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 .
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9, 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreland (US 3866390 A) in view of Christensen (US 4378924) and in further view of JP 3205412 (see the PDF attached).
Regarding independent claim 9, Moreland discloses, a food preservation system (see bag evacuating and sealing unit 10 in Fig. 1), comprising:
a stand (see stand annotated Fig. 1) including a base (see base annotated Fig. 1) and an arm (see arm annotated Fig. 1 with housing 12) extending perpendicular to a top surface (see top surface annotated Fig. 1) of the base (see annotated Fig. 1);
a lid (see nozzle 36 in Fig. 1) connected to the arm (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2);
an rigid element (see a bent spring wire member 38, which is generally U-shaped, is attached to the back face of the nozzle as shown in FIG. 4 and provides two outwardly projecting spring-fingers 41in Fig. 4) defining an opening (see opening between two outwardly projecting spring-fingers 4 in Fig. 4) and connected to the arm (see annotated Fig. 1), wherein the rigid element (44) is closer to the top surface of the base than the lid (see the two outwardly projecting spring-fingers 4 are located between the annotated top surface of the base and the top part of the lid/nozzle 36 such that the two outwardly projecting spring-fingers4 are closer to the top surface of the base comparing with the top part of the lid to the top surface of the base), wherein the rigid element (38 with 41) that is configured to receive an open portion (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) of a flexible container (see annotated thermoplastic bag in Fig. 1), and wherein the lid is located above the rigid element (38 with 41) and the open portion of the flexible container (see annotated Fig. 1) to cover/seal the open portion of the flexible container (see Fig. 1);
a first conduit (see conduit annotated in Fig. 2 and disclosed in Col. 2 lines 64-67 “A bag engaging evacuating nozzle 36 also projects forwardly of the front face 14 and is attached thereto by a fitting 37 which also provides a conduit between the nozzle 36 and the pump inlet”) fluidically connecting to the lid (36) and the arm (see arm annotated Fig. 1 with housing 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
765
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Moreland does not explicitly disclose, a second conduit fluidically connecting the lid and the arm, wherein an open portion of a flexible container is configured to roll over the rigid element, and wherein the lid is configured to be placed on top of the rigid element to form a seal with the open portion of the flexible container.
Nonetheless, Christensen teaches, wherein an open portion (see Fig. 1) of a flexible container (see plastic bag B in Fig. 1) is configured to roll over the rigid element (see ring 15, wherein the plastic bag B is rolled over the ring 15 as seen in Fig. 1 and disclosed in Col. 2 lines 4-11 “A bag B, usually made from plastic sheet material, is mounted on the ring 15 and is attached thereto by means of a bag clamping ring 20 which, in the form shown in FIG. 3, has a bottom clamping channel formed therein to receive the rod 15 and anchor the bag thereto”), and wherein the lid (see cover C in Fig. 1) is configured to be placed on top of the rigid element to form a seal with the open portion of the flexible container (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rigid element of Moreland so as an open portion of a flexible container is able to roll over the rigid element, and wherein the lid is configured to be placed on top of the rigid element to form a seal with the open portion of the flexible container as taught/ suggested by Christensen in order to provide greater strength, better alignment, improved security, and tamper resistance, and to ensure the bag and/or lid stays firmly in place, resists wear, and maintains integrity during the evacuating and sealing process so as obtaining a better apparatus of evacuating and sealing thermoplastic bags.
Moreland and/or Christensen does not explicitly teach, a second conduit fluidically connecting the lid and the arm.
JP 3205412 discloses, a system (see food antioxidant system 1 in Fig. 3) for removing oxygen (see oxygen removing device 40 in Fig. 3 and disclosed in the specification “oxygen removing device 40 includes a vacuum pump 45 and the like, and sucks air from the food container 30 to reduce the amount of oxygen in the food container 30”) from a container (see container 30 in Fig. 3), the system comprising:
a first conduit (nozzle 43 in Fig. 3) fluidically connecting a top that is covering the container (see container 30 in Fig. 3) and a second conduit (see nozzle 53 in Fig. 3) fluidically connecting a top that is covering the container (see container 30 in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
588
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Moreland in view of Christensen wherein the system further comprises a second conduit as taught/ suggested by JP 3205412 such that the second conduit is fluidically connecting the lid and the arm of Moreland in order to fill the nitrogen into the container to adjust the evaporation of moisture from the food to avoid drying while evacuating the oxygen from the container. Doing so may be possible to prevent oxidation even if the container is frequently opened and closed by suppressing the pressure change as much as possible (see the specification of JP 3205412).
Regarding claim 11, Moreland in view of Christensen and in view of JP 3205412 discloses the food preservation system of Claim 9.
Moreland and/or JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, wherein the rigid element comprises a ring.
Nonetheless, Christensen teaches, wherein the rigid element comprise a ring (see ring 15, and disclosed in Col. 2 lines 4-11 “A bag B, usually made from plastic sheet material, is mounted on the ring 15 and is attached thereto by means of a bag clamping ring 20 which, in the form shown in FIG. 3, has a bottom clamping channel formed therein to receive the rod 15 and anchor the bag thereto”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rigid element of Moreland such that wherein the rigid element comprise a ring as taught/ suggested by Christensen in order to provide greater strength, better alignment, improved security, and tamper resistance, and to ensure the bag and/or lid stays firmly in place, resists wear, and maintains integrity during the evacuating and sealing process so as obtaining a better apparatus of evacuating and sealing thermoplastic bags.
Regarding claim 12, Moreland in view of Christensen and in view of JP 3205412 discloses the food preservation system of Claim 11, Moreland further discloses wherein a central axis of the lid (nozzle 36) is parallel to a central axis of the rigid element (38 with 41, and see in Fig. 1).
Moreland in view of JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, wherein the rigid element comprises a ring.
Nonetheless, Christensen teaches, wherein the rigid element comprise a ring (see ring 15, and disclosed in Col. 2 lines 4-11 “A bag B, usually made from plastic sheet material, is mounted on the ring 15 and is attached thereto by means of a bag clamping ring 20 which, in the form shown in FIG. 3, has a bottom clamping channel formed therein to receive the rod 15 and anchor the bag thereto”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rigid element of Moreland such that wherein the rigid element comprise a ring as taught/ suggested by Christensen in order to provide greater strength, better alignment, improved security, and tamper resistance, and to ensure the bag and/or lid stays firmly in place, resists wear, and maintains integrity during the evacuating and sealing process so as obtaining a better apparatus of evacuating and sealing thermoplastic bags.
Regarding claim 13, Moreland in view of Christensen and in view of JP 3205412 discloses the food preservation system of Claim 9.
However, Moreland in view of JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, wherein the rigid element includes on a perimeter at least one of an adhesive or one or more hooks.
Nonetheless, Christensen teaches, wherein the rigid element includes on a perimeter at least one of an adhesive or one or more hooks (see ring 20 with hook as seen in Fig. 3-5, and disclosed in Col. 2 lines 4-11 “A bag B, usually made from plastic sheet material, is mounted on the ring 15 and is attached thereto by means of a bag clamping ring 20 which, in the form shown in FIG. 3, has a bottom clamping channel formed therein to receive the rod 15 and anchor the bag thereto”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rigid element of Moreland such that the rigid element includes on a perimeter at least one of an adhesive or one or more hooks as taught/ suggested by Christensen in order to provide greater strength, better alignment, improved security, and tamper resistance, and to ensure the bag and/or lid stays firmly in place, resists wear, and maintains integrity during the evacuating and sealing process so as obtaining a better apparatus of evacuating and sealing thermoplastic bags.
Regarding claim 17, Moreland in view of Christensen and in view of JP 3205412 discloses the food preservation system of Claim 9.
However, Moreland in view of JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, wherein the flexible container is temporarily sealed between two rigid surfaces.
Nonetheless, Christensen teaches, wherein the flexible container is temporarily sealed between two rigid surfaces (see ring 15 and ring 20 and as seen in Fig. 1, and disclosed in Col. 2 lines 4-11 “A bag B, usually made from plastic sheet material, is mounted on the ring 15 and is attached thereto by means of a bag clamping ring 20 which, in the form shown in FIG. 3, has a bottom clamping channel formed therein to receive the rod 15 and anchor the bag thereto”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rigid element of Moreland such that the flexible container is temporarily sealed between two rigid surfaces as taught/ suggested by Christensen in order to provide greater strength, better alignment, improved security, and tamper resistance, and to ensure the bag and/or lid stays firmly in place, resists wear, and maintains integrity during the evacuating and sealing process so as obtaining a better apparatus of evacuating and sealing thermoplastic bags.
Regarding claim 18, Moreland in view of Christensen and in view of JP 3205412 discloses the food preservation system of Claim 17.
However, Moreland in view of JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, wherein at least one of the two rigid surfaces rotate into position or positioned along an axis.
Nonetheless, Christensen teaches, , wherein at least one of the two rigid surfaces rotate into position or positioned along an axis (see ring 15 and ring 20 and as seen in Fig. 1, and disclosed in Col. 2 lines 12-25 “the ends of the clamping ring 20 are provided with attachment hinge portions 20a which closely surround and pivotally grip the rod 15 adjacent to mounting block 17. These mounting elements 20a at the ends of the clamping ring 20 are split for insertion over and around straight pivot portions 15b of rod 15 but securely grip said rod portions 15b to provide a pivotal anchor for the clamping ring 20. It will be apparent that considerable force is required to remove the ring mounting elements 20a from the rod 15 so that a pivotal mounting hinge for the clamping ring 20 is provided. This permits the ring to swing upwardly into raised position to permit changing the bags”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rigid element of Moreland such that at least one of the two rigid surfaces rotate into position or positioned along an axis as taught/ suggested by Christensen in order to provide greater strength, better alignment, improved security, and tamper resistance, and to ensure the bag and/or lid stays firmly in place, resists wear, and maintains integrity during the evacuating and sealing process so as obtaining a better apparatus of evacuating and sealing thermoplastic bags.
Regarding claim 19, Moreland in view of Christensen and in view of JP 3205412 discloses the food preservation system of Claim 9.
However, Moreland in view of JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, wherein at least one of the two rigid surfaces includes, on a perimeter, an adhesive, hooks, clamps, or vacuum to position an upper portion of the flexible container.
Nonetheless, Christensen teaches, wherein at least one of the two rigid surfaces includes, on a perimeter, an adhesive, hooks, clamps, or vacuum to position an upper portion of the flexible container (see ring 20 with hook as seen in Fig. 3-5, and disclosed in Col. 2 lines 4-11 “A bag B, usually made from plastic sheet material, is mounted on the ring 15 and is attached thereto by means of a bag clamping ring 20 which, in the form shown in FIG. 3, has a bottom clamping channel formed therein to receive the rod 15 and anchor the bag thereto”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rigid element of Moreland such that wherein at least one of the two rigid surfaces includes, on a perimeter, an adhesive, hooks, clamps, or vacuum to position an upper portion of the flexible container as taught/ suggested by Christensen in order to provide greater strength, better alignment, improved security, and tamper resistance, and to ensure the bag and/or lid stays firmly in place, resists wear, and maintains integrity during the evacuating and sealing process so as obtaining a better apparatus of evacuating and sealing thermoplastic bags.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreland in view of Christensen, in further view of JP 3205412 and in further view of Gidewall (US 3939624 A).
Regarding claim 10, Moreland in view of Christensen and in view of JP 3205412 discloses the food preservation system of Claim 9.
However, Moreland in view of Christensen and in view of JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, wherein the lid is rotatably connected to the arm.
Nonetheless, Gidewall teaches, wherein the lid (see upright air cylinder assemblies 236 in Fig. 5) is rotatably connected to the arm (see apparatus 50 with transverse side sections 130 in Fig. 5, wherein the assemblies 236 is rotatably/pivotably connected to the arm via 238 of bracket 240 in Fig. 5 and disclosed in Col. 12 lines 32-33 “Each air cylinder assembly 236 is pivotally secured at 238 to a support bracket 240”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lid of Moreland in view of Christensen and in view of JP 3205412 such that the lid is rotatably connected to the arm as taught/suggested by Gidewall in order to properly position the lid into the container/bag.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 07/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
The remarks on 07/01/2026 begin by noting the claim status and amendments of the drawings and the claims. The remarks then address previous objections of the drawings, the claims, and note the amendments resolving those. In view of the amendments of the drawings, the claims, and cancellation of claims, the objections of the drawings and the claims are withdrawn.
The remarks then address the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103. The Applicant's arguments have been fully considered; however, the Applicant's amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The remarks provide a conclusion requesting allowance. However, the claims are presently rejected as set forth and explained above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights