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 .
Acknowledgments
In the reply, filed on October 10, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 7, 9, and 16-17.
Applicant cancelled claims 10-15 and 19-20.
Applicant added new claims 21-28.
In the non-final rejection of July 11, 2025, Examiner noted that the information disclosure statement filed May 8, 2024, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2). Applicant did not address this concern in the reply. Concern is maintained.
Examiner objected to the Drawings under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Applicant amended Figure 4A. Objection is withdrawn.
Examiner objected to the Abstract. Applicant amended the Abstract; however, the amended Abstract does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. Objection is maintained.
Examiner objected to claims 1, 5, 7, and 16-17. Applicant amended claims 1, 7, and 16-17; however, Applicant did not address all of the objections. Objection is maintained.
Examiner rejected claims 9 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Applicant amended claims 9 and 16. Rejection is withdrawn.
Currently, claims 1-9, 16-18, and 21-28 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 8, 2024, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered:
A copy of JP 62-27141 has not been provided in the application file
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
In line 3, “the contents” should be changed to “contents”
In line 6, “therefrom” should be changed to “from the plug”
In line 7, “the outer dimension” should be changed to “an outer dimension”
In line 7, “thereof” should be changed to “of the plug”
In line 7, “the neck” should be changed to “a neck”
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 16, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 5, line 2, “of opening” should be changed to “of the at least one opening”.
In regards to claim 16, line 6, “diameter” should be changed to “a diameter”.
In regards to claim 24, line 2, “of opening” should be changed to “of the at least one opening”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 6 be found allowable, claim 25 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 17-18 and 28 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.
In regards to claim 17, lines 3 and 5 recite “an outer diameter”/“the outer diameter”. Claim 17 depends upon claim 16. Claim 16, line 6 recites “diameter”. It is unclear whether the two terms are the same or different. Claim 18 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 17.
In regards to claim 17, lines 3 and 5-6 recite “an opening”/“the opening”. Claim 17 depends upon claim 16. Claim 16, line 7 recites “an opening”. It is unclear whether the two terms are the same or different. Claim 18 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 17.
In regards to claim 17, lines 5-6 recite “the opening”. Claim 17 line 3 previously recites “an opening”. Claim 17 depends upon claim 16. Claim 16, line 7 recites “an opening”. It is unclear which opening is being referred to in claim 17, lines 5-6 reciting “the opening”. Claim 18 is rejected by virtue of being dependent upon claim 17.
In regards to claim 28, line 1 recites “the plunger handle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to claim 28, lines 2, 3, and 3-4 recite “the first plug end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to claim 28, line 2 recites “the first plunger end”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to claim 28, line 3 recites “the plug”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regards to claim 28, line 3 recites “the outer diameter”. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, claim 28 depends upon claim 16. Claim 16, line 6 recites “diameter”. It is unclear whether the two terms are the same or different.
In regards to claim 28, line 4 recites “the opening”. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, claim 28 depends upon claim 16. Claim 16, line 7 recites “an opening”. It is unclear whether the two terms are the same or different.
In regards to claim 28, line 4 recites “the neck”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamoto et al (JP 2010100320), and further in view of Underwood (US 4,342,337).
In regards to claim 1, Imamoto et al teaches an enclosure system (Figures 6a-6b) for enclosing a fluid container, the enclosure system comprising:
a plug (521) having an outer diameter larger than an opening of a neck of the fluid container (Figure 6b), a first plug end and a second plug end arranged on opposing sides of the plug (Figures 6a-6b), the plug configured to deform responsive to pressure to reduce the outer diameter to fit the first plug end through the opening and into the neck of the fluid container (Figure 6a)
a sleeve forming a hollow flexible cylinder (522) extending from the second plug end (Figures 6a-6b), the sleeve having a first sleeve end coupled to the second plug end and a second sleeve end arranged opposite the first sleeve end (Figures 6a-6b)
Imamoto et al is silent about the first sleeve end configured to fold at least a portion of the sleeve outward and down toward the second plug end to arrange at least a portion of the sleeve over an outer neck surface of the neck when the first plug end is installed within the neck. Underwood teaches an enclosure system (Figures 1-5) comprising a first sleeve end (14) configured to fold at least a portion of a sleeve (15) outward and down toward a second plug end (14) to arrange at least a portion of the sleeve over an outer neck surface of a neck when a first plug end (13) is installed within the neck (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first sleeve end, of the system of Imamoto et al, to be configured to fold at least a portion of the sleeve outward and down toward the second plug end to arrange at least a portion of the sleeve over an outer neck surface of the neck when the first plug end is installed within the neck, as taught by Underwood, as such will more securely lock the enclosure system in place whenever the shape of the article to be protected permits (column 1, lines 65-68).
In regards to claim 2, in the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, Imamoto et al teaches the first plug end to expand to engage an inner surface of the neck to form a seal responsive to removal of the pressure (Figure 6b).
In regards to claim 3, in the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, Imamoto et al is silent about an outer sleeve surface of the sleeve to engage the outer neck surface when the sleeve is folded over the outer neck surface to form a seal between the sleeve and the neck. Underwood teaches an outer sleeve surface of the sleeve to engage the outer neck surface when the sleeve is folded over the outer neck surface to form a seal between the sleeve and the neck (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an outer sleeve surface of the sleeve, of the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, to engage the outer neck surface when the sleeve is folded over the outer neck surface to form a seal between the sleeve and the neck, as taught by Underwood, as such will more securely lock the enclosure system in place whenever the shape of the article to be protected permits (column 1, lines 65-68).
In regards to claim 6, in the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, Imamoto et al teaches a plunger having a plunger rod (51) extending through the sleeve and the plug (Figures 6a-6b), the plunger rod having a first plunger end (51a) anchored to the first plug end and a second plunger end (51b) arranged opposite the first plunger end (Figures 6a-6b), the second plunger end having a plunger handle (51b) (Figures 6a-6b).
In regards to claim 7, in the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, Imamoto et al teaches the plunger handle configured to move in a direction toward the first plug end responsive to a force to cause the first plunger end to pull on the first plug end to stretch the plug and reduce the outer diameter to fit the first plug end in the opening of the neck (Figure 6a).
In regards to claim 8, in the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, Imamoto et al teaches the first plug end to expand to engage an inner surface of the neck to form a seal responsive to removal of the force (Figure 6b).
In regards to claim 9, in the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, Imamoto et al teaches the plunger rod removably coupled to an anchor (Figures 6a-6b)(as the plunger rod 51 and the plug 521 are separate components, it is understood that the plunger rod is removably coupled to the first plug end where the plunger rod is anchored).
In regards to claim 25, in the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, Imamoto et al teaches a plunger having a plunger rod (51) extending through the sleeve and the plug (Figures 6a-6b), the plunger rod having a first plunger end (51a) anchored to the first plug end and a second plunger end (51b) arranged opposite the first plunger end (Figures 6a-6b), the second plunger end having a plunger handle (51b) (Figures 6a-6b).
In regards to claim 26, in the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, Imamoto et al teaches the plunger handle configured to move in a direction toward the first plug end responsive to a force to cause the first plunger end to pull on the first plug end to stretch the plug and reduce the outer diameter to fit the first plug end in the opening of the neck (Figure 6a), and the first plug end to expand to engage an inner surface of the neck to form a seal responsive to removal of the force (Figure 6b).
In regards to claim 27, in the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, Imamoto et al teaches wherein: the plug is configured to deform between a relaxed shape (Figure 6b) and a deformed shape (Figure 6a) in response to the pressure, the outer diameter of the plug when the plug is in the relaxed shape is larger than the opening of the neck of the fluid container (Figure 6b) and the outer diameter of the plug when the plug is in the deformed shape is smaller than the opening of the neck of the fluid container (Figure 6a), and the plug is configured to return to the relaxed state when the pressure is removed from the plug (Figure 6b).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamoto et al and Underwood, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ofir et al (US 2014/0316204).
In regards to claim 4, in the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, Imamoto et al teaches wherein at least one opening is formed in the second plug end for at least one tube of a tube set to extend (Figures 6a-6b)(as the second plug end has an opening allowing the plunger rod 51 therethrough, it is understood that the opening is also capable of receiving at least one tube of a tube set). However, Imamoto et al does not teach the at least one opening is formed in the second plug end for the at least one tube of the tube set to extend “through the plug to access a fluid arranged with the fluid container”. Ofir et al teaches an enclosure system (Figures 2a-2b and 8) wherein at least one opening (labeled in Figure 8 below) is formed in a second plug end for at least one tube of a tube set to extend through a plug (labeled in Figure 8 below) to access a fluid arranged with a fluid container (Figure 8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one opening formed in the second plug end for the at least one tube of the tube set, of the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, to extend through the plug to access a fluid arranged with the fluid container, as taught by Ofir et al, as such will allow for the at least one tube of the tube set to supply fluid (water and/or gas) to an endoscope (paragraph [0046]), wherein persons of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that for endoscopic procedures, a flow of sterile water, from the fluid container, is provided across the optical assemblies of a tip of the endoscope to prevent buildup of materials (for example, surgical debris and body fluids such as, blood, feces and digestive fluid) on the tip (paragraph [0047]).
PNG
media_image1.png
750
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, in the modified system of Imamoto et al, Underwood, and Ofir et al, Imamoto et al teaches to maintain a shape of opening when the plug is deformed (Figure 6b to Figure 6a – the material of the plug allows for the opening to stay the same shape). However, Imamoto et al is silent about “at least one liner arranged within the at least one opening” to maintain a shape of opening when the plug is deformed. But it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system, of Imamoto et al, Underwood, and Ofir et al, with at least one liner arranged within the at least one opening, as an obvious matter of design choice, as either the at least one opening of the plug without at least one liner, as taught by Imamoto et al, or the at least one opening of the plug with at least one liner, as taught by Applicant, will provide for the same end result of maintaining a shape of opening when the plug is deformed.
Claims 16 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofir et al, and further in view of Imamoto et al.
In regards to claim 16, Ofir et al teaches an apparatus (Figures 2a-2b and 8), comprising:
a fluid container (230/815)
a tube set (210/807, 806) arranged and configured to access a fluid within the fluid container (Figure 8), the tube set coupled to an endoscope for use during an endoscopic procedure (paragraphs [0046][0052])
an enclosure system (205/810) configured to enclose the fluid container
Ofir et al does not teach the enclosure system configured to adjust diameter in order to enclose the fluid container. Imamoto et al teaches an apparatus (Figures 6a-6b) comprising an enclosure system (Figures 6a-6b) configured to adjust diameter in order to enclose a fluid container (40) (Figures 6a-6b). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the enclosure system, of the apparatus of Ofir et al, to be configured to adjust diameter in order to enclose the fluid container, as taught by Imamoto et al, as such an enclosure system will allow for sealing (Figure 6b) and unsealing the fluid container (Figure 6a), wherein sealing prevents and preserves the fluid in the fluid container from deterioration due to contact with air/oxygen, and unsealing would allow for access to the fluid.
And Ofir et al is silent about the fluid container having an opening of 1 centimeter (cm) to 10 cm. But it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid container, of the modified apparatus of Ofir et al and Imamoto et al, to have an opening of 1 centimeter (cm) to 10 cm, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the modified apparatus of Ofir et al and Imamoto et al would not operate differently with the claimed opening. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed for the opening.
In regards to claim 28, in the modified system of Ofir et al and Imamoto et al, Ofir et al does not teach the plunger handle configured to move in a direction toward the first plug end responsive to a force to cause the first plunger end to pull on the first plug end to stretch the plug and reduce the outer diameter to fit the first plug end in the opening of the neck. Imamoto et al teaches the plunger handle (51b) configured to move in a direction toward the first plug end responsive to a force to cause the first plunger end (51a) to pull on the first plug end to stretch the plug (521) and reduce the outer diameter to fit the first plug end in the opening of the neck (Figure 6a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system, of Ofir et al and Imamoto et al, with the plunger handle configured to move in a direction toward the first plug end responsive to a force to cause the first plunger end to pull on the first plug end to stretch the plug and reduce the outer diameter to fit the first plug end in the opening of the neck, as taught by Imamoto et al, as such a plug will allow for sealing (Figure 6b) and unsealing the fluid container (Figure 6a), wherein sealing prevents and preserves the fluid in the fluid container from deterioration due to contact with air/oxygen, and unsealing would allow for access to the fluid.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ofir et al and Imamoto et al, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Underwood.
In regards to claim 17, in the modified apparatus of Ofir et al, Ofir et al teaches the enclosure system comprising:
a plug (labeled in Figure 8 below), a first plug end and a second plug end arranged on opposing sides of the plug (Figure 8)
a sleeve (labeled in Figure 8 below) forming a hollow flexible cylinder extending from the second plug end, the sleeve having a first sleeve end coupled to the second plug end and a second sleeve end arranged opposite the first sleeve end (Figure 8)
However, Ofir et al does not teach the plug having an outer diameter larger than an opening of a neck of the fluid container, the plug configured to deform responsive to pressure to reduce the outer diameter to fit the first plug end through the opening and into the neck of the fluid container, and the first sleeve end configured to fold at least a portion of the sleeve outward and down toward the second plug end to arrange at least a portion of the sleeve over an outer neck surface of the neck when the first plug end is installed within the neck. Imamoto et al teaches an apparatus (Figures 6a-6b) comprising a plug (521) having an outer diameter larger than an opening of a neck of a fluid container (Figure 6b), the plug configured to deform responsive to pressure to reduce the outer diameter to fit the first plug end through the opening and into the neck of the fluid container (Figure 6a). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plug, of the modified apparatus of Ofir et al and Imamoto et al, to have an outer diameter larger than an opening of a neck of the fluid container, the plug configured to deform responsive to pressure to reduce the outer diameter to fit the first plug end through the opening and into the neck of the fluid container, as taught by Imamoto et al, as such a plug will allow for sealing (Figure 6b) and unsealing the fluid container (Figure 6a), wherein sealing prevents and preserves the fluid in the fluid container from deterioration due to contact with air/oxygen, and unsealing would allow for access to the fluid.
Further, Underwood teaches an apparatus comprising a first sleeve end (14) configured to fold at least a portion of a sleeve (15) outward and down toward a second plug end (14) to arrange at least a portion of the sleeve over an outer neck surface of a neck when a first plug end (13) is installed within the neck (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first sleeve end, of the modified apparatus of Ofir et al and Imamoto et al, to be configured to fold at least a portion of the sleeve outward and down toward the second plug end to arrange at least a portion of the sleeve over an outer neck surface of the neck when the first plug end is installed within the neck, as taught by Underwood, as such will more securely lock the enclosure system in place whenever the shape of the article to be protected permits (column 1, lines 65-68).
PNG
media_image2.png
753
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 18, in the modified apparatus of Ofir et al, Imamoto et al, and Underwood, Ofir et al does not teach the enclosure system further comprising a plunger having a plunger rod extending through the sleeve and the plug, the plunger rod having a first plunger end anchored to the first plug end and a second plunger end arranged opposite the first plunger end, the second plunger end having a plunger handle. Imamoto et al teaches the enclosure system further comprising a plunger having a plunger rod (51) extending through a sleeve (522) and the plug (Figures 6a-6b), the plunger rod having a first plunger end (51a) anchored to the first plug end and a second plunger end (51b) arranged opposite the first plunger end (Figures 6a-6b), the second plunger end having a plunger handle (51b) (Figures 6a-6b). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the enclosure system, of the modified apparatus of Ofir et al, Imamoto et al, and Underwood, to comprise a plunger having a plunger rod extending through the sleeve and the plug, the plunger rod having a first plunger end anchored to the first plug end and a second plunger end arranged opposite the first plunger end, the second plunger end having a plunger handle, as taught by Imamoto et al, as such will allow the plug to seal (Figure 6b) and unseal the fluid container (Figure 6a), wherein sealing prevents and preserves the fluid in the fluid container from deterioration due to contact with air/oxygen, and unsealing would allow for access to the fluid.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imamoto et al, and further in view of Underwood and Ofir et al.
In regards to claim 21, Imamoto et al teaches an enclosure system (Figures 6a-6b) for enclosing a fluid container, the enclosure system comprising:
a plug (521) having an outer diameter larger than an opening of a neck of the fluid container (Figure 6b), a first plug end and a second plug end arranged on opposing sides of the plug (Figures 6a-6b), the plug configured to deform responsive to pressure to reduce the outer diameter to fit the first plug end through the opening and into the neck of the fluid container (Figure 6a)
a sleeve forming a hollow flexible cylinder (522) extending from the second plug end (Figures 6a-6b), the sleeve having a first sleeve end coupled to the second plug end and a second sleeve end arranged opposite the first sleeve end (Figures 6a-6b)
wherein at least one opening extends in the plug for at least one tube of a tube set to extend (Figures 6a-6b)(as the second plug end has an opening allowing the plunger rod 51 therethrough, it is understood that the opening is also capable of receiving at least one tube of a tube set)
Imamoto et al is silent about the first sleeve end configured to fold at least a portion of the sleeve outward and down toward the second plug end to arrange at least a portion of the sleeve over an outer neck surface of the neck when the first plug end is installed within the neck. Underwood teaches an enclosure system (Figures 1-5) comprising a first sleeve end (14) configured to fold at least a portion of a sleeve (15) outward and down toward a second plug end (14) to arrange at least a portion of the sleeve over an outer neck surface of a neck when a first plug end (13) is installed within the neck (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first sleeve end, of the system of Imamoto et al, to be configured to fold at least a portion of the sleeve outward and down toward the second plug end to arrange at least a portion of the sleeve over an outer neck surface of the neck when the first plug end is installed within the neck, as taught by Underwood, as such will more securely lock the enclosure system in place whenever the shape of the article to be protected permits (column 1, lines 65-68).
Further, Imamoto et al does not teach the at least one opening extends “through the plug” for the at least one tube of the tube set to extend “through the plug to access a fluid arranged with the fluid container”. Ofir et al teaches an enclosure system (Figures 2a-2b and 8) wherein at least one opening (labeled in first copy of Figure 8 above) extends through a plug (labeled in first copy of Figure 8 above) for at least one tube of a tube set to extend through the plug to access a fluid arranged with a fluid container (Figure 8). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one opening extends in the plug for at least one tube of a tube set, of the modified system of Imamoto et al and Underwood, to extend through the plug for at least one tube of a tube set to extend through the plug to access a fluid arranged with the fluid container, as taught by Ofir et al, as such will allow for the at least one tube of the tube set to supply fluid (water and/or gas) to an endoscope (paragraph [0046]), wherein persons of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that for endoscopic procedures, a flow of sterile water, from the fluid container, is provided across the optical assemblies of a tip of the endoscope to prevent buildup of materials (for example, surgical debris and body fluids such as, blood, feces and digestive fluid) on the tip (paragraph [0047]).
In regards to claim 22, in the modified system of Imamoto et al, Underwood, and Ofir et al, Imamoto et al teaches the first plug end to expand to engage an inner surface of the neck to form a seal responsive to removal of the pressure (Figure 6b).
In regards to claim 23, in the modified system of Imamoto et al, Underwood, and Ofir et al, Imamoto et al is silent about an outer sleeve surface of the sleeve to engage the outer neck surface when the sleeve is folded over the outer neck surface to form a seal between the sleeve and the neck. Underwood teaches an outer sleeve surface of the sleeve to engage the outer neck surface when the sleeve is folded over the outer neck surface to form a seal between the sleeve and the neck (Figure 5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an outer sleeve surface of the sleeve, of the modified system of Imamoto et al, Underwood, and Ofir et al, to engage the outer neck surface when the sleeve is folded over the outer neck surface to form a seal between the sleeve and the neck, as taught by Underwood, as such will more securely lock the enclosure system in place whenever the shape of the article to be protected permits (column 1, lines 65-68).
In regards to claim 24, in the modified system of Imamoto et al, Underwood, and Ofir et al, Imamoto et al teaches to maintain a shape of opening when the plug is deformed (Figure 6b to Figure 6a – the material of the plug allows for the opening to stay the same shape). However, Imamoto et al is silent about “at least one liner arranged within the at least one opening” to maintain a shape of opening when the plug is deformed. But it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system, of Imamoto et al, Underwood, and Ofir et al, with at least one liner arranged within the at least one opening, as an obvious matter of design choice, as either the at least one opening of the plug without at least one liner, as taught by Imamoto et al, or the at least one opening of the plug with at least one liner, as taught by Applicant, will provide for the same end result of maintaining a shape of opening when the plug is deformed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 10, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argued: Claim 1 is directed to an enclosure system that, among other features and elements, recites "a sleeve forming a hollow flexible cylinder". The Examiner points to Imamoto et al. as disclosing the claimed "sleeve forming a hollow flexible cylinder" in Imamoto et al.'s element 522. However, a review of a machine translation of Imamoto et al. reveals that Imamoto et al. describes that "the extension 522 is formed of, for example, a stainless steel pipe, but may be made of other materials that ensure the required strength". One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret "other materials that ensure the required strength" as being other materials that have strength similar to stainless steel. This does not include flexible materials such as silicone (Remarks, page 10). Examiner disagrees. First, the claim does not require the hollow flexible cylinder of the sleeve to be made of “silicone”, as argued by Applicant. Second, stainless steel, as disclosed by Imamoto et al, is known to be flexible. Materials can be both flexible and strong at the same time. Thus, the stainless steel pipe 522, of Imamoto et al, anticipates the claimed hollow flexible cylinder.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argued: The Examiner correctly notes that "Imamoto et al is silent about the first sleeve end configured to fold at least a portion of the sleeve outward and down toward the second plug end to arrange at least a portion of the sleeve over an outer neck surface of the neck when the first plug end is installed within the neck", particularly as a stainless steel pipe would not function in this manner. The Examiner relies upon Underwood as suggesting a flexible sleeve that can be folded in the claimed manner. As noted, the stainless steel (or equivalent material) cannot function in this manner. If the extension 522 of Imamoto et al. is replaced with a flexible sleeve, it is apparent that the extension 522, while theoretically capable of being folded over, would no longer function in its intended function. One of skill in the art will readily appreciate that a primary function of the extension 522 of Imamoto et al. is to act as a handle, to allow both insertion of the device into a wine bottle, but also to hold the device in place while the user pulls back on the plunger. An easily folded over sleeve as disclosed by Underwood would not function as a handle. While the device could perhaps be held by the plunger for insertion, it would not be possible for a user to pull the plunger relative to the flexible sleeve in order to achieve the intended purpose of the Imamoto et al. device. It is axiomatic that such a modification cannot be considered to be obvious (Remarks, pages 10-11). Examiner disagrees. First, stainless steel, as disclosed by Imamoto et al, is known to be flexible. Thus, it would be expected that the stainless steel pipe, of Imamoto et al, would be capable of flexing and folding in the manner, as disclosed by Underwood. Second, in the combination of Imamoto et al and Underwood, the stainless steel pipe, of Imamoto et al, is not replaced by the flexible sleeve, of Underwood, as the stainless steel pipe, of Imamoto et al, is known to be flexible and would be capable of flexing and folding in the manner, as disclosed by Underwood. Third, in the combination of Imamoto et al and Underwood, as the stainless steel pipe, of Imamoto et al, is not replaced by the flexible sleeve, of Underwood, the stainless steel pipe, of Imamoto et al, would still function as a handle. Materials can be both flexible and strong at the same time.
In regards to claim 21, Applicant argued: With respect to newly added claim 21, which is similar to pending claim 4 in reciting that "at least one opening extends through the plug for at least one tube of a tube set to extend through the plug to access a fluid arranged with the fluid container", Applicants note that adding such an opening to the expanding/contracting part 521 of Imamoto et al. would appear to be impossible, given the manner in which the expanding/contracting part 521 of Imamoto et al. expands in diameter. A tube passing through the expanding/contracting part 521 would require elongate slots cut in the upper and lower surfaces (as shown in Figure 6B of Imamoto et al.) to accommodate the tube. This would negate the sealing function of the expanding/contracting part 521 of Imamoto et al. Alternatively, if one were to attempt to extend a tube coaxially with the plunger, the opening formed in the lower surface of the expanding/contracting part 521 of Imamoto et al. would seem to cut the end 5la of the plunger loose. In either case, the intended functionality of the expanding/contracting part 521 of Imamoto et al. would be destroyed. Any teachings or disclosures within Ofir et al. do not change this. New claims 22-28 mirror claims that are dependent on claims 1 and 16, and flesh out the claim set to three independent claims and 20 total claims. Evaluation of the newly added claims is respectfully requested (Remarks, page 12). Examiner disagrees. The combination, of Imamoto et al, Underwood, and Ofir et al, would still allow sealing to occur: sealing would occur at the periphery of the plug meeting the inner surface of the fluid container, as shown in Figure 6b of Imamoto et al, and the at least one opening of the plug would be sealed by the at least one tube, as shown in Figure 8 of Ofir et al, with the added benefit of allowing fluid to be supplied from the fluid container.
In regards to claim 16, Applicant argued: Among other features and elements, claim 16 recites an enclosure system "that is configured to enclose the fluid container, the enclosure system configured to adjust diameter in order to enclose the fluid container, the fluid container having an opening of 1 centimeter (cm) to 10 cm". The enclosure system can adjust to any of a variety of different diameter fluid containers. Ofir et al. appears to disclose a threaded cap that is configured to accommodate a tube extending through the threaded cap. According to Ofir et al., the enclosure system would require a plurality of different-sized threaded caps in order to accommodate any of a variety of differently-sized fluid containers. Ofir et al. does not disclose (or suggest) the claimed invention (Remarks, pages 12-13). Examiner disagrees. First, the claim does not require that the enclosure system “can adjust to any of a variety of different diameter fluid containers” and “accommodate any of a variety of differently-sized fluid containers”, as argued by Applicant. Second, the combination of Ofir et al and Imamoto et al renders obvious the claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHEFALI D PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:30pm 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, Kevin C Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/SHEFALI D PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights