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 without traverse of Invention 2 in the reply filed on 3/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 and 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/4/2026.
Claims 1-8 and 14-20 stand canceled by applicant tin the 3/4/2026 response.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 24 (second occurrence) been renumbered 26.
Misnumbered claim 25 (second occurrence) been renumbered 27.
Misnumbered claim 26 been renumbered 28.
Misnumbered claim 27 been renumbered 29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Versluys (US 2005/0152624).
Versluys discloses a padded open-ended pouch, comprising: first, second, third, and fourth web substrates (24, 26 x 2, see Fig. 2) each having a top side, a bottom side, a perimeter, and interior within the perimeter (see Figs. 1, 2); a sealing adhesive joining the top side of the first web substrate to the bottom side of the second web substrate along the perimeter and joining the top side of the third web substrate to the bottom side of the fourth web substrate along the perimeter (20@34 between layers); an expanded adhesive (main body of20) between the first and second web substrates and between the third and fourth web substrates; and a perimeter adhesive joining the top surface of the second web surface to the bottom surface of the third web substrate substantially along the perimeter to form said open ended pouch therewith (20@34 between front and back sheets); wherein the thickness of the pouch is substantially uniform (see Fig. 2, term ‘substantially’ eliminates the need for exact uniformity).
Versluys further discloses a pocket of the pouch, configured to receive a product, is defined within the perimeter adhesive joining the second and third web substrates, and wherein the pouch includes an opening between the second and third substrates configured to enable access to the pocket (see Fig. 1); the perimeter adhesive is absent at the opening (see Fig. 1); and an image visible on at least one of the bottom side of the first web substrate or the top side of the fourth substrate (para 0018).
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) 11-13, 21, 23-25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versluys (US 2005/0152624).
Versluys discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the particular materials of construction as claimed.
However, it is noted that all of the materials for us in the inventive adhesive or substrate were well known by those having ordinary skill in the art since prior to the invention by applicant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the claimed materials to construct the Versluys packaging, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 28, Versluys discloses the claimed invention except for the assembly further comprising a bar code as the image printed. It has been held that when the claimed printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate it will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. In re Gulack, 217 USPQ 401, (CAFC 1983). The fact that the content of the printed matter placed on the substrate may render the device more convenient by providing an individual with a specific type of information does not alter the functional relationship. Mere support by the substrate for the printed matter is not the kind of functional relationship necessary for patentability.
The Examiner asserts that the Versluys assembly is the same structure claimed by applicant and the sole difference is in the content of printed material. Thus, there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter (e.g., bar code) and the substrate (e.g., assembly), which is required for patentability.
Accordingly, there being no functional relationship of the printed material to the substrate, as noted above, there is no reason to give patentable weight to the content of the printed matter, which by itself is non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made provide the Versluys assembly with a bar code as claimed.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versluys (US 2005/0152624) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kannankeril et al. (US 8568029, hereinafter ‘Kannankeril’).
Versluys discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the flap as claimed.
However, Kannankeril is one of myriad references teaching a flap (28) as an opening closure on a flexible bag as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add a flap as taught by Kannankeril on the bag as taught by Versluys, in order to close the opening as taught by Kannankeril (col. 9, ll. 62 – col. 10, ll. 8).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Versluys (US 2005/0152624) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Brouillette et al. (US 2015/0353312, hereinafter ‘Brouillette’).
Versluys discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the roll of a plurality of bags as claimed.
However, Brouillette is one of myriad references teaching a plurality of bags on a roll (see Fig. 6) as a dispensing means as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to attach a plurality of bags taught by Versluys on a roll as taught by Brouillette, in order to allow dispensing of the bags as needed as taught by Brouillette (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm EST.
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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights