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
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,358,275).
Regarding claim 1: Cramer discloses a high-outflow one-way pressure relief valve for rapid evacuation of gas from a flexible package, the valve comprising:
a base layer having first and second sides, an area, a peripheral edge, and a vent entirely through the base layer (Fig. 6; via base layer 27);
a cover layer of a flexible film material overlying the base layer, the cover layer having a first side, a second side, an area, a peripheral edge (Fig. 6; via cover layer 57), and spaced apart portions of the first side secured with respect to the base layer second side providing an unsecured region (via the flow path region 51) of the cover layer therebetween which comprises about 25% to about 50% of the cover layer area, (via flow path 51);
a wetting fluid disposed in the gas flow path (via wetting fluid 56).
Cramer does not disclose the claimed flexible film of the cover layer having the material properties of a Young's Modulus of about 0.01 GPa to about 1.1 GPa, and a Resiliency Modulus of about 3 Jm-3 to about 20Jm-3. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s valve web material by having a Young's Modulus of about 0.01 GPa to about 1.1 GPa, and a Resiliency Modulus of about 3 Jm-3 to about 20Jm-3 , since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Cramer neither suggest the amended claim as filed on 10/06/2025 referring to a specific arrangements of the valve’s elements, for example having a strap with a first side secured to the base layer between the secured regions of the cover layer by the adhesive and a second side, the strap further having a peripheral edge ending at least at the peripheral edge of the cover layer, and a vent through the strap aligned with the base layer vent, the second side of the strap spacing the unsecured region of the cover layer from the base layer, a gas flow path formed by the base layer, the strap, and the core layer from the base layer vent, between the second side of the strap and the first side of the cover layer, and to at least a peripheral edge of the cover layer. However, it is noted that as the applied art of Cramer discloses the claimed elements, only in different arrangements and orientations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s valve elements to be arranged otherwise, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2: Cramer does not suggest the range of the valve’s open flow rate of at least about 4.7 Liters/minute (L/min.) at a pressure differential of about 0.5 psig or greater. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s valve by having a flow rate of at least bout 4.7 Liters/minute at a pressure differential of about 0.5 psig or greater, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3: Cramer does not suggest the range of the valve’s open flow rate of at least about 28 Liters/minute (L/min.) at a pressure differential of about 1 psig or greater. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s valve by having a flow rate of at least bout 28 Liters/minute at a pressure differential of about 1 psig or greater, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4: Cramer does not suggest the range of the valve’s opens flow rate of at least about 49 Liters/minute (L/min.) at a pressure differential of about 1 psig or greater. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s valve by having a flow rate of at least bout 49 Liters/minute at a pressure differential of about 1 psig or greater, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5: Cramer does not disclose the valve’s closes to block air flow into the valve when the pressure differential is about 0.010 psig to about 0.070 psig greater than ambient pressure. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s valve by having a flow close rate when the pressure is bout 0.010 psig to about 0.070 psig, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6: Cramer does not disclose that the cover layer has a typical value tensile strength at yield of about 850 PSI to 7500 PSI and an elongation before failure of about 140% to about 800%. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s cover layer to have a typical value tensile strength at yield of about 850 PSI to 7500 PSI and an elongation before failure of about 140% to about 800%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7: Cramer does not specifically suggest the flexible film material of the cover layer is selected from the group consisting of: (a) low-density polyethylene (LDPE) copolymerized with between about 2% by weight to about 25% by weight ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), (b) ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer (EMA) with a methyl acrylate content of about 15% by weight to about 25% by weight, and (c) biaxial oriented polypropylene (BOPP). However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s flexible film material of the cover layer to be selected from the group consisting of: (a) low-density polyethylene (LDPE) copolymerized with between about 2% by weight to about 25% by weight ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), (b) ethylene methyl acrylate copolymer (EMA) with a methyl acrylate content of about 15% by weight to about 25% by weight, and (c) biaxial oriented polypropylene (BOPP), 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. And/or that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8: Cramer doses not disclose that the LDPE is copolymerized with between about 2% by weight to about 10% by weight EVA. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s LDPE to be copolymerized with between about 2% by weight to about 10% by weight EVA, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. And/or that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9: Cramer does not disclose that the EMA is copolymerized with about 21% by weight to about 22% by weight methyl acrylate. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s EMA to be copolymerized with about 21% by weight to about 22% by weight methyl acrylate, 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 as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. And/or that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10: Cramer does not disclose that the cover layer has a thickness dimension between the first and second sides of about 0.0005 inch to about 0.010 inch. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s cover layer to have a thickness dimension between the first and second sides of about 0.0005 inch to about 0.010, since it has held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11: Cramer further including an adhesive on the first side of the base layer for securing the valve to a release liner and to the package (Figs. 3-7; via adhesive 29/129).
Regarding claim 12: further comprising a weld securing the spaced apart regions of the cover layer to the base layer (Fig. 6; via attachment regions 73/75 using “ultra sonic welding”).
Regarding claim 13: further comprising:
an adhesive securing the spaced apart regions of the cover layer to the base layer (via adhesive 29/129 and/or adhesive layer 67/167).
Regarding claim 14: wherein the adhesives are selected from the group consisting of pressure-sensitive adhesives (PSAs), heat-activated adhesives, ultraviolet cured adhesives, water-based adhesives, solvent-based adhesives, and rubber- based adhesives (via “Suitable adhesives 29, 129 may include pressure sensitive and heat-activated adhesives”).
Regarding claim 15: wherein the base layer and the strap each define at least one port therethrough aligned with the other port for receiving the wetting fluid, see for example (Figs. 3-4; via “a wetting fluid may be disposed between the plural-part dry strap and the base”; also, the shown opening space between them form “port”). It is noted that what is the claimed “port” used for “receiving wetting fluid” is an intended use of the claimed “port” limitations, not given much patentable weight.
Regarding claim 16: Cramer does not disclose the exact strap thickness with a dimension of about 0.0005 inch to about 0.002 inch. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s strap thickness to be about 0.0005 inch to about 0.002 inch, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17: the base layer and the strap are of a material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyester (claim 9; via “the base, the plural-part dry strap…selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, and polyester”).
Regarding claim 18: Cramer discloses that the wetting fluid is selected from the group consisting of silicone oil, graphite-impregnated oil, food grade oil, and food grade silicone grease (“The wetting fluid, such as a silicone oil, a graphite impregnated oil, or a food grade oil”).
Cramer not suggesting the exact present amount of the wetting fluid to be about 1.5 pL to about 2.3 pL However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified Cramer’s wetting fluid to be applied in the amount of about 1.5 pL to about 2.3 pL, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19: further comprising a particulate filter associated with the gas flow path (via filter vent 37b & 37c).
Regarding claim 20: wherein the filter comprises a filter element secured to the first side of the base layer (Fig. 8c; via 37c secured to the base 27c).
Regarding claim 21: wherein the filter comprises a plurality of apertures in the base layer and the apertures define the vent (via 37b/37c; “may be provided with a vent” while “also functions as a filter element”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely sole on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In respect to applicants’ arguments made on 10/06/2025 and previously on the conducted interview in 09/30/2025 regarding a specific arrangement of the valve’s elements to have and allow big amount of air to be flown out between the lower surface of the strap and upper surface of the bottom layer by adhering the lower surface of the strap to the base layer while being free from any application of adhesive on the top surface. It is noted that, since the applied art of Cramer ‘275 shows the claimed elements, only in different arrangements, it would be only a matter of re-arranging of parts to come up with the claimed specific orientations (matter of design choice). See for example (U.S. Pub. 2004/0050437; Figs. 5 & 7), showing similar claimed valve’s arrangements.
In respect to having specific arrangements to allow larger amount of air gets flown out, that would be an intended use of the claimed valve’s elements, which not given much patentable weight in the structural claims.
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 SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731