DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 07/17/2024. Claim(s) 1–12 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1–2, 4–6, & 11–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2024/0017904 to Watson.
With regard to claims 1 & 11, Watson discloses a method, comprising: providing a sheet (101) of polyvinyl alcohol (Fig. 7; ¶¶ 0046–0047, 0058); folding the sheet (101) of polyvinyl alcohol upon itself to form a folded structure having a first layer of the sheet in facing relationship with a second layer of the sheet (Fig. 7; ¶¶ 0005, 0059–0060); attaching the first and second layers of the sheet of polyvinyl alcohol together along a first open edge (Fig. 7; ¶¶ 0005, 0059–0060); attaching the first and second layers of the sheet of polyvinyl alcohol together along a second open edge (Fig. 7; ¶¶ 0005, 0059–0060); placing an object (112) to be dehydrated into a container (130) formed by the first and second layers of polyvinyl alcohol being folded or attached together (Fig. 7; ¶¶ 0005, 0051, 0059–0060, 0078); and attaching the first and second layers of the sheet of polyvinyl alcohol together along a third open edge (Fig. 7; ¶ 0078).
With regard to claims 2 & 12, Watson further discloses the first and second layers are attached together along the first and second open edges by heat sealing the first and second layers together (Fig. 7; ¶ 0062).
With regard to claim 4, Watson further discloses the first and second layers are attached together along the first and second open edges by adhesives (¶¶ 0050, 0060).
With regard to claim 5, Watson further discloses the sheet (101) of polyvinyl alcohol is rectangular and the first and second open edges are on opposite sides of the rectangular sheet (Fig. 7; top and bottom edges).
With regard to claim 6, Watson further discloses the object (112) to be dehydrated is a plant or vegetation material (¶¶ 0005, 0051).
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 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of US 2022/0305738 to Ramsey.
Watson fails to disclose the first and second layers are attached together along the first and second open edges by laser sealing the first and second layers. Ramsey teaches the first and second layers are attached together along the first and second open edges by laser sealing the first and second layers (claims 9 & 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the packaging of Watson with the laser sealing of Ramsey because such a combination would have had the added benefit of one of a limited number of alternative means for sealing to sheets together.
Claims 7 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson in view of Official Notice.
With regard to claim 7, Watson fails to disclose the object to be dehydrated is electronic equipment. It is old and well-known in the art for electronics components to be stored in packages with a desiccant material to prevent corrosion. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the storage bag of Watson with electronic storage known in the prior art because such a combination would have had the added benefit of providing an additional type of material to be stored using the storage bag.
With regard to claim 9, Watson fails to disclose the method is carried out within a freezer or refrigerated environment. It is old and well-known in the art for materials, particularly food, to be processed and packaged in freezer or refrigerated environments. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the packaging of Watson with the freezer or refrigerated environment packaging known to the prior art because such a combination would have had the added benefit of keeping food items cold while being packaged.
Claims 8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson.
With regard to claim 8, Watson fails to disclose the polyvinyl alcohol sheet is approximately 0.001 inch to ¼ inch thick. Sheet thickness is a known results-effective variable because the thicker the sheet, the more durable it is, but the more expensive it costs to make. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the polyvinyl alcohol sheet be approximately 0.001 inch to ¼ inch thick, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
With regard to claim 10, Watson fails to disclose the method is carried out at a temperature range from -6 F to 72 F. Temperature range is a known results-effective variable because the colder the temperature, the less pliable the sheeting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to carry out the method at a temperature range from -6 F to 72 F, 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 M-F.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
September 29, 2026
