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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 5, 2025 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 3,156,166 A) in view of Atwood (US 3,053,434 A) and Stark (US 2,075,672 A).
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches a paper carry out bag, comprising:
said paper carry out bag having an outside surface and an inside surface;
two handles (11);
a lower portion of each of said handles attached to a surface of said bag on opposite sides of said bag (Fig. 1);
each of said handles reinforced with a paper patch (13) attached to said surface of said bag covering said lower portion of each of said handles (column 1 line 33-column 2 line 8, column 2 line 27-column 4 line 5).
Regarding the patch being a paper patch, attention is drawn to U.S. Patent No. 2,844,075 which is incorporated by reference (column 6 lines 1-3, 27-28
Davis fails to teach the two handles being twist handles comprised of twine. Atwood teaches a bag comprising an analogous handle assembly including two handles (10) covered by paper reinforcing patches (14). Atwood further teaches that twisted handles comprised of paper, twine or cord are well-known alternative handles in the analogous art (column 1 line 56-column 2 line 3 and Fig. 1, 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the two cord handles of Davis with two twist handles comprised of twine, as taught by Atwood, as the substitution of one know handle for an alternative known handle to achieve the equivalent result of providing the bag with a carrying means would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Davis also fails to teach the lower portion of each of said handles being attached to the outside surface. Stark teaches an analogous paper bag having an analogous handle assembly including two handles (b) covered by paper reinforcing patches (A). Stark further teaches that analogous handle assemblies are well-known in the prior art to be attached to either an outside surface of the bag or an inside surface of the bag (page 5, column 1, lines 5-10).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Davis by alternatively attaching the lower portion of each of the handles to the outside surface of the bag, as taught by Stark, as the substitution of one know handle assembly placement for an alternative known handle assembly placement to achieve the equivalent result of providing the bag with a carrying means would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the particular placement of the handle assemblies on the outside surface of the bag to be an obvious matter of design choice as shifting the placement of the handle assemblies from the inside surface of the bag to the outside surface of the bag would not have modified the operation of the handle assemblies or the bag.
Regarding claim 2, Davis as modified by Atwood and Stark teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein said patch is a single patch attached over said lower portion of said handle (Davis: Fig. 1-3).
Regarding claim 3, Davis as modified by Atwood and Stark teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein said twist handles comprised of twine are in an upward position (Davis: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Davis as modified by Atwood and Stark teaches the bag of claim 1 above, but fails to specifically teach each of said paper patches being between five and ten inches in width and between two and five inches in length.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width and length of the paper patches of Davis in order to obtain the width and length as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Davis as modified by Atwood and Stark teaches the bag of claim 1 above, but fails to specifically teach said paper of said paper carry out bag having a basis weight between 20 and 60 pounds.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a paper having a basis weight between 20 and 60 pounds as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Atwood and Stark, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillips et al. (US 2,979,253 A, hereinafter Phillips).
Regarding claim 4, Davis as modified by Atwood and Stark teaches the bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the twist handles being in a downward position. Phillips teaches a handled bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the handles in a downward position (Fig. 1-3, 6) in order to enable neat and smooth stacking of bags in a pile for packaging, transportation and storage (column 2 line 66-column 3 line 11).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Davis by alternatively configuring the twist handles in a downward position, as suggested by Phillips, in order to enable neat and smooth stacking of bags in a pile for packaging, transportation and storage.
Claims 7-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paper Strap (GB 632707 A) in view of Gatward (US 3,335,941 A).
Regarding claim 7, Paper Strap teaches a paper carry out bag comprising:
said paper carry out bag having an outside surface and an inside surface;
an outer (third) paper patch (23) attached to said outside surface of said bag above a lower portion of a first paper handle (21), and
an outer (fourth) paper patch (23) attached to said outside surface of said bag above a lower portion of a second paper handle (21) (page 1 line 69-page 2 line 53 and Fig. 4).
Paper Strap fails to teach an inner (first) paper patch attached to said outside surface of said bag and an inner (second) paper patch attached to said outside surface on an opposite side of said bag, wherein the lower portions of each of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are attached to respective said inner (first and second) paper patches such that the lower portions of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are sandwiched between respective said inner (first and second) and outer (third and fourth) patches.
Gatward teaches an analogous handled bag comprising first and second handles (4) with reinforcement patches (7, 8). Gatward further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to sandwich each of the first and second handles between a pair of reinforcement patches in order to provide a more secure base for the attachment of the handles and in order to stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent a mouth of the bag (column 1 lines 32-38, 67-72).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Paper Strap by additionally providing an inner (first) paper patch attached to said outside surface of said bag and an inner (second) paper patch attached to said outside surface on an opposite side of said bag, wherein the lower portions of each of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are attached to respective said inner (first and second) paper patches such that the lower portions of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are sandwiched between respective said inner (first and second) and outer (third and fourth) patches, as suggested by Gatward, in order to provide a more secure base for the attachment of the handles and in order to further stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent a mouth of the bag.
Regarding claim 8, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 7 above, wherein said paper handles consist of a strip of paper folded to form a folded paper handle (Paper Strap: page 1 lines 69-89 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 7 above, but fails to specifically teach each paper handle extending between one and five inches in length from a top of said bag and between three and five inches in width, said width defined as the distance between bottom portions of said handle.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length from the top of the bag and the width of the paper handle of Paper Strap in order to obtain the length and the width as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 8, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 10, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 8 above, wherein said paper handles consist of the strip of paper folded multiple times to form the folded paper handle (Paper Strap: page 1 lines 69-89 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 8 above, but fails to specifically teach said strip of paper being between ten inches and twenty inches in length and one inch and three inches in width.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length and width of the strip of paper of Paper Strap in order to obtain the length and width as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 8, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 12, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 8 above, but fails to specifically teach said folded paper handle extending between two and five inches below a top edge of said bag.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of the folded paper handle of Paper Strap in order to obtain the dimensions as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 8, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 7 above, but fails to specifically teach each of said paper patches being between five and ten inches in width and between two and five inches in length.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width and length of the paper patches of Paper Strap in order to obtain the width and length as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 7 above, but fails to specifically teach said paper of said paper carry out bag having a basis weight between twenty and sixty pounds.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a paper having a basis weight between twenty and sixty pounds as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 7 above, wherein said paper carry out bag has a gusset (Paper Strap: Fig. 4) but fails to specifically teach said paper handles and said paper patches being between four and ten inches in width and said gusset being between three and eight inches.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the paper handles and paper patches and the dimension of the gussets of Paper Strap in order to obtain the dimensions as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 16, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 7 above, wherein said paper handles are formed by folding a strip consisting of paper at least twice and bending said strip of paper to form two corners (Paper Strap: page 1 lines 69-89 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 7 above, wherein said paper handles consisting of paper are in an upward position (Paper Strap: Fig. 4).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paper Strap in view of Gatward, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Matsuura (JP 05032258 A).
Regarding claim 18, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 7 above, wherein said paper handles consist of paper (page 1 lines 69-89) but fails to teach said paper handles being in a downward position. Matsuura teaches an analogous handle assembly for a bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable to configure the handle assembly on the bag such that a handle (2) of the handle assembly is configured in a downward position so that the handle does not protrude from the bag when it is attached to the bag, so that the handle does not become an obstacle when bags are stacked and bundled and so that the handle does not interfere with packing of a commodity in the bag (Translation and Fig. 1-3, 5).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Paper Strap by alternatively configuring the paper handles in a downward position, as taught by Matsuura, so that the handles do not protrude from the bag when they are attached to the bag, so that the handles do not become an obstacle when bags are stacked and bundled and so that the handles do not interfere with packing of a commodity in the bag.
Claims 19, 20, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Stark, Gatward and Atwood.
Regarding claim 19, Davis teaches a paper carry out bag, comprising:
said paper carry out bag having an outside surface and an inside surface;
an outer (third) patch (13) attached to a surface of said bag over a lower portion of a first handle (11), and
an outer (fourth) patch (13) attached to a surface of said bag over a lower portion of a second handle (11) (column 1 line 33-column 2 line 8, column 2 line 27-column 4 line 5).
Davis fails to teach said handles and said patches being attached to the outside surface. Stark teaches an analogous paper bag having an analogous handle assembly including two handles (b) covered by paper reinforcing patches (A). Stark further teaches that analogous handle assemblies are well-known in the prior art to be attached to either an outside surface of the bag or an inside surface of the bag (page 5, column 1, lines 5-10).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Davis by alternatively attaching said handles and said patches to the outside surface of the bag, as taught by Stark, as the substitution of one know handle assembly placement for an alternative known handle assembly placement to achieve the equivalent result of providing the bag with a carrying means would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the particular placement of the handle assemblies on the outside surface of the bag to be an obvious matter of design choice as shifting the placement of the handle assemblies from the inside surface of the bag to the outside surface of the bag would not have modified the operation of the handle assemblies or the bag.
Davis also fails to teach an additional inner (first) patch attached to said outside surface of said bag and an additional inner (second) patch attached to said outside surface on an opposite side of said bag, wherein the lower portions of each of the first handle and the second handle are attached to respective said inner (first and second) patches such that the lower portions of the first handle and the second handle are sandwiched between respective said inner (first and second) and outer (third and fourth) patches.
Gatward teaches an analogous handled bag comprising first and second handles (4) with reinforcement patches (7, 8). Gatward further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to sandwich each of the first and second handles between a pair of reinforcement patches in order to provide a more secure base for the attachment of the handles and in order to stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent a mouth of the bag (column 1 lines 32-38, 67-72).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Davis by additionally providing an inner (first) patch attached to said outside surface of said bag and an inner (second) patch attached to said outside surface on an opposite side of said bag, wherein the lower portions of each of the first handle and the second handle are attached to respective said inner (first and second) patches such that the lower portions of the first handle and the second handle are sandwiched between respective said inner (first and second) and outer (third and fourth) patches, as suggested by Gatward, in order to provide a more secure base for the attachment of the handles and in order to further stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent a mouth of the bag.
Davis also fails to teach the first and second handles being twist handles comprised of twine. Atwood teaches a bag comprising an analogous handle assembly including two handles (10) covered by paper reinforcing patches (14). Atwood further teaches that twisted handles comprised of paper, twine or cord are well-known alternative handles in the analogous art (column 1 line 56-column 2 line 3 and Fig. 1, 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the two cord handles of Davis with two twist handles comprised of twine, as taught by Atwood, as the substitution of one know handle for an alternative known handle to achieve the equivalent result of providing the bag with a carrying means would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Davis as modified by Stark, Gatward and Atwood teaches the bag of claim 19 above, wherein said twist handles are in an upward position (Davis: Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 22, Davis as modified by Stark, Gatward and Atwood teaches the bag of claim 19 above, but fails to specifically teach each of said patches being between five and ten inches in width and between two and five inches in length.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width and length of the patches of Davis in order to obtain the width and length as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 23, Davis as modified by Stark, Gatward and Atwood teaches the bag of claim 19 above, but fails to specifically teach said paper of said paper carry out bag having a basis weight between twenty and sixty pounds.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a paper having a basis weight between twenty and sixty pounds as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis in view of Stark, Gatward and Atwood, as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Phillips.
Regarding claim 21, Davis as modified by Stark, Gatward and Atwood teaches the bag of claim 19 above, but fails to teach the twist handles being in a downward position. Phillips teaches a handled bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the handles in a downward position (Fig. 1-3, 6) in order to enable neat and smooth stacking of bags in a pile for packaging, transportation and storage (column 2 line 66-column 3 line 11).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Davis by alternatively configuring the twist handles in a downward position, as suggested by Phillips, in order to enable neat and smooth stacking of bags in a pile for packaging, transportation and storage.
Claims 24, 25 and 27-34are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartstein (GB 623182 A) in view of Gatward.
Regarding claim 24, Hartstein teaches a paper carry out bag comprising:
said paper carry out bag having an outside surface and an inside surface;
an outer (third) paper patch (3) attached to said inside surface of said bag over a lower portion of a first paper handle (2), and
an outer (fourth) paper patch (3) attached to said inside surface of said bag over a lower portion of a second paper handle (2) (page 1 lines 10-102 and FIG. 1, 2).
Hartstein fails to teach an additional inner (first) paper patch attached to said inside surface of said bag and an additional inner (second) paper patch attached to said inside surface on an opposite side of said bag, wherein the lower portions of each of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are attached to respective said inner (first and second) paper patches such that the lower portions of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are sandwiched between respective said inner (first and second) and outer (third and fourth) paper patches.
Gatward teaches an analogous handled bag comprising first and second handles (4) with reinforcement patches (7, 8). Gatward further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to sandwich each of the first and second handles between a pair of reinforcement patches in order to provide a more secure base for the attachment of the handles and in order to stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent a mouth of the bag (column 1 lines 32-38, 67-72).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Hartstein by additionally providing an inner (first) paper patch attached to said inside surface of said bag and an inner (second) paper patch attached to said inside surface on an opposite side of said bag, wherein the lower portions of each of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are attached to respective said inner (first and second) paper patches such that the lower portions of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are sandwiched between respective said inner (first and second) and outer (third and fourth) paper patches, as suggested by Gatward, in order to provide a more secure base for the attachment of the handles and in order to further stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent a mouth of the bag.
Regarding claim 25, Hartstein as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, wherein said handles are in an upward position (Hartstein: FIG. 2).
Regarding claim 27, Hartstein as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, wherein said first and second paper handles consist of a strip of paper folded to form a folded paper handle (Hartstein: page 1 lines 31-58).
Regarding claim 28, Hartstein as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, but fails to specifically teach each of said first and second paper handles extending between one and five inches in length from a top of said bag and between three and five inches in width, said width defined as the distance between bottom portions of said first and second paper handles.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length and width of the first and second paper handles of Hartstein in order to obtain the length and width as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 8, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 29, Hartstein as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, wherein said first and second paper handles consist of a strip of paper folded multiple times to form a folded paper handle (Hartstein: page 1 lines 31-58).
Regarding claim 30, Hartstein as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 27 above, but fails to specifically teach said folded first and second paper handles extending between one and five inches in length from a top edge of said bag and between three and five inches in width.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length and width of the first and second folded paper handles of Hartstein in order to obtain the length and width as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 8, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 31, Hartstein as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 27 above, but fails to specifically teach said strip of paper being between ten inches and twenty inches in length and one inch and three inches in width.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length and width of the strip of paper of Hartstein in order to obtain the length and width as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 8, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 32, Hartstein as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 27 above, but fails to specifically teach said folded paper handle extending between two and five inches below a top edge of said bag.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of the folded paper handle of Hartstein in order to obtain the dimensions as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 8, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 33, Hartstein as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, but fails to specifically teach said paper patches being between five and ten inches in width and between two and five inches in length.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width and length of the paper patches of Hartstein in order to obtain the width and length as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 34, Hartstein as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, but fails to specifically teach said paper of said paper carry out bag having a basis weight between twenty and sixty pounds.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a paper having a basis weight between twenty and sixty pounds as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartstein in view of Gatward, as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Phillips.
Regarding claim 26, Hartstein as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, but fails to teach the handles being in a downward position. Phillips teaches a handled bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the handles in a downward position (Fig. 1-3, 6) in order to enable neat and smooth stacking of bags in a pile for packaging, transportation and storage (column 2 line 66-column 3 line 11).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Hartstein by alternatively configuring the handles in a downward position, as suggested by Phillips, in order to enable neat and smooth stacking of bags in a pile for packaging, transportation and storage.
Claims 24, 25 and 27-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paper Strap in view of Gatward and Stark.
Regarding claim 24, Paper Strap teaches a paper carry out bag comprising:
said paper carry out bag having an outside surface and an inside surface;
an outer (third) paper patch (23) attached to a surface of said bag above a lower portion of a first paper handle (21), and
an outer (fourth) paper patch (23) attached to a surface of said bag above a lower portion of a second paper handle (21) (page 1 line 69-page 2 line 53 and Fig. 4).
Paper Strap fails to teach each handle assembly (i.e., respective assemblies of patches and handles) being attached to said inside surface of said bag on opposite sides. Stark teaches an analogous paper bag having analogous handle assemblies including handles (b) covered by paper reinforcing patches (A). Stark further teaches that analogous handle assemblies are well-known in the prior art to be attached to either an outside surface of a bag or an inside surface of a bag (page 5, column 1, lines 5-10).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Paper Strap by alternatively attaching each handle assembly to the inside surface of the bag on opposite sides, as taught by Stark, as the substitution of one know handle assembly placement for an alternative known handle assembly placement to achieve the equivalent result of providing the bag with a carrying means would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art. Further, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found the particular placement of the handle assemblies on the inside surface of the bag to be an obvious matter of design choice as shifting the placement of the handle assemblies from the outside surface of the bag to the inside surface of the bag would not have modified the operation of the handle assemblies or the bag.
Paper Strap fails to teach an inner (first) paper patch attached to said inside surface of said bag and an inner (second) paper patch attached to said inside surface on an opposite side of said bag, wherein the lower portions of each of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are attached to respective said inner (first and second) paper patches such that the lower portions of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are sandwiched between respective said inner (first and second) and outer (third and fourth) paper patches.
Gatward teaches an analogous handled bag comprising first and second handles (4) with reinforcement patches (7, 8). Gatward further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to sandwich each of the first and second handles between a pair of reinforcement patches in order to provide a more secure base for the attachment of the handles and in order to stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent a mouth of the bag (column 1 lines 32-38, 67-72).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Paper Strap by additionally providing an inner (first) paper patch attached to said inside surface of said bag and an inner (second) paper patch attached to said inside surface on an opposite side of said bag, wherein the lower portions of each of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are attached to respective said inner (first and second) paper patches such that the lower portions of the first paper handle and the second paper handle are sandwiched between respective said inner (first and second) and outer (third and fourth) paper patches, as suggested by Gatward, in order to provide a more secure base for the attachment of the handles and in order to further stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent a mouth of the bag.
Regarding claim 25, Paper Strap as modified by Stark and Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, wherein said paper handles are in an upward position (Paper Strap: Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 27, Paper Strap as modified by Stark and Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, wherein said first and second paper handles consist of a strip of paper folded to form a folded paper handle (Paper Strap: page 1 lines 69-89 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 28, Paper Strap as modified by Stark and Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, but fails to specifically teach each of the first and second paper handles extending between one and five inches in length from a top of said bag and between three and five inches in width, said width defined as the distance between bottom portions of said first and second paper handles.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length from the top of the bag and the width of the paper handle of Paper Strap in order to obtain the length and the width as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 8, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 29, Paper Strap as modified by Stark and Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, wherein said first and second paper handles consist of a strip of paper folded multiple times to form a folded paper handle (Paper Strap: page 1 lines 69-89 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 30, Paper Strap as modified by Stark and Gatward teaches the bag of claim 27 above, but fails to specifically teach said folded first and second paper handles extending between one and five inches in length from a top edge of said bag and between three and five inches in width.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length and width of the first and second folded paper handles of Paper Strap in order to obtain the length and width as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 8, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 31, Paper Strap as modified by Stark and Gatward teaches the bag of claim 27 above, but fails to specifically teach said strip of paper being between ten inches and twenty inches in length and one inch and three inches in width.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length and width of the strip of paper of Paper Strap in order to obtain the length and width as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 8, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 32, Paper Strap as modified by Stark and Gatward teaches the bag of claim 27 above, but fails to specifically teach said folded paper handle extending between two and five inches below a top edge of said bag.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensions of the folded paper handle of Paper Strap in order to obtain the dimensions as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 8, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 33, Paper Strap as modified by Stark and Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, but fails to specifically teach each of said paper patches being between five and ten inches in width and between two and five inches in length.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width and length of the paper patches of Paper Strap in order to obtain the width and length as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 34, Paper Strap as modified by Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, but fails to specifically teach said paper of said paper carry out bag having a basis weight between twenty and sixty pounds.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a paper having a basis weight between twenty and sixty pounds as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 35, Paper Strap as modified by Stark and Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, wherein said paper carry out bag has a gusset (Paper Strap: Fig. 4) but fails to specifically teach said first and second paper handles and said paper patches being between four and ten inches in width and said gusset being between three and eight inches.
However, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the width of the paper handles and paper patches and the dimension of the gussets of Paper Strap in order to obtain the dimensions as claimed, as merely changing the size of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level or ordinary skill in the art. Further, the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04. It is further noted that in the instant application, page 9, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 36, Paper Strap as modified by Stark and Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, wherein said first and second paper handles are formed by folding a strip consisting of paper at least twice and bending said strip of paper to form two corners (Paper Strap: page 1 lines 69-89 and Fig. 2).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paper Strap in view of Stark and Gatward, as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Matsuura.
Regarding claim 26, Paper Strap as modified by Stark and Gatward teaches the bag of claim 24 above, but fails to teach said paper handles being in a downward position. Matsuura teaches an analogous handle assembly for a bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable to configure the handle assembly on the bag such that a handle (2) of the handle assembly is configured in a downward position so that the handle does not protrude from the bag when it is attached to the bag, so that the handle does not become an obstacle when bags are stacked and bundled and so that the handle does not interfere with packing of a commodity in the bag (Translation and Fig. 1-3, 5).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Paper Strap by alternatively configuring the paper handles in a downward position, as taught by Matsuura, so that the handle does not protrude from the bag when it is attached to the bag, so that the handle does not become an obstacle when bags are stacked and bundled and so that the handle does not interfere with packing of a commodity in the bag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed April 19, 2025 have been fully considered by are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that there is no reason one of skill would choose twine handles of Atwood when both Davis and Atwood teach the cord handles or would be motivated to use handles made for a 200 pound bag for the handles of a shopping bag of Davis, is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, Atwood clearly and expressly teaches that twisted handles comprised of paper, twine or cord are well-known alternative handles in the analogous art. Therefore, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to replace the handles of Davis with any of the twisted handles of paper, twine or cord as taught by Atwood, as there is clear teaching and suggestion that twisted handles of paper, twine and cord are interchangeable and known alternatives. Additionally, twisted handles comprised of twine are not novel. Accordingly, merely replacing one known handle for an alternative known handle to achieve the equivalent result of providing the bag with a carrying means, regardless of the intended use of the bag, would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Further, the teaching of cord handles in both Davis and Atwood is of no significance. It does not require the use of cord handles, nor does it teach away from the alternative use of twisted handles comprised of twine.
Applicant’s argument that Stark teaches a specific method of attaching the strip to the bag and that it cannot be stated that one of skill in the art would use a totally different method when applying the handle and the patch, is not persuasive.
The claims are product claims directed toward a bag, not method claims. Accordingly, the method taught by Stark is irrelevant and does not have to be implemented in the combination suggested in the rejection. One skilled in the art can choose to implement any method to achieve the claimed invention.
Applicant’s argument that Phillips requires a bag with a closure which cannot be added to the other prior art references because they do not include a closure mechanism, is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Phillips discloses that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the handles of a bag in a downward position (Fig. 1-3, 6) in order to enable neat and smooth stacking of bags in a pile for packaging, transportation and storage (column 3 lines 6-11).
Accordingly, regardless of whether a handled bag is configured with a closure or is configured in an open configuration, it would have been obvious to configure and position the handles in a downward position to enable neat and smooth stacking of the bag in a pile for packaging, transportation and storage.
Additionally, each of the references used in the rejection of the claims above utilizes a reinforcing patch to secure a handle to a bag. Accordingly, any modification in view of Phillips merely involves alternatively positioning the handles in a downward position rather than in an upward position.
Applicant’s argument that Gatward teaches away from the present invention as it states that the prior art handles were constructed of string or paper and not satisfactory for their use, not comfortable hand grip and attachment to bag not secure, is not persuasive.
Gatward was not and is not intended to teach a material structure of the handles. Rather, Gatward was intended to teach that it is desirable to sandwich handles between a pair of reinforcement patches in order to provide a more secure base for the attachment of the handles to a bag and in order to stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent a mouth of the bag. One skilled in the art would recognize and appreciate that Gatward’s teaching of sandwiching handles between a pair of reinforcement patches would be beneficial in providing a more secure base for the attachment of the handles to a bag and in stiffening and strengthening the bag adjacent a mouth of the bag regardless of the material structure of the handles. Accordingly, Gatward cannot be said to teach away from the present invention.
Further, as previously stated, Gatward states that prior art handles were usually constructed from string, paper, sisal or similar material and were not particularly satisfactory in use as their attachment to the bag was not at all secure (column 1 lines 15-20). Accordingly, the problem with which the invention of Gatward is concerned is the secure attachment of the handles at their ends to the bag particularly if the bag is constructed from a cellulosic material such as paper, and ensuring that the bag itself is sufficiently strong adjacent the mouth to take the load (column 1 lines 26-31). Further, Gatward discloses that although it is within the scope of the invention to secure each handle directly to the bag, it is preferred to connect the handle to the bag through the medium of a patch which is itself secured to the bag, where the patch, in addition to providing a more secure base for the attachment of the handle, also serves to stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent the mouth (column 1 lines 32-38). Although the invention of Gatward discloses and uses molded plastic handles and uses welding, one skilled in the art would understand that the teachings of Gatward are applicable to bags and handles of different material constructions.
Accordingly, even though there are material distinctions between the claimed invention, the prior art applied in the rejection above and the prior art of Gatward, the prior art of Gatward provides sufficient teaching, suggestion and motivation to modify the prior art as suggested in the rejections above (i.e., in order to provide a more secure base for the attachment of the handles and in order to further stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent the mouth).
Additionally, Applicant further argues that Gatward teaches away from the present invention because Gatward discloses that paper handles were not satisfactory because their attachment to the bag was not at all secure. However, the paper handles discloses by Gatward were directly attached to the bag, making them unsatisfactory because they were not securely attached. As Gatward expressly states, “the problem with which the present invention is concerned is the secure attachment of the handles at their ends to the bag…it is preferred to connect the handle to the bag through the medium of a patch which is itself secured to the bag, the patch in addition to providing a more secure base for the attachment of the handle also serving to stiffen and strengthen the bag adjacent the mouth”.
Applicant’s argument that the prior art of Paper Strap does not teach a handle consisting of paper, is not persuasive.
Paper Strap expressly discloses “a handle made of paper strap material” (page 1 lines 69-71) and does not disclose any other materials used in the strap material. Thus, one skilled in the art would consider the handle of Paper Strap to consist of paper. Additionally, Applicant has not provided any reason or evidence to suggest that the handle disclosed by Paper Strap does not consist of paper.
Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching in Paper Strap to place a label underneath the handle, as the label would need to have glue or adhesive on both sides of the of the label, one to attach to the bag and the second side to attach to the handle, which is not taught there therefore this is no motivation, is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Paper Strap was not intended to teach the argued limitations, nor was Paper Strap relied on in the rejection to teach the argued limitation.
Applicant’s argument that Matsuura relates to a handle piece made of a low foamed synthetic resin, not paper, and therefore responds differently to being bent inside the bag, is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally, in response to applicant's argument, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In this case, Matsuura was not relied upon to teach any material structure of the handle. Rather, Matsuura was merely intended to teach that it is known and desirable to configure a handle assembly on the bag such that a handle (2) of the handle assembly is configured in a downward position so that the handle does not protrude from the bag when it is attached to the bag, so that the handle does not become an obstacle when bags are stacked and bundled and so that the handle does not interfere with packing of a commodity in the bag (Translation and Fig. 1-3, 5).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to and would have found it obvious to configure the handles of Paper Strap in a downward position, as taught by Matsuura, in order to achieve the desired benefits of the downward configuration as disclosed by Matsuura.
Applicant’s argument that neither Hartstein nor Gatward teach a paper handle, is not persuasive.
Hartstein expressly discloses “in accordance with this invention there is provided a handle for a carrier bag wherein a sheet of paper or equivalent material which is capable of being rolled into a tube and bent to shape, is first rolled form a corner into convoluted tube the opposite free corner of which is thereafter secured down to the tube body which is then bent into an appropriate convex shape, e.g. U-shape for attachment of the body ends to the bag” (page 1, lines 31-40). Accordingly, Hartstein discloses a paper handle.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM 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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/NINA K ATTEL/ Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734