DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response and amendments of 5 January 2026.
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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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) 26-28, 30-32, 34-35, 38-42, 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aguilar Monforte (US 2020/0024067 A1) hereinafter referred to as Monforte ‘067.
Regarding claim 26, Monforte ‘067 discloses a device (1, figs. 1-2 and 11; paragraph 0087) for the packaging of products (paragraphs 0036, 0040, 0074, 0078)w, comprising:
a container (1; alternatively 4) made of a material that is flexible and substantially impermeable to gases and water vapor (Abstract, 0038, 0078; paragraph 0085 – “hermetically sealed”), which forms inside the container an accommodation compartment (hollow cube area inside container depicted in fig. 1) for accommodating products (paragraph 0078) and is provided with at least one passage opening (2a and/or 2b) for the introduction and/or evacuation of products into/from said accommodation compartment (paragraph 0070),
at least one functional port (3a; alternatively 3b) which is configured to be closed hermetically (paragraph 0085) and is associated with said container in fluid communication with said accommodation compartment (paragraphs 0070-0071, 0073-0074, 0076, 0078, 0086),
at least one monitoring port (3b; alternatively 3a) associated with said container in fluid communication with said accommodation compartment, which is configured to allow a passage of fluid at least from an inside of said compartment toward the outside (paragraphs 0085-0087),
a detection assembly (paragraphs 0086-0087 – “a processing and control unit which receives information from an in-line analysis unit about the internal atmosphere of the container 1. This analysis is carried out on a sample of gas obtained directly through one of the two valves 3a, 3b, by means of the insertion of a probe (not portrayed). This probe may be disposed at the interconnection element 16 of the injection device or be a part of an independent measuring device”. The “processing and control unit”, “interconnection element 16”, “duct 8” and the “probe” are deemed to comprise the “detection assembly”) for detecting at least one chemical or physical parameter of the atmosphere within said accommodation compartment (paragraph 0087 – “Once the processing and control unit verifies that the concentration of the atmosphere is as desired, injection is halted and the valves 3a, 3b are closed”),
wherein said detection assembly (paragraph 0087) comprises a measurement chamber (chamber created by the internal space of interconnection element 16 and/or duct 8; figs. 3 and/or 9) which is associated in fluid communication with said accommodation compartment (paragraphs 0074, 0080, 0085) through said monitoring port (3b) and at least one sensor (paragraph 0087 – “probe”) for measuring said at least one parameter associated with said measurement chamber (paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 27, Monforte ‘067 discloses wherein said detection assembly is arranged outside said accommodation compartment (paragraph 0087 – “This probe may be disposed at the interconnection element 16 of the injection device”; figs. 9 and 11 shows interconnection element 16 outside the accommodation compartment).
Regarding claim 28, Monforte ‘067 discloses wherein said detection assembly is arranged at least partially outside said container (paragraph 0087 – “This probe may be disposed at the interconnection element 16 of the injection device”; figs. 9 and 11 shows interconnection element 16 outside the said container).
Regarding claim 30, Monforte ‘067 discloses wherein said detection assembly is associable hermetically (paragraphs 0085-0087) and temporarily (paragraph 0074 – “This element 16 is coupled to the upper side of the cover 11 by means of a number of projections 17 which engage in a bayonet-type joint with a number of recesses 18 featured on the cover 11”; paragraph 0080 – “a bayonet-type anchoring means 33 disposed to cooperate with complementary anchoring means 34 foreseen on an interconnection element 16 of a fluid injection and/or extraction device”) with said monitoring port (3b).
Regarding claim 31, Monforte ‘067 discloses connection means (17, 18; alternatively 33, 34) which are interposed between said monitoring port (3b) and said detection assembly (@ #16 – paragraph 0087), the connection means comprising a first element (17; alternatively 34) associated with the detection assembly and a second element (18; alternatively 33) associated with the monitoring port, said first and second elements allowing mutual coupling/uncoupling (paragraphs 0074, 0080).
Regarding claim 32, Monforte ‘067 discloses first valve means (9, 22, 26, 27 associated with 3a; fig. 3) which are normally in a closed configuration (paragraph 0076) and are configured to allow the passage of fluid in at least one direction when they are actuated in an open configuration (paragraph 0077) and are associated with said at least one functional port (3a).
Regarding claim 34, Monforte ‘067 discloses a removable closure (19; paragraphs 0074-0075, 0081; figs. 2, 4 and 14) which is associated with said at least one functional port.
Regarding claim 35, Monforte ‘067 discloses a single functional port (fig. 1, #3a; alternatively #3b)
Regarding claim 38, Monforte ‘067 discloses second valve means (9, 22, 26, 27 associated with 3b; fig. 3) associated with said monitoring port (3b), which are normally in the closed configuration (paragraph 0076) and are adapted to allow the flow of fluid at least from the inside toward the outside of said accommodation compartment when said valve means are actuated in the open configuration (paragraphs 0077, 0085, 0087).
Regarding claim 39, Monforte ‘067 discloses wherein said second valve means (9, 22, 26, 27 associated with 3b; fig. 3) are actuated in the open configuration by means of the coupling (paragraph 0077; fig. 3) of said first element (17; alternatively 34) with said second element (18; alternatively 33), the uncoupling of the first element activating the return of the second valve means to the closed configuration (paragraph 0076 – “In a resting position, the membrane adheres to the transverse wall 26, blocking the passage of fluid.” As such, if the connection is broken the valve will return to rest and therefore close).
Regarding claim 40, Monforte ‘067 discloses wherein the at least one passage opening (2a and/or 2b) is a single passage opening (2a or 2b constitutes a single passable opening) for introduction and evacuation of the products in/from said accommodation compartment (This is a limitation of intended use; 2a or 2b can be used for either or both of introduction or evacuation of the products as both are openings that access the accommodation compartment).
Regarding claim 41, Monforte ‘067 discloses wherein the at least one passage opening (2a and/or 2b) comprises, a first opening (2a) for introduction of the products in said accommodation compartment and a second opening (2b) for evacuation of the products from said accommodation compartment.
Regarding claim 42, Monforte ‘067 discloses wherein said detection assembly (paragraphs 0086-0087 – “a processing and control unit which receives information from an in-line analysis unit about the internal atmosphere of the container 1. This analysis is carried out on a sample of gas obtained directly through one of the two valves 3a, 3b, by means of the insertion of a probe (not portrayed). This probe may be disposed at the interconnection element 16 of the injection device or be a part of an independent measuring device”. The “processing and control unit”, “interconnection element 16”, “duct 8” and the “probe” are deemed to comprise the “detection assembly”) comprises at least one of a sensor for measuring a concentration of an inert gas (paragraph 0087 – “verifies that the concentration of the atmosphere”), a sensor for measuring a concentration of oxygen, a pressure sensor (paragraph 0052 – “This same interconnection element may incorporate a pressurestat and a vacuostat to measure the fluid inlet and outlet pressure”), a humidity sensor, and a temperature sensor.
Regarding claim 46, Monforte ‘067 discloses a protection and/or transport element (5) inside which said container (4) is placed.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 29, 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monforte ‘067 (US 2020/0024067 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Monforte ‘067 discloses wherein said detection assembly is associated hermetically (paragraphs 0085-0087) and permanently (paragraph 0080 – “the interconnection element 16 is locked to an internal element of the valve, ensuring a highly resistant, strong connection”) with said monitoring port (3b).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Monforte does not disclose said detection assembly is not associated permanently with said monitoring port, the Office alternatively notes that is would be an obvious modification of making a formerly separate structure integral. It has been held that making use of a one piece construction instead of a separate piece construction is a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.04 V B). Monforte ‘067 already discloses having the connection between elements be highly resistant and strong. Having an integral design would further help to ensure the strength of connection and would simplify the design by having fewer moving parts and fixing the connections so they were less likely to be damaged as a result of connecting and disconnecting over time.
Regarding claim 43, Monforte ‘067 discloses wherein said detection assembly (paragraphs 0086-0087 – “a processing and control unit which receives information from an in-line analysis unit about the internal atmosphere of the container 1. This analysis is carried out on a sample of gas obtained directly through one of the two valves 3a, 3b, by means of the insertion of a probe (not portrayed). This probe may be disposed at the interconnection element 16 of the injection device or be a part of an independent measuring device”. The “processing and control unit”, “interconnection element 16”, “duct 8” and the “probe” are deemed to comprise the “detection assembly”) comprises an electronic collection and processing unit (paragraph 0087 – “a processing and control unit which receives information from an in-line analysis unit”) for the collection and processing of data which is functionally associated with said at least one sensor (paragraph 0087).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the electronic nature of the collection and processing unit is not inherently disclosed, the Office alternatively took official notice under 35 USC 103a in the Office Action of 9 October 2025 that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the collection and processing and control unit of Monforte ‘067 be electronic. Doing so was widely done in the art in terms of a programable controller and memory storage. The benefit of this is being able to store instructions for the operation of a device based on sensor feedback and have those instructions be reprogrammable. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Regarding claim 44, Monforte ‘067 discloses wherein said detection assembly (paragraphs 0086-0087 – “a processing and control unit which receives information from an in-line analysis unit about the internal atmosphere of the container 1. This analysis is carried out on a sample of gas obtained directly through one of the two valves 3a, 3b, by means of the insertion of a probe (not portrayed). This probe may be disposed at the interconnection element 16 of the injection device or be a part of an independent measuring device”. The “processing and control unit”, “interconnection element 16”, “duct 8” and the “probe” are deemed to comprise the “detection assembly”) comprises a device (“in-line analysis unit”) for a remote transmission of data which is functionally associated with said electronic collection and processing unit (paragraph 0087 – “a processing and control unit which receives information from an in-line analysis unit”).
Wherein the Applicant may argue that the transmission of the data of Monforte ‘067 is not remote, the Office alternatively took official notice under 35 USC 103a in the Office Action of 9 October 2025 that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have a device for a remote transmission of data which is functionally associated with said electronic collection and processing unit of Monforte ‘067. Monforte ‘067 is concerned with the problem of transmitting data from the probe back to an electronic collection and processing unit. It was widely known in the art of sensors and electronic collection and processing units to be able to transmit data remotely. Doing so was often desired if the control and collection units were located further away from the devices they were monitoring and controlling and would allow for a central controller monitor and control several devices at once. The common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art because applicant failed to traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice (MPEP 2144.03 C).
Claim(s) 33, 36, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monforte ‘067 (US 2020/0024067 A1) in view of Aguilar Monforte (EP 2 808 268 A1) hereinafter referred to as Monforte ‘268.
Regarding claim 33, Monforte ‘067 fails to disclose wherein said first valve means in the open configuration are adapted to allow a bidirectional flow of fluid from the inside of said accommodation compartment toward the outside and vice versa.
However, Monforte ‘268 teaches wherein said first valve means in the open configuration are adapted to allow a bidirectional flow of fluid from the inside of said accommodation compartment toward the outside and vice versa (paragraph 0054; col. 8 lines 33-38 – “single valve”; A single valve necessitates a bidirectional flow as it would need to serve the function of both filling and evacuation).
Given the teachings of Monforte ‘268, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the time of effective filing to incorporate the single valve design into the invention of Monforte ‘067. Doing so would simply the design and reduce construction costs. Such a modification would result in the claimed bidirectional flow as both Monforte ‘067 and ‘268 are concerned with the problem of having filling and evacuation steps performed.
Regarding claim 36, Monforte ‘067 doesn’t disclose two of said functional ports (3a).
However, Monforte ‘268 teaches two of said functional ports (paragraph 0011 – “one or more valves at different points”).
Given the teachings of Monforte ‘268, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Monforte ‘067 to have two of said functional ports. Doing so would allow the filling of atmosphere at different points to more rapidly distribute the desired atmosphere in the container. Also, having additional ports would provide more options for connection locations and thus make it easier for a user to access the ports when needed.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that two functional ports are not explicitly disclosed, the Office alternatively notes that this change would have been obvious as it would involve mere duplication of parts. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). Having additional ports would provide more options for connection locations and thus make it easier for a user to access the ports when needed.
Regarding claim 37, Monforte ‘067 fails to disclose wherein said monitoring port is an opening that is free to allow bidirectional fluid communication between the inside of said accommodation compartment and said measurement chamber.
However, Monforte ‘268 teaches wherein said monitoring port is an opening that is free to allow bidirectional fluid communication between the inside of said accommodation compartment and said measurement chamber (paragraph 0054; col. 8 lines 33-38 – “single valve”; A single valve necessitates a bidirectional flow as it would need to serve the function of both filling and evacuation).
Given the teachings of Monforte ‘268, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the time of effective filing to incorporate the single valve design into the invention of Monforte ‘067. Doing so would simply the design and reduce construction costs. Such a modification would result in the claimed bidirectional flow as both Monforte ‘067 and ‘268 are concerned with the problem of having filling and evacuation steps performed.
Claim(s) 33 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monforte ‘067 (US 2020/0024067 A1) in view of Loeschen et al. (US Patent 9,090,392) hereinafter referred to as Loeschen.
Regarding claim 33, Monforte ‘067 fails to disclose wherein said first valve means in the open configuration are adapted to allow a bidirectional flow of fluid from the inside of said accommodation compartment toward the outside and vice versa.
However, Loeschen teaches wherein said first valve means in the open configuration are adapted to allow a bidirectional flow of fluid from the inside of said accommodation compartment toward the outside and vice versa (col. 7 lines 43-48).
Given the teachings of Loeschen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Monforte ‘067 to have the first valve means adapted to allow a bidirectional flow. Doing so would add versatility to the valve(s) by allowing them to either pump air into or out of the container. The problem of adding atmosphere and evacuating atmosphere is a problem that both Monforte ‘067 and Loeschen are concerned with.
Regarding claim 37, Monforte ‘067 discloses a monitoring port is an opening with a valve, but fails to disclose wherein said monitoring port is an opening that is free to allow bidirectional fluid communication between the inside of said accommodation compartment and said measurement chamber.
However, Loeschen teaches wherein an opening with a valve that is free to allow bidirectional fluid communication between the inside of said accommodation compartment and said measurement chamber (col. 7 lines 43-48).
Given the teachings of Loeschen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Monforte ‘067 to have the first valve means adapted to allow a bidirectional flow. Doing so would add versatility to the valve(s) and port by allowing them to either pump air into or out of the container. The problem of adding atmosphere and evacuating atmosphere is a problem that both Monforte ‘067 and Loeschen are concerned with.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Monforte ‘067 (US 2020/0024067 A1) in view of Becraft et al. (US Patent 8,697,160 B2) hereinafter referred to as Becraft.
Regarding claim 45, Monforte ‘067 discloses at least one product containment element (4), but fails to disclose that it is adapted to be positioned within said accommodation compartment, the product containment element being made of a material that is substantially permeable to gases and water vapor.
However, Becraft teaches at least one product (10) containment element (15, 20), which is adapted to be positioned within said accommodation compartment (fig. 1B; compartment defined by overwrap 70), the product containment element being made of a material that is substantially permeable to gases and water vapor (col. 5 lines 6-15; col. 10 line 41 – col. 11 line 13; “Tyvek(TM)” is noted as one possible material used and Tyvek has the known property of not being a vapor barrier and is thus substantially permeable to water vapor as well as gases).
Given the teachings of Becraft, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to incorporate the at least one product containment element being made of a material that is substantially permeable to gases and water vapor of Becraft with the invention of Monforte ‘067. Doing so would allow the product to come into contact with the desired internal atmosphere of the container while maintaining the product’s shape and position within the container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 47-50 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments presented regarding the 35 USC 112b rejections are persuasive in view of Applicant’s amendments and have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s arguments of 5 January 2026 as they pertain to the 35 USC 102 and 103 rejections are not persuasive and those rejections have been maintained.
The Applicant argues that the cited prior art of Monforte fails to disclose, “at least one functional port which is configured to be closed hermetically and is associated with said container in fluid communication with said accommodation compartment, at least one monitoring port associated with said container in fluid communication with said accommodation compartment, which is configured to allow a passage of fluid at least from an inside of said accommodation compartment toward the outside, and a detection assembly [equipped with] a measurement chamber which is associated in fluid communication with said accommodation compartment through said monitoring port.”
The Office has noted where these features are disclosed in Monforte in the action above, and will provide them in more detail here. Monforte discloses, “at least one functional port (3a; alternatively 3b) which is configured to be closed hermetically (paragraph 0085 – “Once the container 1 is hermetically sealed…”) and is associated with said container (1; alternatively 4) in fluid communication (paragraphs 0070-0071, 0073-0074, 0076, 0078, 0086) with said accommodation compartment (hollow cube area inside container depicted in fig. 1), at least one monitoring port (3b; alternatively 3a) associated with said container in fluid communication with said accommodation compartment, which is configured to allow a passage of fluid at least from an inside of said accommodation compartment toward the outside (paragraphs 0085-0087),… and wherein said detection assembly (paragraphs 0086-0087 – “a processing and control unit which receives information from an in-line analysis unit about the internal atmosphere of the container 1. This analysis is carried out on a sample of gas obtained directly through one of the two valves 3a, 3b, by means of the insertion of a probe (not portrayed). This probe may be disposed at the interconnection element 16 of the injection device or be a part of an independent measuring device”. The “processing and control unit”, “interconnection element 16”, “duct 8” and the “probe” are deemed to comprise the “detection assembly”) comprises a measurement chamber (chamber created by the internal space of interconnection element 16 and/or duct 8; figs. 3 and/or 9) which is associated in fluid communication with said accommodation compartment (paragraphs 0074, 0080, 0085) through said monitoring port (3b; paragraph 0087).
The Office deems all the claimed elements as written to be present. The Applicant’s arguments amend the claim language by quoting, “a detection assembly [equipped with] a measurement chamber” (Emphasis added). It is noted that the claim does not require the detection assembly be “equipped with” any element. It is instead claimed as “a detection assembly comprising a measurement chamber”. Given the way the claim is presently drafted, the Office still deems Monforte to read on the claim language. The detection assembly described in paragraph 0087 of Monforte has a space (i.e. a chamber) for “a sample of gas” and a “probe”. This space is cited as being disposed at the interconnection element 16. Given that this sample of gas an equivalent concentration of atmosphere to that of the inner atmosphere of the container it is also deemed to be fluidically connected with it.
The Applicant’s arguments appear to be largely directed toward a narrower interpretation of the claims than can be given. The Applicant’s arguments are directed toward the perceived differences between the Applicant’s disclosed invention and that of Manforte, but those differences are not deemed to be reflected in the claim language as presently drafted.
The Applicant further tries to argue differences in intention of design, purpose and intended use between the instant invention and Manforte, but those differences are not germane to issues of anticipation under 35 USC 102. Further, these arguments do not point back to any cited deficiencies as they relate to the claim language.
The Applicant argues that unit 16 of Manforte does not have a defined shape, but this shape can be seen in fig. 2. Even if it wasn’t shown, there is not claim limitation presented limiting the shape of such an element.
For the reasons provided above, the rejection of record is maintained.
The remainder of the Applicant’s arguments point back to their traversal of claim 26. The Office maintains the rejections of record for the same reasons as already provided.
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 ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731