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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-5, in the reply filed on June 12, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 6-14 have been withdrawn from further consideration.
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 1-5 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 1 recites the limitation “the surface of the inner film layer” in line 4. However, as the claim fails to previously define the surface of the inner film layer, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination, the surface of the inner film layer will be considered to be either surface of the inner film layer.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the types of cloth include polyester, cotton and linen, nonwoven fabrics and polyester cotton blended”. However, the language of the claim makes it unclear whether the cloth includes all of the materials claimed or whether the cloth includes one of the materials claimed.
For the purpose of examination, the cloth will be considered to be one of polyester, cotton and linen, nonwoven fabrics and polyester cotton blended.
Claims 3-5 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, claim 1 above.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilman et al. (US 2007/0092167 A1, hereinafter Tilman) in view of Sakai et al. (US 6,964,520 B1, hereinafter Sakai) and Ito (US 2017/0190144 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tilman teaches a vacuum storage bag, comprising a bag body (10) equipped with an extraction valve (30) and a sealing zipper (20/21, 150), wherein the bag body is composed of an inner film layer (paragraph 41-inner sealant layer) and an outer film layer (paragraph 41-barrier-strength layer) made of cloth (polyester) (paragraphs 40-42, 57, 63, 65-67 and FIG. 1-31).
Tilman fails to teach the inner film layer and the outer film layer being laminated by glue. Sakai teaches a multi-layer bag having a plurality of film layers and further teaches that laminating film layers of multi-layer bags by gluing is common and well known in the prior art (column 13 lines 10-27).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Tilman by laminating the inner film layer and the outer film layer by gluing, as taught by Sakai, as glue laminating has been shown in the prior art to be a common and well-known method for forming a multi-layer film structure and thus, alternatively forming the bag body by glue laminating would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Tilman also fails to teach a blocking layer arranged on a surface of the inner film layer. Ito teaches a multi-layer bag equipped with a degassing structure (4), wherein the bag is composed of an inner film layer (2A) and an outer film layer (1) (paragraphs 34-55). Ito further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to arrange a blocking layer (2B) on a surface of the inner film layer in order to provide the bag with a layer of material with extremely low gas permeability so that the gas permeability of the bag is extremely low except in areas with the degassing structure (paragraph 40).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Tilman by arranging a blocking layer on a surface of the inner film layer, as taught by Ito, in order to impart extremely low gas permeability except in the area of the bag equipped with the extraction valve.
Regarding claim 2, Tilman as modified by Sakai and Ito teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the type of cloth is one of polyester, cotton and linen, non-woven fabrics and polyester cotton blend (Tilman: paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 3, Tilman as modified by Sakai and Ito teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the inner film layer is made of ordinary PE film, reinforced PE film, casting PE film or multi-layer co-extruded PE film (Tilman: paragraph 41-LDPE, LLDPE are ordinary PE films).
Regarding claim 4, Tilman as modified by Sakai and Ito teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the glue used for gluing is water-based composite glue, hot melt glue, polyurethane glue or oil-based glue (Sakai: column 13 lines 10-27).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tilman in view of Sakai and Ito, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LI (CN 113997665 A).
Regarding claim 5, Tilman as modified by Sakai and Ito teaches the bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the PVA blocking layer being a PVA emulsion. Li teaches a PVA barrier layer (2) and further teaches that PVA barrier layers are known in the prior at to be formed by a PVA emulsion (Translation: Abstract, “beneficial effects of the present invention are as follows:…the polyvinyl alcohol barrier layer is formed by coating polyvinyl alcohol emulsion”).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Tilman, as modified by Ito, by providing the PVA blocking layer as a PVA emulsion, as taught by Li, as providing the PVA as an emulsion has been shown in the prior art to be common and well-known and thus, alternatively providing the blocking layer as an emulsion would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734