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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, and 5 are amended. Claims 6-12 are new. Claim 4 is cancelled. Therefore, claims 1-3, and 5-12 are currently pending and are considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered. Applicant's amendment overcomes the following.
Drawing objections
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation "closed spaced'' in line 6 of claim 1. However, it is suggested to amend to - closed space- . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites the limitation "to form of the closed spaced'' in line 6 of claim 6. However, it is suggested to amend to – to form the closed space- . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11 recites the limitation "the water barrier layer'' in line 1 of claim 1. However, it is suggested to amend to – the water vapor barrier layer- . 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.
Claims 8, 10, and 12 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the composition comprises 70 to 97 mass% of the fire extinguishing component” in lines 1-2 of claim 8. The term “mass%”, which the Examiner is interpreting as “percentage of mass” is a relative term and the claim does not specify what the percentage is relative to. The examiner will interpret this limitation as “the composition comprises 70 to 97 percentage of mass of the fire extinguishing component relative to the mass of the fire extinguishing component.”
Claim 10 depends on claim 8, therefore claim 8 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the metal-oxide deposited layer" in line 1 of claim 12. 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariya (US 9,004,186) in view of Shiba (US 8,637,152) and Choi (US 2021/0213316).
Regarding claim 1, Kariya discloses a fire extinguisher (Figs. 1-3, all structural elements omitting item 20 of Fig. 1; Col. 3: Ln. 25-29), comprising:
a packaging pouch (Fig. 1 & 3, 100) comprising at least one base sheet (Fig. 2-3, 110; Fig. 1, 10; Col. 3: Ln. 30-34) and a closed space (Fig. 2-3, 110) surrounded by the at least one base sheet, each of the at least one base sheet comprises a resin layer (Fig. 1, 40; Col. 2: Ln. 55-57), a water vapor barrier layer (Fig. 1, 30; Col. 3: Ln. 7-8; Col. 3: Ln. 17-19) and, the resin layer faces the closed space (Col. 2: Ln. 61-62), the water vapor barrier layer being an outermost layer furthest away from the closed space (Col. 3: Ln. 25-29; Item 20 is not present in the applied prior art.);
a fire extinguishing agent (Col. 3: Ln. 35-37) disposed in the closed space,
a first side of an outer surface of the packaging pouch (Fig. 1 & 3, outer surface of 100 on the side shown on Fig. 3; Fig. 2, outer surface of 30).
Kariya does not disclose an adhesive layer between the resin layer and the water vapor barrier layer, a third adhesive layer on a first side of an outer surface of the packaging pouch, and a release layer on the third adhesive layer.
However, Shiba teaches a prior art comparable packaging material comprising a base sheet comprising at least one base sheet a resin layer (Col. 5: Ln. 6-17; “sealant layer”) a water vapor barrier layer (Col. 2: Ln. 59-65; “barrier layer”) and an adhesive layer between the resin layer and the water vapor barrier layer (Col. 2: Ln. 19-21).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (laminating; Shiba – Col. 2: Ln. 19-21), that in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately (The resin layer contains the fire extinguishing agent, the water vapor barrier layer acts as a water proof layer, and the adhesive layer bonds layers together.), and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely a base sheet a resin layer and a water vapor barrier layer bonded together by an adhesive layer.
Therefore, Kariya in view of Shiba teaches an adhesive layer between the resin layer and the water vapor barrier layer, but does not teach a third adhesive layer on a first side of an outer surface of the packaging pouch, and a release layer on the third adhesive layer.
However, Choi teaches a prior art comparable base sheet (Fig. 2b, 221-222) comprising a third adhesive layer (Fig. 2B, 223) on a first side and a release layer (Fig. 2B, 224) on the third adhesive layer.
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference, that one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (applying; Choi Para. 0016), that in combination each element performs the same function as it does separately (The packaging pouch contains the fire extinguishing agent, the third adhesive layer adheres to base sheet and the release layer and when the release layer is removed the third adhesive layer is configured to be attached to a surface.; Para. 0038 & 0040), and one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable, namely a fire extinguishing pouch configured to be attached to a surface.
Therefore, Kariya in view of Shiba and Choi teaches a third adhesive layer on a first side of an outer surface of the packaging pouch and a release layer on the third adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 2, Kariya in view of Shiba and Choi teaches the fire extinguisher of claim 1.
Kariya further discloses wherein the resin layer comprises a polyolefin-based resin (Col. 2: Ln. 61-62; LLDPE (linear low density polyethylene) is a polyolefin-based resin.).
Regarding claim 3, Kariya in view of Shiba and Choi teaches the fire extinguisher of claim 1, wherein, but does not explicitly teach each of the at least one base sheet has a thickness of 4.5 µm to 1000 µm.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the at least one base sheet has a thickness of 4.5 µm to 1000 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para 0014 and 0044, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Kariya in view of Shiba and Choi teaches the fire extinguisher of claim 1.
Kariya further discloses wherein the at least one base sheet consists of a first base sheet and a second base sheet (Col. 3: Ln. 33-38);
each of the first resin layer and the second resin layer has a first edge and a second edge opposite to the first edge; the first edge of the first resin layer being joined with the first edge of the second resin layer and the second edge of the first resin layer being joined with the second edge of the second resin layer to form of the closed space of the pouch (Annotated Fig. 3; Col. 3: Ln. 33-38).
The at least one base sheet of Kariya in view of Shiba teaches the at least one base sheet consists of a first resin layer, a first water vapor barrier layer and a first adhesive layer between the first layer and the first water vapor barrier layer (rejection of claim 1), and thus the first base sheet and the second base sheet consists of a first resin layer, a first water vapor barrier layer and a first adhesive layer between the first layer and the first water vapor barrier layer.
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
494
1087
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5, and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariya in view of Shiba, Choi, and Tomiyama (US 12,364,888).
Regarding claim 5, Kariya in view of Shiba and Choi teaches the fire extinguisher of claim 1, but does not teach wherein: the water vapor barrier layer has a water vapor transmission rate of 10 g/m2/day or less, as measured according to JIS K 7129 at 40°C and 90% RH.
However, Tomiyama teaches a prior art comparable fire extinguishing sheet (Ti.) which comprises a water vapor barrier layer (Col. 4: Ln. 25-28 – “resin base material”) that has a water vapor transmission rate, as measured according to JIS K 7129 at 40°C and 90% RH (Col. 4: Ln. 25-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique (water vapor barrier layer that has a water vapor transmission rate as measured according to JIS K 7129 at 40°C and 90% RH) as taught by Tomiyama, into the fire extinguisher taught by Kariya in view of Shiba and Choi to allow for an appropriately adjusted water vapor permeability (Col. 4: Ln. 25-36) and yielding the predictable result of allowing a water vapor transmission rate between 0.01 g/m2/d to 150 g/m2/d (Col. 4: Ln. 25-36; Clm. 1). Please note that in the instant application, Para 0014 and 0044, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Kariya in view of Shiba, Choi, and Tomiyama does not explicitly teach a water vapor transmission rate of 10 g/m2/day or less.
However, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 7, Kariya in view of Shiba and Choi teaches the fire extinguisher of claim 1, but does not teach, wherein the fire extinguishing agent is a composition containing a fire extinguishing component and a binder resin mixed with the fire extinguishing component.
However, Tomiyama teaches a fire extinguishing agent (Col. 5: Ln. 32-56 – “Fire Extinguishing Agent”) is a composition containing a fire extinguishing component (Col. 5: Ln. 37-46 – “Fire Extinguishing Agent Slurry”) and a binder resin (Col. 5: Ln. 33-36; Polyvinyl butyral is a binder resin.) mixed with the fire extinguishing component (Col. 5: Ln. 47-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fire extinguishing agent with a known function of suppressing a fire, taught by Tomiyama, by performing a simple substitution with the fire extinguishing agent disclosed by Tomiyama yielding the predictable result of suppressing a fire when the packaging pouch is activated.
Regarding claim 8, Kariya in view of Shiba, Choi, and Tomiyama teaches the fire extinguisher of claim 7.
Tomiyama further teaches wherein the composition comprises 70 to 97 mass% of the fire extinguishing component (Col. 5: Ln. 32-56; Tomiyama teaches 187.5g of tripotassium citrate and 112.5g of potassium chlorate which sums to 300g of fire extinguishing component, while using 111g of 18% by mass solution of polyvinyl butyral resulting in 19.98g of binder resulting in an agent of approximately 93.76 percentage of mass of the fire extinguishing component relative to the mass of the fire extinguishing component).
Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0048, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Kariya in view of Shiba, Choi, and Tomiyama teaches fire extinguisher of claim 7.
Tomiyama further teaches wherein the binder resin is polyvinyl butyral (Col. 5: Ln. 33-36).
Regarding claim 10, Kariya in view of Shiba, Choi, and Tomiyama teaches the fire extinguisher of claim 8.
Tomiyama further teaches wherein the binder resin is polyvinyl butyral (Col. 5: Ln. 33-36).
Regarding claim 11, Kariya in view of Shiba, Choi teaches the fire extinguisher of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the water barrier layer comprises a metal oxide-deposited layer.
However, Tomiyama teaches a water barrier layer (Col. 4: Ln. 25-28 – “resin base material”) comprises a metal oxide-deposited layer (Col. 4: Ln. 25-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the water barrier layer with a known function of preventing the passage of moisture, taught by Tomiyama, by performing a simple substitution with the water barrier layer disclosed by Tomiyama yielding the predictable result of preventing external water from contacting the fire extinguishing agent and the fire extinguisher suppressing a fire when the packaging pouch is activated.
Regarding claim 12, Kariya in view of Shiba, Choi teaches the fire extinguisher of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the metal oxide-deposited layer is an alumina-deposited layer or a silica-deposited layer.
However, Tomiyama teaches a water barrier layer (Col. 4: Ln. 25-28 – “resin base material”) comprising a metal oxide-deposited layer that is an alumina-deposited layer (Col. 4: Ln. 25-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the water barrier layer with a known function of preventing the passage of moisture, taught by Tomiyama, by performing a simple substitution with the water barrier layer disclosed by Tomiyama yielding the predictable result of preventing external water from contacting the fire extinguishing agent and the fire extinguisher suppressing a fire when the packaging pouch is activated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 5 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
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 ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 May 1, 2026
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights