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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed June 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 4, 6-16 are examined. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayrit et al. (US 10,189,621), further in view of GB673004.
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 continuous 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.
As illustrated in Fig. 2 of the teachings of Dayrit, end-seal bag 10 comprises heat-shrinkable bag film 11 (col. 15, lines 34-35). Thus, Dayrit discloses that, a width of the sterilized flat bag is about equal to the width of the roll of the tubular polymeric film from the blown film extrusion process.
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.
However, 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 wherein each end of the malleable wire is completely embedded in the first closure strip and the second closure strip.
In the same field of endeavor, improvements in deformable closure elements for bags, GB673004 discloses that, as illustrated in Figs. 3, 6, 9, 10, the closure member 9 comprises three wires 10, 11, and 12 which are embedded in a thermoplastic strip 13. The ends of the wires are covered by the plastic at the ends of the devices and these ends may be slightly different in shape from the regular cross-sectional shape of the remainder of the article as shown at 14 and 15 (page 2 (right col.), lines 100-108). It is noticed that, these wires are metal (page 2 (left col.), lines 18-21).
It is noticed that, as illustrated in Fig. 3 in the teachings of GB673004, the dimension of the wires 10, 11, and 12 cannot be greater than the total length of each strip 13 plus the end portions 14 and 15.
However, GB673004 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.
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 GB673004 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 completing covered by plastic material. 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) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dayrit et al. (US 10,189,621) and GB673004 as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Ward, Jr. et al. (US 6,585,413).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, the combination does not explicitly disclose the sealing and side edges and the pull tabs affixed to the front wall 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) (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.
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 Ward to provide that a bag closing mechanism includes the first and second closure strips having a malleable wire extending beyond the side sealing edges of the bag and having a pulling tab disposed in the middle between the two side sealing edges of the bag. 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) (See MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
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 GB673004 as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hausslein (US 6,022,144).
Regarding claims 4, both Dayrit and GB673004 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 GB673004 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 GB673004 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 GB673004 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 in 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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/2026 have been fully considered. They are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments (as amended) in claim 1 that the combination of the references Dayrit et al. (US 10,189,621), Ward, Jr. et al. (US 6,585,413), Hausslein (US 6,022,144), and Blank et al. (US 2007/0269740) does not disclose a method of making a sterilized flat plastic bag comprising the continuous steps such as continuously heat sealing, cutting the heat sealed film, to form a heat sealed sterilized bag, and a width of the sterilized bag is about the equal to the width of the roll of the film, these are found not persuasive.
The base reference Dayrit disclose a process for making plastic bag for food packaging (Background). Basically, that will need the bag to meet the strict requirement of sterilization. It is noticed that, the similar roll of plastic film is used in the process of Dayrit for making the bag. If Applicant can make the sterilized bag from the similar roll, in the similar process there is no reason for Dayrit to contaminate the process.
In Fig. 15 of the teachings of Dayrit, at least there are two edge-sealing lines 26, 27 (col. 17, lines 8-11) for one bag.
As illustrated in Fig. 2 of the teachings of Dayrit, end-seal bag 10 comprises heat-shrinkable bag film 11 (col. 15, lines 34-35). Thus, Dayrit discloses that, a width of the sterilized flat bag is about equal to the width of the roll of the tubular polymeric film from the blown film extrusion process.
Regarding arguments (as amended) in claim 1 the combination does not 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, it is not persuasive.
At least, as illustrated in Fig. 3 in the teachings of GB673004, the dimension of the wires 10, 11, and 12 cannot be greater than the total length of each strip 13 plus the end portions 14 and 15.
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.
Conclusion
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.
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, 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIBIN LIANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights