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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 9, “the perforation lines” should be --the plurality of perforation lines--.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, “the edge-sealing structures” should be --the plurality of edge-sealing structures--,
In line 5, “the perforation lines” should be --the plurality of perforation lines--.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “the edge-sealing structures” should be --the plurality of edge-sealing structures--.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “the edge-sealing structures” should be --the plurality of edge-sealing structures--,
In lines 3-4, “one of the corresponding perforation lines” should be --a corresponding one of the plurality of perforation lines--,
In line 5, “one of the corresponding perforation lines” should be --a corresponding one of the plurality of perforation lines--.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, “the edge-sealing structures” should be --the plurality of edge-sealing structures--.
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 3, 9, 11, 17 and 19-24 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 3 recites the product-by-process limitations “wherein the air enters the main flow runner is emitted from a nozzle of an inflation device; the main flow runner is cut open by a cutting device after the nozzle passing by; the at least one secondary flow runner is 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”. The product-by-process limitations essentially convert the express delivery bag from the flat state to the inflated state. However, the product-by-process limitations create confusion as it is not clear whether the express delivery bag is being claimed in the flat state or in the inflated state. It is also not clear what structure the product by process limitations impart on the express delivery bag in the flat state.
For the purpose of examination, the express delivery bag will be considered to be defined in the flat state, whereby the express delivery bag in the flat state is configured such that air is capable of entering the main flow runner from a nozzle of an inflation device, such the main flow runner is capable of being cut open by a cutting device after the nozzle passes by, and 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “at least one of the edge-sealing structures comprises a left-edge sealing structure, a right-edge sealing structure, and an up-edge sealing structure… the up-edge sealing structure is located between the left-edge sealing structure and the right-edge sealing structure”. However, it is not clear whether the claim requires on at least one of the left-edge sealing structure, the right-edge sealing structure, and the up-edge sealing structure or whether the claim requires all of the left-edge sealing structure, the right-edge sealing structure, and the up-edge sealing structure. If the claim only requires one (i.e., at least one) of the left-edge sealing structure, the right-edge sealing structure, and the up-edge sealing structure, then the structure of the up-edge sealing structure is not clear as it is required to be located between the left-edge sealing structure and the right-edge sealing structure.
For the purpose of examination, the plurality of edge-sealing structure will be considered to comprise a left-edge sealing structure, a right-edge sealing structure, and an up-edge sealing structure
Claims 11, 17 and 21 recite the language “optionally” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of examination, the express delivery bag and the structural configuration will be considered to comprise an identity authentication component.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the containing space is adapted to accommodate an object; the structural configuration further comprises an identity authentication component provided on the object”. However, the claims are directed toward the structural configuration only, not the object and not the structural configuration in combination with the object. The structural configuration is merely adapted to accommodate an object (i.e., configured such that it is capable of accommodating an object). Accordingly, the recited structural relationship between the object and the identity authentication component renders the claim indefinite since the object is not part of the claimed structural configuration.
For the purpose of examination, the containing space will be considered to be adapted to accommodate an object. The structure of the object, including the identity authentication component, will not be given any weight in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the language “optionally” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 20 also recites the limitation “the object is optionally accommodated between the outer bag and the inner bag. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite for the same reasons provided above with respect to claim 19 above as the claims are directed toward the structural configuration only, not the object and not the structural configuration in combination with the object.
For the purpose of examination, a space between the outer bag and the inner bag will be considered to be capable of accommodating the object.
Claims 22-24 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, independent claim 21.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 18 depends from claim 18 and therefore is of improper dependent form for failing to contain reference to a claim previously set forth. For the purpose of examination, claim 18 will be considered to depend from claim 13. ‘
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12, 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 perforation lines (paragraphs 22-47 and FIG. 1-4D, 10A-11).
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 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).
Regarding claim 13, Kannankeril teaches a structural configuration of an express delivery bag, comprising:
a plastic bag film layer (48) having a first lateral edge and a second lateral edge corresponding to each other (FIG. 3, 10A-10E); and
an airbag film layer (44a, 44b) having a third lateral edge and a fourth lateral edge corresponding to each other (FIG. 3, 10A-10E), wherein the airbag film layer has at least an airbag (114) and a main flow runner (36); the main flow runner communicates with the at least one airbag, and is adapted to allow an air to enter the at least one airbag, changing the at least one airbag from a flat state to an inflated state;
wherein, the plastic bag film layer and the airbag film layer are folded together along a folding line (34b/78), such that the first lateral edge overlaps the third lateral edge to form a first sealing region (62), and the second lateral edge overlaps the fourth lateral edge to form a second sealing region (62); the plastic bag film layer and the airbag film layer are sealed through the first sealing region and the second sealing region, and the plastic bag film layer forms an outer bag (FIG. 4A-4D), while the airbag film layer forms an inner bag (FIG, 4A-4D); the inner bag has a containing space (86) formed therein, and the inner bag is provided in the outer bag (FIG. 4A-4D) (paragraphs 22-47 and FIG. 1-4D, 10A-11).
Regarding claim 18, Kannankeril teaches the structural configuration of claim 13 above (see 112(d) rejection 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 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 3, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannankeril, as applied to claims 2 and 13 above.
Regarding claim 3, Kannankeril teaches the bag of claim 2 above, wherein the express delivery bag is configured in the flat state such that air is capable of entering the main flow runner from a nozzle of an inflation device, such the main flow runner is capable of being cut open by a cutting device after the nozzle passes by, and 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). See 112(b) rejection above.
Additionally, 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 be inflated to the inflated state as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Kannankeril teaches the structural configuration of claim 13 above, wherein the containing space is adapted to accommodate an object, wherein the object is capable of comprising an identity authentication component adapted to provide an identity information (paragraph 32). It is noted that the object is not part of the claimed structural configuration and therefore, the structure of the object is not given any weight in the claim. See 112(b) rejection above.
Regarding claim 20, Kannankeril teaches the structural configuration of claim 19 above, wherein a space between the outer bag and the inner bag is capable of accommodating the object (paragraphs 32, 33 and FIG. 4A).
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.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannankeril, as applied to claims 1 and 13 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 an identity authentication component, as taught by Wehrmann, in order to provide the bag with information readable by a scanner.
Regarding claim 17, Kannankeril teaches the structural configuration of claim 13 above, 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 an identity authentication component, as taught by Wehrmann, in order to provide the bag with information readable by a scanner.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannankeril, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Koyanagi (US 2005/0013974 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kannankeril teaches the structural configuration of claim 13 above, wherein the first sealing region (62) comprises a first top-edge sealing structure and a first lateral-edge sealing structure, the first top-edge sealing structure is adjacent to a bottom edge of the main flow runner (FIG. 3), an end of the first lateral-edge sealing structure is connected to the first top-edge sealing structure, or is located between the bottom edge and a top edge of the main flow runner, whereby to form an air inlet at an end of the main flow runner (FIG. 3), the second sealing (62) region comprises a second top-edge sealing structure and a second lateral-edge sealing structure, and the second top-edge sealing structure is adjacent to the bottom edge of the main flow runner (FIG. 3) but fails to teach an end of the second lateral-edge sealing structure being connected to the top edge of the main flow runner such that one of a top edge of the airbag film layer and a top edge of the plastic bag film layer seals another end of the main flow runner and also fails to teach a main non-return valve provided at the air inlet, wherein the main non-return valve is adapted to prevent the air injected into the at least one airbag from escaping through the air inlet.
Koyanagi teaches an analogous airbag film layer having at least an air bag (2) and a main flow runner (5). Koyanagi further teaches a well-known main flow runner configuration that is sealed (4) along a top of the main flow runner and along one of a right side or a left side of the main flow runner with the other of the right side or left side of the main flow runner unsealed and open to define an air inlet (5a) having a main non-return valve adapted to prevent the air injected into the at least one airbag from escaping through the air inlet (paragraphs 35-68 and FIG. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the main flow runner of Kannankeril by configuring an end of the second lateral-edge sealing structure to be connected to the top edge of the main flow runner such that one of a top edge of the airbag film layer and a top edge of the plastic bag film layer seals another end of the main flow runner, as taught by Koyanagi, as the substitution of one known main flow runner configuration for an alternative main flow runner configuration to achieve the equivalent result of defining a main flow runner and air inlet would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in art. It would have been further obvious to provide a main non-return valve at the air inlet, as taught by Koyanagi, in order to permit gas to flow into the at least one air bag and restrict gas from flowing out of the air inlet.
Regarding claim 16, Kannankeril teaches the structural configuration of claim 13 above, wherein the first sealing region (62) comprises a first top-edge sealing structure and a first lateral-edge sealing structure, the first top-edge sealing structure is adjacent to a bottom edge of the main flow runner (FIG. 3), an end of the first lateral-edge sealing structure is connected to the first top-edge sealing structure, or is located between the bottom edge and a top edge of the main flow runner, forming an air inlet at an end of the main flow runner (FIG. 3), the second sealing (62) region comprises a second top-edge sealing structure and a second lateral-edge sealing structure, the second top-edge sealing structure is adjacent to the bottom edge of the main flow runner (FIG. 3), and 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 (FIG. 3), the air injected through the main flow runner is injected into the at least one airbag through the at least one secondary flow runner (FIG. 3) but fails to teach an end of the second lateral-edge sealing structure being connected to the top edge of the main flow runner such that one of a top edge of the airbag film layer and a top edge of the plastic bag film layer seals another end of the main flow runner and also fails to teach at least one secondary non-return valve provided at the at least one secondary flow runner, the at least one secondary non-return valve adapted to prevent the air injected into the at least one airbag from escaping through the at least one secondary flow runner.
Koyanagi teaches an analogous airbag film layer having at least an air bag (2), a main flow runner (5) and at least one secondary flow runner (portion above 2) communicating the main flow runner and the at least one air bag. Koyanagi further teaches a well-known main flow runner configuration that is sealed (4) along a top of the main flow runner and along one of a right side or a left side of the main flow runner with the other of the right side or left side of the main flow runner unsealed and open to define an air inlet (5a) (paragraphs 35-68 and FIG. 1). Koyanagi also teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide at least one secondary non-return valve at the at least one secondary flow runner, wherein the at least one secondary non-return valve is adapted to prevent the air injected into the at least one airbag from escaping through the at least one secondary flow runner (paragraph 51 and FIG. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the main flow runner of Kannankeril by configuring an end of the second lateral-edge sealing structure to be connected to the top edge of the main flow runner such that one of a top edge of the airbag film layer and a top edge of the plastic bag film layer seals another end of the main flow runner, as taught by Koyanagi, as the substitution of one known main flow runner configuration for an alternative main flow runner configuration to achieve the equivalent result of defining a main flow runner and air inlet would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in art. It would have been further obvious to provide at least one secondary non-return valve at the at least one secondary flow runner, as taught by Koyanagi, in order to permit gas to flow into the at least one air bag and restrict gas from flowing out of the at least one secondary flow runner.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannankeril, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of O’Dowd and Koyanagi.
Regarding claim 15, Kannankeril teaches the structural configuration of claim 13 above, wherein the first sealing region (62) comprises a first top-edge sealing structure and a first lateral-edge sealing structure, wherein the first top-edge sealing structure is adjacent to a bottom edge of the main flow runner (FIG. 3), wherein the second sealing region (62) comprises a second top-edge sealing structure and a second lateral-edge sealing structure, and wherein the second top-edge sealing structure is adjacent to the bottom edge of the main flow runner (FIG. 3) but fails to teach an end of the first lateral-edge sealing structure being connected to a top edge of the main flow runner whereby one of a top edge of the airbag film layer and a top edge of the plastic bag film layer seals an end of the main flow runner, an end of the second lateral-edge sealing structure being connected to the top edge of the main flow runner whereby one of the top edge of the airbag film layer and the top edge of the plastic bag film layer seals another end of the main flow runner, the airbag film layer further comprising an air inlet, which communicates with the main flow runner and is located between the end and the another end of the main flow runner, and a main non-return valve, which is provided at the air inlet, and is adapted to prevent the air injected into the at least one airbag from escaping through the air inlet.
O’Dowd teaches an analogous airbag film layer having at least an air bag (102/302) and a main flow runner (106’/306). O’Dowd further teaches a well-known main flow runner configuration that is sealed along both a right side and a left side of the main flow runner and has an air inlet (360) which communicates with the main flow runner and is located between the sealed right side and the seal left side of the main flow runner (paragraphs 57, 58 and Fig. 13A).
Koyanagi also teaches an analogous airbag film layer having at least an air bag (2), a main flow runner (5) and an air inlet (5a). Koyanagi further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide a main non-return valve at the air inlet adapted to prevent the air injected into the at least one airbag from escaping through the air inlet (paragraph 52).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the main flow runner of Kannankeril by configuring an end of the first lateral-edge sealing structure to be connected to a top edge of the main flow runner whereby one of a top edge of the airbag film layer and a top edge of the plastic bag film layer seals an end of the main flow runner and an end of the second lateral-edge sealing structure to be connected to the top edge of the main flow runner whereby one of the top edge of the airbag film layer and the top edge of the plastic bag film layer seals another end of the main flow runner, and by configuring the airbag film layer with an air inlet, which communicates with the main flow runner and is located between the end and the another end of the main flow runner, as taught by O’Dowd, as the substitution of one known main flow runner configuration for an alternative main flow runner configuration to achieve the equivalent result of defining a main flow runner and air inlet would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in art. It would have been further obvious to additionally provide a main non-return valve at the air inlet, as taught by Koyanagi, in order to permit gas to flow into the at least one air bag and restrict gas from flowing out of the air inlet.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannankeril in view of Wehrmann.
Regarding claim 21, Kannankeril teaches a structural configuration, comprising:
a plastic bag film layer (48) forming an outer bag (FIG. 4A-4D); and
a buffer layer (38, 44a, 44b) forming an inner bag, wherein the inner bag is provided in the outer bag and has a containing space (86) adapted to accommodate an object (FIG. 4A-4D) (paragraphs 22-47 and FIG. 1-4D, 10A-11).
Kannankeril 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 11).
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 an identity authentication component, as taught by Wehrmann, in order to provide the bag with information readable by a scanner.
Regarding claim 22, Kannankeril as modified by Wehrmann teaches the structural configuration of claim 21 above, wherein the buffer layer is an airbag film layer (44a, 44b) having at least one airbag (114) and a main flow runner (36/46), 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).
Regarding claim 23, Kannankeril as modified by Wehrmann teaches the structural configuration of claim 21 above, wherein the buffer layer is a bubble bag layer (FIG. 4a-4D).
Regarding claim 24, Kannankeril as modified by Wehrmann teaches the structural configuration of claim 21 above, wherein at least a part of the outer bag binds (94) with at least a part of the inner bag (paragraph 33).
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