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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s amendment filed on December 24, 2025. New claims 8-20 have been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 12 recites “a content of the fire extinguishing agent.” It is suggested to amend to -a content of the deliquescent agent-. 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 12 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 12 recites the limitation "the binder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-10, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenji et al. (WO2014069022 A1) in view of Cunningham (US 5,945,025) and Takasugi et al. (JP 6492499 B2).
With regard to claim 1, Kenji discloses a fire extinguishing body (10), comprising: a packaging bag formed from one or more base materials each comprising a resin layer (12 “thermoplastic resin”), and a fire extinguishing agent (14) sealed in the packaging bag, the packaging bag having a sealing part (16) at its peripheral edge (Fig. 2), except the fire extinguishing agent is deliquescent, and the adhesion strength between the base materials at the sealing part being 5 N/15 mm or more.
Cunningham teaches the use of Deliquescent salts as fire extinguishing agents. It describes that deliquescent compounds such as calcium chloride or similar salts can be used to extinguish fires effectively due to their water-absorbing and cooling properties.
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 fire extinguishing body, by replacing the fire extinguishing agent with the deliquescent fire extinguishing agent as taught by Cunningham, since such a simple substitution of one known element (deliquescent agent) for another in fire suppression, without any undue experimentation.
Takasugi teaches a packaging bag that comprising base materials and a sealing part, the adhesion strength between the base materials in the sealing part being 5 N/15 mm or more (Par. [0076]).
It is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Takasugi and the instant invention are directed to packaging bags. In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Takasugi is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
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 device of Kenji, by incorporating the adhesion strength between the base materials in the sealing part being 5 N/15 mm or more as taught by Takasugi, doing it would allow the bag be maintained even after heat treatment (Par. [0076]).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Takasugi further discloses that a polyolefin resin (“The packaging material for infusion according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the heat-sealable resin layer is a layer made of a polyolefin resin”).
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 device of Kenji, by making the layer out of polyolefin resin as taught by Takasugi, since polyolefin resins are low density and resulting in less weight.
With regard to claim 3, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Takasugi further discloses that the base material has a thickness of 4.5 to 1000 µm (“the thickness of a heat-sealable resin layer is not specifically limited, Preferably it is 5-500 micrometers, More preferably, it is 10-250 micrometers”).
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 device of Kenji, by having the base material with a thickness of10-250 micrometers as taught by Takasugi, doing it would reduce the cost.
With regard to claim 4, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Takasugi further discloses that the base material further comprises a gas barrier layer (“a transparent gas barrier film may be laminated on the adhesive layer”).
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 device of Kenji, by incorporating the gas barrier as taught by Takasugi, since the gas barrier is excellent in low elution property.
With regard to claim 5, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Takasugi further discloses that the gas barrier layer comprises a metal layer or a metal oxide layer (“metal of the gas barrier film”).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Takasugi further discloses that the resin layers are thermally fused together in the sealing part (“the heat-sealable resin layer of the present invention is a layer made of a heat-sealable resin that can be melted by heat and fused to each other”).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, they do not explicitly disclose that the sealing part has a width of 5 mm or more.
It is noted by the Examine that the disclosure, in paragraph [0039] is devoid to provide any criticality associated to the sealing part with a width of 5 mm or more.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to modify the width of the sealing part of Kenji to be 5 mm or more since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claim 8, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Cunningham further discloses that the deliquescent fire extinguishing agent is in the form of a powder (“Potassium bicarbonate is in the form of colorless, transparent crystals, white granules or powder”).
With regard to claim 9, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Cunningham further discloses that the deliquescent fire extinguishing agent comprises at least one of an inorganic salt and an organic salt.
With regard to claim 10, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Cunningham further discloses that the organic salt comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of potassium acetate, potassium citrate, and potassium tartrate, and the inorganic salt comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of potassium carbonate and potassium hydrogen carbonate (“potassium citrate”).
With regard to claim 13, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Takasugi further discloses that the gas barrier layer comprises an alumina vapor-deposited layer, a silica vapor-deposited layer, or a metal foil (“metal of the gas barrier film”).
With regard to claim 14, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Takasugi further discloses that the gas barrier layer includes a metal oxide vapor-deposited layer (silicon oxide), and the metal oxide vapor-deposited layer is disposed on a side facing the deliquescent fire extinguishing agent (the silicon oxide deposition is part of the interior oriented gas barrier film, i.e., facing contents side).
With regard to claim 15, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Takasugi further discloses that the base material comprises the resin layer serving as an inner layer (heat-sealable resin layer) and the gas barrier layer serving as an outer layer (transparent gas barrier film layer), and the resin layer and the gas barrier layer are laminated via an adhesive layer (adhesive composition).
With regard to claim 17, the device of Kenji as modified by Cunningham and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Takasugi further discloses that the gas barrier layer has a water vapor transmission rate of 10 g/m2/day or less under conditions of 40°C and 90% RH.
Claims 1-10, 13-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenji et al. (WO2014069022 A1) in view of Choo (WO 2021045609 A1) and Takasugi et al. (JP 6492499 B2).
With regard to claim 1, Kenji discloses a fire extinguishing body (10), comprising: a packaging bag formed from one or more base materials each comprising a resin layer (12 “thermoplastic resin”), and a fire extinguishing agent (14) sealed in the packaging bag, the packaging bag having a sealing part (16) at its peripheral edge (Fig. 2), except the fire extinguishing agent is deliquescent, and the adhesion strength between the base materials in the sealing part being 5 N/15 mm or more.
Choo teaches the use of Deliquescent salts as fire extinguishing agents (abstract).
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 fire extinguishing body, by replacing the fire extinguishing agent with the deliquescent fire extinguishing agent as taught by Choo, since such a simple substitution of one known element (deliquescent agent) for another in fire suppression, without any undue experimentation.
Takasugi teaches a packaging bag that comprising base materials and a sealing part, the adhesion strength between the base materials in the sealing part being 5 N/15 mm or more (Par. [0076]).
It is noted by the Examiner that the prior art to Takasugi and the instant invention are directed to packaging bags. In accordance with MPEP 2141.01(1), a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In this instant case, the prior art to Takasugi is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.
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 device of Kenji, by incorporating the adhesion strength between the base materials in the sealing part being 5 N/15 mm or more as taught by Takasugi, doing it would allow the bag be maintained even after heat treatment (Par. [0076]).
With regard to claim 2, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Takasugi further discloses that a polyolefin resin (“The packaging material for infusion according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the heat-sealable resin layer is a layer made of a polyolefin resin”).
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 device of Kenji, by making the layer out of polyolefin resin as taught by Takasugi, since polyolefin resins are low density and resulting in less weight.
With regard to claim 3, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Takasugi further discloses that the base material has a thickness of 4.5 to 1000 µm (“the thickness of a heat-sealable resin layer is not specifically limited, Preferably it is 5-500 micrometers, More preferably, it is 10-250 micrometers”).
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 device of Kenji, by having the base material with a thickness of10-250 micrometers as taught by Takasugi, doing it would reduce the cost.
With regard to claim 4, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Takasugi further discloses that the base material further comprises a gas barrier layer (“a transparent gas barrier film may be laminated on the adhesive layer”).
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 device of Kenji, by incorporating the gas barrier as taught by Takasugi, since the gas barrier is excellent in low elution property.
With regard to claim 5, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Takasugi further discloses that the gas barrier layer comprises a metal layer or a metal oxide layer (“metal of the gas barrier film”).
With regard to claim 6, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Takasugi further discloses that the resin layers are thermally fused together in the sealing part (“the heat-sealable resin layer of the present invention is a layer made of a heat-sealable resin that can be melted by heat and fused to each other”).
With regard to claim 7, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, they do not explicitly disclose that the sealing part has a width of 5 mm or more.
It is noted by the Examine that the disclosure, in paragraph [0039] is devoid to provide any criticality associated to the sealing part with a width of 5 mm or more.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing date of the invention to modify the width of the sealing part of Kenji to be 5 mm or more since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also In re Yount (36 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 775, 171 F.2d 317, 80 USPQ 141. Further, in re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package "of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck" where held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A.
With regard to claim 8, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Choo further discloses that the deliquescent fire extinguishing agent is in the form of a powder (“It may be in the form of powder”).
With regard to claim 9, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 1 above. Choo further discloses that the deliquescent fire extinguishing agent comprises at least one of an inorganic salt and an organic salt.
With regard to claim 10, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. Choo further discloses that the organic salt comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of potassium acetate, potassium citrate, and potassium tartrate, and the inorganic salt comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of potassium carbonate and potassium hydrogen carbonate.
With regard to claim 13, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Takasugi further discloses that the gas barrier layer comprises an alumina vapor-deposited layer, a silica vapor-deposited layer, or a metal foil (“metal of the gas barrier film”).
With regard to claim 14, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Takasugi further discloses that the gas barrier layer includes a metal oxide vapor-deposited layer (silicon oxide), and the metal oxide vapor-deposited layer is disposed on a side facing the deliquescent fire extinguishing agent (the silicon oxide deposition is part of the interior oriented gas barrier film, i.e., facing contents side).
With regard to claim 15, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 5 above. Takasugi further discloses that the base material comprises the resin layer serving as an inner layer (heat-sealable resin layer) and the gas barrier layer serving as an outer layer (transparent gas barrier film layer), and the resin layer and the gas barrier layer are laminated via an adhesive layer (adhesive composition).
With regard to claim 17, the device of Kenji as modified by Choo and Takasugi discloses the invention as disclosed in the rejection of claim 4 above. Takasugi further discloses that the gas barrier layer has a water vapor transmission rate of 10 g/m2/day or less under conditions of 40°C and 90% RH.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, 16 and 18-20 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.
Claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-1163. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM-5PM.
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 5712701814. 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.
JOEL . ZHOU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3752
/QINGZHANG ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752