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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/31/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,292,258 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fuss (WO 95-03974).
20: Fuss teaches a system for packing an object (system shown in Figure 8, for an unclaimed object), comprising: a retaining element including a flexible bag (retaining element 12, which is an inflatable cushioning device 12), wherein the flexible bag includes an air intake valve (intake valve 32, Figure 2); wherein the flexible bag includes a sealed chamber (chamber within 12) containing a plurality of packaging materials (packaging material 20); wherein the removal of air from the flexible bag causes the plurality of packaging materials to compactify (see Figure 7, when air is removed from 12, the cushioning material becomes more compact, when an object is placed on top of 12, Figures 6-7, the packaging materials are condensed around an unclaimed item 14, see Figure 6); wherein the object includes a medical device or a medical supply (capable of accommodating an unclaimed object such as a medical device, e.g. containers for medicine or medical waste); and wherein the flexible bag retains an impression of the object after the object is removed from atop the flexible bag (see Figures 6-7, when air is removed from 12, the cushioning material becomes more compact thereby preventing movement of the object and conforming to the shape of the object, thereby causing an impression).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lepinoy (US 5,009,318).
20: Lepinoy teaches a system for packing an unclaimed object (system generally shown in Figure 4), comprising: a retaining element including a flexible bag (retaining element and bag 10 with valve 16), wherein the flexible bag includes an air intake valve; wherein the flexible bag includes a sealed chamber (chamber within 11 or 12) containing a plurality of packaging materials (granular material, col. 4, ll. 19-40); wherein the removal of air from the flexible bag causes the plurality of packaging materials to compactify (when air is evacuated, granular material condenses around object placed within opening 13, above a top of 12); wherein the object includes a medical device or a medical supply (capable of accommodating an unclaimed object such as a medical device, e.g. containers for medicine or medical waste); and wherein the flexible bag retains an impression of the object after the object is removed from atop the flexible bag (since the bag and particles becomes rigid in the in the shape formed about the object after air is evacuated, the shape is retained after the object is moved/removed).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1 and 4-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepinoy (US 5,009,318) in view of Kannankeril et al. (Kannankeril US 7,223,461).
1: Lepinoy teaches an article (article generally shown in Figure 4) for packing an unclaimed object, comprising: a flexible bag, including an air intake valve (bag 10 with valve 16, col. 3, ll. 8-12); wherein the flexible bag includes a sealed interior chamber (chamber within 11 or 12) containing a plurality of packaging materials (granular material, col. 4, ll. 19-40); wherein the flexible bag is operable to be connected to a pump, wherein operation of the pump causes air to flow out of the flexible bag and causes the plurality of packaging materials to compactify (capable of performing the function of permitting air out through 16 via an unclaimed pump, col. 4, ll. 16-40);; and wherein the flexible bag retains an impression of the object after the object is removed from atop the flexible bag (since the bag and particles becomes rigid in the in the shape formed about the object after air is evacuated, the shape is retained after the object is moved/removed) except wherein the flexible bag includes at least one outer antimicrobial layer.
Kannankeril teaches that various additives such as anti-bacterial agents can be included with the films of a gas barrier cellular cushioning product (col. 17, ll. 56-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lepinoy such that teaching of the flexible bag is provided with an antimicrobial layer were applied in order to meet the intended use of the product, if the article to be packaged is of a medical nature, intending to having a more sterile packaging (col. 17, ll. 56-62).
4: Lepinoy-Kannankeril teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Lepinoy further teaches that the flexible bag is operable to conform to the interior surface of a bottom component of a case (since flexible bag is operable to condense around the surrounding object, the bag is capable of conforming to a bottom of an unclaimed case).
5: Lepinoy-Kannankeril teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Lepinoy further teaches that the plurality of packaging materials includes materials made from polystyrene and/or polylactic acid (polystyrene balls, col. 3, ll. 43-45).
6: Lepinoy-Kannankeril teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Lepinoy further teaches that the flexible bag is operable to be connected to and inflated by the pump (capable of being inflated by an unclaimed pump via component 16).
7: Lepinoy-Kannankeril teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Lepinoy further teaches that the plurality of packaging materials prevents movement of the object when the flexible bag is rotated (since the bag and particles becomes rigid in the in the shape formed about the object after air is evacuated, movement is prevented by the rigidity of the bag and particles surrounding the object when the bag is rotated).
8: Lepinoy-Kannankeril teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Lepinoy further teaches that the condensing of the plurality of packaging materials around the object causes the impression in the shape of the object to form on a top surface of the flexible bag (since the bag and particles becomes rigid in the in the shape formed about the object after air is evacuated, the shape is retained after the object is moved/removed).
9: Lepinoy-Kannankeril teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Lepinoy further teaches that the flexible bag substantially covers the interior surface of the bottom component of a case (capable of covering, the unclaimed interior surface).
10: Lepinoy-Kannankeril teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Lepinoy further teaches that the unclaimed object is a medical device (capable of accommodating an unclaimed object such as a medical device, e.g. containers for medicine or medical waste).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepinoy (US 5,009,318) in view of Kannankeril et al. (Kannankeril US 7,223,461) and further in view of Bender (US 5,351,830).
2: Lepinoy-Kannankeril teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 except that the flexible bag is attached to an interior surface of a bottom component of a case.
Bender teaches that element 12 is attached to the bottom component of a case via 50, see Figure 8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lepinoy-Kannankeril such that the teaching of a shock absorption element being placed in case and secured to a component at a bottom of a case was applied to Bender in order to permit a case to provide ease of shipping and containing both the shock absorption element and the object to be protected together.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepinoy (US 5,009,318) in view of Kannankeril et al. (Kannankeril US 7,223,461) and further in view of Perkins (US 8,783,776).
3: Lepinoy-Kannankeril teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 except rotation of the air valve allows air to flow into the flexible bag or prevents air from flowing into the flexible bag.
Perkins teaches that rotating the nozzles 43 to enable air to flow through the and inflate each inflatable pillow 40 as desired; deflating each pillow assembly 20, 25 as desired via opening the pillow nozzles 43, col. 5, ll. 17-33.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lepinoy-Kannankeril such that that the teaching of rotation of the air valve allows air to flow into the flexible bag or prevents air from flowing into the flexible bag was applied to Lepinoy in order to permit inlet or outlet of air according to a user’s choice in order to permit ease of use.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuss (WO 95-03974) in view of Hoganson (US 2014/0048593).
11: Fuss teaches a system for packing an object (system shown in Figure 8, for an unclaimed object), comprising: a retaining element including a flexible bag (retaining element 12, which is an inflatable cushioning device 12), wherein the flexible bag includes an air intake valve (intake valve 32, Figure 2); and a pump operable to remove air from the bag (pump 28, removing air from 12, Figures 6-7); wherein the flexible bag includes a sealed interior chamber (chamber within 12) containing a plurality of packaging materials (packaging material 20); wherein the removal of air from the flexible bag causes the plurality of packaging materials to compactify; and wherein the flexible bag retains an impression of the object after the object is removed from atop the flexible bag (see Figure 7, when air is removed from 12, the cushioning material becomes more compact, when an object is placed on top of 12, Figures 6-7, the packaging materials are condensed around an unclaimed item 14, see Figure 6) except at least one unique identifier attached to an exterior section of the flexible bag; wherein scanning of the at least one unique identifier automatically updates a database regarding the location of the flexible bag and/or the object.
Hoganson teaches an RFID tag (220) which can be read and a database is updated with the location of the item or object that the RFID tag is located with (paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuss such that a RFID was provided on an exterior surface of a case or container in order to track the location of an item in a database for record keeping, as taught by Hoganson (paragraph 0062).
12: Fuss-Hoganson teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 and Fuss further teaches that the flexible bag is removably attached to an interior surface of the bottom component of a case (12 is capable of being rested/attached or in contact with a bottom component of 16, see Figures 6-7).
14: Fuss-Hoganson teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 and Fuss further teaches that the flexible bag conforms to the interior surface of the bottom component of a case (see Figures 6-7, when air is evacuated, the bag is capable of conforming to a bottom component, e.g. a surface of the bottom of the case 16).
15: Fuss-Hoganson teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 and Fuss further teaches that the flexible bag substantially covers the interior surface of the bottom component of a case (see 12, covering over the inter surface of the bottom component of the case 16, Figures 6-7).
16: Fuss-Hoganson teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 and Fuss further teaches that the object is a medical device (capable of accommodating an unclaimed object such as a medical device, e.g. containers for medicine or medical waste).
17: Fuss-Hoganson teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 and Fuss further teaches that the flexible bag is operable to be connected to and inflated by the pump (capable of being connected to a vacuum source, which can be a pump or an exhaust fan, pg. 7, ll. 1-3).
18: Fuss-Hoganson teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 and Fuss further teaches that the plurality of packaging materials prevents movement of the object when the flexible bag is rotated (see Figures 6-7, when air is removed from 12, the cushioning material becomes more compact thereby preventing movement of the object, even when case 16 is rotated).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuss (WO 95-03974) in view of Hoganson (US 2014/0048593) and further in view of Morris (US 2009/0032429).
13: Fuss-Hoganson teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 except that the rotation of the air intake valve allows air to flow into the flexible bag or prevents air from flowing into the flexible bag.
Morris teaches an air valve 20, capable of manually permitting air to be let in or discharged, rotating an external ring (paragraph 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuss-Hoganson such that the flexible bag of Fuss was provided with a valve, where manual manipulation via an external ring, of the valve permits inflation and deflation of the flexible bag in order to permit a user to inflating and deflating the flexible bag to accommodate the air needed to accommodate a product within, as taught by Morris (paragraph 0033).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuss (WO 95-03974) in view of Hoganson (US 2014/0048593) and further in view of Armstrong (US 6,135,277).
19: Fuss-Hoganson teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 11 except the top component of the firearm case includes a foam layer attached to an interior surface of the top component.
Armstrong further teaches that plastic foam cushion members (inserts, 23, 34) are provided in the main compartment and attached to the cover (13) in order to cushion the inner case/article in the outer case and to further limit movement during transport.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuss-Hoganson such that the top component was provided with a foam layer in an interior surface of the top component, in order to further provide protection for the flexible bag as well as the article being transported, as taught by Armstrong (col. 4, ll. 19-27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In reference to Claim 20 (Fuss WO 95-03974)
Applicant argues with respect to Fuss that the prior art does not disclose retention of the shape of an object contained in its described system. Applicant argues that the fill material can re-expand after compression to between about 30% and about 100% of its original volume and therefore does not meet the limitation of “wherein the flexible bag retains an impression of the object after the object is removed from the flexible bag.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Fuss teaches that the even though the fill material can expand to 30% between about 30% and about 100% of its original volume, the fill material may be somewhat less than the original uncompressed volume (page 9 of Fuss), and the difference in volume may be due to factors such as more complete nesting of the fill material elements after compression, some crushing of the fill material, and the like (page 10 of Fuss), where the difference in volume accommodates an impression of an object after its removal from a flexible bag. Furthermore, the limitation only require that the bag retain an impression of an object, after the object is removed. If an object is removed from the flexible bag and immediately observed, an impression is left by the object for a time after. The claim does not require that the impression be a permanent impression, nor the impression itself be one that resembles or outline the object. In as much as Applicant has claimed wherein the flexible bag retains an impression of the object after the object is removed from the flexible bag, Fuss meets the claimed limitation.
In reference to Claim 20 (Lepinoy US 5,009,318)
Applicant argues that Lepinoy does not teach "wherein the flexible bag retains an impression of the object after the object is removed from the flexible bag"
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lepinoy teaches that the bag (retaining element and bag 10 with valve 16) and particles (granular material, col. 4, ll. 19-40) becomes rigid in the in the shape formed about the object after air is evacuated (when the bag is depressurized), the shape is retained after the object is moved/removed (when air may be reintroduced and not a completely re-pressurization, through the nipple 7, similar to valve 4 and 16, col, 3, ll. 66-68). Furthermore, the depressurization effect can be controlled depending on the effects or objects to be protected and not completely depressurizing the flexible bag would leave an impression of the unclaimed object on the surface of the bag (the depressurization created in the housing according to the invention is dependent on how long the protective cocoon formed by the rigidified granular material is expected to last. Bags pressurized to 200 mbar have been found very satisfactory for protecting very delicate objects. Smaller depressurization is preferred when seeking visco-elastics effects, col. 4, ll. 41-47).
Furthermore, the limitation only require that the bag retain an impression of an object, after the object is removed. If an object is removed from the flexible bag and immediately observed, an impression is left by the object for a time after. The claim does not require that the impression be a permanent impression, nor the impression itself be one that resembles or outline the object. In as much as Applicant has claimed wherein the flexible bag retains an impression of the object after the object is removed from the flexible bag, Lepinoy meets the claimed limitation.
In reference to the remaining Claims, In reference to the remaining claims, Applicant argued that the applied references for those remaining claims failed to teach their respective claimed features by referring back to the now addressed claim(s) (see above). Applicant did not specifically and particularly point out the specifics of the applied reference(s) that failed to meet the remaining claims.
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 KING M CHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM 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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272 - 4561. 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.
/King M Chu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735
