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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 14, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 14 and line 18, “the perforations” should be --the plurality of perforations--.
Claim 66 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the perforations” should be --the plurality of perforations--.
Claim 67 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the perforations” should be --the plurality of perforations--.
Claim 69 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the perforations” should be --the plurality of perforations--.
Claim 70 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “the perforations are covered by a sealing tape with a tab” should be --the covering comprises a sealing tape with a tab--.
Claim 78 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 6, “a bag” should be --the bag--, and
In line 7, “from” should be --front--.
Claim 81 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the perforations” should be --the plurality of perforations--.
Claim 82 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the perforations” should be --the plurality of perforations--.
Claim 83 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “the perforations” should be --the plurality of perforations--.
Claim 84 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “perforations” should be --the plurality of perforations--.
Claim 106 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 11, “a bag” should be --the bag--, and
In line 12, “from” should be --front--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 78-84, 101 and 106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 78 recites the limitation “extending vertically into the seam” in line 8 and “a corresponding cut-out in the opposite end of the wall” in lines 8-9. However, the structure intended by the tab extending vertically into the seam is not clear. Additionally, it is not clear what end of wall is intended by opposite end of the wall.
For the purpose of examination, the tab will be considered to be adjacent to the seam and the corresponding cut-out will be considered to be adjacent to or extending into the seam.
Claim 106 recites the same limitations as claim 78 and thus, is rejected for being indefinite for the same reasons provided above with respect to claim 78.
Claims 79-84 and 101 are rejected for being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, claim 78.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 102-105 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 102 recites the limitation “a covering over the plurality of perforations” and claim 103 recites the limitation “the covering is releasable from the bag with less force when pulled in a diagonal direction relative to a pull in the upward direction”. However, claim 61, from which claims 102 and 103 depend, already recites the limitations of claims 102 and 103. Accordingly, claims 102 and 103 are of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 104 and 105 are rejected as being dependent from claims 102 and 103.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72-74, 76, 77, 100 and 104-106 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazbaz (US 2013/0206631 A1) in view of Cornelisse (US 2006/0198561 A1), Lyzenga et al. (US 2013/0121623 A1, hereinafter Lyzenga) and Deflander et al. (US 5,531,325 A, hereinafter Deflander).
Regarding claims 61, 102 and 103, Bazbaz teaches a bag comprising:
a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall, wherein the first side wall and the second side wall are disposed on opposite sides of the front wall and the back wall and connect the front wall to the back wall, forming the bag having a top end and a bottom end;
wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall and the second side wall comprise (i) a first layer of woven polymer (which encompasses the structure implied by the term “strips”) comprising polypropylene, polyethylene, or a combination thereof (paragraph 19), and (ii) a second layer of film comprising polypropylene, polyethylene, or a combination thereof (paragraph 19), (which encompasses the recitation “wherein the woven strips and the film comprise the same material”); and
wherein a portion of the front wall or a portion of the back wall is adapted to form a sealed closure of the bag (paragraph 24);
a plurality of perforations penetrating through at least a portion of the front wall (paragraph 20), (which meets the recitation “penetrating at least partially through the woven strips or the film of the front wall of the bag”), wherein the plurality of perforations form a line (paragraph 22); wherein the perforations extend over a length from 10% to 50% of a width of the bag (paragraphs 20-22); and wherein the bag is configured to hold 10 pounds (paragraph 26) or more (paragraph 74); and
a covering (25) over the plurality of perforations releasable from the front wall of the bag and releasable with less force when pulled in the direction of the pull tab (26) and plurality of perforations (due to the presence and orientation of the pull tab 26 and/or the cut 21) versus a pull toward the top end or bottom end of the front wall of the bag (paragraphs 53, 54) (paragraphs 53-76 and FIG. 1-17).
The walls, the woven strips, the film, the sealed closure, the plurality of perforations forming a line extending over the width of the bag, and weight capacity of the Bazbaz bag meets the claimed structure, as discussed above, thus meeting the structure implied by the functional recitation “configured…to withstand drop test conditions in accordance with ASTM D5276-98.”
However, Bazbaz does not disclose the opening line of perforations extending in a diagonal direction with respect to the front wall of the bag. Cornelisse teaches that it is known in the art to extend a line or opening diagonally in an analogous bag (paragraphs 12-15 and FIG. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bazbaz by extending the opening line of perforations diagonally with respect to the front wall of the bag, as taught by Cornelisse, in order to facilitate dispensing the bag contents. It is noted that orienting the plurality of perforations in a diagonal direction also orients the covering in the diagonal direction which is thereby releasable with less force when pulled in the diagonal direction versus a pull towards the top end or bottom end of the front wall of the bag (due to the presence and orientation of the pull tab 26 and/or the cut 21).
Moreover, Bazbaz does not disclose the opening line of perforations having end curves at each end of the line of perforations, wherein the end curves are concave with respect to each end of the line and extend on each side of each line. Lyzenga teaches that it is known in the art to provide end curves at each end of an opening line of weakness, wherein the end curves are concave with respect to each end of the line and extend on each side of each line in an analogous bag (Fig. 8).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bazbaz by providing end curves at each end of the opening line of perforations, wherein the end curves are concave with respect to each end of the line and extend on each side of each line, as taught by Lyzenga, in order to control bag tear beyond the line of perforations.
Further, Bazbaz does not specifically disclose the covering being releasable from the front wall with less than 10 lbs force. Deflander teaches an analogous bag having a plurality of perforations and a covering (7) over the plurality of perforations releasable from the bag and further teaches that it is known in the prior art to attach the covering to the bag with relatively low peeling strength such that it is easily removable and has a peeling force that does not exceed between .8 and 1.2 N/cm (column 4 lines 49-53, column 7 lines 3-13 and Fig. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bazbaz by configuring the covering to be releasable from the front wall with less than 10 lbs force, as taught by Deflander, so that the covering is easily removable.
Regarding claim 63, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein the plurality of perforations enables opening of the bag when the front bag wall is pulled in a first direction and the plurality of perforations do not enable opening of the bag when the front bag wall is pulled in a second direction opposite the first direction (Bazbaz: paragraph 53, 54 and FIG. 1-7 and Cornelisse: paragraphs 12-15 and FIG. 1). Extending the opening line of perforations diagonally, as in Cornelisse and discussed above, meets the structure implied by the functional recitation “the plurality of perforations enables opening of the bag when the front wall is pulled in a first direction, and the plurality of perforations do not enable opening of the bag when the front wall is pulled in a second direction opposite the first direction.”
Regarding claim 64, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein the top end is sealed without an adhesive (Bazbaz: paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 66, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein the plurality of perforations penetrate through at least a portion of the front wall of the bag (Bazbaz: paragraph 20), which meets the recitation “the perforations extend at least partially through the film.”
Regarding claim 67, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein the plurality of perforations can extend as a percentage of distances across the wall(s) of the bag (Bazbaz: paragraphs 20-22), but fails to specifically teach the plurality of perforations being located adjacent to an end of the bag at a first distance from 10% to 30% of a second distance from the top end to the bottom end of the front wall.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to extend the diagonally oriented plurality of perforations such that they are located adjacent to an end of the bag at a first distance from 10% to 30% of a second distance from the top end to the bottom end of the front wall in the modified Bazbaz bag, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 69, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein the plurality of perforations include an H-shaped puncture area (Bazbaz: 121; Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 70, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein covering comprises a sealing tape (25, 125) with a tab (26, 126) (Bazbaz: paragraphs 53, 54 and FIG. 1-9).
Regarding claim 72, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein a single fold or double fold of the bottom end or the top end of the bag can be sealed using an adhesive sealing, heat sealing, adhesive lamination, extrusion lamination, stitching, ultrasonic energy, pressure, tape, or any combination thereof (Bazbaz: paragraph 24), which meets the structure implied by the functional recitation “the bag exhibits less than a 3% failure rate when the bag is subjected to a drop test in accordance with ASTM D5276 including hanging a filled bag at 145°F for 72 hours followed by a 6 point drop test from a height of at least 4 feet, followed by storage at -27°F for 24 hours followed by another 6 point drop test from a height of at least 4 feet.”
Regarding claim 73, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein a single fold or double fold of the bottom end or the top end of the bag can be sealed using an adhesive sealing, heat sealing, adhesive lamination, extrusion lamination, stitching, ultrasonic energy, pressure, tape, or any combination thereof (Bazbaz: paragraph 24), which meets the structure implied by the functional recitation “the bag exhibits less than a 3% failure rate when the bag is subjected to a drop test in accordance with ASTM D5276 including hanging a filled bag at 145°F for 144 hours followed by a 10 point drop test from a height of at least 4 feet followed by storage at -27°F for 72 hours followed by another 10 point drop test from at height of at least 4 feet.”
Regarding claim 74, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein the woven strips further comprise at least one of polypropylene, high density polyethylene, low density polyethylene, and polyester (Bazbaz: paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 76, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein the film comprises at least one of biaxially-oriented polypropylene, oriented polyethylene, biaxially-oriented polyethylene, oriented polyethylene terephthalate, biaxially-oriented polyethylene terephthalate, oriented polyamide, and biaxially-oriented polyamide (Bazbaz: paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 77, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall further comprises a second film (third layer) and the second film further comprises at least one of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, and polyamide (Bazbaz: paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 100, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 61 above, wherein the plurality of perforations defining a line that is oriented within an angular range of 30º to 60º with respect to either the first end or the second end of the bag (Cornelisse: paragraph 13).
Regarding claim 104, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 103 above, wherein the covering (25, 125) comprises a pull tab (26, 126) (Bazbaz: paragraphs 53, 54), which meets the structure implied by the functional recitation “wherein the covering can be removed by hand without tools.”
Regarding claim 105, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse, Lyzenga and Deflander teaches the bag of claim 103 above, wherein the bag further comprise an adhesive that seals the covering to the front wall of the bag (Bazbaz: paragraphs 23, 53, 54).
Regarding claim 106, Bazbaz teaches a bag comprising:
a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall, wherein the first side wall and the second side wall are disposed on opposite sides of the front wall and the back wall and connect the front wall to the back wall, forming the bag having a top end and a bottom end;
wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall and the second side wall comprise (i) a first layer of woven polymer (which encompasses the structure implied by the term “strips”) comprising polypropylene, polyethylene, or a combination thereof (paragraph 19), and (ii) a second layer of film comprising polypropylene, polyethylene, or a combination thereof (paragraph 19), (which encompasses the recitation “wherein the woven strips and the film comprise the same material”); and
wherein a portion of the front wall or a portion of the back wall is adapted to form a sealed closure of the bag (paragraph 24);
wherein the front wall or the back wall of the bag comprises a seam (104) extending from the top edge to the bottom edge of the front wall or the back wall, wherein a portion of the front wall or the back wall adjoining the seam comprises a tab adjacent to the seam (FIG. 8-13) and a corresponding cut-out adjacent to or extending into the seam (FIG. 8-13);
a plurality of perforations penetrating through at least a portion of the front wall (paragraph 20), (which meets the recitation “penetrating at least partially through the woven strips or the film of the front wall of the bag”), wherein the plurality of perforations form a line (paragraph 22); wherein the perforations extend over a length from 10% to 50% of a width of the bag (paragraphs 20-22); and wherein the bag is configured to hold 10 pounds (paragraph 26) or more (paragraph 74); and
a covering (25) over the plurality of perforations releasable from the front wall of the bag and releasable with less force when pulled in the direction of the pull tab (26) and plurality of perforations (due to the presence and orientation of the pull tab 26 and/or the cut 21) versus a pull toward the top end or bottom end of the front wall of the bag (paragraphs 53, 54) (paragraphs 53-76 and FIG. 1-17).
The walls, the woven strips, the film, the sealed closure, the plurality of perforations forming a line extending over the width of the bag, and weight capacity of the Bazbaz bag meets the claimed structure, as discussed above, thus meeting the structure implied by the functional recitation “configured…to withstand drop test conditions in accordance with ASTM D5276-98.”
However, Bazbaz does not disclose the opening line of perforations extending in a diagonal direction with respect to the front wall of the bag. Cornelisse teaches that it is known in the art to extend a line or opening diagonally in an analogous bag (paragraphs 12-15 and FIG. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bazbaz by extending the opening line of perforations diagonally with respect to the front wall of the bag, as taught by Cornelisse, in order to facilitate dispensing the bag contents. It is noted that orienting the plurality of perforations in a diagonal direction also orients the covering in the diagonal direction which is thereby releasable with less force when pulled in the diagonal direction versus a pull towards the top end or bottom end of the front wall of the bag (due to the presence and orientation of the pull tab 26 and/or the cut 21).
Moreover, Bazbaz does not disclose the opening line of perforations having end curves at each end of the line of perforations, wherein the end curves are concave with respect to each end of the line and extend on each side of each line. Lyzenga teaches that it is known in the art to provide end curves at each end of an opening line of weakness, wherein the end curves are concave with respect to each end of the line and extend on each side of each line in an analogous bag (Fig. 8).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bazbaz by providing end curves at each end of the opening line of perforations, wherein the end curves are concave with respect to each end of the line and extend on each side of each line, as taught by Lyzenga, in order to control bag tear beyond the line of perforations.
Further, Bazbaz does not specifically disclose the covering being releasable from the front wall with less than 10 lbs force. Deflander teaches an analogous bag having a plurality of perforations and a covering (7) over the plurality of perforations releasable from the bag and further teaches that it is known in the prior art to attach the covering to the bag with relatively low peeling strength such that it is easily removable and has a peeling force that does not exceed between .8 and 1.2 N/cm (column 4 lines 49-53, column 7 lines 3-13 and Fig. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bazbaz by configuring the covering to be releasable from the front wall with less than 10 lbs force, as taught by Deflander, so that the covering is easily removable.
Claims 78-84 and 101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazbaz in view of Cornelisse or Watterott (DE 10 2004 054 343 A1), and Lyzenga.
Regarding claim 78, Bazbaz discloses a bag comprising:
a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall, each having an interior surface and an exterior surface and a first end and a second end;
wherein the first end of the back wall extends beyond the first end of the front wall and is adapted to fold over the first end of the front wall and form an overlay portion (paragraph 24);
wherein the front wall or the back wall of the bag comprises a seam (104) extending from the top edge to the bottom edge of the front wall or the back wall, wherein a portion of the front wall or the back wall adjoining the seam comprises a tab adjacent to the seam (FIG. 8-13) and a corresponding cut-out adjacent to or extending into the seam (FIG. 8-13);
wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall and the second side wall comprises first layer and a second layer, and wherein the first layer and the second layer comprise polyethylene, polypropylene, or a combination thereof (paragraph 19), which encompasses the recitation “wherein the first and second layers comprise the same material”; and wherein the first layer and the second layer are laminated together; and
a plurality of perforations penetrating through at least a portion of the front wall (paragraph 20), which meets the recitation “penetrating at least partially through the first layer or the second layer of the front wall of the bag”, which meets the structure implied by the functional recitation “wherein the perforations enable opening of the bag with less force than required for opening a sealed closure at the first end or second end of the bag”, wherein the plurality of perforations define a line (paragraph 22); wherein the perforations extend over a length from 10% to 90% of a width of the bag (paragraphs 20-22); and wherein the bag is configured to hold 10 pounds (paragraph 26) or more (paragraph 74) (paragraphs 53-76 and FIG. 1-17).
The walls, the laminated layers, the sealed closure, the easy open feature in the front wall, the plurality of perforations forming a line extending over the width of the bag, and weight capacity of the Bazbaz bag meets the claimed structure, as discussed above, thus meeting the structure implied by the functional recitation “configured…to withstand drop test conditions in accordance with ASTM D5276-98.”
However, Bazbaz does not disclose the opening line of perforations extending in a diagonal direction with respect to the front wall of the bag. Cornelisse and Watterott teaach that it is known in the art to extend a line or opening diagonally in an analogous bag (Cornelisse: paragraphs 12-15 and FIG. 1 and Watterott: Fig. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bazbaz by extending the opening line of perforations diagonally with respect to the front wall of the bag, as taught by Cornelisse or Watterott, in order to facilitate dispensing the bag contents.
Moreover, Bazbaz does not disclose the opening line of perforations having end curves at each end of the line of perforations, wherein the end curves are concave with respect to each end of the line and extend on each side of each line. Lyzenga teaches that it is known in the art to provide end curves at each end of an opening line of weakness, wherein the end curves are concave with respect to each end of the line and extend on each side of each line in an analogous bag (Fig. 8).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bazbaz by providing end curves at each end of the opening line of perforations, wherein the end curves are concave with respect to each end of the line and extend on each side of each line, as taught by Lyzenga, in order to control bag tear beyond the line of perforations.
Regarding claim 79, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisee or Watterott, and Lyzenga teaches the bag of claim 78 above, wherein the plurality of perforations enables opening of the bag when the front bag wall is pulled in a first direction and the plurality of perforations do not enable opening of the bag when the front bag wall is pulled in a second direction opposite the first direction (Bazbaz: paragraph 53, 54 and FIG. 1-7 and Cornelisse: paragraphs 12-15 and FIG. 1). Extending the opening line of perforations diagonally, as in Cornelisse and discussed above, meets the structure implied by the functional recitation “the plurality of perforations enables opening of the bag when the front wall is pulled in a first direction, and the plurality of perforations do not enable opening of the bag when the front wall is pulled in a second direction opposite the first direction.”
Regarding claim 80, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse or Watterott, and Lyzenga teaches the bag of claim 78 above, wherein the top end is sealed without an adhesive (Bazbaz: paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 81, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse or Watterott, and Lyzenga teaches the bag of claim 78 above, wherein the plurality of perforations extend through at least a portion of the front wall (Bazbaz: paragraph 20), which meets the recitation “the perforations extend at least partially through the second layer.”
Regarding claims 82 and 83, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse or Watterott, and Lyzenga teaches the bag of claim 80 above, wherein the plurality of perforations can extend as a percentage of distances across the wall(s) of the bag (Bazbaz: paragraphs 20-22), but fails to specifically teach the plurality of perforations being located adjacent to an end of the bag at a first distance from 10% to 30% of a second distance from the top end to the bottom end of the front wall and the bag.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to extend the diagonally oriented plurality of perforations such that they are located adjacent to an end of the bag at a first distance from 10% to 30% of a second distance from the top end to the bottom end of the front wall in the modified Bazbaz bag, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 84, Bazbaz as modified by Cornelisse or Watterott, and Lyzenga teaches the bag of claim 81 above, wherein the plurality of perforations extend over a length from 15% to 85% of a width of the bag (Bazbaz: paragraph 54).
Regarding claim 101, Bazbaz as modified by Watterott and Lyzenga teaches the bag of claim 78 above, wherein the plurality of perforations define a line that is oriented within an angular range of 80º to 100º with respect to either the first end or the second end of the bag (Watterott: Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the cited references fail to teach a covering over the plurality of perforations releasable from the bag with less than 10 lbs. force when pulled in the diagonal direction and with less force when pulled in the diagonal direction versus a pull towards the top end or the bottom end of the front wall of the bag, is not persuasive
The prior art applied in the previous rejection of record was not intended to teach a covering over the plurality of perforations releasable from the bag with less than 10 lbs force when pulled in the diagonal direction as the argued limitation is a new limitation not presented in the previously examined claims. Regarding the covering being releasable pulled in the diagonal direction versus a pull towards the top end or the bottom end of the front wall of the bag, see rejection above.
Applicant’s argument that the cited references fail to teach a tab adjacent to or extending vertically into the seam and a corresponding cut-out in the opposite end of the wall adjacent to or extending into the seam, is not persuasive.
The structure shown by Bazbaz meets the claim language. See 112(b) and 103 rejections above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights