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 .
Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 9/23/25. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-6 and 9-20 have been amended, claims 7-8 have been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-6 and 9-20 are presently pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 13-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 13-14 recites “comprising vinyl, polyethylene” suggested to be changed to --comprising vinyl or polyethylene-- for grammatical reasons. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites “the capacity of the bag main body is more than or equal to 1600 cc” however it is unclear what the upper limit of this capacity range is and it appears that the upper limit of the capacity may be greater than the ranges provided in claim 1, from which claim 6 depends.
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 1, 4-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “COVID-19: Sao Paulo Closes All Non-Essential Businesses For Two Weeks” https://www.channelstv.com/2020/03/21/covid-19-sao-paulo-closes-all-non-essential-businesses-for-two-weeks/ in view of Plut (2016/0366952), Tennison et al. (2017/0333736) and Matuzaki (JP 2011-120647).
Regarding claim 1, the first figure shown in the Channelstv article (see picture below) discloses an infection prevention bag (plastic bag to prevent spread of covid-19), comprising: a bag main body (main body of plastic bag), which appears to be made of a material that does not allow a virus to pass therethrough from the inside to the outside thereof (plastic bags generally do not allow for viruses to pass through) and having a capacity, but does not explicitly recite that the capacity corresponds to a lung capacity of a person to be tested, including 3000-5000 cc for adults or 1600-2000 cc for children. However, Plut teaches a hood having a capacity that corresponds to a lung capacity of a person to be tested, including 3000-5000 cc for adults or 1600-2000 cc for children (2 liters to 10 liters equal to 2000 to 10,000 cc [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Channelstv article’s main bag body capacity with a capacity that corresponds to a lung capacity of a person to be tested, including 3000-5000 cc for adults or 1600-2000 cc for children, as taught by Plut, for the purpose of allowing for enough air for a breath. The modified Channelstv article does not explicitly recite that the plastic does not allow a virus to pass therethrough from the inside to the outside thereof. However, Tennison teaches a transparent polyethylene terephthalate impermeable membrane bag material [0076]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify The Channelstv article’s bag material with transparent polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Tennison, for the purpose of further protecting a user. The modified Channelstv article is silent regarding a testing swab insertion hole which is formed in the bag main body and has a minimum size from which the testing swab can be inserted, used when collecting a sample from nasopharynx. However, in fig. 3 Matsuzaki teaches a testing swab insertion hole 7 which is formed in the bag main body (Fig. 3) and has a minimum size from which the testing swab can be inserted (Fig. 3), used when collecting a sample from nasopharynx (able to be swabbed in the nasopharynx). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify The Channelstv article’s main bag body with the addition of a swab testing insertion hole, as taught by Matsuzaki, for the purpose of allowing for medical examination and diagnosis. The modified Channelstv article appears to disclose that the testing swab insertion hole is provided in the bag main body at a position of 4 cm or more away from a bag mouth part toward a bag bottom part (see fig. 3 of Matsuzaki), but does not explicitly recite that the position is 4 cm or more away from a bag mouth part (near the eyes and top of the bridge of the nose of the user in the Channelstv article) toward a bag bottom part. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the modified Channelstv article distance with a distance of 4 cm or more away from a bag mouth part toward a bag bottom part, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, and it appears that a distance of 4 cm or more away from a bag mouth part toward a bag bottom part would perform equally as well at providing a hole for swab insertion. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The modified Channelstv article discloses that the testing swab insertion hole of the bag main body is further provided with a check valve (8, Matsuzaki), or a simple droplet splash prevention valve (8, Matsuzaki) is provided at a position inside the bag main body and corresponding to the testing swab insertion hole (Fig. 3, Matsuzaki).
PNG
media_image1.png
1002
1618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of the Channelstv article and relevant figure
Regarding claim 4, the modified Channelstv article discloses that the bag main body is made of a synthetic resin material comprising vinyl, polyethylene (Tennison [0076]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Channelstv article discloses that the bag main body is made of a transparent material (Tennison [0076], transparent).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Channelstv article discloses that the capacity of the bag main body is more than or equal to 1600 cc (2 liters to 10 liters equal to 2000 to 10,000 cc [0040] Plut).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Channelstv article discloses that the bag main body is further provided with a structure to be fixed to a face of the person (ear loops/handles of bag in Channelstv article).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Channelstv article discloses a method for collecting a sample from nasopharynx (“pharyngeal wiping liquid” Matsuzaki, see page 1 of applicant provided translation) using the infection prevention bag used when collecting a sample from nasopharynx as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method is used when collecting the sample from the nasopharynx (“pharyngeal wiping liquid” Matsuzaki, see page 1 of applicant provided translation).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Channelstv Article in view of Plut, Tennison and Matuzaki, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Shaw (6,357,445).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Channelstv article is silent regarding a mark showing a position of the testing swab insertion hole is provided on the bag main body. However, in fig. 3 Shaw teaches a mark (sticker 48) showing a position of an insertion hole (opening of valve 30) is provided on a main body 10 (Col. 5, ll. 9-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified The Channelstv article’s main body with the addition of a sticker over the valve, as taught by Shaw, for the purpose of further protecting a user from ingress of contaminants prior to insertion through the valve.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Channelstv article is silent regarding a peelable seal as a mark showing a position of the testing swab insertion hole is provided on the bag main body. However, in fig. 3 Shaw teaches a peelable seal as a mark (sticker 48) showing a position of the insertion hole (opening of valve 30) is provided on the main body 10 (Col. 5, ll. 9-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified The Channelstv article’s main body with the addition of a sticker over the valve, as taught by Shaw, for the purpose of further protecting a user from ingress of contaminants prior to insertion through the valve.
Claims 2-3 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “COVID-19: Sao Paulo Closes All Non-Essential Businesses For Two Weeks” https://www.channelstv.com/2020/03/21/covid-19-sao-paulo-closes-all-non-essential-businesses-for-two-weeks/ in view of Plut (2016/0366952), Tennison et al. (2017/0333736), Matuzaki (JP 2011-120647) and Shaw (6,357,445).
Regarding claim 2, the first figure shown in the Channelstv article (see picture above) discloses an infection prevention bag (plastic bag to prevent spread of covid-19), comprising: a bag main body (main body of plastic bag), which appears to be made of a material that does not allow a virus to pass therethrough from the inside to the outside thereof (plastic bags generally do not allow for viruses to pass through) and having a capacity, but does not explicitly recite that the capacity corresponds to a lung capacity of a person to be tested, including 3000-5000 cc for adults or 1600-2000 cc for children. However, Plut teaches a hood having a capacity that corresponds to a lung capacity of a person to be tested, including 3000-5000 cc for adults or 1600-2000 cc for children (2 liters to 10 liters equal to 2000 to 10,000 cc [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Channelstv article’s main bag body capacity with a capacity that corresponds to a lung capacity of a person to be tested, including 3000-5000 cc for adults or 1600-2000 cc for children, as taught by Plut, for the purpose of allowing for enough air for a breath. The modified Channelstv article does not explicitly recite that the plastic does not allow a virus to pass therethrough from the inside to the outside thereof. However, Tennison teaches a transparent polyethylene terephthalate impermeable membrane bag material [0076]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify The Channelstv article’s bag material with transparent polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Tennison, for the purpose of further protecting a user. The modified Channelstv article is silent regarding a testing swab insertion hole which is formed in the bag main body and has a minimum size from which the testing swab can be inserted, used when collecting a sample from nasopharynx. However, in fig. 3 Matsuzaki teaches a testing swab insertion hole 7 which is formed in the bag main body (Fig. 3) and has a minimum size from which the testing swab can be inserted (Fig. 3), used when collecting a sample from nasopharynx (able to be swabbed in the nasopharynx). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify The Channelstv article’s main bag body with the addition of a swab testing insertion hole, as taught by Matsuzaki, for the purpose of allowing for medical examination and diagnosis. The modified Channelstv article is silent regarding a mark showing a position of the testing swab insertion hole is provided on the bag main body. However, in fig. 3 Shaw teaches a mark (sticker 48) showing a position of an insertion hole (opening of valve 30) is provided on a main body 10 (Col. 5, ll. 9-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified The Channelstv article’s main body with the addition of a sticker over the valve, as taught by Shaw, for the purpose of further protecting a user from ingress of contaminants prior to insertion through the valve. The modified Channelstv article discloses that the testing swab insertion hole of the bag main body is further provided with a check valve (8, Matsuzaki), or a simple droplet splash prevention valve (8, Matsuzaki) is provided at a position inside the bag main body and corresponding to the testing swab insertion hole (Fig. 3, Matsuzaki).
Regarding claim 3, the first figure shown in the Channelstv article (see picture above) discloses an infection prevention bag (plastic bag to prevent spread of covid-19), comprising: a bag main body (main body of plastic bag), which appears to be made of a material that does not allow a virus to pass therethrough from the inside to the outside thereof (plastic bags generally do not allow for viruses to pass through) and having a capacity, but does not explicitly recite that the capacity corresponds to a lung capacity of a person to be tested, including 3000-5000 cc for adults or 1600-2000 cc for children. However, Plut teaches a hood having a capacity that corresponds to a lung capacity of a person to be tested, including 3000-5000 cc for adults or 1600-2000 cc for children (2 liters to 10 liters equal to 2000 to 10,000 cc [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Channelstv article’s main bag body capacity with a capacity that corresponds to a lung capacity of a person to be tested, including 3000-5000 cc for adults or 1600-2000 cc for children, as taught by Plut, for the purpose of allowing for enough air for a breath. The modified Channelstv article does not explicitly recite that the plastic does not allow a virus to pass therethrough from the inside to the outside thereof. However, Tennison teaches a transparent polyethylene terephthalate impermeable membrane bag material [0076]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify The Channelstv article’s bag material with transparent polyethylene terephthalate, as taught by Tennison, for the purpose of further protecting a user. The modified Channelstv article is silent regarding a testing swab insertion hole which is formed in the bag main body and has a minimum size from which the testing swab can be inserted, used when collecting a sample from nasopharynx. However, in fig. 3 Matsuzaki teaches a testing swab insertion hole 7 which is formed in the bag main body (Fig. 3) and has a minimum size from which the testing swab can be inserted (Fig. 3), used when collecting a sample from nasopharynx (able to be swabbed in the nasopharynx). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify The Channelstv article’s main bag body with the addition of a swab testing insertion hole, as taught by Matsuzaki, for the purpose of allowing for medical examination and diagnosis. The modified Channelstv article is silent regarding a peelable seal as a mark showing a position of the testing swab insertion hole is provided on the bag main body. However, in fig. 3 Shaw teaches a peelable seal as a mark (sticker 48) showing a position of the insertion hole (opening of valve 30) is provided on the main body 10 (Col. 5, ll. 9-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified The Channelstv article’s main body with the addition of a sticker over the valve, as taught by Shaw, for the purpose of further protecting a user from ingress of contaminants prior to insertion through the valve. The modified Channelstv article discloses that the testing swab insertion hole of the bag main body is further provided with a check valve (8, Matsuzaki), or a simple droplet splash prevention valve (8, Matsuzaki) is provided at a position inside the bag main body and corresponding to the testing swab insertion hole (Fig. 3, Matsuzaki).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Channelstv article discloses that the bag main body is made of a synthetic resin material comprising vinyl, polyethylene (Tennison [0076]).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Channelstv article discloses that the bag main body is made of a synthetic resin material comprising vinyl, polyethylene (Tennison [0076]).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Channelstv article discloses that the bag main body is made of a transparent material (Tennison [0076], transparent).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Channelstv article discloses that the bag main body is made of a transparent material (Tennison [0076], transparent).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Channelstv article discloses that the bag main body is further provided with a structure to be fixed to a face of the person (ear loops/handles of bag in Channelstv article).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Channelstv article discloses that the bag main body is further provided with a structure to be fixed to a face of the person (ear loops/handles of bag in Channelstv article).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Channelstv article discloses a method for collecting a sample from the nasopharynx (“pharyngeal wiping liquid” Matsuzaki, see page 1 of applicant provided translation) using the infection prevention bag used when collecting a sample from the nasopharynx as claimed in claim 2, wherein the method is used when collecting the sample from the nasopharynx (“pharyngeal wiping liquid” Matsuzaki, see page 1 of applicant provided translation).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Channelstv article discloses a method for collecting a sample from the nasopharynx (“pharyngeal wiping liquid” Matsuzaki, see page 1 of applicant provided translation) using the infection prevention bag used when collecting a sample from the nasopharynx as claimed in claim 3, wherein the method is used when collecting the sample from the nasopharynx (“pharyngeal wiping liquid” Matsuzaki, see page 1 of applicant provided translation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 9/23/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of “COVID-19: Sao Paulo Closes All Non-Essential Businesses For Two Weeks” https://www.channelstv.com/2020/03/21/covid-19-sao-paulo-closes-all-non-essential-businesses-for-two-weeks/ in view of Plut (2016/0366952), Tennison et al. (2017/0333736) and Matuzaki (JP 2011-120647).
Applicant argues on page 7, filed 9/23/25, that Matuzaki does not teach a check valve or simple anti-droplet valve.
Examiner disagrees as figure 3 of Matuzaki teaches that the testing swab insertion hole of the bag main body is further provided with a check valve (8, Matsuzaki), or a simple droplet splash prevention valve (8, Matsuzaki) is provided at a position inside the bag main body and corresponding to the testing swab insertion hole (Fig. 3, Matsuzaki).
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 RACHEL T SIPPEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1481. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785