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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species II (Figs. 1b and 3a-c) and claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 19, and 24, in the reply filed on 06-29-2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 24 depends from claim 22 which was not identified by the applicant. Claim 22 is generic as identified by the examiner in the restriction requirement mailed 11-04-2025, and thus claim 22 is also encompassed by the elected species.
Claims 2, 6-11, 15-18, 20, 21, 23, and 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22, line 1, change “for” to --of-- and after “remains” insert --of a corpse--;
Claim 22, line 6, change “an” to --the--; and
Claim 24, line 2, change “an” to --the--.
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 14, 19, 22, and 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.
In claim 14, lines 1-2, the phrase “the external tag comprises only the insoluble component” implies the external tag is the same element of the invention as the insoluble component which contradicts claim 12 which implies the external tag is a distinct element of the invention from the insoluble component.
Claim 19 contains the trademark/trade name Ziploc. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a press-to-close zipper and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
In claim 22, last line, the phrase “accordingly” is undefined and unclear.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as it depends from a rejected claim.
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 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fenton et al. (US#2014/0366342).
Regarding claim 1, Fenton discloses a sealable body bag 10 comprising: a soluble (e.g. soluble via alkaline hydrolysis) component 12 configured to be impermeable to body fluids ([0036]); a leak-resistant sealing component (closure) configured to at least indirectly seal the soluble component ([0039]-[0040]); and a permeable insoluble (e.g. insoluble via water) component 14 ([0034]).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the leak-resistant sealing component can comprise a zipper ([0040]).
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sullivan (US#2010/0213292).
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Sullivan discloses a sealable body bag comprising: a soluble component 62 (Fig. 5, [0155]) configured to be impermeable to body fluids via its lining 74 ([0158]); a leak-resistant sealing component 72 (zipper) configured to seal the soluble component ([0155]); and a permeable insoluble component 42 (Fig. 2, [0149]).
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 3-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenton et al. (US#2014/0366342) in view of WO 2011/046509 (hereinafter “WO509”).
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 12, Fenton fails to disclose an insoluble identification tag configured to identify the sealable body bag. However, as evidenced by WO509, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see page 12, lines 5-9, and Fig. 8, wherein the body bag includes an external pouch/tag 54 attached to an outer surface thereof for receiving an electronic identification device, namely an insoluble (e.g. insoluble via water) RFID tag. Therefore, as evidenced by WO509, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body bag of Fenton by including an external pouch/tag attached to an outer surface thereof for receiving an insoluble RFID tag configured to identify the body bag. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of an external pouch/tag attached to an outer surface of the body bag for receiving an insoluble (e.g. insoluble via water) RFID tag to identify the sealable body bag would provide accurate tracking and identification of the corpse.
Regarding claim 4, WO509 teaches the insoluble identification tag comprises an identification tag of an insoluble (e.g. insoluble via water) material as at least the inherent plastic/metal material of the RFID tag is insoluble in water.
Regarding claim 13, WO509 teaches wherein the external tag 54 is in the form of a “flap” by definition of a pouch.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Fenton as discussed above with respect to claim 1 discloses a body bag including a permeable insoluble (e.g. insoluble via water) component 14 ([0034]). WO509 as discussed above with respect to claim 1, teaches it is known to include an external tag (pouch 54) on an outer surface of a body bag for receiving a RFID tag. Therefore, Fenton as modified by WO509 as discussed above with respect to claims 3, 5, and 12, discloses an external tag that can be attached to/on an outer surface of the insoluble component. Again, the inclusion of an external tag on the insoluble component for receiving the RFID tag would allow for accurate tracking and identification of the corpse.
Claims 3-5, 12, 13, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sullivan (US#2010/0213292) in view of WO509.
Regarding claims 3, 5, and 12, Sullivan fails to disclose an insoluble identification tag configured to identify the sealable body bag. However, as evidenced by WO509, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see page 12, lines 5-9, and Fig. 8, wherein the body bag includes an external pouch/tag 54 attached to an outer surface thereof for receiving an electronic identification device, namely an insoluble (e.g. insoluble via water) RFID tag. Therefore, as evidenced by WO509, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body bag of Sullivan by including an external pouch/tag attached to an outer surface thereof for receiving an insoluble RFID tag configured to identify the body bag. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of an external pouch/tag attached to an outer surface of the body bag for receiving an insoluble (e.g. insoluble via water) RFID tag to identify the sealable body bag would provide accurate tracking and identification of the corpse.
Regarding claim 4, WO509 teaches the insoluble identification tag comprises an identification tag of an insoluble (e.g. insoluble via water) material as at least the inherent plastic/metal material of the RFID tag is insoluble in water.
Regarding claim 13, WO509 teaches wherein the external tag 54 is in the form of a “flap” by definition of a pouch.
Regarding claim 22, Sullivan discloses a method for processing remains during an alkaline hydrolysis process (abstract), the method comprising: placing a body bag 62,42 into an alkaline hydrolysis vessel 12, the body bag including a soluble component 62 ([0155], Fig. 5) configured to be impermeable to body fluids via a liner portion 74 thereof ([0157]-[0158]), a permeable insoluble component 42 ([0142], Fig. 2), and a corpse (cadaver) within the permeable insoluble component 42 as the corpse is placed within the soluble component 62 , which in turn is placed within the permeable insoluble component 42; after an alkaline hydrolysis process, removing the permeable insoluble component 42 from the hydrolysis vessel ([0193]), the permeable insoluble component containing the remains of the corpse ([0186]); and processing the remains accordingly.
Regarding claim 22, Sullivan fails to disclose an insoluble identification tag and identifying the remains using the insoluble identification tag. However, as evidenced by WO509, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see page 12, lines 5-9, and Fig. 8, wherein the body bag includes an external pouch/tag 54 attached to an outer surface thereof for receiving an electronic identification device, namely an insoluble (e.g. insoluble via water) RFID tag. Therefore, as evidenced by WO509, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body bag of Sullivan by including an insoluble RFID tag configured to identify the remains. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of an insoluble (e.g. insoluble via water) RFID tag to identify the remains would provide accurate tracking and identification of the corpse.
Further, regarding claim 22, although Sullivan fails to disclose placing a plurality of body bags in the alkaline hydrolysis vessel, it would have been an obvious design consideration to use a plurality of body bags for increased processing capacity as duplicating the components of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 24, Sullivan as modified by WO059 requires the insoluble identification tag to be added to the soluble component 62, which is in turn added into the insoluble component 42, prior to placing the body bag into the alkaline hydrolysis vessel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
It is noted Wilson et al. (US#2013/0178687) discloses an alkaline hydrolysis vessel 12 receiving insoluble component 14 therein for processing of a corpse.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677
Prosecution Insights