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 Objections
Claims 9, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “the unsealing protrusions” in line 2. Since claim 8 recites “a pair of unsealing protrusions”, “the unsealing protrusions” in claim 9 should be changed to “the pair of unsealing protrusions” in order to remain consistent.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites “the unsealing protrusions” in line 4. Since claim 8 recites “a pair of unsealing protrusions”, “the unsealing protrusions” in claim 9 should be changed to “the pair of unsealing protrusions” in order to remain consistent.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-10 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.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “the drip bag has unsealing portions” and “a pair of unsealing protrusions”. It is unclear if the unsealing portions are the same as or different from the pair of unsealing protrusions. It is noted that the specification does not discuss “unsealing portions” in general and therefore also does not discuss unsealing portions in combination with unsealing protrusions. It appears that unsealing portions may be a typographical error.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites “the unsealing protrusions are exposed by extending top sides of the upper bonded portion, at which the pair of unsealing protrusions are not extended”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. it is noted that “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art.” (MPEP 2173.06.II), a 103 rejection has been made based on broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saitoh US 2016/0318705.
Regarding claim 1, Saitoh discloses a drip bag comprising a bag main body made of a water permeable filter sheet ([0010]) and thin plate-like members (hook members formed of a thin plate shaped material) disposed on two opposed outer surfaces of main body ([0010]). Saitoh discloses that on each of the two opposed outer surfaces of the bag main body, each of the thin plate like members include an upper bonded portion (upper stuck part 12) fixed to the bag main body along a top side of the bag main body, a central portion (a center part) fixed to the bag main body on a bottom side of the bag main body relative to the upper bonded portion, and a hooking portion (arm part 14 and hook part 11) continuous with the central portion and disposed to be capable of being pulled out from the bag main body ([0010], [0044]). Saitoh discloses that the upper bonded portion (upper stuck part 12) has an oblique folding line (L1a or L1b) obliquely intersecting (P1) a width centerline (Z) of the upper bonded portion (upper stuck part) (Fig. 1A, 1C).
Regarding claim 2, Saitoh discloses that the oblique folding line (L1a or L1b) does not reach a top side and a bottom side of the upper bonded portion (upper stuck part 12) (Fig. 1C)
Regarding claim 3, Saitoh discloses that the oblique folding line is a cut ([0050]).
Regarding claim 4, Saitoh discloses that an oblique top side portion of the upper bonded portion is located on either one side of left and right of the oblique folding line, and an oblique bottom side portion of the upper bonded portion is located on the other side of the left and right of the oblique folding line (see annotated Fig. 6 below). It is noted that “oblique top side portion” and “oblique bottom side portion” do not require any specific length to be oblique, and a “portion” can be any length, and a portion of the sides specified in the annotated Figure 6 below can be considered oblique side portions.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
1212
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
729
1505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Saitoh discloses that on each of the two opposed outer surfaces of the bag main body, the hooking portion includes an arm part (arm part 14) continuous with the central portion (13/15) and a hook part (11) continuous with the arm part (arm part 14) (Fig. 1A). Saitoh discloses that the arm part (14) extends toward the top side of the bag main body from the central portion (13/15) and can be pulled out from the bag main body with a central portion side end as a fixed end (Fig. 2, 3A, [0044]). Saitoh discloses that the hook part (11) is formed to be continuous with an upper portion of the arm part (14) and extend from a continuous portion of the arm part toward the bottom side of the bag main body (Fig. 1A, [0084], claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, Saitoh discloses that on each of the two opposed outer surfaces of the bag main body, the arm part (14) has parts (arm part 14 is a pair) that are juxtaposed at a distance from each other (Fig. 1A, 2-4) with a width center line (Z) of the upper bonded portion therebetween (Fig. 1A, 2-4). Juxtaposed parts (14) are connected at a top into a connection part and the connection part is continuous to the hook part (11).
PNG
media_image3.png
459
794
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitoh US 2016/0318705 in view of Saito JP 2011078748 (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 4, in the event claim 4 could be considered as differing from Saitoh in the recitation that an oblique top side portion of the upper bonded portion is located on either one side of left and right of the oblique folding line, and an oblique bottom side portion of the upper bonded portion is located on the other side of the left and right of the oblique folding line in Fig. 6, absent compelling evidence of criticality, this is seen to be a merely a change in shape of the upper bonded portion (MPEP 2144.04.B). Regarding the other limitations of the claim, it is additionally noted that “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation.” (MPEP 2143.03). It is additionally noted that Saitoh shows an oblique bottom side portion of the upper bonded portion located on a right or left or the oblique folding line (L1a) in Fig. 13, 14.
Additionally, Saito ‘748 discloses a drip bag where the upper bonded portion comprises an oblique top side portion of the upper bonded portion and an oblique bottom side portion (Figs.4A-4C) (see annotated Figure below). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the upper bonded portion of Saitoh to include an oblique top side portion of the upper bonded portion located to the right of the oblique folding line and an oblique bottom side portion located to the left of the oblique folding line, as suggested by Saitoh ‘748, thereby modifying the upper bonded portion to have a known shape of an upper bonded portion for a drip bag, in order to provide an upper bonded portion having a suitable shape. It has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
PNG
media_image4.png
688
745
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitoh US 2016/0318705.
Regarding claim 7, Saitoh discloses a drip bag wherein the bag main body of the drip bag according to claim 1 is filled with an extraction material and the bag main body is obviously sealed ([0041], Fig. 1A, claim 16, [0053], [0056], [0062]).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitoh US 2016/0318705 in view of Saito JP 2014155872A (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 8, Saitoh discloses that the drip bag comprises an easily cleavable line at the top side of the bag main body (opening guide line 4 such as perforations for forming an opening 3 on the upper end) ([0041], [0041]).
Claim 8 differs from Saitoh in the recitation that the drip bag comprises a pair of unsealing protrusions extended from the upper bonded portions on the two opposed outer surfaces of the bag main body protrudes alternately from the top side of the bag main body.
Saito discloses a drip bag comprising a pair of unsealing protrusions (11a) extended from the upper bonded portions (11) on the two opposed outer surfaces of the bag main body protrudes alternately from the top side of the bag main body in order to make the drip bag easier to open (Fig.3A, [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drip bag of Saitoh such that the drip bag comprises a pair of unsealing protrusions extended from the upper bonded portions on the two opposed outer surfaces of the bag main body protrudes alternately from the top side of the bag main body as taught by Saito in order to make the drip bag easier to open. It has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding claim 9, Modified Saitoh discloses that the unsealing protrusions and the bag main body are bonded at an intersection between lateral sides of the pair of unsealing protrusions and the top side of the main bag body in midsections of the thin plate like members in a width direction (Fig.3A, [0022], [0034]).
PNG
media_image5.png
508
796
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitoh US 2016/0318705 in view of Saito JP 2014155872A (Espacenet Translation) in view of Saitoh US 2016/0001969.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above claim 10 is unclear for the reasons given in the 112b rejection above. Modified Saitoh discloses that the unsealing protrusions are exposed by extending tops sides of the upper bonded portion (‘872, Fig. 3A).
Claim 10 differs from Modified Saitoh in the recitation that cuts are formed in midsections of the upper bonded portions in a width direction, the cuts being formed into roots of the unsealing protrusions.
Saitoh teaches that cuts (L2 can be formed as cutting line) are formed in midsections (L2 extends across a horizontal midsection of the upper stuck part 12) of the upper bonded portions (upper stuck part 12) in a width direction (L2 is slanted and therefore is formed in a width direction) (Figs. 1-2, [0039]). Saitoh discloses providing the upper bonded portions with multiple cuts in order to increase the size of the opening area of the drip bag when opened ([0040], [0011], Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Saitoh ‘705 in view of Saito ‘872 to include additional cuts (L2) formed in midsections of the upper bonded portions in a width direction (L2 is slanted and therefore is formed in a width direction) as taught by Saitoh ‘969 in order to increase the size of the opening area of the drip bag when opened. The combination of Saitoh ‘705 in view of Saito ‘872 in view of Saitoh ‘969 having additional cuts L2 formed in midsections of the upper bonded portions in a width direction (’969, Figs 1-2) and the unsealing protrusions extending from the upper bonded portions necessarily results in cuts (L2) into roots of the unsealing protrusions (‘872, Fig. 3a, 11a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pg. 7 of the remarks Applicant argues that in Saitoh ‘705 L1a and L1b do not obliquely intersect the centerline so as to cross the centerline.
This argument has not been found persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims, as the claims do not specifically recite that the oblique folding line obliquely intersects the width centerline so as to cross the centerline. Lines can “intersect” by only meeting at a common point, “intersect” does not specifically require the lines to meet and cross/extend past each other. L1a and L1b do “intersect” the center line as they both meet at a point with the center line; however, it is acknowledged that they do not both intersect and extend past the centerline on both sides of the center line.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saitoh US 2016/0001969 discloses providing an oblique bottom side portion of the upper bonded portion (12) is located on the both of left and right of an oblique folding line (L1) (See Figs 1-3A).
Saito JP 2011078748 (Espacenet Translation). Saito discloses a drip bag comprising a pair of unsealing protrusions (15) extended from the upper bonded portions (14) on the two opposed outer surfaces of the bag main body (10A) protrudes alternately from the top side of the bag main body in order to make the drip bag easier to open ([0009], [0010], Figs. 1-4).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights