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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 10/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is commonality and single general inventive concept shared between species. This is not found persuasive because the identified species lack the same or corresponding technical feature.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 “valve” 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 § 102/103
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.
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) 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as being anticipated/unpatentable over Thomsen (US 5,067,635).
Regarding claim 1, Thomsen discloses a bag capable of holding wet pet food, intended to be compressed by an assembly for squeezing and/or pressing said bag to ensure the automatic release of at least part of its contents, said bag being formed by two walls (11, 12) connected to each other over a portion of the periphery thereof and defining therebetween a volume capable of receiving wet food, the two walls not being connected to each other over another portion of the periphery thereof to form a neck (26) for opening the bag, the neck being deformable between at least one open position and one closed position; the walls of the bag comprising, on their internal face, one or more internal weld(s) (14) connecting the walls to each other inside the bag, said internal weld(s) being connected to each other to form, inside the bag, a funnel (13) in fluid communication with the opening neck of the bag, wherein - said opening neck comprises continuous lips (at 23), separable from each other to define an opening (at 25) of said bag for the passage of a portion of its contents, said lips forming a sealed barrier when tension is applied thereto by exerting a pull on at least one of the bag portions located laterally at said opening neck, - said neck being capable of being configured to present a straight cross-section of different shape for at least two distinct opening positions thereof, one of said opening positions being termed "forced," and corresponding to a circular or substantially circular straight cross-section of said neck when a push is exerted on this neck. See Figs. 1-5.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ratio between the width (LG) and the height (HG) of said neck, when it allows the passage of said wet food, and when it is at rest, that is, not under tension, be between 1.5 and 10, so as to ensure a regular flow of said wet food through said neck, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Thomsen appears to disclose the claimed ratios. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the claimed ratios, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, the opening neck is shaped to have a substantially elliptical or eye-shaped straight cross-section in another of its opening positions. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 5, a valve (24) in the form of a teat or duck's beak is mounted on its neck. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 7, the bag has a substantially rectangular or pointed shape in its lower part, or a diamond shape, when laid flat when empty, and in that the walls of the bag comprise at least two internal welds connecting the walls to each other inside the bag on their internal face in the area of said receiving volume. See Figs. 1-2. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the claimed shape, since there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. See Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Regarding claim 8, the internal welds are arranged to form a "V" or a "U", with the internal welds arranged symmetrically around a median longitudinal plane of the bag. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 9, each of said welds extends from a corresponding side edge of the bag to said neck, leaving the portion of the receiving volume located in the upper portion of the bag completely free. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 10, the height (h) of this free portion, that is, without internal welding of the walls in the receiving volume, is at least equal to 75% of the height H of the food receiving volume of the bag. In the case that Thomsen does not disclose the claimed height it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the claimed ratios, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
Regarding claim 11, at least two orifices (17) are placed in the upper portion of said bag and intended to engage with fastening elements to ensure suspension of said bag. See Fig. 1.
Regarding claim 12, the shape of each orifice is selected from the group comprising circular, oval, elongated by being curved, elliptical or oblong. See Fig. 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomsen as applied above in further view of Christine (US 4,452,378).
Regarding claim 6, Thomsen sufficiently discloses the claimed invention except for a film that blocks UV rays. Christine, which is drawn to bag, discloses a layer formed from a film that blocks or absorbs UV rays. See col. 2, ll. 39-48. 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 use a UV blocking material, as disclosed by Christine, for the outer layer of Thomsen in order to protects contents within the bag from UV rays.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomsen as applied above in further view of Sinclair (US 2017/0027222).
Regarding claim 13, Thomsen does not disclose the bag portions as claimed. Sinclair, which is drawn to a bag, discloses bag portions (62, 63) placed laterally to said neck (39) and on both sides thereof, it is provided with at least two additional orifices (23, 24) placed on both sides of said neck. See Fig. 1. 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 use bag portions with orifices as disclosed by Sinclair on the bag of Thomsen in order to better secure the bag to a device.
Regarding claim 14, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the claimed dimensions, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
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