DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous 112 rejections and claim objections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1, 3 and 7-11 have been amended. Claims 13-24 have been cancelled. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
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
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 1-3, 5-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannankeril et al. (US 2021/0060889 A1, hereinafter Kannankeril).
Regarding claim 1, Kannankeril teaches an express delivery bag, comprising:
an airbag film layer (44a, 44b) having at least one airbag (114) and a main flow runner (36/46), wherein the main flow runner communicates with the at least one airbag, and the main flow runner is adapted to allow an air to be injected into the at least one airbag, changing the at least one airbag from a flat state to an inflated state (paragraph 23);
a plastic bag film layer (48) wrapping the airbag film layer within by folding; and
a plurality of perforation lines (64) running through the plastic bag film layer and the airbag film layer wrapped in the plastic bag film layer, wherein a separable structural configuration (12) is defined between two neighboring ones of the plurality of perforation lines; and
wherein the main flow runner is configured such that it is capable of allowing a nozzle of an inflation device to enter for introducing the air, and is configured such that it is capable of being cut by a cutting device after the nozzle passes through, thereby forming an opening that allows the nozzle to continue entering the main flow runner (paragraphs 22-47 and FIG. 1-4D, 10A-11).
Regarding the main flow runner being configured to allow a nozzle of an inflation device to enter for introducing the air and being configured to be cut by a cutting device after the nozzle passes through, thereby forming an opening that allows the nozzle to continue entering the main flow runner, it has been held that method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Marosi, 710 F2.d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In this case, the express delivery bag in the flat state of Kannankeril has the structure necessary to function as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the airbag film layer further comprises at least one secondary flow runner (42) communicating the main flow runner and the at least one airbag; wherein the air injected through the main flow runner is injected into the at least one airbag through the at least one secondary flow runner (paragraphs 23, 36 and FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 2 above, wherein the express delivery bag in the flat state is configured such that the at least one secondary flow runner is capable of and adapted to be sealed by a heat sealing device which prevents the air injected into the at least one airbag from escaping through the at least one secondary flow runner (paragraphs 22-47).
Further, it has been held that method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Marosi, 710 F2.d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Additionally, the claims are directed toward the express delivery bag in the flat state, not the inflated state. Accordingly, the express delivery bag in the flat state of Kannankeril has the structure necessary to be inflated to the inflated state as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the plastic bag film layer has a first top edge and a second top edge corresponding to each other (FIG. 10A); the airbag film layer has a third top edge and a fourth top edge corresponding to each other (FIG. 10B); the plastic bag film layer and the airbag film layer are folded together along a folding line, whereby the plastic bag film layer forms an outer bag, while the airbag film layer forms an inner bag (FIG. 4A-4D, 10D); the inner bag has a containing space formed therein, and the inner bag is in the outer bag (FIG. 4A-4D); once the plastic bag film layer and the airbag film layer are folded together along the folding line, the second top edge is located between the first top edge and the folding line, while the fourth top edge is located between the third top edge and the folding line (paragraphs 43, 44 and FIG. 4A-4D, 10A-10D).
Regarding claim 6, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 5 above, wherein, once the plastic bag film layer and the airbag film layer are folded together along the folding line, the third top edge is located between the first top edge and the second top edge (FIG. 4A-4D, 10E), and the plurality of perforation lines connect the first top edge and the folding line (paragraphs 43, 44 and FIG. 10E).
Regarding claim 7, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 5 above, wherein once the plastic bag film layer and the airbag film layer are folded together along the folding line, the main flow runner is located between the third top edge and the folding line (FIG. 4A-4D, 10); the express delivery bag further comprises a plurality of edge-sealing structures (62), wherein each of the plurality of edge-sealing structures is connected to, or is next to, one of the plurality of perforation lines (paragraphs 26, 29, 44 and FIG. 2, 3, 10E).
Regarding claim 8, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 7 above, wherein at least one of the plurality of edge-sealing structures is ribbon-shaped (FIG. 2, 3); a top edge of the ribbon-shaped edge-sealing structure is adjacent to a bottom edge of the main flow runner, or is located between the bottom edge and a top edge of the main flow runner (FIG. 3, 10E).
Regarding claim 9, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 7 above, wherein the plurality of edge-sealing structures comprises a left-edge sealing structure, a right-edge sealing structure, and an up-edge sealing structure (FIG. 3, 10E), wherein the left-edge sealing structure is located at a side of a corresponding one of the plurality of perforation lines, the right-edge sealing structure is located at another side of a corresponding one of the plurality of perforation lines and the up-edge sealing structure is located between the left-edge sealing structure and the right-edge sealing structure (FIG. 3, 10E); the up-edge sealing structure is adjacent to a bottom edge of the main flow runner, or is located between the bottom edge and a top edge of the main flow runner (FIG. 3, 10E).
Regarding claim 10, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 7 above, wherein the airbag film layer further comprises a film layer perforation line (64) running through the airbag film layer (FIG. 10E); the film layer perforation line is adjacent to one of the edge-sealing structures, and connect the third top edge and the fourth top edge (FIG. 10E).
Regarding claim 12, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the plastic bag film layer has a first surface facing the airbag film layer; the first surface has a first binding region (94) thereon; the airbag film layer has a second surface facing the plastic bag film layer; the second surface has a second binding region (94) thereon; an area of the first binding region is smaller than an area of the first surface of the plastic bag film layer, and an area of the second binding region is smaller than an area of the second surface of the airbag film layer (paragraph 33 and FIG. 4D).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannankeril, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of O’Dowd et al. (US 2019/0276216 A1, hereinafter O’Dowd).
Regarding claim 4, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 2 above, but fails to teach at least one secondary non-return valve, which is provided at the at least one secondary flow runner, and is adapted to prevent the air injected into the at least one airbag from escaping through the at least one secondary flow runner.
O’Dowd teaches an analogous express delivery bag having at least one air bag (102’/302), a main flow runner (106’/306) and at least one secondary flow runner (Fig. 13A) communicating the main flow runner and the at least one air bag. O’Dowd further teaches that it is known and desirable to provide a one-way valve (320) at each of the at least one secondary flow runners such that the one-way valves are between each of the at least one air bags and the main flow runner in order to permit gas to flow from the main flow runner into the at least one air bag and restrict gas from flowing out of the at least one air bag into the main flow runner (paragraphs 53, 58 and Fig. 13A).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Kannankeril by providing each of the at least one secondary flow runners with at least one secondary non-return valve, as taught by O’Dowd, in order to permit gas to flow from the main flow runner into the at least one air bag and restrict gas from flowing out of the at least one air bag into the main flow runner.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannankeril, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wehrmann (WO 2020/247296).
Regarding claim 11, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the airbag film layer is folded when the plastic bag film layer is folded (FIG. 10D) but fails to teach an identity authentication component adapted to provide an identity information.
Wehrmann teaches an analogous express delivery bag including an airbag film layer and a plastic bag film layer and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the bag with an identity authentication component in order to provide the bag with information readable by a scanner (paragraph 111).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Kannankeril by additionally providing the bag with an identity authentication component, as taught by Wehrmann, between the folded airbag film layer, on the airbag film layer, on the plastic bag film layer, or between the airbag film layer and the plastic bag film layer, in order to provide the bag with information readable by a scanner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Kannankeril fails to teach, disclose or suggest the main flow runner being configured to allow a nozzle of an inflation device to enter for introducing the air, and is configured to be cut by a cutting device after the nozzle passes through, thereby forming an opening that allows the nozzle to continue entering the main flow runner, is not persuasive.
The argued limitation does not define any structure that differentiates the bag of Kannankeril from the bag claimed. Applicant argues that in contrast to Kannankeril, the main flow runner of the present invention is pre-sealed within the film layers and is pierced by a cutting device during inflation to open the air supply path. However, the argued structure is not claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the main flow runner being pre-sealed and configured to be pierced during inflation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The language “the main flow runner… is configured to be cut by a cutting device” is not sufficient to define a pre-sealed main flow runner.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights