DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous claim objections and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1-8 have been amended. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application with claims 9-13 withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Specification
The amendments to the specification were received on January 22, 2026. These amendments are acceptable.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the first end and the second end” in lines 8-9 and lines 9-10. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. The claim defines “a front end” and “a rear end” in lines 6 and 7. Accordingly, it is not clear whether the first and second end are intended to reference the front end and the rear end or whether the first end and the second end are structurally distinct from the front end and the rear end.
For the purpose of examination, the first end and the second end will be considered to be structurally equivalent to the front end and the rear end.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perie (WO 2019/211641 A1) in view of Ross (GB 1316669 A).
Regarding claim 1, Perie teaches a bag comprising:
a first wall (9) and a second wall (8) that comprise paper and that are connected to one another by lateral edges (10, 11) such that a fill space (inner volume) is provided, and, as viewed with respect to a longitudinal direction of the bag, the second wall projecting (16) above the first wall at, with respect to a transportation direction, a front end of the bag (Fig.1),
a bottom being arranged on one end of the front end and a rear end and an opening (7) being provided on the other end of front end and the rear end, through which the fill space is accessible, the bottom including at least one folding region (16) of the second wall, the folding region being folded over at least parts of the first wall about a crease line, and
at least one handle opening (17), the handle opening extending through the second wall outside of the folding region (on second wall 8) and through the folding region (on flap 16) (page 8 line 33-page 9 line 17) (page 8 line 4-page 11 line 18 and Fig. 1, 2).
Perie fails to teach the first wall projecting above the second wall at a rear end of the bag. Ross teaches an analogous bag comprising a first wall (B’) and a second wall (T’), wherein, as view with respect to a longitudinal direction of the bag, the second wall projects (f) above the first wall at, with respect to a transportation direction, a front end of the bag. Ross further teaches that analogous bags are known in the prior art to be configured with the first wall projecting (f’) above the second wall at a rear end of the bag so that an improved continuous high speed manufacturing process can be implemented to form the paper bag (page 5 line 116-page 6 line 28 and FIG. 12-14).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Perie by alternatively configuring the first wall to project above the second wall at a rear end of the bag, as taught by Ross, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a known and obvious alternative structure for a folded over rear end and so that an improved continuous high speed manufacturing process can be implemented to form the paper bag.
Regarding claim 7, Perie as modified by Ross teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the handle opening is formed by at least one perforation, wherein the handle opening is further formed by grasping therethrough (Perie: page 8 line 33-page 9 line 17).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perie in view of Ross, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Strong et al. (US 5,150,971 A, hereinafter Strong).
Regarding claim 2, Perie as modified by Ross teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the folding region is connected to the first wall by a first connection surface or the folding region is connected to a second connection surface with a side of the second wall facing the fill space (Perie: page 8 lines 23-30) but fails to teach the folding region being connected to both the first connection surface and the second connection surface.
Strong teaches an analogous bag having a first wall (101a), a second wall (101b) and a folding region (109) of the second wall, wherein the folding region is folded over at least parts of the first wall about a crease line (120). Strong further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the folding region to be connected to the first wall by a first connection surface (FIG. 1-adhesive 130 on flap 109 connected to front panel 101a) and to be connected to a second connection surface with a side of the second wall facing the fill space (FIG. 1-adhesive 130 on flap 109 connected to region 119 on the back panel) in order to completely seal a fill space of the bag and in order to completely isolate the fill space of the bag from the folding region (column 2 line 55-column 3 line 44 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 Perie by configuring the folding region to be connected to both the first connection surface and the second connection surface, as taught by Strong, in order to completely seal the bottom of the bag and in order to completely isolate the handle opening from the fill space.
Regarding claim 3, Perie as modified by Ross and Strong teaches the bag of claim 2 above, wherein the second connection surface fully envelopes the handle opening (Strong: column 2 line 55-column 3 line 44 and FIG. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Perie as modified by Ross and Strong teaches the bag of claim 2 above, wherein the first and second connection surface form a common connection surface, wherein the folding region of the second is connected to the first wall and also to the second wall (Strong: column 2 line 55-column 3 line 44 and FIG. 1).
Claims 5, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perie in view of Ross, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leandersson (EP 3 556 679 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Perie as modified by Ross teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the sides of the bag are provided or formed in a manner known in the art (page 3 lines 11-17) but fails to specifically teach the bag being formed from a flat strip, wherein the edges of the flat strip are connected to each other along a connection seam extending in parallel to the longitudinal direction, wherein the connection seam is comprised by the second wall.
Leandersson teaches an analogous bag comprising a first wall and a second wall connected to one another by lateral edges and further teaches that it is known and common in the art to form analogous bags from a flat strip, wherein edges of the flat strip are connected to each other along a connection seam extending in parallel to the longitudinal direction, wherein the connection seam is comprised by the second wall (paragraphs 85-86 and Fig. 1-3).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Perie by forming the bag from a flat strip, wherein the edges of the flat strip are connected to each other along a connection seam extending in parallel to the longitudinal direction, wherein the connection seam is comprised by the second wall, as taught by Leandersson, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a manner known in the art and accordingly, such construction would have yielded obvious and predictable results to one skilled in the art. It is noted that Ross also teaches the structure of claim 5 and could be implemented in the same manner as Leandersson.
Regarding claim 6, Perie as modified by Ross teaches the bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the handle opening being formed by at least one punch-out. Leandersson teaches an analogous bag comprising at least one handle opening and further teaches that the at least one handle opening can be formed by perforations (51) surrounding a handle zone (50), wherein the handle opening is configured to be formed by applying pressure to the handle zone, or alternatively by die-cuts completely surrounding the handle zone, wherein the handle opening is formed when producing the bag by completely removing the handle zone (paragraphs 90-93).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to replace the handle opening structure of Perie with the handle opening structure of Leandersson, where the handle opening is formed by at least one punch-out, as the substitution of one known handle opening structure for an alternative known handle opening structure to achieve the equivalent result of providing the bag with a handle opening would have been obvious and would have yielded predictable results to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Perie as modified by Ross teaches the bag of claim 1 above but fails to teach a reinforcement element circumferentially arranged about the handle opening between the second wall and the folding region. Leandersson teaches an analogous bag comprising at least one handle opening and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide a reinforcement patch (60) circumferentially arranged about the handle opening and between the walls of the bag in order to increase the strength of the handle opening and allow a greater weight to be carried in the bag (paragraphs 94-96 and Fig. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Perie by providing a reinformcent element circumferentially arranged about the handle opening between the second wall and the folding region, as taught by Leandersson, in order to increase the strength of the handle opening and allow a greater weight to be carried in the bag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Perie fails to teach the second wall projecting above the first wall at a front end of the bag and the first wall projecting above the second wall at a rear end of the bag, is no persuasive.
Perie was not intended to teach the argued limitation as the argued limitation is a new limitation not presented in the previously examined claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights