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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepinoy (US 5,009,318) in view of Lee (US 4,475,247).
1, 8: Lepinoy teaches an article (article generally shown in Figure 4) for packing an unclaimed object, comprising: a flexible bag (bag 10), including an air valve (valve 16); wherein the flexible bag comprises at least two compartments (compartments 11 and 12); wherein two compartments of the at least two compartments share a common substantially flat surface (surface of 11 and 12 when folded to face each other); wherein the flexible bag includes a sealed interior chamber (chamber within 11 or 12) containing packaging material (granular material, col. 4, ll. 19-40); wherein the air valve is operable to release air from within the flexible bag (capable of drawing air out through 16, col. 4, ll. 16-40); wherein the release of the air from within the flexible bag causes the packaging material to be displaced and compact around an object placed on top of the flexible bag (when air is evacuated, granular material condenses around object placed within opening 13, above a top of 12); and wherein the flexible bag retains the impression of the object after the object is removed (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).
Lepinoy teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except a heat shield layer connected to the flexible bag and the heat shield layer is a non-rigid textile layer including carbon fiber, NOMEX CODURA, and/or Kevlar.
Lee teaches that the material used for case 10, comprises a heat shield insert (44) made from Kevlar, which can provide resistant to bullets and heat (Abstract).
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 such that the teaching of a heat shield layer connected to the flexible bag such as a Kevlar layer were provided for and applied, in order to provide resistant to bullets and heat (Abstract), as taught by Lee.
4: Lepinoy-Lee 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-Lee teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 and Lepinoy further teaches that the packaging material includes materials made from polystyrene and/or polylactic acid (polystyrene balls, col. 3, ll. 43-45).
6: Lepinoy-Lee 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 a pump (capable of being inflated by an unclaimed pump via component 16).
7: Lepinoy-Lee the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 1 except the heat shield layer is connected to the flexible bag via a plurality of hook and loop elements or RF welding.
Lee teaches that the insert (44) is attached to an outer layer (14) via hook and loop fastener (46, Figure 2).
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-Lee such that the teaching of the heat shield layer is connected to the flexible bag via a plurality of hook and loop elements in order to removably hold the insert in place during use.
17, 20: Lepinoy teaches an article (article generally shown in Figure 4) for packing an unclaimed object, comprising: a retaining element (element 10 shown in Figure 4), including an air valve; wherein the retaining element comprises at least two compartments (compartments 11 and 12); wherein the at least two compartments sit flush with each other (surface of 11 and 12 when folded to face each other, the surface around the object are flushed with each other); wherein the retaining element includes packaging material (granular material, col. 4, ll. 19-40); wherein the air valve is operable to release air from within the retaining element (capable of drawing air out through 16, col. 4, ll. 16-40).
Lepinoy teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except a heat shield layer connected to the flexible bag and the heat shield layer is a non-rigid textile layer including carbon fiber, NOMEX CODURA, and/or Kevlar.
Lee teaches that the material used for case 10, comprises a heat shield insert (44) made from Kevlar, which can provide resistant to bullets and heat (Abstract).
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 such that the teaching of a heat shield layer connected to the flexible bag such as a Kevlar layer were provided for and applied, in order to provide resistant to bullets and heat (Abstract), as taught by Lee.
18: Lepinoy-Lee teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 17 and Lepinoy further teaches that the packaging material includes materials made from polystyrene and/or polylactic acid (polystyrene balls, col. 3, ll. 43-45).
19: Lepinoy-Lee the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 17 except the heat shield layer is connected to the flexible bag via a plurality of hook and loop elements or RF welding.
Lee teaches that the insert (44) is attached to an outer layer (14) via hook and loop fastener (46, Figure 2).
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-Lee such that the teaching of the heat shield layer is connected to the flexible bag via a plurality of hook and loop elements in order to removably hold the insert in place during use.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepinoy (US 5,009,318) in view of Lee (US 4,475,247) and further in view of Perkins (US 8,783,776).
3: Lepinoy-Lee 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-Lee 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) 2, 9-10, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepinoy (US 5,009,318) in view of Lee (US 4,475,247) and further in view of Bender (US 5,351,830).
2: Lepinoy-Lee 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-Lee 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.
9-10, 16: Lepinoy teaches a system (system generally shown in Figure 4) for packing an unclaimed object, comprising: a flexible bag (bag 10 with valve 16), including an air valve (bag 10 with valve 16); wherein the flexible bag comprises at least two compartments (compartments 11 and 12); wherein the at least two compartments are connected by a common surface (11 and 12 are connected by a hinge area between 11 and 12, Figure 4); wherein the flexible bag is operable to be positioned in the case (capable of being positionable in a case); wherein the flexible bag includes a sealed interior chamber (chamber within 11 or 12) containing packaging material (granular material, col. 4, ll. 19-40); wherein the air valve is operable to release air from within the flexible bag (capable of drawing air out through 16, col. 4, ll. 16-40); wherein the packaging material is operable to rearrange around an object placed on top of the flexible bag (when air is evacuated, granular material condenses around object placed within opening 13, above a top of 12), creating an impression in the shape of the object to form on a top surface of the flexible bag.
Lepinoy teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except a heat shield layer connected to the flexible bag and the heat shield layer is a non-rigid textile layer including carbon fiber, NOMEX CODURA, and/or Kevlar.
Lee teaches that the material used for case 10, comprises a heat shield insert (44) made from Kevlar, which can provide resistant to bullets and heat (Abstract).
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 such that the teaching of a heat shield layer connected to the flexible bag such as a Kevlar layer were provided for and applied, in order to provide resistant to bullets and heat (Abstract), as taught by Lee.
Lepinoy-Lee teaches the claimed invention as discussed above except a case in combination and the flexible bag is attached to an interior surface of a bottom component of the case.
Bender teaches that element 12 is attached to the bottom component of a case 40 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-Lee 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.
12: Lepinoy-Lee-Bender teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 9 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).
13: Lepinoy-Lee-Bender teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 9 and Lepinoy further teaches that the packaging material includes materials made from polystyrene and/or polylactic acid (polystyrene balls, col. 3, ll. 43-45).
14: Lepinoy-Lee-Bender teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 9 and Lepinoy further teaches that the flexible bag is operable to be connected to and inflated by a pump (capable of being inflated by an unclaimed pump via component 16).
15: Lepinoy-Lee-Bender the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 9 except the heat shield layer is connected to the flexible bag via a plurality of hook and loop elements or RF welding.
Lee teaches that the insert (44) is attached to an outer layer (14) via hook and loop fastener (46, Figure 2).
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-Lee-Bender such that the teaching of the heat shield layer is connected to the flexible bag via a plurality of hook and loop elements in order to removably hold the insert in place during use.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepinoy (US 5,009,318) in view of Lee (US 4,475,247) and further in view of Bender (US 5,351,830) and Perkins (US 8,783,776).
11: Lepinoy-Lee-Bender teaches the claimed invention as discussed above for Claim 9 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-Lee-Bender 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-21 of copending Application No. 19/005,114 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions are directed to An article for packing an object, comprising: a flexible bag, including an air valve; wherein the flexible bag comprises at least two compartments; wherein two compartments of the at least two compartments share a common substantially flat surface; wherein the flexible bag includes a sealed interior chamber containing packaging material; wherein the air valve is operable to release air from within the flexible bag; wherein the release of the air from within the flexible bag causes the packaging material to be displaced and compact around an object placed on top of the flexible bag; wherein the compaction of the packaging material around the object causes an impression in the shape of the object to form on a top surface of the flexible bag; and wherein the flexible bag retains the impression of the object after the object is removed except a heat shield layer connected to the flexible bag.
Lee teaches that the material used for case 10, comprises a heat shield insert (44) made from Kevlar, which can provide resistant to bullets and heat (Abstract).
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 Patent Application such that the teaching of a heat shield layer connected to the flexible bag such as a Kevlar layer were provided for and applied, in order to provide resistant to bullets and heat (Abstract), as taught by Lee. Furthermore, 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 Patent Application such that the features such as a second compartment and a second air valve were omitted since omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights