid (46) between the main body and the valve membrane. See Fig. 3. Thus, it 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 to have use a valve membrane as disclosed by Overby in the valve of Sabounjian in order to better prevent gases to enter or exit the package.
Regarding claim 2, the indentations are arranged equally distributed around the outside of the circumferential wall. See Fig. 2c.
Regarding claim 3, the indentations (48b) are axially running grooves extending from a product-side end of a main body, with ribs between the grooves. See Fig. 2b.
Regarding claim 4, the outer surface of the circumferential wall, with the exception of the indentations, is cylindrical or slightly conical. See Figs. 1-2c.
Regarding claim 5, the circumferential wall comprises, on a package-side end face, an energy directing circumferential rib (portions between 48b). Fig. 2b.
Regarding claim 6, the circumferential wall comprises, on the package-side end, an outwardly protruding flange (46 or 56). See Figs. 1-2c.
Regarding claim 7, the outer surface of the circumferential wall has a structured section with the indentations and further has a smooth section axially spaced from the structured section. See Figs. 1-2c.
Regarding claim 10, as modified above, a permeable membrane (48) being a fabric is secured to the main body to cover the at least one through hole on a product side opposite the package side. See Overby, Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 11, the main body has a system of ventilation grooves (at 50 and 60), with spacers between them, the mouth of the through hole or the at least one of the through holes being in a ventilation groove. See Figs. 1-2c.
Regarding claim 12, a fixing part (Fig. 2b, at 48b) fixed relative to the circumferential wall so that the valve membrane is sandwiched between the bottom and the fixing part. See Fig. 2b.
Regarding claim 13, Sabounjian disclose a package for packaging food products, the package comprising a flexible, pliant packaging material as well as a pressure relief valve according to claim 1, wherein the main body is attached to the packaging material. See Fig. 1.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sabounjian and Overby as applied above in further view of Helmer (US 2015/0284156).
Regarding claim 8, Overby does not disclose the material as claimed. Helmer, which is drawn to a valve, discloses at least one component of the valve made of a polymer composition comprising a water-soluble polymer. See [0028]. Thus, it 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 to have at least one component of the valve of Overby be water-soluble, as disclosed by Helmer, in order to be less pollution to the environment.
Regarding claim 9, as modified above, the valve is bio-degradable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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 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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734