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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 17, 2026 has been entered.
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 10, 11, 13, 34, 35, 37, 57, 58 and 60 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.
Claims 10, 34 and 57 recite the limitation “said flat handle having a fold line, paper in said flat handle folded twice”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for said paper in the claims. Additionally, the handle having a fold line and being folded twice is confusing. It is not clear whether there is a relationship between the fold line and the handle being folded twice.
For the purpose of examination, said flap handle will be considered to comprise a paper that is folded twice.
Claims 11, 13, 35, 37, 58 and 60 are rejected as being dependent from, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, claims 10, 34 and 57 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 14, 15, 17, 20-24, 26, 27, 33, 38, 39, 41 and 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Everett et al. (US 2020/0063355 A1, hereinafter Everett).
Regarding claim 1, Everett teaches a paper bag comprising:
hemp paper (paragraphs 21, 60),
said hemp paper being a single layer (paragraphs 637, 646),
wherein said hemp paper has a tensile MD strength from five pounds to 200 pounds per inch (paragraph 585, 588.3 gram force/mm=30.0382 pounds per inch),
wherein said hemp paper has a tensile CD strength (paragraph 585, any direction on a hand sheet) from five pounds to two hundred pounds per inch (paragraph 585, 588.3 gram force/mm=30.0382 pounds per inch), and
wherein said hemp paper has a bursting strength from five pounds to two hundred pounds per square inch (paragraphs 609, 620, 621).
Regarding claim 3, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, wherein said hemp paper is treated or coated with AKD sizing, a wax derivative (paragraphs 294, 406).
Regarding claim 9, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, wherein said paper bag is bleached (paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 14, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, wherein said hemp paper is oil and grease resistant, leakproof, water resistant or a combination thereof (paragraph 524).
Regarding claim 15, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, wherein said bag is printable, allowing ink and graphics to be attached to the paper (paragraphs 294, 524, 550).
Regarding claim 17, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, wherein said paper bag is recyclable, compostable, biodegradable or any combination thereof (abstract).
Regarding claims 20-23, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, wherein said paper bag comprises 1-25% hemp, 5-50% hemp, 50-75% hemp or 75-99% hemp (paragraphs 60, 79-81, 83, 85, 86).
Regarding claim 24, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, wherein the paper bag comprises a percentage of paper that is not hemp and comprises a combination of post-consumer waste recycled wood pulp, post-industrial recycled content wood pulp or virgin wood pulp (paragraphs 39, 42, 52, 60, 64, 65, 73, 74, 78-87).
Regarding claim 26, Everett teaches a paper bag comprising: hemp paper (paragraphs 21, 60) and a combination of post-consumer waste recycled wood pulp, post-industrial recycled content wood pulp or virgin wood pulp (paragraphs 39, 42, 52, 60, 64, 65, 73, 74, 78-87), said paper bag comprising a single layer (paragraphs 637, 646).
Regarding claim 27, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said hemp paper is treated or coated with AKD sizing, a wax derivative (paragraphs 294, 406).
Regarding claim 33, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said paper bag is bleached (paragraph 65).
Regarding claim 38, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said hemp paper is oil and grease resistant, leakproof, water resistant or a combination thereof (paragraph 524).
Regarding claim 39, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said bag is printable, allowing ink and graphics to be attached to the paper (paragraphs 294, 524).
Regarding claim 41, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said paper bag is recyclable, compostable, biodegradable or any combination thereof (abstract).
Regarding claims 44-47, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said paper bag comprises 1-25% hemp, 5-50% hemp, 50-75% hemp or 75-99% hemp (paragraphs 60, 79-81, 83, 85, 86).
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26, 27, 33, 38-41, 46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tyagi (WO 2022/271587 A9).
Regarding claim 26, Tyagi teaches a paper bag comprising: hemp paper and a combination of post-consumer waste recycled wood pulp, post-industrial recycled content wood pulp or virgin wood pulp (page 27 lines 4-20, combination of hardwood and soft wood fibers), said paper bag comprising a single layer (page 29 lines 16-22) (page 2 line 20-page 4 line 30, page 16 line 28-page 30 line 3, page 35 line 26-page 58, line 2).
Regarding claim 27, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said hemp paper is treated or coated with AKD sizing, a wax derivative (page 21 lines 7-16, page 27 lines 21-27, page 28 lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 33, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said paper bag is bleached (page 26 lines 8-20).
Regarding claim 38, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said hemp paper is oil and grease resistant, leakproof, water resistant or a combination thereof (page 21 lines 7-25, page 29 lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 39, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said bag is printable, allowing ink and graphics to be attached to the paper (page 20 lines 17-19, page 34 lines 20-30).
Regarding claim 40, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 39 above, wherein said ink and graphics are printed on the hemp paper bag by digital printing (page 20 lines 17-19, page 34 lines 20-30).
Regarding the ink and graphics being printed by digital printing, it is noted that method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Marosi, 710 F2.d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 41, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said paper bag is recyclable, compostable, biodegradable or any combination thereof (page 23 line 27-page 24 line 2).
Regarding claim 46, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said paper bag comprises 50%-75% hemp (pages 27 lines 4-20).
Regarding claim 47, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said paper bag comprises 75%-100% hemp (page 27 lines 4-20).
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 4, 5, 7, 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Long et al. (US 2012/0269469 A1, hereinafter Long).
Regarding claim 4, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being a flat bottom paper bag. Long teaches a paper bag (paragraph 21) and further teaches that paper bags are known to have various configurations, including a gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a non-gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a flat bottom, a folded bottom, other various pinch-bottom bag configurations, a non-pinch straight heat sealed bottom, and various self-opening sack configurations (paragraph 82).
Accordingly, 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 configure the paper bag of Everett to have any known paper bag configuration, including the flat bottom paper bag configuration as taught by Long. As the prior art has shown that paper bags are known to have various configurations, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the paper bag of Everett to have any known paper bag configuration and the results would have been obvious and predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being a pinch bottom paper bag. Long teaches a paper bag (paragraph 21) and further teaches that paper bags are known to have various configurations, including a gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a non-gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a flat bottom, a folded bottom, other various pinch-bottom bag configurations, a non-pinch straight heat sealed bottom, and various self-opening sack configurations (paragraph 82).
Accordingly, 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 configure the paper bag of Everett to have any known paper bag configuration, including the pinch bottom paper bag configuration as taught by Long. As the prior art has shown that paper bags are known to have various configurations, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the paper bag of Everett to have any known paper bag configuration and the results would have been obvious and predictable.
Regarding claim 7, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the paper bag having gussets. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with gussets in order to allow for expansion and/or reinforcement (paragraph 23).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with gussets, as taught by Long, in order to allow for expansion and/or reinforcement.
Regarding claim 8, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the paper bag comprising an opening and a closure mechanism for said opening. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that paper bags are known to be configured with an opening and that it is further desirable to configure the opening with a closure mechanism (150) for selectively and repeatedly sealing the opening (paragraphs 22-35).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with an opening and a closure mechanism for said opening, as taught by Long, so that the bag can be selectively and repeatedly opened and closed.
Regarding claim 19, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being sealable, resealable or closable. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that paper bags are known to be configured with a closure mechanism (150) for selectively and repeatedly sealing, resealing and closing an opening (paragraphs 22-35).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with a closure mechanism, as taught by Long, so that the bag can be selectively and repeatedly sealed, resealed and closed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Faltynek (US 5,009,518 A).
Regarding claim 6, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a window. Faltynek teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a window (24) for viewing the contents of the bag (abstract, column 2 line 19-column 3 line 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with a window, as taught by Faltynek, so that the contents of the bag can be viewed by the user.
Claims 10, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Rodley (US 3,565,327 A).
Regarding claim 10, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a twist handle or a flat handle, said flat handle comprising paper, said flat handle folded twice and bent in a first and second corner to form said flat handle.
Rodley teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a twisted paper handle (18) having a reinforcing patch (20) for easily carrying the bag (column 1 line 69-column 2 line 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 Everett by configuring the paper bag with a twist handle having a reinforcing patch, as taught by Rodley, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Regarding claim 11, Everett as modified by Rodley teaches the paper bag of claim 10 above, but fails to specifically teach the twist handle comprising hemp paper. However, as Rodley teaches that it is known to provide a paper bag with a paper handle, one skilled in the art would have similarly found it obvious to provide a hemp paper bag with a hemp paper bag and the results would have been obvious and predictable. Additionally, 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.
Regarding claim 13, Everett as modified by Rodley teaches the paper bag of claim 10 above, wherein a single or double patch (20) is affixed to said bag and attached to said twist handle (Rodley: column 1 line 69-column 2 line 10).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Snyder (US 1,671,050 A).
Regarding claim 12, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a die cut handle. Snyder teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a die cut handle for easily carrying the bag (page 2 lines 29-62 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 modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with a die cut handle, as taught by Snyder, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 15 above, wherein the ink and graphics are capable of being printed on the hemp paper bag by digital printing (Everett: paragraphs 294, 524, 550-fillers are added to improve printing properties, internal sizing agents typically improve the printability of the final paper). Regarding the ink and graphics being printed by digital printing, it is noted that method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Marosi, 710 F2.d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Snyder and Faber (US 5,513,914 A).
Regarding claim 18, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach said paper bag being a shopping bag having an insert to give said bag stability and having handles made of twine, cloth or rope.
Regarding the bag being a shopping bag, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Snyder teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with an insert (23) in order to give the bag stability and in order to reinforce the bag (page 2 lines 1-28).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with an insert, as taught or suggested by Snyder, in order to give the bag stability and in order to reinforce the bag.
Faber teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a handle made of rope, string, paper, cardboard, metal, plastic, rubber or any number of different materials or combinations of materials for easily carrying the bag (column 3 line 64-column 4 line 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 Everett by configuring the paper bag with a handle made of rope, as taught by Snyder, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 25, Everett teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein said paper bag has a width, a height (all bags inherently have a width and a height) and a basis weight (paragraph 21) but fails to teach the width being between three inches and twenty inches, the height being between four inches and twenty inches and the basis weight ranging from ten pounds to sixty pounds.
Although Everett fails to teach the width and the height of the paper bag as claimed, 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 the height of Everett in order to obtain the width and the height as claimed, as a change in size is not patentably distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular dimensions of the claimed invention are significant.
Additionally, regarding the basis weight of the paper bag, as the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art and as the basis weight of a material is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., determines papers weight), one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by providing a hemp paper having a basis weight sufficient for forming a bag of sufficient strength, as suggested by Everett, as it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable range or discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 28, 29, 31, 32 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Long.
Regarding claim 28, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being a flat bottom paper bag. Long teaches a paper bag (paragraph 21) and further teaches that paper bags are known to have various configurations, including a gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a non-gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a flat bottom, a folded bottom, other various pinch-bottom bag configurations, a non-pinch straight heat sealed bottom, and various self-opening sack configurations (paragraph 82).
Accordingly, 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 configure the paper bag of Everett to have any known paper bag configuration, including the flat bottom paper bag configuration as taught by Long. As the prior art has shown that paper bags are known to have various configurations, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the paper bag of Everett to have any known paper bag configuration and the results would have been obvious and predictable.
Regarding claim 29, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being a pinch bottom paper bag. Long teaches a paper bag (paragraph 21) and further teaches that paper bags are known to have various configurations, including a gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a non-gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a flat bottom, a folded bottom, other various pinch-bottom bag configurations, a non-pinch straight heat sealed bottom, and various self-opening sack configurations (paragraph 82).
Accordingly, 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 configure the paper bag of Everett to have any known paper bag configuration, including the pinch bottom paper bag configuration as taught by Long. As the prior art has shown that paper bags are known to have various configurations, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the paper bag of Everett to have any known paper bag configuration and the results would have been obvious and predictable.
Regarding claim 31, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag having gussets. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with gussets in order to allow for expansion and/or reinforcement (paragraph 23).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with gussets, as taught by Long, in order to allow for expansion and/or reinforcement.
Regarding claim 32, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag comprising an opening and a closure mechanism for said opening. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that paper bags are known to be configured with an opening and that it is further desirable to configure the opening with a closure mechanism (150) for selectively and repeatedly sealing the opening (paragraphs 22-35).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with an opening and a closure mechanism for said opening, as taught by Long, so that the bag can be selectively and repeatedly opened and closed.
Regarding claim 43, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being sealable, resealable or closable. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that paper bags are known to be configured with a closure mechanism (150) for selectively and repeatedly sealing, resealing and closing an opening (paragraphs 22-35).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with a closure mechanism, as taught by Long, so that the bag can be selectively and repeatedly sealed, resealed and closed.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Faltynek.
Regarding claim 30, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a window. Faltynek teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a window (24) for viewing the contents of the bag (abstract, column 2 line 19-column 3 line 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with a window, as taught by Faltynek, so that the contents of the bag can be viewed by the user.
Claims 34, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Rodley.
Regarding claim 34, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a twist handle or a flat handle, said flat handle comprising paper, said flat handle folded twice and bent in a first and second corner to form said flat handle.
Rodley teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a twisted paper handle (18) having a reinforcing patch (20) for easily carrying the bag (column 1 line 69-column 2 line 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 Everett by configuring the paper bag with a twist handle having a reinforcing patch, as taught by Rodley, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Regarding claim 35, Everett as modified by Rodley teaches the paper bag of claim 34 above, but fails to specifically teach the twist handle comprising hemp paper. However, as Rodley teaches that it is known to provide a paper bag with a paper handle, one skilled in the art would have similarly found it obvious to provide a hemp paper bag with a hemp paper bag and the results would have been obvious and predictable. Additionally, 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.
Regarding claim 37, Everett as modified by Rodley teaches the paper bag of claim 34 above, wherein a single or double patch (20) is affixed to said bag and attached to said twist handle (Rodley: column 1 line 69-column 2 line 10).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Snyder.
Regarding claim 36, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a die cut handle. Snyder teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a die cut handle for easily carrying the bag (page 2 lines 29-62 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 modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with a die cut handle, as taught by Snyder, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Snyder and Faber.
Regarding claim 42, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach said paper bag being a shopping bag having an insert to give said bag stability and having handles made of twine, cloth or rope.
Regarding the bag being a shopping bag, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Snyder teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with an insert (23) in order to give the bag stability and in order to reinforce the bag (page 2 lines 1-28).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by configuring the paper bag with an insert, as taught or suggested by Snyder, in order to give the bag stability and in order to reinforce the bag.
Faber teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a handle made of rope, string, paper, cardboard, metal, plastic, rubber or any number of different materials or combinations of materials for easily carrying the bag (column 3 line 64-column 4 line 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 Everett by configuring the paper bag with a handle made of rope, as taught by Snyder, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Everett, as applied to claim 26 above.
Regarding claim 48, Everett teaches the bag of claim 26 above, wherein said paper bag has a width, a height (all bags inherently have a width and a height) and a basis weight (paragraph 21) but fails to teach the width being between three inches and twenty inches, the height being between four inches and twenty inches and the basis weight ranging from ten pounds to sixty pounds.
Although Everett fails to teach the width and the height of the paper bag as claimed, 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 the height of Everett in order to obtain the width and the height as claimed, as a change in size is not patentably distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular dimensions of the claimed invention are significant.
Additionally, regarding the basis weight of the paper bag, as the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art and as the basis weight of a material is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., determines weight of paper), one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Everett by providing a hemp paper having a basis weight sufficient for forming a bag of sufficient strength, as suggested by Everett, as it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable range or discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 28, 29, 31, 32 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi, as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Long.
Regarding claim 28, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being a flat bottom paper bag. Long teaches a paper bag (paragraph 21) and further teaches that paper bags are known to have various configurations, including a gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a non-gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a flat bottom, a folded bottom, other various pinch-bottom bag configurations, a non-pinch straight heat sealed bottom, and various self-opening sack configurations (paragraph 82).
Accordingly, 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 configure the paper bag of Tyagi to have any known paper bag configuration, including the flat bottom paper bag configuration as taught by Long. As the prior art has shown that paper bags are known to have various configurations, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the paper bag of Tyagi to have any known paper bag configuration and the results would have been obvious and predictable.
Regarding claim 29, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being a pinch bottom paper bag. Long teaches a paper bag (paragraph 21) and further teaches that paper bags are known to have various configurations, including a gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a non-gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a flat bottom, a folded bottom, other various pinch-bottom bag configurations, a non-pinch straight heat sealed bottom, and various self-opening sack configurations (paragraph 82).
Accordingly, 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 configure the paper bag of Tyagi to have any known paper bag configuration, including the pinch bottom paper bag configuration as taught by Long. As the prior art has shown that paper bags are known to have various configurations, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the paper bag of Tyagi to have any known paper bag configuration and the results would have been obvious and predictable.
Regarding claim 31, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag having gussets. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with gussets in order to allow for expansion and/or reinforcement (paragraph 23).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Tyagi by configuring the paper bag with gussets, as taught by Long, in order to allow for expansion and/or reinforcement.
Regarding claim 32, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag comprising an opening and a closure mechanism for said opening. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that paper bags are known to be configured with an opening and that it is further desirable to configure the opening with a closure mechanism (150) for selectively and repeatedly sealing the opening (paragraphs 22-35).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Tyagi by configuring the paper bag with an opening and a closure mechanism for said opening, as taught by Long, so that the bag can be selectively and repeatedly opened and closed.
Regarding claim 43, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being sealable, resealable or closable. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that paper bags are known to be configured with a closure mechanism (150) for selectively and repeatedly sealing, resealing and closing an opening (paragraphs 22-35).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Tyagi by configuring the paper bag with a closure mechanism, as taught by Long, so that the bag can be selectively and repeatedly sealed, resealed and closed.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi, as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Faltynek.
Regarding claim 30, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a window. Faltynek teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a window (24) for viewing the contents of the bag (abstract, column 2 line 19-column 3 line 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Tyagi by configuring the paper bag with a window, as taught by Faltynek, so that the contents of the bag can be viewed by the user.
Claims 34, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi, as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Rodley.
Regarding claim 34, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a twist handle or a flat handle, said flat handle comprising paper, said flat handle folded twice and bent in a first and second corner to form said flat handle.
Rodley teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a twisted paper handle (18) having a reinforcing patch (20) for easily carrying the bag (column 1 line 69-column 2 line 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 Everett by configuring the paper bag with a twist handle having a reinforcing patch, as taught by Rodley, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Regarding claim 35, Tyagi as modified by Rodley teaches the paper bag of claim 34 above, but fails to specifically teach the twist handle comprising hemp paper. However, as Rodley teaches that it is known to provide a paper bag with a paper handle, one skilled in the art would have similarly found it obvious to provide a hemp paper bag with a hemp paper bag and the results would have been obvious and predictable. Additionally, 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.
Regarding claim 37, Tyagi as modified by Rodley teaches the paper bag of claim 34 above, wherein a single or double patch (20) is affixed to said bag and attached to said twist handle (Rodley: column 1 line 69-column 2 line 10).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi, as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Snyder.
Regarding claim 36, Everett teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a die cut handle. Snyder teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a die cut handle for easily carrying the bag (page 2 lines 29-62 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 modify Tyagi by configuring the paper bag with a die cut handle, as taught by Snyder, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi, as applied to claim 26 above, in view of Snyder and Faber.
Regarding claim 42, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, but fails to teach said paper bag being a shopping bag having an insert to give said bag stability and having handles made of twine, cloth or rope.
Regarding the paper bag being a shopping bag, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Snyder teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with an insert (23) in order to give the bag stability and in order to reinforce the bag (page 2 lines 1-28).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Tyagi by configuring the paper bag with an insert, as taught or suggested by Snyder, in order to give the bag stability and in order to reinforce the bag.
Faber teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a handle made of rope, string, paper, cardboard, metal, plastic, rubber or any number of different materials or combinations of materials for easily carrying the bag (column 3 line 64-column 4 line 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 Tyagi by configuring the paper bag with a handle made of rope, as taught by Snyder, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi, as applied to claim 26 above.
Regarding claim 48, Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 26 above, wherein said paper bag has a width, a height (all bags inherently have a width and a height) and a basis weight (page 24 lines 13-18) but fails to teach the width being between three inches and twenty inches, the height being between four inches and twenty inches and the basis weight ranging from ten pounds to sixty pounds.
Although Tyagi fails to teach the width and the height of the paper bag as claimed, 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 the height of Tyagi in order to obtain the width and the height as claimed, as a change in size is not patentably distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular dimensions of the claimed invention are significant.
Additionally, regarding the basis weight of the paper bag, as the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art and as the basis weight of a material is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., determines weight of paper), one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Tyagi by providing a hemp paper having a basis weight sufficient for forming a bag of sufficient strength, as suggested by Tyagi, as it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable range or discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 49-51, 61-64 and 67-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLoughlin (US 2022/0411154 A1) in view of Everett or Tyagi.
Regarding claim 49, McLoughlin teaches hemp paper having a hurd content of less than fifteen percent (paragraph 31). Note: “hemp paper having a hurd content of less than fifteen percent" is not supported by provisional 63/224,320. As such, the instant application is instead afforded its actual filing date (6/30/2022) as the EEFD.
McLoughlin fails to teach the hemp paper forming a hemp paper bag. Although McLoughlin is related to a cardboard box in general, McLoughlin expressly teaches a hemp paper material composition used in manufacturing individual layers of the hemp cardboard box, wherein the hemp paper material composition, prior to being formed into a cardboard material and cardboard box, is a single layer (paragraphs 29-35). Additionally, McLoughlin expressly discloses that there is a long-felt need in the art for environmentally friendly paper and for a paper material that reduces the number of trees being cut down to manufacture paper (paragraph 24).
Everett and Tyagi both teach hemp paper and further teach that it is well known in the prior art to form hemp paper bags from hemp paper (Everett: paragraphs 21, 645, 663-666 and Tyagi: page 2 line 20-page 4 line 30, page 16 line 28-page 30 line 3, page 35 line 26-page 58, line 2).
Accordingly, 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 configure the hemp paper material composition of McLoughlin into a hemp paper bag, as taught by Everett or Tyagi. As configuring hemp paper into a hemp paper bag has been shown in the prior art to be well known, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use other hemp paper in a similar or equivalent manner as Everett and Tyagi and the results would have been obvious and predictable.
Regarding claim 50, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, wherein a percent of hemp paper not made from hurd is made from bast fiber (McLoughlin: paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 51, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, but fails to teach the hemp paper being treat or coated with AKD sizing, a wax derivative. However, Everett and Tyagi teach that treating or coating hemp paper with AKD sizing is well known and common in order to increase resistance to water and other liquid penetration and in order to increase dimensional stability (Everett: paragraph 406, 542 and Tyagi: page 21, lines 7-14).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McLoughlin by treating or coating the hemp paper with AKD sizing, as taught by Everett or Tyagi, in order to increase resistance to water and other liquid penetration and in order to increase dimensional stability.
Regarding claim 61, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, wherein said hemp paper is oil and grease resistant, leakproof, water resistant, or combination of the same (McLoughlin: paragraphs 28, 30).
Regarding claim 62, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, but fails to teach said paper bag being printable so as to allow ink and graphics to be attached to the paper. However, Everett teaches that it is well known and desirable to add fillers or sizing agents to improve printability (paragraph 294) and Tyagi teaches that bleaching processes are well known and desirable for enhancing printing (page 20 lines 17-19).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McLoughlin by configuring the hemp paper to be printable, as taught by Everett or Tyagi, so that the bag is configured to allow ink and graphics to be printed on the paper.
Regarding claim 63, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 62 above, wherein said ink and graphics are printed on the hemp paper by digital printing (Tyagi: page 20 lines 17-19, page 34 lines 20-30).
Regarding the ink and graphics being printed by digital printing, it is noted that method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Marosi, 710 F2.d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 64, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, wherein said paper is recyclable, compostable, biodegradable or any combination thereof (McLoughlin: abstract, paragraphs 13-15, 32).
Regarding claims 67-70, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, wherein said paper bag comprises one to twenty-five percent hemp, twenty five to fifty percent hemp, fifty to seventy five percent hemp or seventy five to ninety-nine percent hemp (McLoughlin: paragraphs 25, 29-31-composition 200 includes hemp infused pulp at 10%-60% by weight of the composition, hemp strands material at 5% to 30% by weight of the composition, and hemp hurds fibers at 10%-45% by weight of the composition, totaling 25%-100% hemp by weight of the composition).
Regarding claim 71, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, wherein the paper bag comprises a percentage of hemp and but fails to teach a percentage of paper that is not hemp being post-consumer waste recycled content wood pulp, post-industrial recycled content wood pulp or virgin wood pulp.
Everett and Tyagi both teach hemp paper and further teach that it is well known in the prior art to form hemp paper from hemp and a post-consumer waste recycled wood pulp, post-industrial recycled content wood pulp or virgin wood pulp (Everett: paragraphs 60, 65 and Tyagi: page 27 lines 4-20).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McLoughlin by configuring the percentage of paper that is not hemp to comprise a post-consumer waste recycled content wood pulp, post-industrial recycled content wood pulp or virgin wood pulp, as taught by Everett or Tyagi, 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. In re Lashing, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 72, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, wherein said paper bag has a width, a height (all bags inherently have a width and a height) and a basis weight (Everett: paragraph 21 and Tyagi: page 24 lines 13-18) but fails to teach the width being between three inches and twenty inches, the height being between four inches and twenty inches and the basis weight ranging from ten pounds to sixty pounds.
Although Everett and Tyagi fail to teach the width and the height of the paper bag as claimed, 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 the height of McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi in order to obtain the width and the height as claimed, as a change in size is not patentably distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular dimensions of the claimed invention are significant.
Additionally, regarding the basis weight of the paper bag, as the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art and as the basis weight of a material is a variable which achieves a recognized result (i.e., determines weight of paper), one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi by providing a hemp paper having a basis weight sufficient for forming a bag of sufficient strength, as suggested by Everett and Tyagi, as it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable range or discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 52, 53, 55, 56 and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLoughlin in view of Everett or Tyagi, as applied to claim 49 above, in view of Long.
Regarding claim 52, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being a flat bottom paper bag. Long teaches a paper bag (paragraph 21) and further teaches that paper bags are known to have various configurations, including a gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a non-gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a flat bottom, a folded bottom, other various pinch-bottom bag configurations, a non-pinch straight heat sealed bottom, and various self-opening sack configurations (paragraph 82).
Accordingly, 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 configure the hemp paper bag of McLoughlin in view of Everett or Tyagi to have any known paper bag configuration, including the flat bottom paper bag configuration as taught by Long. As the prior art has shown that paper bags are known to have various configurations, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the hemp paper bag to have any known paper bag configuration and the results would have been obvious and predictable.
Regarding claim 53, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being a pinch bottom paper bag. Long teaches a paper bag (paragraph 21) and further teaches that paper bags are known to have various configurations, including a gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a non-gusseted pinch-bottom bag configuration, a flat bottom, a folded bottom, other various pinch-bottom bag configurations, a non-pinch straight heat sealed bottom, and various self-opening sack configurations (paragraph 82).
Accordingly, 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 configure the hemp paper bag of McLoughlin in view of Everett or Tyagi to have any known paper bag configuration, including the pinch bottom paper bag configuration as taught by Long. As the prior art has shown that paper bags are known to have various configurations, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the hemp paper bag to have any known paper bag configuration and the results would have been obvious and predictable.
Regarding claim 55, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, but fails to teach the paper bag having gussets. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with gussets in order to allow for expansion and/or reinforcement (paragraph 23).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi by configuring the hemp paper bag with gussets, as taught by Long, in order to allow for expansion and/or reinforcement.
Regarding claim 56, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, but fails to teach the paper bag comprising an opening and a closure mechanism for said opening. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that paper bags are known to be configured with an opening and that it is further desirable to configure the opening with a closure mechanism (150) for selectively and repeatedly sealing the opening (paragraphs 22-35).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi by configuring the hemp paper bag with an opening and a closure mechanism for said opening, as taught by Long, so that the bag can be selectively and repeatedly opened and closed.
Regarding claim 66, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, but fails to teach the paper bag being sealable, resealable or closable. Long teaches a paper bag and further teaches that paper bags are known to be configured with a closure mechanism (150) for selectively and repeatedly sealing, resealing and closing an opening (paragraphs 22-35).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi by configuring the paper bag with a closure mechanism, as taught by Long, so that the bag can be selectively and repeatedly sealed, resealed and closed.
Claim 54 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLoughlin in view of Everett or Tyagi, as applied to claim 49 above, in view of Faltynek.
Regarding claim 54, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a window. Faltynek teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a window (24) for viewing the contents of the bag (abstract, column 2 line 19-column 3 line 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi by configuring the hemp paper bag with a window, as taught by Faltynek, so that the contents of the bag can be viewed by the user.
Claims 57, 58 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLoughlin in view of Everett or Tyagi, as applied to claim 49 above, in view of Rodley.
Regarding claim 57, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a twist handle or a flat handle, said flat handle comprising paper, said flat handle folded twice and bent in a first and second corner to form said flat handle.
Rodley teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a twisted paper handle (18) having a reinforcing patch (20) for easily carrying the bag (column 1 line 69-column 2 line 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 McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi by configuring the paper bag with a twist handle having a reinforcing patch, as taught by Rodley, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Regarding claim 58, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi, and Rodley teaches the paper bag of claim 57 above, but fails to specifically teach the twist handle comprising hemp paper. However, as Rodley teaches that it is known to provide a paper bag with a paper handle, one skilled in the art would have similarly found it obvious to provide a hemp paper bag with a hemp paper bag and the results would have been obvious and predictable. Additionally, 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.
Regarding claim 60, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi, and Rodley teaches the paper bag of claim 57 above, wherein a single or double patch (20) is affixed to said bag and attached to said twist handle (Rodley: column 1 line 69-column 2 line 10).
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLoughlin in view of Everett or Tyagi, as applied to claim 49 above, in view of Snyder.
Regarding claim 59, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi, and Rodley teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, but fails to teach the paper bag including a die cut handle. Snyder teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a die cut handle for easily carrying the bag (page 2 lines 29-62 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 modify McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi by configuring the paper bag with a die cut handle, as taught by Snyder, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLoughlin in view of Everett or Tyagi, as applied to claim 49 above, in view of Snyder and Faber.
Regarding claim 65, McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi teaches the paper bag of claim 49 above, but fails to teach said paper bag being a shopping bag having an insert to give said bag stability and having handles made of twine, cloth or rope.
Regarding the paper bag being a shopping bag, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Snyder teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with an insert (23) in order to give the bag stability and in order to reinforce the bag (page 2 lines 1-28).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi by configuring the hemp paper bag with an insert, as taught or suggested by Snyder, in order to give the bag stability and in order to reinforce the bag.
Faber teaches a paper bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the paper bag with a handle made of rope, string, paper, cardboard, metal, plastic, rubber or any number of different materials or combinations of materials for easily carrying the bag (column 3 line 64-column 4 line 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 McLoughlin as modified by Everett or Tyagi by configuring the hemp paper bag with a handle made of rope, as taught by Snyder, in order to allow the bag to be easily carried.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the discussion of McLoughlin and how the structure and material of McLoughlin differs from the bag of the present invention, is not persuasive.
McLoughlin expressly teaches a hemp paper material composition. While the hemp paper material composition is used to form a cardboard material and a cardboard box, the hemp paper material composition, prior to being formed into the cardboard material and the cardboard box, is a single layer of paper (paragraphs 29-35).
Accordingly, after further consideration of the McLoughlin reference, it is concluded that although the cardboard box differs from a bag, and from the bag claimed, the hemp paper material composition of McLoughlin does not differ from the hemp paper of the bag claimed as the hemp paper material composition is a single layer of hemp paper.
Applicant’s argument that Everett and Tyagi do not teach a single layer, is not persuasive.
Everett expressly discloses a single layer (paragraph 646) and Tyagi expressly discloses a single layer (page 29 lines 16-22).
Applicant’s argument that Everett does not teach the CD and MD tensile strength and bursting strengths because the paper of Everett is made of cellulose fibers and synthetic cellulose fibers comprising cellulose ester fibers, is not persuasive.
The claim merely requires hemp paper. Accordingly, Everett’s disclosure of cellulose fibers and CD and MD tensile strength and bursting strengths sufficiently meets the claim.
The following previous arguments and responses are also applicable to the present argument.
Applicant’s arguments that Everett teaches paper as one of several options, that the MD and CD tensile strength of Everett does not refer specifically to hemp paper, that the bursting strength of Everett does not refer specifically to hemp paper, that paragraph 60 of Everett only teaches several materials without any percentages, are not persuasive.
A reference which discloses a species (hemp) anticipates the claim no matter how many other species are named (MPEP 2131.02(II)).
Further, Everett expressly discloses that representative sources of cellulose fibers include hemp (paragraph 60), Everett discloses the percentages of the cellulose fibers (paragraphs 81-86, 609, 620), Everett discloses paper which comprises the cellulose fibers (paragraph 21), and the wet laid products disclosed by Everett comprise the composition comprising the cellulose fibers (paragraph 551). Any reference to cellulose fibers in Everett would include hemp, unless expressly stated otherwise, as hemp has been expressly disclosed by Everett as being a representative source of cellulose fibers.
Applicant’s argument that Everett fails to teach a remaining percentage being post-consumer waste recycled wood pulp, post-industrial recycled wood pulp or virgin wood pulp, is not persuasive.
Everett discloses sources of cellulose fibers which include hemp and non-hemp materials and clearly states that the source of cellulose fibers can be virgin or waste/recycled cellulose fibers (paragraph 60). Everett also discloses different compositions (paragraphs 78-87), including a composition having non-wood cellulose fibers (i.e., hemp) and wood-sourced cellulose fibers (paragraph 83), which as previously disclosed can be virgin or waste/recycles cellulose fibers (paragraph 60)
Applicant’s argument that Tyagi does not teach hemp paper and a combination of post-consumer waste recycled wood pulp, post-industrial recycled content wood pulp or virgin wood pulp (page 10, regarding claim 26), is not persuasive.
Tyagi’s disclosure of soft wood fibers and hard wood fibers in combination with hemp paper is sufficient to anticipate the claim (page 27 lines 4-20).
Applicant’s argument that Tyagi does not teach digital printing, is not persuasive.
Regarding the ink and graphics being printed by digital printing, it is noted that method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Marosi, 710 F2.d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Gir. 1983).
Applicant’s argument that McLoughlin relates to a cardboard box and not the claimed hemp paper 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).
Applicant’s argument that none of the references teach digital printing, is not persuasive.
Regarding inks and graphics being printed by digital printing, it is noted that method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Marosi, 710 F2.d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Applicant’s argument that nowhere does McLoughlin teach use of percent of paper not hemp to be post-consumer waste recycled content wood pulp, post-industrial recycled wood pulp or virgin wood pulp, the prior art does not teach that these types of pulp in combination with hemp can be used with a cardboard box having three layers, and then combined to make obvious claims relating to 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).
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, Everett and Tyagi clearly teach hemp in combination with a post-consumer waste recycled wood pulp, post-industrial recycled content wood pulp or virgin wood pulp (Everett: paragraphs 60, 65 and Tyagi: page 27 lines 4-20). Accordingly, the combination of hemp and post-consumer waste recycled wood pulp, post-industrial recycled content wood pulp or virgin wood pulp, regardless of whether incorporated into a box, a bag, a paper or a cardboard, is clearly suggested by the prior art.
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