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Claims 18 and 20-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 16, 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 13, the recitation “each said spacer device” should read –each of said at least one fluid-tight spacer device--.
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 1-13 and 15-17 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 outer layer” in line 6. The recitation is unclear as to if it refers to one, some or all of the “at least one fluid-tight outer layer” recited in claim 1, lines 2-3, or a different “outer layer” altogether. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the outer layer” in claim 1, line 6, should read –the at least one fluid-tight outer layer--. Similarly, claim 1 recites the limitation “the outer layer” in line 9, and is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the dust protection layer” in line 7. The recitation is unclear as to if it refers to one, some or all of the “at least one dust protection layer” recited in claim 1, line 2, or a different “dust protection layer” altogether. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the dust protection layer” in claim 1, line 6, should read –the at least one dust protection layer--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the spacer device” in line 9. The recitation is unclear as to if it refers to one, some or all of the “at least one fluid-tight spacer device” recited in claim 1, line 5, or a different “spacer device” altogether. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that both recitations “the spacer device” in claim 1, line 9, should read –the at least one fluid-tight spacer device--.
Similarly, claims 2 and 10 recite the limitation “the spacer device” and are rejected for the same reason as claim 1, above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the free cross-section of flow” in line 12. The recitation is unclear as to if it refers to one, some or all of the “at least one free cross-section of flow” recited in claim 1, line 6, or the “at least one free cross-section of flow” recited in claim 1, line 8, or a different “free cross-section of flow” altogether.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “wherein the free cross-section of flow between the at least one dust protection layer and each said spacer device” in lines 12-13; however, this clause appears to be incomplete, and the claim is unclear as to what is being claimed by this recitation. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “spacer device; and” in claim 1, line 13, should read –spacer device is made available by the at least one spacer element; and--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the through-opening” in line 14. The recitation is unclear as to if it refers to one, some or all of the “at least one through-opening” recited in claim 1, lines 9-10, or a different “through-opening” altogether. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “the through-opening” in claim 1, line 14, should read –the at least one through-opening--.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said ventilation opening” in lines 15-16. The recitation is unclear as to if it refers to one, some or all of the “at least one ventilation opening” recited in claim 1, line 3, or a different “ ventilation opening” altogether. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the recitation “said ventilation opening” in claim 1, lines 15-16, should read –said at least one ventilation opening--.
Claims 3-9, 11-13 and 15-17 are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 and 15-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art does not disclose or render obvious, as best understood, the ventilation device,
wherein the at least one fluid-tight spacer device comprises at least one spacer element, wherein the free cross-section of flow between the at least one dust protection layer and each said spacer device; and
wherein the through-opening and the at least one ventilation opening are provided at different heights in a state installed in a bag wall, wherein each said ventilation opening is arranged lower than the at least one through-opening; and
further in combination with the remainder limitations of the claim.
Claims 2-13 and 15-17 are allowable because they require all the limitations of an allowable base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s response filed April 6, 2026, has been fully considered.
With regards to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-17, Applicant’s amendments filed April 6, 2026, has addressed some of the prior indefiniteness issues; however, some indefiniteness issues remain to be addressed, see Office action, above.
With respect to the prior art rejection of claims 1, 3 and 6-17 over Meaker, Applicant argues that the spacer device (7) cannot be fluid-tight because of the perforations extending therethrough and the material being paper; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. U.S. Pat. No. 2593328, incorporated by reference in Meaker, discloses paper layers being treated to be water-proof.
However, the Examiner believes that the further amended claim 1, as best understood, appears to overcome the closest prior art, see statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, above.
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 Hailey K. Do whose direct telephone number is (571)270-3458 and direct fax number is (571)270-4458. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (8:00AM-5:00PM ET) and Friday (8:00AM-12:00PM 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 supervisors, Kenneth Rinehart at 571-272-4881, or Craig M. Schneider at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAILEY K. DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights