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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is hereby withdrawn in view of the amendment filed December 4, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 36-44 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 and 36-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al. US 2015/0367614 (Sasaki) and Nunez et al. US 2019/0291933 (Nunez).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki teaches an accommodating container for accommodating powder, the accommodating container comprising:
a flexible pouch including a bottom portion (223) and a side portion (221/222) extending from the bottom portion to an opening so as to form the opening; and
a communicating member (252) disposed inside the side portion on a side of the opening and provided with a communicating portion communicating between inside and outside of the pouch, and
a heat-sealing portion (diagonal edges that surround 252) protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the communicating portion so as to fill a gap between the communicating portion and the inside of the side portion and heat-sealed to an inner surface of the side portion (¶0193, ¶0230), and
wherein both the communicating portion (252) and the heat-sealed portion are fixed at the inside of the opening of the side portion of the pouch (¶0217).
Sasaki differs from the instant claimed invention by not explicitly disclosing: the heat-sealed portion is welded. However the meaning of heat-sealed is known to be a term of art that is a known equivalent of welding. Nunez teaches “The term “heat seal conditions,” as used herein, is the act of placing two or more films of polymeric material between opposing heat seal bars, the heat seal bars moved toward each other, sandwiching the films, to apply heat and pressure to the films such that opposing interior surfaces (seal layers) of the films contact, melt, and form a heat seal, or weld, to attach the films to each other,” (¶0146). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that when Saski teaches the container is heat-sealed (¶0193-¶0199), welding would have been a known substitution, and in this case the substitution of one known element for another yields the predicable result of the container being sealed with heat.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 36-41 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA L ELEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9793. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Walter Jr. Lindsay can be reached on (571)272-1674. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JESSICA L ELEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 2852