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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 26 March 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mitsuhashi (TW M539487 U).
Regarding claim 1, Mitsuhashi discloses a wrapping bag for food such as a sandwich, comprising: two films (110/120) that are overlapped to each other and sealed together along their opposite lateral edges (Last paragraph of Page 2, and first paragraph of page 3 of the translation); a seal part (113) formed by sealing the two films between the opposite lateral edges in a vicinity of one longitudinal edges of the two films; a header (111) part formed between the one longitudinal edges of the two films and the seal part; a cutting line (112/1121), from which opening of the wrapping bag is started, being formed in the header part of one of the two films (Fig. 1); an opening (115) formed in the opposite longitudinal edges of the two films that are not sealed together; a housing part (Fig. 3) surrounded by the opening, the opposite lateral edges sealed together, and the seal part, of the two films; and an unsealing device (130) that is provided in the one film to extend from a vicinity of the cutting line to a vicinity of the opening while crossing the seal part (Fig. 3), wherein the cutting line comprises a first cutting line (112) having both ends extending toward the edges of the opposite longitudinal end and being projected toward the edges of the one longitudinal end to form a tab, and at least one second cutting line (1121) extending toward at least one of the lateral edges, the seal part has a portion with a smaller width (Fig. 1) in an unsealing direction at which the seal part crosses the unsealing device than a width in the unsealing direction of a portion, at which the seal part does not cross the unsealing device, and the at least one second cutting line (1121) is located to be in contact with the seal part (113) at a portion other than a portion at which the seal part crosses the unsealing device, and a base end of the at least one second cutting line is located closer to the lateral edge of the film than the unsealing device in a direction crossing the unsealing direction (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Mitsuhashi discloses the two films each are formed into a trapezoid shape (Last paragraph of Page 2, and first paragraph of page 3 of the translation) to have a narrower longitudinal end and a wider longitudinal end (Fig. 3), the header part (111) is provided on the narrower longitudinal end, and the opening (115) is provided on the wider longitudinal end.
Regarding claim 4, Mitsuhashi discloses (Shown below in Annotated Fig. 1) the opposite ends on the opposite longitudinal edges of the two films are cut out (at portions C) to have cutout with a narrower distance between the opposite lateral edges of the two films.
PNG
media_image1.png
406
478
media_image1.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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi (TW M539487 U) in view of Fukuda (TW 201034910 A).
Regarding claim 5, Mitsuhashi discloses the claimed invention, especially the opposite ends on the opposite longitudinal edges of the two films being cut out to have cutout with a narrower distance between the opposite lateral edges of the two films, as discussed above regarding claim 4.
Mitsuhashi does not disclose the cutouts each are formed in a continuous line of a circular-arc section on the side of a corresponding one of the lateral edges and a straight line section on the side of the opening.
Fukuda teaches that it is known in the art to form cutouts (10) in a continuous line of a circular-arc section (10a) on a side of a corresponding one of lateral edges and a straight line section (10b) on a side of an opening in an analogous wrapping bag.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the cutouts in a continuous line of a circular-arc section on a side of a corresponding one of the lateral edges and a straight line section on a side of the opening in the wrapping bag of Mitsuhashi, as in Fukuda, in order to provide reduced overlapped portions of the film when the lower ed is folded to set the bottom.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights