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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 4, 6-8 and 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/09/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of species 1: Fig. 1 corresponding to claims 1-3, 5 and 9-13 in the reply filed on 03/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 07/10/2023, 05/23/2024 and 07/09/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the listed limitations below must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
Claim 1: a recirculation pump, a first connector, an inlet, an outlet, and second connector.
Claim 9: a base, an arm
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “A system for removing oxygen from a flexible container the system comprising” should read as “A system for removing oxygen from a flexible container, the system comprising”;
the term “a flexible container” in line 4 and line 10 should as “[[a]] the flexible container”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase “wherein at least one of the two rigid surface includes on a perimeter an adhesive, hooks, clamps, or vacuum to position an upper portion of the flexible container” should read as “wherein at least one of the two rigid surface includes, on a perimeter, an adhesive, hooks, clamps, or vacuum to position an upper portion of the flexible container”.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “wherein the rigid element includes on a perimeter at least one of an adhesive or one or more hooks” should read as “wherein the rigid element includes, on a perimeter, at least one of an adhesive or one or more hooks”.
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 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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 3205412 (see PDF translation attached) in view of Moreland (US 3866390 A) and in further view of Burke (US 20080110243 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, 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 pump (see vacuum pump 45 in Fig. 3) comprising an exhaust (see valve 42 in Fig. 3), and the exhaust (42) is fluidically connected to an oxygen removal device (see nozzles 43 and 53 in Fig. 3);
an intake (see valve 52 in Fig. 3), wherein the intake (52) comprises a first connector (see first connector annotated Fig. 3) fluidically couple to a container (see annotated Fig. 3),
the oxygen removal device comprising:
an inlet (see nozzle 43 in Fig. 3) fluidically connected to the exhaust (42) of the pump (45);
an outlet (see nozzle 53 in Fig. 3) including a second connector (see second connector annotated Fig. 3) fluidically connected to the intake (52, and see annotated Fig. 3); and
a container (30) coupled to the oxygen removal device (see Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
588
527
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, the container is a flexible container, and the pump is a recirculation pump comprising an intake and an exhaust.
Nonetheless, Moreland teaches, a system (see bag evacuating and sealing unit 10 in Fig. 1) for removing oxygen (disclosed in Col. 3 lines 24-25 “the pump had evacuated the air from the bag”, wherein it is known that air is the invisible gaseous substance surrounding the earth, a mixture mainly of oxygen and nitrogen) from a flexible container (see thermoplastic bag/container annotated in Fig. 1 and disclosed in Col. 3 lines 3-4 “Thermoplastic bags, such as polyethylene, for use on such an evacuation and sealing device”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the container 30 of JP 3205412 with the flexible container/bag as taught/suggested by Moreland in order to adapt to the shape of the foods contained inside the flexible container/bag after air is evacuated so as obtaining better space saving when storing the foods.
JP 3205412 and Moreland does not explicitly disclose the pump is a recirculation pump comprising an intake and an exhaust.
Burke teaches, the pump is a recirculation pump (recirculation pump 201 in Fig. 1A) comprising an intake and an exhaust (see annotated Fig. 1A).
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 pump of JP 3205412 wherein the pump is a recirculation pump connected with the intake and the exhaust as taught/suggested by Burke in order to easily control the oxygen evacuation and the nitrogen filling at the same time with the same pump.
PNG
media_image2.png
650
882
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, JP 3205412 in view of Moreland and in further view of Burke discloses the system of claim 1.
However, JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, wherein the flexible container is temporarily sealed between two rigid surfaces.
Nonetheless, Moreland teaches, wherein the flexible container (see thermoplastic bag/container annotated bag in Fig. 1) is temporarily sealed between two rigid surfaces (see pressure bar 32 and heater bar 20 in Fig. 2).
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 JP 3205412 to further comprises wherein the flexible container is temporarily sealed between two rigid surfaces as taught/suggested by Moreland in order to complete air seal the flexible bag.
Regarding claim 3, JP 3205412 in view of Moreland and in further view of Burke discloses the system of claim 2.
However, JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, at least one of the two rigid surfaces rotate into position or positioned along an axis.
Nonetheless, Moreland teaches, wherein at least one (32) of the two rigid surfaces rotate (see handle 24 in Fig. 1 and bar 32 is rotated long with handle 24’s rotation in Fig. 2) into position or positioned along an axis (see Fig. 2 and disclosed in Col. 3 lines 27-36 “The handle would then be lowered to press the neck of the bag (i.e., that portion just below the nozzle) between the pressure bar 32 and the heater bar. Rotating the handle, in addition to extending the heater bar forwardly of the front face, would deenergize the heater, leaving the heat retained in the bar available to fuse the sidewalls of the bag together, but preventing overheating the bar when it was engaging the bag and thereby preventing completely fusing the bag onto the bar 20”).
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 JP 3205412 to further comprises at least one of the two rigid surfaces rotate into position or positioned along an axis as taught/suggested by Moreland in order to complete air seal the flexible bag.
Regarding claim 5, JP 3205412 in view of Moreland and in further view of Burke discloses the system of claim 1.
However, JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, wherein at least one of the two rigid surface includes on a perimeter an adhesive, hooks, clamps, or vacuum to position an upper portion of the flexible container.
Nonetheless, Moreland teaches, wherein at least one of the two rigid surface (32, and 20) includes, on a perimeter, clamps (see handle 24 in Fig. 1) to position an upper portion of the flexible container (see Fig. 3).
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 JP 3205412 to further comprises wherein at least one of the two rigid surface includes, on a perimeter, clamps to position an upper portion of the flexible container as taught/suggested by Moreland in order to complete air seal the flexible bag.
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreland (US 3866390 A) in 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 element (see parting strips 44 in Fig. 1) defining an opening (see annotated Fig. 1 and disclosed in Col. 4 lines 37-38 “the bag is sandwiched between opposing parting strips 44”) and connected to the arm (see annotated Fig. 1), wherein the element (44) is closer to the top surface of the base than the lid (see parting strips 44 is located between the annotated top surface of the base and the lid/nozzle 36 such that the parting strips 44 is closer to the top surface of the base comparing with the lid to the top surface of the base);
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).
However, Moreland does not explicitly disclose, a second conduit fluidically connecting the lid and the arm and the element is a rigid element.
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).
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 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).
Moreland in view of JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, the element is a rigid element.
However, Moreland, in Col. 5 lines 3-8, further discloses, although Teflon strips were used, other material such as Mylar, aluminum foil, etc., can be used as long as whatever material is chose has a melting point higher than the operating temperature of the heater bar to prevent any adhesion between these abutting facing surfaces.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a known material for the element/strips of Moreland so as the element is a rigid element, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416, MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 13, Moreland in view of JP 3205412 discloses the food preservation system of Claim 9, Moreland further discloses, wherein the rigid element (44) includes on a perimeter at least one of an adhesive (disclosed in Col. 5 lines 11-12 “the strips can be peeled off for reuse.”) or one or more hooks (see pins 34 in Fig. 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreland (US 3866390 A) in view of JP 3205412 (see the PDF attached) and in further view of Gidewall (US 3939624 A).
Regarding claim 10, Moreland 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 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 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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreland (US 3866390 A) in view of JP 3205412 (see the PDF attached) and in further view of Fisher (US 11383914 B2).
Regarding claim 11, Moreland in view of JP 3205412 discloses the food preservation system of Claim 9.
Moreland in view of JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, wherein the rigid element comprises a ring.
Nonetheless, Fisher teaches, wherein the rigid element comprise a ring (see and disclosed in Col. 3 lines 46-56 “a flexible or pliable ring which may be semi-rigid, a plastic bag permanently joined to the ring interior, and a ring cover or seal. The ring may be substantially cylindrical, or other suitable shape, constructed of any conventional material but is preferably material sufficiently rigid to withstand handling and shipping loads, substantially impervious to passage of gases so that oxygen and water vapor and other potential contaminants are precluded from entering the package and causing snack food staling, and a material that is somewhat flexible when squeezed from opposite radial points”).
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 Fisher in order to comfort the circular shape of the container/bag.
Regarding claim 12, Moreland in view of JP 3205412 and in further view of Fisher 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 element (strips 44, and see in Fig. 1).
Moreland in view of JP 3205412 does not explicitly disclose, wherein the rigid element comprises a ring.
Nonetheless, Fisher teaches, wherein the rigid element comprises a ring (see and disclosed in Col. 3 lines 46-56 “a flexible or pliable ring which may be semi-rigid, a plastic bag permanently joined to the ring interior, and a ring cover or seal. The ring may be substantially cylindrical, or other suitable shape, constructed of any conventional material but is preferably material sufficiently rigid to withstand handling and shipping loads, substantially impervious to passage of gases so that oxygen and water vapor and other potential contaminants are precluded from entering the package and causing snack food staling, and a material that is somewhat flexible when squeezed from opposite radial points”).
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 Fisher in order to comfort the circular shape of the container/bag.
Conclusion
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. 6:00 am-3:30 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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