DETAILED ACTION
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
1. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, of record in the previous Action, are withdrawn.2. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, of record in the previous Action, are withdrawn.
NEW REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skyler et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0148078 A1) in view of Wills (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0236913 A1) and Trainor et al (WO 2019/104147 A1) and Holzer et al (WO 2020/127227 A1; U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0032592 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Skyler et al disclose a pouch (paragraph 0046) for a medical device (paragraph 0009) comprising a layer of material that is folded as shown in Figure 13 (paragraph 0046), therefore comprising a cavity and a perimeter channel which is the fold. A cover is therefore disclosed, and the cover is protective because it provides protection (paragraph 0010). The pouch comprises a fabric having elasticity, and an elastic band, that permits the opening to accommodate articles that are larger than the unstretched opening (paragraph 0039). An elastic closure element is therefore disclosed that is movable from a first position to a second position to cover the medical device and partially encapsulate the medical device. The sheet comprises polyurethane (paragraph 0031). Skyler et al fail to disclose printed indicia visible on a side indicating a condition of the medical device and an antibacterial coating and a UV blocking formulation.
Wills teaches a medical device that is packaged (paragraph 0042) in packaging having a marking provided on the wrap to indicate that the medical device is no longer sterile (paragraph 0046), the marking being printed (paragraph 0020), therefore a printed indicia. Wills is in the same field of endeavor, which is medical devices as evidenced by paragraph 0046.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the cover disclosed by Skyler et al to be printed in order to indicate that the medical device is no longer sterile as taught by Wills.
Trainor et al teach a pouch for a medical device (paragraph 0110) that is coated with an antimicrobial formulation (paragraph 0163) for the purpose of providing an antimicrobial effect (paragraph 0006). Trainor et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is pouches as evidenced by paragraph 0110.
It therefore would have been obvious for one o9f ordinary skill in the art for the cover to comprise an antimicrobial coating as taught by Trainor et al. The antimicrobial coating is antibacterial, because Trainor et al teach that microbial populations include bacteria (paragraph 0002).
Holzer et al teach a package (paragraph 0001) comprising a UV blocking formulation that is a substance for the purpose of obtaining protection from UV exposure (paragraph 0041). Holzer et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is packages as evidenced by paragraph 0041.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the pouch disclosed by Skyler et al to comprise a UV blocking formulation in order to obtain protection from UV exposure as taught by Holzer et al.
With regard to Claim 9, printing would be obtained as stated above.
5. Claim(s) 2 – 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skyler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0148078 A1) in view of Wills (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0236913 A1) and .Trainor et al (WO 2019/104147 A1). and Holzer et al (WO 2020/127227 A1; U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0032592 A1) and further in view of Cook et al (WO 95/01192 A2).
Skylar et al, Wills, Trainor et al and Holzer et al discloses protective cover as discussed above. The protective cover is any equipment instrument (paragraph 0012). With regard to Claims 2 – 3, Skylar et al, Wills, Trainor et al and Holzer et al fail to disclose a suction canister comprising a tube and a lid. However, Cook et al disclose that a suction canister comprising a tube and a lid is medical equipment for use during medical procedures (page 1, lines 9 – 19). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for a suction canister comprising a tube and a lid, in order to perform medical procedures as taught by Cook et al.
6. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Skyler et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0148078 A1) in view of Wills (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0236913 A1) and .Trainor et al (WO 2019/104147 A1). and Holzer et al (WO 2020/127227 A1; U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0032592 A1) and further in view of Leano et al (WO 2016/089493 A1).
Skylar et al, Wills, Trainor et al and Holzer et al disclose a protective cover as discussed above. As shown in Figure 13, a flap is also disclosed (paragraph 0046 of Skylar et al) for wrapping (paragraph 0047). With regard to Claim 5, Skylar et al, Wills, Trainor et al and Holzer et al fail to disclose a sheet that is translucent
Leano et al teach a wrap for healthcare products (page 35, lines 12 – 19) that is translucent for the purpose of obtaining clarity after shrinkage (clarity shrink film; page 34, line 17). Leano et al in the same field of endeavor, which is a wrap as taught by Leano et al.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the flap disclosed by Skylar et al to be translucent in order to obtain clarity after shrinkage as taught by Leano et al.
7. Claim(s) 8 is/are ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skyler et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0148078 A1) in view of Wills (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0236913 A1) and .Trainor et al (WO 2019/104147 A1). and Holzer et al (WO 2020/127227 A1; U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0032592 A1) and further in view of Greifenstein et al (EP 2364843 A1; English translation).
Skylar et al, Wills, Trainor et al and Holzer et al disclose protective cover as discussed above. Skylar et al, Wills, Trainor et al and Holzer et al fail to disclose a coefficient of at least 7005.
Greifenstein et al teach a film for packaging (first page, line 12) having a breaking elongation of at least 700% for the purpose of obtaining high elasticity (second page, lines 50 – 52).
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for a breaking elongation of at least 700%, therefore a coefficient of at least 700%, in order to obtain high elasticity as taught by Greifenstein et al.
8. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skyler et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0148078 A1) in view of Wills (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0236913 A1) and .Trainor et al (WO 2019/104147 A1). and Holzer et al (WO 2020/127227 A1; U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0032592 A1) as evidenced by Green (U.S. Patent No. 5,526,952).
Skylar et al, Wills, Trainor et al and Holzer et al disclose a protective cover as discussed above. A material for at least a single use is therefore disclosed. Skylar et al, Wills, Trainor et al and Holzer et al do not disclose that the material is recyclable. However, Leano et al teach polyethylene (page 30, line 10) and Green discloses that polyethylene is recyclable (column 4, line 67).
9. Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skyler et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0148078 A1) in view of Wills (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0236913 A1). and Cook et al (WO 95/01192 A2) and Sano et al (JP 2020 – 97431 A) and Tanaka et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,904,108) and Hassett (WO 2016/057340 A1).
With regard to Claim 11, Skyler et al disclose a pouch (paragraph 0046) for a medical device (paragraph 0009) that is also for an electronic device (paragraph 0003) comprising a layer of material that is folded as shown in Figure 13 (paragraph 0046), therefore comprising a cavity and a perimeter channel which is the fold. A cover is therefore disclosed, and the cover is protective because it provides protection (paragraph 0010). The pouch comprises a fabric having elasticity, and an elastic band, that permits the opening to accommodate articles that are larger than the unstretched opening (paragraph 0039). An elastic closure element is therefore disclosed that is movable from a first position to a second position to cover the medical device and partially encapsulate the medical device. The sheet comprises polyurethane (paragraph 0031). Skyler et al fail to disclose indicia visible on a side indicating a condition of the medical device and an antibacterial coating and a suction canister comprising a tube and a lid and glassine and indicia that is stitched and the claimed volume.
Wills teaches a medical device that is packaged (paragraph 0042) in packaging that is a wrap having a marking is provided on the wrap to indicate that the medical device is no longer sterile (paragraph 0046); Wills is in the same field of endeavor, which is medical devices as evidenced by paragraph 0046.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the cover disclosed by Skyler et al to be printed in order to indicate that the medical device is no longer sterile as taught by Wills.
Cook et al disclose that a suction canister comprising a tube and a lid is medical equipment for use during medical procedures (page 1, lines 9 – 19). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for a suction canister comprising a tube and a lid, for medical procedures as taught by Cook et al.
Sano et al teach that it is known in the art for a bag to comprise a layer of glassine in order to obtain a release paper that is not overly impregnated with release agent (first page, lines 13 – 22). Sano et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is bags as evidenced by first page, lunes 21 – 22.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the protective cover disclosed by Skylar et al to comprise glassine in order to obtain a release paper that is not overly impregnated with release agent as taught by Sano et al.
Tanaka et al teach designs, therefore indicia, that are stored for the purpose of selecting indicia from a plurality of stored designs (column 5, lines 25 – 34). Tanaka et al is in the same field of endeavor, which is stitching of indicia as evidenced by column 5, lines 25 – 34.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the indicia disclosed by Skylar et al to be stitched in order to select indicia from a plurality of stored designs as taught by Tanaka et al.
Hassett teaches a case’2’ having a height of 9 to 12 inches, width of 5 to 10 inches and a range of thickness that includes 1 inch, as shown in Figure 6, for the purpose of fully receiving an electronic device (paragraph 0037). Hassett is in the same field of endeavor, which is containers as evidenced by column 4, lines 23 – 31.
It therefore would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the pouch disclosed by Skylar et al to comprise the same volume as a case having a height of 9 to 12 inches, width of 5 to 10 inches and a range of thickness that includes 1 inch in order to fully receive an electronic device as taught by Hassett. Although the disclosed range of thickness is not identical to the claimed range, the disclosed range overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for any amount within the disclosed range, including those amounts that overlap the claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to Claims 16, the tube disclosed by Cook et al is in communication with a vacuum (suction tube; page 1, lines 9 – 19).
10. Claim(s) 13 – 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skyler et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0148078 A1) in view of Wills (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0236913 A1). and Cook et al (WO 95/01192 A2) and Sano et al (JP 2020 – 97431 A) and Tanaka et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,904,108) and Hassett (WO 2016/057340 A1) and further in view of Trainor et al (WO 2019/104147 A1) and Leano et al (WO 2016/089493 A1).
Skylar et al, Wills, Cook et al, Sano et al, Tanaka et al and Hassett disclose a protective cover as discussed above. With regard to Claims 13 – 14, Skylar et al, Wills, Cook et al, Sano et al, Tanaka et al and Hassett fail to disclose a wrap that is translucent and comprises an anti – microbial and an anti – static. However, as stated above it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide for a protective cover comprising plastic that is translucent and comprises an anti – microbial and an anti – static in view of Trainor et al and Leano et al.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
11. Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of the previous Action have been considered and have been found to be persuasive. The rejections are therefore withdrawn. The arguments are moot because of the new rejections above.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC A PATTERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1497. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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).
/MARC A PATTERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782