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 .
This action is in response to the preliminary amendment and documents received on June 20, 2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 18 and 21 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 18 recites the limitation "the frame" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While lines 1-2 of claim 18 reference “a supporting frame”, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the frame” is referencing the supporting frame or a different structure. For examining purposes, Examiner has understood the phrase “the frame” to be drawn to the supporting frame of lines 1-2.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the bodies" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While lines 1-2 of claim 18 reference “a supporting frame”, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the frame” is referencing the supporting frame or a different structure. For examining purposes, Examiner has understood the phrase “the frame” to be drawn to the supporting frame of lines 1-2.
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.
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HOGAN et al. (US 6,431,407).
In reference to claims 14 -16, HOGAN et al. discloses a packaging assembly comprising: a platform 60 comprising a flat surface (figure 4) provided with a plurality of openings 62, 64, 66, 68; a plurality of tubular bodies 28 , each tubular body 28 provided with an internal through channel 116 and respective opposite ports 117, 119 providing access to the channel 116; detachable coupling 74 between (figure 4) the at least one tubular body 28 and the platform 60 configured to couple the tubular body 28 to the platform such that a port of each tubular body corresponds with an opening of the platform to establish automatic activation of the tubular bodies 28and uncouple the tubular body 28 from the platform (column 4 lines 34-44).
Regarding claim 17, figures 1 and 2 of HOGAN et al. further discloses the platform 60 having a first surface facing the tubular bodies 28 and a second surface opposite the first surface, the second surface of the platform 60 surrounded by containment sides 24.
With respect to claim 18, figure 4 of HOGAN et al. further discloses a supporting frame 86 coupled to at least one group (x4) of tubular bodies, the supporting frame 86 having at least one through opening 90, 92, 94, 96 configured to communicate with a port of the tubular bodies 28 when the subgroup of tubular bodies 28 are coupled to the supporting frame 86.
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.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOGAN et al. (US 6,431,407) in view of McGONAGLE et al. (US 7,779,614).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, column 8 lines 6-11 of HOGAN et al. discloses a flange extending from the tubular bodies to facilitate bolting of the tubular bodies to the platform 60. Figure 2 of McGONAGLE et al teaches a filling assembly comprising a platform 110 that is detachably coupled to a plurality of tubular bodies 104, wherein column 11 lines 47-49 acknowledges the knowledge in the art to secure the platform to components of the filling assembly using magnets, clamps or threaded fasteners (e.g bolts). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the coupling of HOGAN et al. by replacing the bolts with magnets, since column 11 lines 47-49 of McGONAGLE et al. suggests the art recognized equivalency of magnets and bolts for the purpose of detachably securing elements of a filling system.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HOGAN et al. (US 6,431,407) in view of KEFFELER et al. (US 7,334,699).
With respect to claims 21 AND 22, column 8 lines 6-11 of HOGAN et al. discloses a flange extending from the tubular bodies and the support plate to facilitate bolting of the tubular bodies to the platform 60. Figure 7 of KEFFELER et al teaches a filling assembly comprising a platform 102 that is shaped to be detachably interlocked with a support frame 104 including a plurality of channels by protruding edges that center the channels with openings of the platform 102, such that the support frame 104 is seated within the platform 102. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to have modified the coupling of HOGAN et al. to that of interlocking shaped tubular bodies and platform, since column 4 lines 31-38 of KEFFELER et al. suggests such a modification would provide a quick means of securing the tubular bodies to the platform.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Upon examination, the art considered as a whole, alone or in combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious the claimed packaging method comprising externally fitting a deformable container onto a tubular body to close off a port of a channel defined by the tubular body; reversibly coupling the tubular body on which the deformable container is fitted to a platform, thus assembling the deformable container and tubular body to the platform; and introducing a product into the deformable container through an opening in the platform.
Related prior art, such as MOSLEY (US 5,752,371) and HOGAN et al. (US 6,431,407) disclose a method of filling a container that has been fitted to a tubular body; however, the platform and tubular body are coupled to one another prior to the fitting of the container onto the tubular body. Similarly, BERNSTEIN (US 4,972,886) teaches a method of filling a container wherein containers 42 are fitted to tubular bodies 18 prior to coupling of a secondary element 12 with the container and tubular bodies 18; however, the secondary element 12 does not couple to the tubular bodies absent of the containers as required in the filling system of the claimed invention. Thus, it is Examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at Applicant's invention as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached PTO-892 for a notice of references cited and recommended for consideration based on their disclosure of limitations related to the claimed invention. In particular, HRADISKY et al. (US 2013/0074456) teaches frictionally seating components of a filling assembly together.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORIA R WEEKS whose telephone number is (571)272-4473. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-2pm & 5pm-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, Shelley Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
Other helpful telephone numbers are listed for applicant's benefit:
Allowed Files & Publication (888) 786-0101
Assignment Branch (800) 972-6382
Certificates of Correction (703) 305-8309
Fee Questions (571) 272-6400
Inventor Assistance Center (800) PTO-9199
Petitions/special Programs (571) 272-3282
Information Help line 1-800-786-9199
/GLORIA R WEEKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
September 29, 2026
