DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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. The use of the term "preferably" make the claims unclear. As such, the metes and bounds of the limitations of the claims are unclear.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chunglong (CN 108657592) in view of Lisek et al. (WO 2018202340).
Regarding claim 1, Chunglong discloses a paper bag capable of holding potting soil or comparable moist bulk materials, formed from a tubular piece (Fig. 1) comprising at least two paper layers (2, 21, 22), the bonds of the bag being formed with biodegradable adhesive (PVA), wherein the innermost paper layer of the tubular piece has on its outer face a water-repellent coating (3), and at least one of the paper layers has at least on its inner face a darkening colouring (black CPP). See Fig. 1; and pg. 4, para. 26 – pg. 7, para. 62. Chunglong does not disclose a bottom as claimed.
Lisek, which is drawn to a bag, discloses the bag having a cross bottom or block bottom at one end of the tubular piece. See Fig. 4; and cl. 14. Thus, it 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 to have the bag of Chunlong have a cross or block bottom, as disclosed by Lisek, in order to have the bag be able to stand on its own.
Regarding claim 3, an inner lining formed of paper is inserted into the bottom, and the inner lining is provided with a water-repellent coating, on the outer face facing away from the interior of the bag and/or the inner lining has a darkening colouring at least on its inner face facing the interior of the bag. See Fig. 1; and pg. 4, para. 26 – pg. 7, para. 62.
Regarding claim 6, the bonding regions of the bag material have no coatings reducing the adhesion and/or are bonded with a water-resistant adhesive component. See, pg. 4, para. 26 – pg. 7, para. 62.
Regarding claim 8, the water-repellent paper coatings are implemented as free of plastic, biodegradable, compostable and/or recyclable coatings. See, pg. 4, para. 26 – pg. 7, para. 62.
Regarding claim 9, all material layers of the bag are composed of paper and/or comparable biodegradable materials. See, pg. 4, para. 26 – pg. 7, para. 62.
Regarding claim 10, the bag is fully compostable and/or recyclable. See, pg. 4, para. 26 – pg. 7, para. 62.
Regarding claim 11, the bag is formed as a three-layer paper bag, and the outermost material layer is provided on its outer face with a water-repellent, biodegradable, compostable and/or recyclable coating. See, pg. 4, para. 26 – pg. 7, para. 62.
Regarding claim 12, the bag is closed at one end of the tubular piece by suture or a bottom is formed at both ends of the tubular piece, and a valve is inserted in one bottom for filling the bag. See Figs. 1-3.
Regarding claim 13, the bag is closed at both ends of the tubular piece by suture and the tubular piece is formed without or with a side fold extending between the ends.
Claim(s) 4, 14, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chunglong and Lisek as applied above in further view of Hayes (US 2006/0009611).
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 15, Chunglong does not disclose the adhesive as claimed. Hayes, which is drawn to a bag, discloses a biodegradable adhesive that contains starch glue and/or a moisture-stable bonding additive is admixed to the biodegradable adhesive. See, [0103]. Thus, it 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 to use an adhesive as disclosed by Hayes on the bag of Chunglong in order to achieve the desired level of adhesion.
Regarding claim 20, the bonding regions of the bag material have no coatings reducing the adhesion and/or are bonded with a water-resistant adhesive component. See, pg. 4, para. 26 – pg. 7, para. 62.
Claim(s) 5, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chunglong and Lisek as applied above.
Regarding claims 5, 16 and 17, Chunglong does not disclose the weight as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the moisture-stable bonding additive be admixed to the biodegradable adhesive with a content of not more than 10% by weight, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the bonding regions of the bag material have no coatings reducing the adhesion and/or are bonded with a water-resistant adhesive component. See, pg. 4, para. 26 – pg. 7, para. 62.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chunglong and Lisek as applied above in further view of Raymond (US 2,615,614).
Regarding claim 7, Chunglong does not disclose the inner lining as claimed. Raymond, which is drawn to a bag, discloses an inner face of an innermost paper layer and/or the inner face of the inner lining in contact with the filling material are treated with a natural fungicide and/or an antimicrobially acting substance and/or provided with an alkaline application. See Fig. 5. Thus, it 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 to use a preferably natural fungicide and/or an antimicrobially acting substance, as disclosed by Raymond, on the bag of Chunglong in order to prevent fungus, etc. from developing within the bag.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights