DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 19, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, 21, 29, 31-33, 37-39, 41-43, 45, 46, 57-59, 61-63, 65 and 66 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bannister (US 2009/0159192 A1) in view of Robinson (US 4,557,385 A), Graveno (US 2,634,896 A), Single (US 426,607 A) and Williams et al. (US 7,510,327 B2, hereinafter Williams).
Regarding claim 1, Bannister teaches a bag comprising:
a front wall (12/24A/24B), a back wall (22), a first side wall (23A/23B), and a second side wall (23A/23B);
wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall respectively further comprise: an interior surface, an exterior surface, a first end (13), and a second end (14);
wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall comprise a first layer (3) and a second layer (7);
wherein the first layer comprises woven strips comprising polypropylene, and the second layer comprises a polymer film comprising polypropylene;
wherein a first portion of the first side wall and a first portion of the second side wall extend further than a second portion (23B) of the first side wall and a second portion (23B) of the second side wall at respective first ends (Fig. 3); and
wherein the first portion of the first side wall and the second portion of the first side wall are separated by a first angled cut, and the first portion of the second side wall and the second portion of the second side wall are separated by a second angled cut (Fig. 3), and
wherein the bag is adapted to be sealed at the first end and to be filled with and a hold a filling material and then sealed at the second end (paragraphs 4, 85-87) (paragraphs 35-40, 45-49, 65-68, 85-89 and Fig. 1-4, 5-7B).
Bannister fails to teach a plurality of perforations proximal the first end of the bag that extend continuously across at least a portion of the front wall, across the first side wall, and across at least a portion of the back wall, wherein the plurality of perforations are adapted to form a weakened portion to allow the bag to be opened at a location away from a seam location proximal to the second sidewall of the bag, and wherein each of the plurality of perforations penetrates through at least a portion of the first layer or a portion of the second layer.
Robinson and Graveno teach analogous containers comprising a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, a second side wall, a first end and a second end, wherein the first and second ends are folded over to close the containers. Robinson and Graveno further teach that it is known and desirable to provide analogous containers with a plurality of perforations proximal the first end of the container that define a line, wherein each of the plurality of perforations penetrates through at least a portion of a layer of the container and wherein the plurality of perforations are adapted to form a weakened portion to allow the bag to be opened at location away from a vertical seam location. Robinson and Graveno further teach that the walls included in the folded over closures should include the plurality of perforations (Robinson: column 2 line 9-column 3 line 12 and FIG. 1-5 and Graveno: column 1 lines 1-15, column 2 lines 1-55, column 3 lines 1-55, column 4 lines 1-10 and FIG. 1-5). In Robinson, the back wall (14) and the first side wall (12) are included in the folded over closure and thus, the plurality of perforations extend continuously across at least a portion of the back wall and across the first side wall and are positioned at a location away from a vertical seam location (positioned on a vertical seam side of the bag which is opposite wall 14). In Graveno, the front wall and the back wall are included in the folded over closure and thus, the plurality of perforations extend across at least a portion of the back wall and across at least a portion of the front wall and are positioned at a location away from a vertical seam location (formed by panels 5 and 14). Additionally, Robinson teaches that it is desirable to leave a layer unperforated to prevent sifting, retain barrier ply integrity, and/or add strength (column 2 lines 10-17).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made would have found it obvious to modify Bannister by additionally providing a plurality of perforations proximal the first end of the bag that extend continuously across at least a portion of the front wall, across the first side wall, and across at least a portion of the back wall (i.e., walls included in the fold over closure), wherein the plurality of perforations are adapted to form a weakened portion to allow the bag to be opened at a location away from a seam location proximal to the second side wall of the bag, and wherein each of the plurality of perforations penetrates through at least a portion of the first layer or a portion of the second layer, as taught by Robinson and Graveno, in order to provide the bag with an easy open feature while also preventing sifting, retaining barrier ply integrity, and/or adding strength.
Bannister also fails to teach the first and second angled cuts extending at a diagonal with respect to the first end of the bag. Single teaches an analogous bag comprising a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, a second side wall, wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall and the second side wall comprise an interior surface, an exterior surface, a first end and a second end, wherein a first portion of the first side wall and a second portion of the first side wall are separated by a first angled cut and wherein a first portion of the second side wall and a second portion of the second side wall are separated by a second angled cut. Single further teaches that it is known in the prior art to configure the angled cuts at a diagonal, specifically at an angle of 45 degrees, with respect to the first end of the bag in order to maximize surface area for sealing the first end of the bag (page 1 line 51- page 2 line 18 and Fig. 1, 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bannister by configuring the first and second angled cuts to extend at a diagonal, and specifically at an angle of 45 degrees, with respect to the first end of the bag, as taught by Single, in order to maximize surface area for sealing the top end of the bag.
Banister also fails to specifically teach the bag being adapted to hold at least 10 pounds of the filling material. Bannister teaches that polypropylene is very strong and thus, polypropylene bags are highly resistant to tears (paragraphs 2, 88). Williams teaches an analogous bag having a layer comprising woven strips of polypropylene and a sealed end (32, 34) forming an interior cavity and further teaches that when sealed bags are constructed utilizing woven strips of polypropylene, they will safely contain refuse weighing upwards of 110 pounds and are tear and cut resistant (column 1 lines 53-column 3 line 33).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Banister by configuring the woven strips of polypropylene such that the bag is adapted to hold at least 10 pounds of material without tearing or leakage, as taught by Williams, in order to provide an ultra-strong tear resistant, cut resistant, and puncture resistant bag. Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the plurality of perforations in the polymer film layer, as suggested by Robinson and Williams, in order to ensure that the integrity and the superior strength of the woven strips layer is maintained.
Regarding claim 3, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein a portion of an interior surface of the front wall, and a portion of each of the first and second portions of each of the first side wall and the second side wall are adapted to be sealed to a portion of the exterior surface of the back wall (Bannister: paragraph 85).
Regarding claim 6, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the first and second layers are laminated together using adhesive lamination or extrusion lamination (Bannister: paragraphs 45-47).
Regarding claim 8, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the first and second angle cuts extend at an angle of about 45 degrees with respect to the first end of the bag (Single: page 1 line 51- page 2 line 18 and Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 9, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of perforations extend from the front wall of the bag, across the first side wall of the bag to 50% of a length of a width of the back wall of the bag (Robinson: FIG. 1 and Graveno: FIG. 5) but fails to expressly teach the plurality of perforations extending 20% of a length of a width of the front wall of the bag. However, Applicant has not disclosed that the plurality of perforations extending from about 20% of a distance across the front wall of the bag, across the first side wall of the bag to about 50% of a distance across the back wall of the bag provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Further, Applicant discloses that the plurality of perforations are capable of extending from any position on the front wall, for example, about 5% to about 99%, across the first side wall of the bag and to any position on the back wall of the bag, for example, about 5% to about 99%.
Accordingly, as providing perforations through walls of a bag that function to create and define an opening in the form of a pour spout is known in the prior art and as Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations, adjusting the size/distance to which the perforations extend across the front and back walls of the bag in order to achieve an opening of a desired size depending on the intended use of the bag and/or depending on the contents of the bag, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of perforations enables opening the bag by tearing the plurality of perforations using less force than tearing other portions of the bag (Robinson: column 1 line 67-column 3 line 12 and FIG 1-5).
Regarding claim 21, Bannister teaches a bag comprising:
a front wall (12/24A/24B), a back wall (22), a first side wall (23A/23B), and a second side wall (23A/23B);
wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall respectively further comprise: an interior surface, an exterior surface, a first end (13), and a second end (14);
wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall comprise a first layer (3), a second layer (7) and a third layer (8);
wherein the first layer comprises woven polymer strips comprising polypropylene, and the second layer comprises an oriented polymer film comprising polypropylene, and the third layer comprises a film layer between the first layer and the second layer (Fig. 2A);
wherein a first portion of the first side wall and a first portion of the second side wall extend further than a second portion (23B) of the first side wall and a second portion (23B) of the second side wall at respective first ends (Fig. 3); and
wherein the first portion of the first side wall and the second portion of the first side wall are separated by a first angled cut, and the first portion of the second side wall and the second portion of the second side wall are separated by a second angled cut (Fig. 3), and
wherein the bag is adapted to be sealed at the first end and the second end when an interior cavity of the bag holds a filling material (paragraphs 4, 85-87) (paragraphs 35-40, 45-49, 65-68, 85-89 and Fig. 1-4, 5-7B).
Bannister fails to teach a plurality of perforations proximal the first end of the bag that extend continuously across at least a portion of the front wall, across the first side wall, and across at least a portion of the back wall, wherein the plurality of perforations are adapted to form a weakened portion to allow the bag to be opened at a location away from a seam location proximal to the second side wall of the bag, and wherein each of the plurality of perforations penetrates through at least a portion of the first layer, the second layer or the third layer.
Robinson and Graveno teach analogous containers comprising a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, a second side wall, a first end and a second end, wherein the first and second ends are folded over to close the containers. Robinson and Graveno further teach that it is known and desirable to provide analogous containers with a plurality of perforations proximal the first end of the container that define a line, wherein each of the plurality of perforations penetrates through at least a portion of a layer of the container and wherein the plurality of perforations are adapted to form a weakened portion to allow the bag to be opened at location away from a vertical seam location. Robinson and Graveno further teach that the walls included in the folded over closures should include the plurality of perforations (Robinson: column 2 line 9-column 3 line 12 and FIG. 1-5 and Graveno: column 1 lines 1-15, column 2 lines 1-55, column 3 lines 1-55, column 4 lines 1-10 and FIG. 1-5). In Robinson, the back wall and the first side wall are included in the folded over closure and thus, the plurality of perforations extend continuously across at least a portion of the back wall and across the first side wall and are positioned at a location away from a vertical seam location (positioned on a vertical seam side of the bag which is opposite wall 14). In Graveno, the front wall and the back wall are included in the folded over closure and thus, the plurality of perforations extend across at least a portion of the back wall and across at least a portion of the front wall and are positioned at a location away from a vertical seam location (formed by panels 5 and 14). Additionally, Robinson teaches that it is desirable to leave a layer unperforated to prevent sifting, retain barrier ply integrity, and/or add strength (column 2 lines 10-17).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made would have found it obvious to modify Bannister by additionally providing a plurality of perforations proximal the first end of the bag that extend continuously across at least a portion of the front wall, across the first side wall, and across at least a portion of the back wall (i.e., walls included in the fold over closure), wherein the plurality of perforations are adapted to form a weakened portion to allow the bag to be opened at a location away from a seam location proximal to the second side wall of the bag, and wherein each of the plurality of perforations penetrates through at least a portion of the first layer, the second layer or the third layer, as taught by Robinson and Graveno, in order to provide the bag with an easy open feature while also preventing sifting, retaining barrier ply integrity, and/or adding strength.
Bannister also fails to teach the first and second angled cuts extending at a diagonal with respect to the first end of the bag. Single teaches an analogous bag comprising a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, a second side wall, wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall and the second side wall comprise an interior surface, an exterior surface, a first end and a second end, wherein a first portion of the first side wall and a second portion of the first side wall are separated by a first angled cut and wherein a first portion of the second side wall and a second portion of the second side wall are separated by a second angled cut. Single further teaches that it is known in the prior art to configure the angled cuts at a diagonal, specifically at an angle of 45 degrees, with respect to the first end of the bag in order to maximize surface area for sealing the first end of the bag (page 1 line 51- page 2 line 18 and Fig. 1, 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bannister by configuring the first and second angled cuts to extend at a diagonal, and specifically at an angle of 45 degrees, with respect to the first end of the bag, as taught by Single, in order to maximize surface area for sealing the top end of the bag.
Banister also fails to specifically teach the interior cavity being adapted to hold at least 10 pounds of the filling material. Bannister teaches that polypropylene is very strong and thus, polypropylene bags are highly resistant to tears (paragraphs 2, 88). Williams teaches an analogous bag having a layer comprising woven strips of polypropylene and a sealed end (32, 34) forming an interior cavity and further teaches that when sealed bags are constructed utilizing woven strips of polypropylene, they will safely contain refuse weighing upwards of 110 pounds and are tear and cut resistant (column 1 lines 53-column 3 line 33).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Banister by configuring the woven strips of polypropylene such that the interior cavity of the bag is adapted to hold at least 10 pounds of material without tearing or leakage, as taught by Williams, in order to provide an ultra-strong tear resistant, cut resistant, and puncture resistant bag. Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the plurality of perforations in the second or third layer, as suggested by Robinson and Williams, in order to ensure that the integrity and strength of the woven strips layer is maintained.
Regarding claim 29, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 21 above, wherein the first, second and third layers are laminated together using adhesive lamination or extrusion lamination (Bannister: paragraphs 45-47).
Regarding claim 31, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 21 above, wherein the first and second angled cuts extend at an angle of about 45 degrees with respect to the first end of the bag (Single: page 1 line 51- page 2 line 18 and Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 32, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 21 above, wherein the plurality of perforations extend from the front wall of the bag, across the first side wall of the bag to 50% of a second length of a width of the back wall of the bag (Robinson: FIG. 1 and Graveno: FIG. 5) but fails to expressly teach the plurality of perforations extending 20% of a length of a width of the front wall of the bag. However, Applicant has not disclosed that the plurality of perforations extending from about 20% of a distance across the front wall of the bag, across the first side wall of the bag to about 50% of a distance across the back wall of the bag provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Further, Applicant discloses that the plurality of perforations are capable of extending from any position on the front wall, for example, about 5% to about 99%, across the first side wall of the bag and to any position on the back wall of the bag, for example, about 5% to about 99%.
Accordingly, as providing perforations through walls of a bag that function to create and define an opening in the form of a pour spout is known in the prior art and as Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations, adjusting the size/distance to which the perforations extend across the front and back walls of the bag in order to achieve an opening of a desired size depending on the intended use of the bag and/or depending on the contents of the bag, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 33, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 21 above, wherein the plurality of perforations enables opening the bag by tearing the plurality of perforations using less force than tearing other portions of the bag (Robinson: column 1 line 67-column 3 line 12 and FIG 1-5).
Regarding claims 37 and 57, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claims 1 and 21 above, wherein the first end is sealed using adhesive sealing, heat sealing, adhesive lamination, extrusion lamination, stitching, ultrasonic energy, pressure, tape, or any combination thereof (Bannister: paragraphs 85, 86).
Regarding claims 38 and 58, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claims 1 and 21 above, wherein the first end is sealed using adhesive-to-adhesive sealing or adhesive-to-bag sealing (Bannister: paragraphs 85, 86).
Regarding claims 39 and 59, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claims 1 and 21 above, wherein at least a portion of a single fold of the first end is sealed to the exterior surface of the front wall or the exterior surface of the back wall (Bannister: paragraphs 85, 86 and Fig. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claims 41 and 61, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claims 1 and 21 above, wherein the plurality of perforations define at least one of a line, a zigzag patter, or a wave patter (Robinson: FIG. 1-4 and Graveno: FIG. 5).
Regarding claims 42 and 62, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claims 1 and 21 above, wherein the weakened portion is located on a fold line at the first end of the bag (Robinson: FIG. 1-4 and Graveno: FIG. 1-5).
Regarding claims 43 and 63, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claims 1 and 21 above, wherein the weakened portion is adapted to form a spout at one corner of the bag at the first end of the bag (Robinson: FIG. 5 and Graveno: FIG. 3).
Regarding claims 45 and 65, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claims 1 and 21 above, wherein the second end using an adhesive sealing, heat sealing, adhesive lamination, extrusion lamination, stitching, ultrasonic energy, pressure, tape, or any combination thereof (Bannister: paragraphs 85-87).
Regarding claim 46, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the bag comprises a third layer (8), the third layer comprising a film layer (Bannister: paragraphs 45-47 and Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 66, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 21 above, wherein the film layer of the third layer laminates the first layer and the second layer together (Bannister: paragraphs 45-47 and Fig. 2A).
Claims 4, 5 and 22-28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bannister in view of Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams, as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Austreng et al. (US 8,486,500 B2, hereinafter Austreng).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach an adhesive on the exterior surface of the first side wall proximal the first end of the bag, wherein the adhesive extends from a first location at which the first side wall and the back wall join to a second location at which the first side wall and the front wall join, and the adhesive is adapted to seal a portion of the first side wall.
Austreng teaches an analogous bag comprising a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall, wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall and the second side wall comprise an interior surface, an exterior surface, a first end and a second end. Austreng further teaches that it is known in the prior art to provide an adhesive (240, 242) on the exterior surface of the first side wall proximal the first end of the bag, wherein the adhesive extends from a first location at which the first side wall and the back wall join to a second location at which the first side wall and the front wall join, and the adhesive is adapted to seal a portion of the first side wall, in order to hold the sidewall in place (column 4 lines 59-column 5 line 7, column 5 lines 24-37 and FIG. 2A, 2C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bannister by providing an adhesive on the exterior surface of the first side wall proximal the first end of the bag, wherein the adhesive extends from a first location at which the first side wall and the back wall join to a second location at which the first side wall and the front wall join, and the adhesive is adapted to seal a portion of the first side wall, as taught by Austreng, in order to seal and hold portions of the side wall in place.
Regarding claim 22, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 21 above, but fails to teach an adhesive on the exterior surface of the first side wall. Austreng teaches an analogous bag comprising a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall, wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall and the second side wall comprise an interior surface, an exterior surface, a first end and a second end. Austreng further teaches that it is known in the prior art to provide an adhesive (240, 242) on the exterior surface of the first and second side walls in order to hold the side walls in place (column 4 lines 59-column 5 line 7, column 5 lines 24-37 and FIG. 2A, 2C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bannister by providing an adhesive on the exterior surface of the first and second side walls, as taught by Austreng, in order to seal and hold portions of the side walls in place.
Regarding claim 23, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single, Williams and Austreng teaches the bag of claim 22 above, wherein the adhesive on the exterior surface of the first side wall extends from a first location at which the first side wall and the back wall join to a second location at which the first side wall and the front wall join, and the adhesive closes a portion of the first side wall (Austreng: FIG. 2A).
Regarding claim 24, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single, Williams and Austreng teaches the bag of claim 22 above, wherein the adhesive on the exterior surface of the first side wall is located proximal the first end of the bag (Austreng: FIG. 2A).
Regarding claim 25, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single, Williams and Austreng teaches the bag of claim 22 above, wherein the first side wall further comprises a gusset (Bannister: FIG. 7A, 7B and Austreng: FIG. 1-4).
Regarding claim 26, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single, Williams and Austreng teaches the bag of claim 25 above, wherein the adhesive closes first and second sides of the gusset of the first side wall proximal the first end of the bag (Austreng: FIG. 2A).
Regarding claim 27, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single, Williams and Austreng teaches the bag of claim 25 above, wherein the bag further comprises an adhesive located on an exterior surface of the second side wall (Austreng: column 4 lines 59-column 5 line 7, column 5 lines 24-37 and FIG. 2A, 2C). See rejection of claim 22 above.
Regarding claim 28, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single, Williams and Austreng teaches the bag of claim 27 above, wherein the second side wall comprise a gusset and wherein the adhesive closes the gussets of the first side wall proximal the first end of the bag and the second side wall proximal the first end of the bag (Bannister: FIG. 7A, 7B and Austreng: FIG. 1-4).
Claims 11, 16, 18-20, 47-49, 51-53, 55 and 56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bannister in view of Robles et al. (US 2011/0002560 A1, hereinafter Robles), Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams.
Regarding claim 11, Bannister teaches a bag comprising:
a front wall (12/24A/24B), a back wall (22), a first side wall (23A/23B), and a second side wall (23A/23B);
wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall respectively further comprise: an interior surface, an exterior surface, a first end (13), and a second end (14);
wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall comprise a first layer (3) and a second layer (7);
wherein the first layer comprises woven polymer strips, and the second layer comprises a polymer film;
wherein a first portion of the first side wall and a first portion of the second side wall extend further than a second portion (23B) of the first side wall and a second portion (23B) of the second side wall at respective first ends (Fig. 3); and
wherein the first portion of the first side wall and the second portion of the first side wall are separated by a first angled cut and the first portion of the second side wall and the second portion of the second side wall are separated by a second angled cut (Fig. 3), and
wherein the bag is adapted to form an interior that is adapted to be filled and hold a material when the first end and the second end are sealed (paragraphs 4, 85-87) (paragraphs 35-40, 45-49, 65-68, 85-89 and Fig. 1-4, 5-7B).
Bannister fails to teach the woven polymer strips comprising polyethylene and the polymer film comprising polyethylene. Robles teaches an analogous bag comprising a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, and a second sidewall each comprising a first layer comprising woven polymer strips and a second layer comprising a polymer film. Robles further teaches that a bag having a layer comprising woven polymer strips and a layer comprising a polymer film is well known in the art to have sufficient strength to resist rupturing in use and further teaches that suitable woven materials include polyethylene and polypropylene and suitable film materials include polyethylene and polypropylene (paragraphs 26-32).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made would have found it obvious to modify Bannister by alternatively forming the first layer from woven strips comprising polyethylene and the second layer from a polymer film comprising polyethene, as taught by Robles, as polyethylene and polypropylene have been shown in the prior art to be well-known and suitable alternatives for forming a high strength bag.
Bannister also fails to teach a plurality of perforations proximal the first end of the bag that extend continuously across at least a portion of the front wall, across the first side wall, and across at least a portion of the back wall, wherein the plurality of perforations are adapted to form a weakened portion to allow the bag to be opened at a location away from a seam location proximal to the second side wall of the bag, and wherein each of the plurality of perforations penetrates through at least a portion of the first layer or a portion of the second layer.
Robinson and Graveno teach analogous containers comprising a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, a second side wall, a first end and a second end, wherein the first and second ends are folded over to close the containers. Robinson and Graveno further teach that it is known and desirable to provide analogous containers with a plurality of perforations proximal the first end of the container that define a line, wherein each of the plurality of perforations penetrates through at least a portion of a layer of the container and wherein the plurality of perforations are adapted to form a weakened portion to allow the bag to be opened at location away from a vertical seam location. Robinson and Graveno further teach that the walls included in the folded over closures should include the plurality of perforations (Robinson: column 2 line 9-column 3 line 12 and FIG. 1-5 and Graveno: column 1 lines 1-15, column 2 lines 1-55, column 3 lines 1-55, column 4 lines 1-10 and FIG. 1-5). In Robinson, the back wall and the first side wall are included in the folded over closure and thus, the plurality of perforations extend continuously across at least a portion of the back wall and across the first side wall and are positioned at a location away from a vertical seam location (positioned on a vertical seam side of the bag which is opposite wall 14). In Graveno, the front wall and the back wall are included in the folded over closure and thus, the plurality of perforations extend across at least a portion of the back wall and across at least a portion of the front wall and are positioned at a location away from a vertical seam location (formed by panels 5 and 14). Additionally, Robinson teaches that it is desirable to leave a layer unperforated to prevent sifting, retain barrier ply integrity, and/or add strength (column 2 lines 10-17).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made would have found it obvious to modify Bannister by additionally providing a plurality of perforations proximal the first end of the bag that define a line extending continuously across at least a portion of the front wall, across the first side wall, and across at least a portion of the back wall (i.e., walls included in the fold over closure), wherein the plurality of perforations are adapted to form a weakened portion to allow the bag to be opened at a location away from a seam location proximal to the second side wall of the bag, and wherein each of the plurality of perforations penetrates through at least a portion of the first layer or a portion of the second layer, as taught by Robinson and Graveno, in order to provide the bag with an easy open feature while also preventing sifting, retaining barrier ply integrity, and/or adding strength.
Bannister also fails to teach the first and second angled cuts extending at a diagonal with respect to the first end of the bag. Single teaches an analogous bag comprising a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, a second side wall, wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall and the second side wall comprise an interior surface, an exterior surface, a first end and a second end, wherein a first portion of the first side wall and a second portion of the first side wall are separated by a first angled cut and wherein a first portion of the second side wall and a second portion of the second side wall are separated by a second angled cut. Single further teaches that it is known in the prior art to configure the angled cuts at a diagonal, specifically at an angle of 45 degrees, with respect to the first end of the bag in order to maximize surface area for sealing the first end of the bag (page 1 line 51- page 2 line 18 and Fig. 1, 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bannister by configuring the first and second angled cuts to extend at a diagonal, and specifically at an angle of 45 degrees, with respect to the first end of the bag, as taught by Single, in order to maximize surface area for sealing the top end of the bag.
Bannister also fails to specifically teach the bag being adapted to hold at least 10 pounds of the material. Williams teaches an analogous bag having a layer comprising woven strips and a sealed end (32, 34) forming an interior cavity and further teaches that when sealed bags are constructed utilizing woven strips, they will safely contain refuse weighing upwards of 110 pounds and are tear and cut resistant (column 1 lines 53-column 3 line 33). Although Williams utilizes polypropylene strips, Williams discloses that other high strength materials may be utilized for the bag so that the bag may be ribbon-woven from a wide variety of materials. Further, as disclosed above by Robles, layers comprising woven strips are known in the prior art to comprise polyethylene (paragraph 28). Robles also discloses that the bag is designed of sufficient strength to resist rupturing in use (paragraph 26). Although not expressly disclosed by Williams or Robles, one skilled in the art would expect a bag having a layer including woven strips of polyethylene, especially oriented polyethylene, to have comparable strength to a bag having a layer including woven strips of polypropylene, or at the very least a strength configured to hold at least 10 pounds of material without tearing, due to the woven structure of the layer.
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Banister by configuring the woven strips of polyethylene such that the bag is configured to hold at least 10 pounds of material without tearing or leakage, as suggested by Williams and Robles, in order to provide an ultra-strong tear resistant, cut resistant, and puncture resistant bag. Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the plurality of perforations in the polymer film layer, as suggested by Robinson and Williams, in order to ensure that the integrity and strength of the woven strips layer is maintained.
Regarding claim 16, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein the first and second layers are laminated together using adhesive lamination or extrusion lamination (Bannister: paragraphs 45-47).
Regarding claim 18, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein the first and second angled cuts extend at an angle of about 45 degrees with respect to the first end of the bag (Single: page 1 line 51- page 2 line 18 and Fig. 1, 2).
Regarding claim 19, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein the plurality of perforations extend from the front wall of the bag, across the first side wall of the bag to 50% of a length of a width of the back wall of the bag (Robinson: FIG. 1 and Graveno: FIG. 5) but fails to teach the plurality of perforations extending 20% of a length of a width of the front wall of the bag. However, Applicant has not disclosed that the plurality of perforations extending from about 20% of a distance across the front wall of the bag, across the first side wall of the bag to about 50% of a distance across the back wall of the bag provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose or solves a stated problem. Further, Applicant discloses that the plurality of perforations are capable of extending from any position on the front wall, for example, about 5% to about 99%, across the first side wall of the bag and to any position on the back wall of the bag, for example, about 5% to about 99%.
Accordingly, as providing perforations through walls of a bag that function to create and define an opening in the form of a pour spout is known in the prior art and as Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations, adjusting the size/distance to which the perforations extend across the front and back walls of the bag in order to achieve an opening of a desired size depending on the intended use of the bag and/or depending on the contents of the bag, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein the plurality of perforations enables opening the bag by tearing the plurality of perforations using less force than tearing other portions of the bag (Robinson: column 1 line 67-column 3 line 12 and FIG 1-5).
Regarding claim 47, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein the first end is sealed using adhesive sealing, heat sealing, adhesive lamination, extrusion lamination, stitching, ultrasonic energy, pressure, tape, or any combination thereof (Bannister: paragraphs 85, 86).
Regarding claim 48, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein the first end is sealed using adhesive-to-adhesive sealing or adhesive-to-bag sealing (Bannister: paragraphs 85, 86).
Regarding claim 49, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein at least a portion of a single fold of the first end is sealed to the exterior surface of the front wall or the exterior surface of the back wall (Bannister: paragraphs 85, 86 and Fig. 7A, 7B).
Regarding claim 51, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein the plurality of perforations define at least one of a line, a zigzag patter, or a wave patter (Robinson: FIG. 1-4 and Graveno: FIG. 5).
Regarding claim 52, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein the weakened portion is located on a fold line at the first end of the bag (Robinson: FIG. 1-4 and Graveno: FIG. 1-5).
Regarding claim 53, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein the weakened portion is adapted to form a spout at one corner of the bag at the first end of the bag (Robinson: FIG. 5 and Graveno: FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 55, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein the second end using an adhesive sealing, heat sealing, adhesive lamination, extrusion lamination, stitching, ultrasonic energy, pressure, tape, or any combination thereof (Bannister: paragraphs 85-87).
Regarding claim 56, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, wherein the bag comprises a third layer (8), the third layer comprising a film layer (Bannister: paragraphs 45-47 and Fig. 2A).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bannister in view of Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Austreng.
Regarding claim 13, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, but fails to teach an adhesive on the exterior surface of the first side wall. Austreng teaches an analogous bag comprising a front wall, a back wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall, wherein each of the front wall, the back wall, the first side wall and the second side wall comprise an interior surface, an exterior surface, a first end and a second end. Austreng further teaches that it is known in the prior art to provide an adhesive (240, 242) on the exterior surface of the first side wall in order to hold the sidewall in place (column 4 lines 59-column 5 line 7, column 5 lines 24-37 and FIG. 2A, 2C).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bannister by providing an adhesive on the exterior surface of the first side wall, as taught by Austreng, in order to seal and hold portions of the side wall in place.
Regarding claim 14, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single, Williams and Austreng teaches the bag of claim 13 above, wherein the adhesive on the exterior surface of the first side wall extends from a first location at which the first side wall and the back wall join to a second location at which the first side wall and the front wall join, and the adhesive closes a portion of the first side wall (Austreng: FIG. 2A).
Regarding claim 15, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single, Williams and Austreng teaches the bag of claim 13 above, wherein the adhesive on the exterior surface of the first side wall is located proximal the first end of the bag (Austreng: FIG. 2A).
Claims 34, 35, 44 and 64 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bannister in view of Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sargin (US 2011/0019944 A1).
Regarding claims 34, 35, 44 and 64, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claims 1 and 21 above, but fails to teach at least one of the first end and the second end of the bag forming a flush cut end. Sargin teaches an analogous bag having a stepped first end and further teaches that it is known in the prior art to configure the second end with a flush cut (FIG. 1-3).
Accordingly, as a flush cut second end construction has been shown in the analogous art to be well-known and as it has been shown to be well-known in combination with a stepped first end, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bannister by alternatively configuring the second end with a flush cut, as taught by Sargin.
Claims 36 and 54 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bannister in view of Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Sargin.
Regarding claims 36 and 54, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, but fails to teach at least one of the first end and the second end of the bag forming a flush cut end. Sargin teaches an analogous bag having a stepped first end and further teaches that it is known in the prior art to configure the second end with a flush cut (FIG. 1-3).
Accordingly, as a flush cut second end construction has been shown in the analogous art to be well-known and as it has been shown to be well-known in combination with a stepped first end, it would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Bannister by alternatively configuring the second end with a flush cut, as taught by Sargin.
Claims 40 and 60 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bannister in view of Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams, as applied to claims 1 and 21 above, and further in view of Handler et al. (US 5,048,692 A, hereinafter Handler).
Regarding claims 40 and 60, Bannister as modified by Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claims 1 and 21 above, but fails to teach at least a portion of a double fold of the first end being sealed to the exterior surface of the front wall or the exterior surface of the back wall of the bag. Handler teaches an analogous bag adapted to be sealed at first and second ends and further teach that it is known and desirable to configure the first end with a double fold sealed to an exterior surface of the front or back wall in order to form a better seal (column 3 lines 37-41).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bannister by double folding and sealing the first end to the exterior surface of the front wall or the back wall of the bag, as taught by Handler, in order to form a better seal.
Claim 50 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bannister in view of Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Handler et al. (US 5,048,692 A, hereinafter Handler).
Regarding claim 50, Bannister as modified by Robles, Robinson, Graveno, Single and Williams teaches the bag of claim 11 above, but fails to teach at least a portion of a double fold of the first end being sealed to the exterior surface of the front wall or the exterior surface of the back wall of the bag. Handler teaches an analogous bag adapted to be sealed at first and second ends and further teach that it is known and desirable to configure the first end with a double fold sealed to an exterior surface of the front or back wall in order to form a better seal (column 3 lines 37-41).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Bannister by double folding and sealing the first end to the exterior surface of the front wall or the back wall of the bag, as taught by Handler, in order to form a better seal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that the cited references do not disclose, teach or suggest the bag being adapted to be sealed at the first end and be filled and hold at least 10 pounds of a filling material and then sealed at the second end, is not persuasive.
Williams bag being designed to be an open bag, not a sealed bag is insufficient to suggest that Williams cannot be properly combined with Bannister. Even though Williams is an open container, it still has a sealed bottom and is configured to be heavy duty and for refuse collection within the bag to be supported by the sealed bottom and sidewalls of a woven material.
Bannister similarly has a sealed bottom and side walls and is made of a woven material and additionally comprises a sealed top. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references in order to achieve the benefits of the sealed bottom and sidewall of Williams in each of the sealed bottom, sealed top and sidewalls of Bannister.
Applicant’s argument that the cited references do not teach a plurality of perforations proximal the first end that extend continuously across at least a portion of the front wall, across the first side wall and across at least a portion of the bag wall, is not persuasive.
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, the combined teachings of Robinson and Graveno teach that the walls included in the folded over closures should include the plurality of perforations (Robinson: column 2 line 9-column 3 line 12 and FIG. 1-5 and Graveno: column 1 lines 1-15, column 2 lines 1-55, column 3 lines 1-55, column 4 lines 1-10 and FIG. 1-5). In Robinson, the back wall and the first side wall are included in the folded over closure and thus, the plurality of perforations extend continuously across at least a portion of the back wall and across the first side wall. In Graveno, the front wall and the back wall are included in the folded over closure and thus, the plurality of perforations extend across at least a portion of the back wall and across at least a portion of the front wall.
Applying the teachings of Robinson and Graveno to Bannister would have resulted in a plurality of perforations extending continuously across at least a portion of the front wall, across the first side wall and across at least a portion of the back wall, as the folded over closure of Bannister includes the front wall, the first side wall and the back wall continuously. One having ordinary skill in the art would not contemplate not extending the plurality of perforations continuously where there is bag material in the folded over closure. Specifically, the plurality of perforations of Graveno are not continuous because there is no material in the areas of discontinuity. This is not the case for Bannister as Bannister includes a continuous material in the folded over closure.
Applicant’s argument that the references do not disclose, teach or suggest the plurality of perforations proximal the first end of the bag and a seam location proximal to the second sidewall of the bag, is not persuasive.
The vertical seam in Robinson is on a side of the bag opposite wall 14 which does not include any perforations and thus, the perforations are at a location away from the vertical seam location. The vertical seam in Graveno is formed between panels 5 and 14 and the perforations do not extend to the edges of either of the panels 5 and 14 and thus, are also at a location away from the vertical seam location.
Accordingly, positioning the plurality of perforations of Robinson and Graveno on the bag of Bannister would result in the plurality of perforations being proximal the first end of the bag and at a location away from a seam location proximal the second side wall of the bag.
Applicant’s argument that Single concerns paper bags, which are fundamentally different in structure, material and manufacturing method from laminated, laser-perforated bags of the claims, is not persuasive.
It is clear from Bannister that a sheet of material can be laser perforated into individual sections configured to be folded to form individual bags. Accordingly, the laser perforations can be modified in order to alternatively achieve the claimed angle cuts, as taught by Single, with expectations of success and predictability.
The manner in which the sheets of Bannister and Single are perforated or cut is insufficient to suggest that it would not be reasonable to combine the references. Each of Bannister and Single teach their own methods of perforating or cutting the respective materials and thus, any modification to the structure of the perforations or cuts (i.e., angled cuts) would only modify the structure of the cuts and not the method of forming the cuts.
Further, Applicant’s argument that the use of a laser perforation module with a paper bag could cause a fire and would not cut the paper is irrelevant as the paper bag of Single is not being modified nor is the method being modified.
Applicant’s argument that Bannister’s teachings would discourage substituting polyethylene is not persuasive.
Bannister expressly discloses the discussion of the invention has focused on polypropylene bag material but the invention is not limited to bags made exclusively from polypropylene (paragraph 89). Accordingly, Bannister does not discourage the substitution.
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