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 Invention I in the reply filed on 7 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the methods of claims 13-20 use the vacuum food storage container of claims 1-12. This is not found persuasive because Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of removing the vacuum valve and pouring out contents.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7 December 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1a, 2b, and 1c in the reply filed on 7 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 5, 11, and 12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7 December 2025. Claim 4 requires a second embossing symmetrical to the first embossing be provided on the second bag layer which is not found in Species 1c. Claim 11 requires the first connector to be perpendicular to the second connector, the first connector to be provided with a plurality of creases perpendicular to the second connector, a rectangular box which is not found in Species 1a. Claim 12 requires at least a telescopic piece which is not found in Species 1a.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(u)(1) because view numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG." MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(u)(2) because view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters. MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "802" and "803" have both been used to designate the first assembly member, because reference characters "802" and "803" have both been used to designate the second assembly member, because reference characters "804" and "805" have both been used to designate the third assembly member, and because reference characters "804" and "805" have both been used to designate the fourth assembly member. 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. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities: acronyms exist without being defined at their first instance. Appropriate correction is required. See at least PET, PA, and PE.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “802” has been used to designate first device, first mounting member, and first assembly member.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “803” has been used to designate second device, second mounting member, and second assembly member.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “804” has been used to designate third device, third mounting member, and third assembly member.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “805” has been used to designate fourth device, fourth mounting member, and fourth assembly member.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: snap fit portion in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The snap fit portion for snap fitting with the hollow connector is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as connecting hole, connecting head, and equivalents thereof.
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 2-10 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 2 recites the limitation "the other portion" twice in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 is led to be indefinite as it requires both that “the first bag layer is provided with a first embossing” and that “at least one surface of the first bag layer and the second bag layer is provided with the first embossing”. The second limitation is met when the first bag layer, the second bag layer, or both the first and the second bag layer are provided with the first embossing, while the first limitation requires that the first embossing must be on the first bag layer. These limitations are at odds with each other as the second limitation indicates that only the second bag layer may have the first embossing, while the first limitation requires that the first bag layer has the first embossing. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the claim will be interpreted as if the first bag layer is provided with a first embossing.
Claim 2 is led to be indefinite as the metes and bounds of “adhered” are unclear. The original disclosure does not discuss any adhesive or glue between the first and second bag layers. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the claim will be interpreted as if it read “and forms the gas passage when the first embossing comes into contact with the second bag layer”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the bag" in lines 2, 3, 3-4, and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6-8 are led to be indefinite as it is unclear if the bag is a newly recited structure or refers back to the container. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the bag" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bag" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if “the two sides” of line 4 and lines 4-5 refer back to the two sides of the bag, two sides of the bottom, or two sides of the top. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the former.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the connection" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the side" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 is led to be indefinite as it is unclear if one of the two sides is a newly recited structure or refers back to one of the two sides of claim 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the inner wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 is led to be indefinite as it recites “a plurality of through holes, mounting holes and annular members” and “the through hole”, the mounting holes”, and “the annular member”. It is unclear if the claim requires a single mounting hole, single annular member, and single through hole or if the claim requires a plurality of through holes, plurality of mounting holes, and plurality of annular members. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the claim will be interpreted as the former.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the interior" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the middle" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the middle" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the side wall" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the side wall" in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation of claim 9 of “when the valve is rotated, the vacuum valve can be vented through the slot corresponding to the opening, or the bag body can be sealed away from the opening through the slot” is led to be indefinite. It is unclear if rotation of the valve causes the vacuum valve to either be vented through the slot or sealed away from the opening or if the valve can be rotated between a position in which the vacuum valve can be vented due to the slot aligning with the opening and a position in which the bag body is sealed due to the opening being away from the slot. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter, however further clarification and/or correction are required.
The limitation of claim 10 that “when the vacuum valve is removed, the snap fit portion of the foldable funnel is snap fit with the hollow connector” is led to be indefinite. It is unclear if removal of the vacuum valve causes the snap fit portion of the foldable funnel to snap fit with the hollow connector or if the snap fit portion of the foldable funnel is capable of being snap fit with the hollow connector when the vacuum valve is removed. In light of the original disclosure and in order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter, however further clarification and/or correction are required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domenig (US 20060201576) further in view of Borchardt (US 7578320).
Claim 1: Domenig discloses a vacuum food storage container, comprising a bag body and a vacuum valve which is detachably mounted on the bag mouth as cap sealer housing 28 is threadably connected to assembly 20 and support sleeve snap-on mechanism 32 is snapped [see P. 0027 and fig. 1], wherein the bag body is provided with a bag mouth (see annotated fig. 17 below).
Domenig does not disclose a gas passage is provided on at least one side wall of the bag body.
Borchardt teaches a flexible bag 100 having a one-way valve element 130 and a first sidewall 102 and an opposing second sidewall 104 overlaying the first sidewall 102 to define an internal volume 106, wherein the inner surface 108 of the first sidewall 102 is smooth and the inner surface 109 of the second sidewall 104 has ridges 280 forming gas passages between the ridges 280 (see fig. 1 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the internal surface of one bag layer of the bag body to have ridges 280 forming gas passages, as taught by Borchardt, in order to permit a more complete evacuation of the bag body.
PNG
media_image1.png
592
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein the bag body comprises a first bag layer and a second bag layer; a portion of the first bag layer and a portion of the second bag layer are connected; the other portion of the first bag layer and the other portion of the second bag layer form the bag mouth; the first bag layer is provided with ridges 280 (first embossing), and forms the gas passage when being adhered to the second bag layer (see fig. 1 and 7 ‘320)
Claim 3: The combination discloses wherein the second bag layer is provided with a smooth surface (see fig. 7 ‘320 and fig. 17).
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the bag body comprises a bottom of the bag, two sides and a top of the bag; the two sides are respectively located at two sides of the bottom of the bag and the top of the bag, and the bottom of the bag and the top of the bag are respectively located at two ends of the two sides; the bag mouth is located at one of the two sides, or at the top of the bag, or at the connection of the top of the bag and the side (see annotated fig. 17 above).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domenig (US 20060201576) and Borchardt (US 7578320) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Steele (US 20030210838).
Claim 7: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein a handle is provided on one of the two sides or the top of the bag.
Steele teaches a flexible package 10 having a handle 34 provided at one of the sides of panels 12, 14 and at the top of the flexible package 10 and opposite an access device (see fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the vacuum food storage container with a handle 34 at the top, as taught by Steele, in order to permit the vacuum food storage container to be more easily carried.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Domenig (US 20060201576) and Borchardt (US 7578320) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Alipour (US 20100300919).
Claim 8: The combination discloses the claimed invention except wherein an expanded portion is provided on the bottom of the bag for supporting the bag body when the expanded portion is unfolded.
Alipour teaches a bag 400 having a bottom portion 460 (expanded portion) provided on the bottom of the bag 400 (see fig. 4A and 4B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the bottom of the vacuum food storage container to have a bottom portion 460 (expanded portion), as taught by Alipour, in order to permit the vacuum food storage container to be able to stand upright on its own.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20070062607, US 20080041491, and US 20240190690 are considered pertinent to foldable funnels, CN 110371458, JP 2006502927, JP 2007225107, KR 100740345, KR 102123681, KR 200336741, KR 200407767, KR 20110020025, US 20070095403, AND US 20220088424 are considered pertinent to claim 9.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached at (571)270-5531. 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736