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 .
Previous Action Mailed 08/15/2025
The previous non-final mailed 08/15/2025 has been withdrawn and updated rejection is given.
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) 2,17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roof (US4494974A).
Regarding claim 2, Roof teaches a sealed container comprising (fig.1 shows sealed container 12):
a container body having a through-hole delimited by a flange and closed by a removable door mounted on the flange (fig.1 shows the container body 16 with a through hole where the lid 14 is removed delimited by a flange as seen in fig.5 below that is closed by the removable door mounted on the flange),
an annular seal located between the flange and the removable door (see annotated fig.5 of Roof for annular sealing surface 22 located between the flange and the door; claim never specify that seal is a separate entity)
the flange and the removable door forming a sealed connection device capable of being connected to a complementary connection device of a sterile enclosure by a bayonet connection means in order to allow sterile communication between the sealed container and the sterile enclosure (annotated fig.5 below shows the flange and the door form sealed connection that are capable of being connected to a complementary deceive of a sterile enclosure by connecting means to create connection means to allow steal communication; it is noted that a complementary device and a sterile enclosure are not positively claimed and carry no patentable weight),
characterized in that the flange comprises an inner peripheral edge having an annular attachment bead for attaching the removable door to the flange, characterized in that the removable door has an outer peripheral edge provided with an annular notch configured to receive the annular attachment bead, said annular notch of the removable door and said annular attachment bead being arranged relative to each other so as to allow an assembly of the removable door on the flange by clipping, and vice versa (see annotated fig.5 below for the flange with an bead on the inner edge and the door having an groove 48 and arranged relative to one another).
Annotated fig.5 of Roof
PNG
media_image1.png
651
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, the references as applied to claim 2 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Roof does teach characterized in that it comprises anti-rotation means preventing the rotation of the door on the flange (annotated fig.2 above shows the anti-rotation means preventing the rotation of the door in the flange)
Regarding claim 19, the references as applied to claim 2 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Roof does teach characterized in that the seal comprises means of reciprocal association with the flange (annotated fig.2 above shoes the seal means of reciprocal association with the flange)
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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over references applied to claim 2 above and further in view of Wallace (US20170001786A1).
Regarding claim 16, the references as applied to claim 2 above discloses all the limitations substantially claimed. Roof does not teach characterized in that all or part of the container is made of a bacteriostatic material.
Wallace does teach wherein all or part of the container is made of a bacteriostatic material (fig.5A the container can be made from bacteriostatic material). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the container disclosed by Roof by adding the teaching of bacteriostatic material as disclosed by Wallace in order to discourage the growth of bacteria to made the contents of the container safe. “Microbial growth in packaged foods is generally undesirable. Bacterial, fungal, and other microbial growth can occur in fluids when materials e.g., nutrients) needed by these organisms are present, or when a fluid contacts a surface having microbes thereon. Numerous antimicrobial compounds (some synthetic, others naturally-occurring) are known which inhibit one or more of survival, growth, and proliferation of microorganisms, including antimicrobial agents that inhibit molds, fungi, and bacteria. Others have incorporated antimicrobial agents into plastics and other materials, including into thermoplastics, such as those from which components of food containers, impermeable plastic sheets, porous plastic materials, and absorbent materials can be made. Such antimicrobial agents and plastics can be used in the containers described herein (preferably in components not intended to contact food articles stored in the containers).” (0059, Wallace)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6,18 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant claim 2 alone is way too broad to be allowed as applicant suggests as highlighted by the prior art Roof, which maybe not look like applicants but to highlight the broadness under BRI prior art still reads on it. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 2 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE PAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9:30 AM - 7:30 PM (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, ANTHONY STASHICK can be reached at (571)272-4561. 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.
/PRINCE PAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights