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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed Dec. 11, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-16 remain pending in the application.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayrit et al. (US 10,189,621), further in view of Ward, Jr. et al. (US 6,585,413).
Regarding claim 1, Dayrit discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1A, 7A, 8, 9, 15, 16, a method of making a sterilized flat plastic bag (e.g., item 10 (col. 15, line 31) for packing food (col. 1, lines 18-31)) comprising:
i) forming a roll of a tubular polymeric film (e.g., item 152 in Fig. 8 (col. 20, lines 15-45)) in a blown film extrusion process, wherein the roll ranges in width from 6 inches to 60 inches (i.e., as shown in Fig. 1A, item 19 is called bag skirt (col. 15, lines 39); it is noticed that, the bag skirt has the short dimension being its ‘width’ and the longer dimension being its ‘length’ (col. 5, lines 1-2); For example, the width of the bag skirt can be from 10 to 50 mm (col. 5, lines 7-8); it is noticed that, a ratio of a length to width is from 1:1 to 20:1 (col. 5, lines 17-18); Thus, the tubular film disclosed by Dayrit may have a width from 2 inches to 40 inches (overlapping the claimed range of 6 to 60 inches));
ii) providing the roll of tubular polymeric film to a bag making process comprising the steps of:
a) unwinding the roll of tubular polymeric film (e.g., as shown in Fig. 1A),
b) continuously heat sealing the unwound tubular polymeric film proximate the machine direction (longitudinal direction) edges and periodically heat sealing along the transverse direction to form bag side heat seals and end heat seals respectively (e.g., items 51 (end seal (col. 20, lines 47-48)), 55 (packing seal for another end seal (col. 20, line49)) as shown in Fig. 10 and items 26 (the first side seal (col. 22, line 7)), 27 (the second side seal (col. 22, line 8)) as shown in Fig. 15), and
c) cutting the heat sealed unwound tubular polymeric film periodically along the transverse direction to form a heat sealed sterilized flat plastic bag including an opposed front wall and back wall heat sealed together around the periphery of the front wall and the back wall to form an internal collection space including two side heat seal areas, a top end heat seal area and a bottom end heat seal area (col. 4, lines 44-60),
with the proviso that the tubular film is not slit in the longitudinal direction during any step of the method (e.g., as shown in Fig. 7A), and
with the proviso that the sterilized flat bag is not subjected to a separate sterilizing step during any step of the method (e.g., as shown in Fig. 7A or 7B or 7C).
It is noticed that, for example as illustrated in Fig. 8, after the windup roll 176 is ready, at least the following steps of unwinding, heating, cutting, and securing will be continuously processed for making the final product/bag.
Dayrit discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7A, a large number of end seal bags 65 made from a continuous seamless film tubing. There is a frangible tear line 73 formed by perforations through both lay-flat sides of the seamless film tubing (col. 18, lines 60-66). At least, the frangible tear line 73 is capable of providing the bag opening mechanism.
Dayrit individually teaches the process of producing the tubular film, the heat-sealing process for the polymer bags, and cutting and storing the polymer bags as claimed. Each of these configurations is utilized to improve the production of the polymer bags. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine each of these embodiments into one configuration logically flows from their having been individually taught in the prior art as being known for achieving the same purpose.
Dayrit does not disclose that, a bag closing/opening mechanism includes the first and second closure strips having a malleable wire extending beyond the side edges of the bag. In the same field of endeavor, a sterile collection bag, Ward discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, a flexible closure strip 22 usable with the bag of Fig. 1 is illustrated in Fig. 2 and 3 (col. 3, lines 14-15). There are two tabs 30 With reference to Fig. 4, in the manufacturing process, a strip 22 is applied to each of the bag sidewalls 14 (i.e., for each bag, there are two closure strips applied to each side of the sidewalls of the bag). As illustrated in Fig. 5 (for example), each of the closure strips 22 is extending beyond the edge sides of the bag. As illustrated in Fig. 3, a malleable wire 25 is embedded in a longitudinally extending rib 26 which preferably is located intermediate the top and bottom edges of the strip (col. 3, lines 17-20). Specifically, Ward discloses that the moldable wire 25 can be made of metal (col. 1, lines 55-57). Ward discloses that the wire ends to be recessed from the strip ends, for example, as shown in Fig. 2A (col. 1, lines 65-67). As illustrated in Fig. 9, each of the strip 22 is sealed to the sidewall(s). As illustrated in Fig. 9, there are two tabs 30 being attached to the upper middle locations of each sidewall.
It is noticed that, in the teachings of Ward, each sidewall 14 has an exterior surface and a center section. The bottom and side edges of the sidewalls are sealed, such as by conventional heat sealing (col. 3, lines 1-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dayrit to incorporate the teachings of Ward to provide that a bag closing mechanism includes the first and second closure strips having a malleable wire (e.g., made of soft metal of copper or aluminum or iron) extending beyond the side edges of the bag. Doing so would be possible to prevent from potential contaminations of the bag(s) without premature punctures to the bag(s), as recognized by Ward (col. 1, lines 48-67 and col. 2, lines 1-14).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, Dayrit does not disclose that, a bag closing mechanism includes the first and second closure strips having a malleable wire extending beyond the side edges of the bag and the malleable wire is recessed from 0.5 inches to 1.5 inches elative to the two ends of the first closure strip and the two ends of the second closure strip. Ward discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, a flexible closure strip 22 usable with the bag of Fig. 1 is illustrated in Fig. 2 and 3 (col. 3, lines 14-15). There are two tabs 30 With reference to Fig. 4, in the manufacturing process, a strip 22 is applied to each of the bag sidewalls 14 (i.e., for each bag, there are two closure strips applied to each side of the sidewalls of the bag). As illustrated in Fig. 5 (for example), each of the closure strips 22 is extending beyond the edge sides of the bag. As illustrated in Fig. 3, a malleable wire 25 is embedded in a longitudinally extending rib 26 which preferably is located intermediate the top and bottom edges of the strip (col. 3, lines 17-20). Specifically, Ward discloses that the moldable wire 25 can be made of metal (col. 1, lines 55-57). Ward discloses that the wire ends to be recessed from the strip ends, for example, as shown in Fig. 2A (col. 1, lines 65-67) (related to claim 5). As illustrated in Fig. 9, each of the strip 22 is sealed to the sidewall(s) (related to claims 6, 7). As illustrated in Fig. 9, there are two tabs 30 being attached to the upper middle locations of each sidewall (related to claims 9, 10, 11).
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 2A in the teachings of Ward, the dimension of the recess 32 of the strip ends cannot be greater than the total length of the projecting end portions 31 of each strip.
However, Ward does not explicitly disclose that, the malleable wire is recessed from 0.5 inches to 1.5 inches relative to the two ends of the first closure strip and the two ends of the second closure strip.
As explained in MPEP § 2144.05 (II: Routine Optimization), one of ordinary skilled in the art would have arrived at the claimed range/limitations (i.e., the malleable wire is recessed from 0.5 inches to 1.5 inches relative to the two ends of the first closure strip and the two ends of the second closure strip) as a result of routine optimization of the result effective variable of the closure strips in an effort to provide the better sealing to the bag without the potential puncture of the bag by the metal wire ends of the closure strips.
Regarding claims 12, 13, Dayrit discloses that, at least the multiple layers of the polymer bags may include, for example, ‘tie layer’ referring to any internal layer having the primary purpose of adhering two layers being anhydride modified linear low-density polyethylene (col. 8, lines 34-48) and for example, ‘seal layer’ referring to an outer film layer being low density polyethylene (col. 7, lines 39-64).
Regarding claims 15, 16, Dayrit discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 7A, a large number of end seal bags 65 made from a continuous seamless film tubing (col. 18, lines 60-66). Thus, Dayrit discloses that, after the polymer bags are fabricated and they are capable of stacking together ready for shipping.
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dayrit et al. (US 10,189,621) and Ward, Jr. et al. (US 6,585,413) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hausslein (US 6,022,144).
Regarding claims 4, both Dayrit and Ward do not specify what type of metal for the moldable wire. In the same field of endeavor, closure mechanism for containers, Hausslein discloses, as illustrated in Fig. 3, a soft metal of such as copper or aluminum or iron can be utilized as the malleable wire (col. 7, lines 37-41).
It would have been obvious to use the method of both Dayrit and Ward to have the method of making a sterilized flat plastic bag as Hausslein teaches that it is known to have the soft metal of such as copper or aluminum or iron can be utilized as the malleable wire. It has been held that the combination of known technique to improve similar method is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dayrit et al. (US 10,189,621), and Ward, Jr. et al. (US 6,585,413) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Blank et al. (US 2007/0269740).
Regarding claim 8, the combination does not disclose a printing process to the bag. In the same field of endeavor, a package, Blank discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2A, a laser 40 is applied to form mark 22 to the surface of the multilayer structure 24 prior to making the package 20 ([0129]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination to incorporate the teachings of Blank to provide a printing process to the bag. Doing so would be possible to provide information related to food products such as ingredients or expiration date, as recognized by Blank ([0003], [0004]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dayrit et al. (US 10,189,621), and Ward, Jr. et al. (US 6,585,413) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Blank et al. (US 2007/0269740).
Regarding claim 14, Dayrit does not apply a printing process to the bag. In the same field of endeavor, a package, Blank discloses that, as illustrated in Fig. 2A (e.g., for unwinding), a laser 40 is applied to form mark 22 to the surface of the multilayer structure 24 prior to making the package 20 ([0129]). Blank discloses that, the composition is a water-based ink and the composition is a flexographic ink ([0019]). During the printing, using techniques such as flexographic printing and gravure printing [0068]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dayrit to incorporate the teachings of Blank to provide a printing process to the bag. Doing so would be possible to provide information related to food products such as ingredients or expiration date, as recognized by Blank ([0003], [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that because the base reference Dayrit does not include bag side (edges) heat seals, it can’t possibly obviate the claim. The reference Ward does not disclose that the process of securing the bag closing mechanism 22 to the bag 10 is done in a continuous process. The combination of Dayrit et al. (US 10,189,621), Hausslein (US 6,022,144) and Ward, Jr. et al. (US 6,585,413) does not teach a method of making a sterilized flat plastic bag. These are not found persuasive.
The Examiner is relied on the reference Ward to teach the bag side heat seals.
It is noticed that, in the teachings of Ward, each sidewall 14 has an exterior surface and a center section. The bottom and side edges of the sidewalls are sealed, such as by conventional heat sealing (col. 3, lines 1-4).
In general, the transposition of process steps or the splitting of one step into two, where the processes are substantially identical or equivalent in terms of function, manner and result, was held to be not patentably distinguish the processes (e.g., Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. Pat. App. 1959); In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946); In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930)). See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(C).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Dayrit to incorporate the teachings of Ward to provide that a bag closing mechanism includes the first and second closure strips having a malleable wire extending beyond the side edges of the bag and has the bottom and side edges of the sidewalls of the bag are sealed. Doing so would be possible to prevent from potential contaminations of the bag(s) without premature punctures to the bag(s), as recognized by Ward (col. 1, lines 48-67 and col. 2, lines 1-14).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shibin Liang whose telephone number is (571)272-8811. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 - 4:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached on (571)270 7001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741