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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 25, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 13, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weder et al. (US 5,899,047 A, hereinafter Weder) in view of Gates (US 6,779,922 B2), Strathmann (DE 10 2019 132 879 A1) and Kosters (EP 3 792 192 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weder teaches a packaging bag comprising a web having a front wall (22), a rear wall (24) having a section (Fig. 17A-17C) projecting beyond the front wall on an open top bag edge, stacking openings (39), the web being formed at least in part of paper (column 7 lines 36-43), wherein the front wall and the rear wall have chamfered corners (Fig. 17A) at a bottom bag edge opposite the open top bag edge, and wherein the packaging bag is closable at the top region via a transverse sealing seam (68, 72) (column 13 line 61-column 14 line 20 and Fig. 17A-17C).
Weder fails to teach the stacking openings being disposed on the section of the rear wall projecting beyond the front wall. Gates teaches an analogous packaging bag comprising a front wall (14), a rear wall (12) having a section (20) projecting beyond the front wall on an open top bag edge, and stacking openings (22). Gates further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to position the stacking openings on the section projecting beyond the front wall on the open top bag edge in order to ensure the open top is clear for filling (column 2 line 34-column 3 line 11 and FIG. 4).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Weder by disposing the stacking openings on the section of the rear wall projecting beyond the front wall, as taught by Gates, in order to ensure the open to is clear for filling.
Weder fails to teach a proportion of paper being at least 90% by weight. Strathmann teaches a paper-based material having a proportion by weight of plastic less than 5% and a proportion by weight of the paper-based material greater than 95% and further teaches that the high weight proportion of the paper-based material and the low weight proportion of plastic enables recycling (Translation).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Weder by forming the web to have a proportion of the paper of at least 90% by weight, as taught by Strathmann, in order to ensure recycling.
Weder also fails to teach the paper having a basis weight of no more than 120 gsm. Kosters teaches a biodegradable bag having an outer layer of paper further teaches that the outer layer of the paper for the biodegradable bag is known in the prior art to have a basis weight of between 60 and 120 GSM (Translation: the outer bag has a paper layer with a weight per unit area between 30 gsm and 120 gsm, in particular between 50 gsm and 100 gsm).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Weder by providing a layer of paper having a basis weight of no more than 120 gsm or between 60 and 120 gsm, as taught by Kosters, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known and suitable material and basis weight for the construction of a biodegradable bag and as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Additionally, basis weights of paper are well-known and gsm is a standard universal measurement that applies to all paper types. Accordingly, choosing the desired basis weight depending on the intended use of the paper would have been obvious and the results would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the front wall and the rear wall are joined together at the bottom bag edge by a bottom gusset (Weder: Fig. 17A-17C).
Regarding claim 4, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the web comprises a layer of the paper at least partially coated with a sealing layer made of a heat sealable material on a side adjacent to a packaging space (Weder: column 7 lines 36-43, column 9 lines 15-50, column 16 lines 36-64).
Regarding claim 5, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 4 above, wherein the sealing layer cover said layer of the paper completely on the side adjacent to the packaging space (Weder: column 8 line 61-column 9 line 5, column 9 lines 32-50).
Regarding claim 6, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 5 above, wherein an additional layer (68, 72) made of a heat sealable material is coated only in sections on the sealing layer (Weder: column 8 line 61-column 9 line 5, column 13 line 61-column 14 line 20 and Fig. 17A-17C).
Regarding claim 7, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 6 above, wherein the sealing layer is capable of being applied via an extrusion lamination and the additional layer is capable of being applied via an extrusion lamination or a dispersion coating. It has been held that method limitations in a product claim do not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed product from the prior art. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, even though a product-by-process claim is limited and defined by a process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Accordingly, if the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process. Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966; In re Marosi, 710 F2.d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Regarding claim 8, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 4 above, wherein the front wall and the rear wall are connected to one another at lateral edges via longitudinal sealing seams (Weder: column 16 lines 36-64 and Fig. 39).
Regarding claim 9, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 4 above, wherein the front wall and the rear wall are joined together at the bottom bag edge of the bag by a bottom gusset and wherein bottom gusset portion of the bottom gusset are joined at corners to the adjacent front wall or to the adjacent rear wall via inclined seal seams (Weder: column 7 lines 36-43, column 9 lines 15-50, column 16 lines 36-64 and Fig. 39).
Regarding claim 13, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 4 above, wherein the basis weight is between 60 and 120 gsm (see rejection of claim 1 above, Kosters Translation: the outer bag has a paper layer with a weight per unit area between 30 gsm and 120 gsm, in particular between 50 gsm and 100 gsm).
Regarding claim 15, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein a heat seal lacquer (72) is applied to the front wall and/or the rear wall in at least one region adjacent to the open top bag edge of the bag below the projecting section on an outer side (Weder: column 9 lines 15-30, column 14 lines 3-20 and Fig. 17C).
Regarding claim 16, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein the front wall and the rear wall are joined together at the bottom bag edge of the bag by a bottom gusset and wherein bottom gusset portion of the bottom gusset are at least partially joined together at side edges of the bottom gusset (Weder: column 7 lines 36-43, column 9 lines 15-50, column 16 lines 36-64 and Fig. 39).
Regarding claim 20, Weder teaches a packaging bag comprising a web having a front wall (22), a rear wall (24) having a section (Fig. 17A-17C) projecting beyond the front wall on an open top bag edge, stacking openings (39), the web being formed at least in part of paper (column 7 lines 36-43), wherein the front wall and the rear wall have chamfered corners (Fig. 17A) at a bottom bag edge opposite the open top bag edge, wherein the web comprises a layer of the paper at least partially coated with a sealing layer made of heat sealable material on a side adjacent to a packaging space (column 7 lines 36-43, column 9 lines 15-50, column 16 lines 36-64), and wherein a heat seal lacquer (72) is applied to the front wall and/or the rear wall in at least one region adjacent the open top bag edge of the bag below the projecting section on an outer side (column 13 line 61-column 14 line 20 and Fig. 17A-17C).
Weder fails to teach the stacking openings being disposed on the section of the rear wall projecting beyond the front wall. Gates teaches an analogous packaging bag comprising a front wall (14), a rear wall (12) having a section (20) projecting beyond the front wall on an open top bag edge, and stacking openings (22). Gates further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to position the stacking openings on the section projecting beyond the front wall on the open top bag edge in order to ensure the open top is clear for filling (column 2 line 34-column 3 line 11 and FIG. 4).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Weder by disposing the stacking openings on the section of the rear wall projecting beyond the front wall, as taught by Gates, in order to ensure the open to is clear for filling.
Weder fails to teach a proportion of paper being at least 90% by weight. Strathmann teaches a paper-based material having a proportion by weight of plastic less than 5% and a proportion by weight of the paper-based material greater than 95% and further teaches that the high weight proportion of the paper-based material and the low weight proportion of plastic enables recycling (Translation).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Weder by forming the web to have a proportion of the paper of at least 90% by weight, as taught by Strathmann, in order to ensure recycling.
Weder also fails to teach the paper having a basis weight of no more than 120 gsm. Kosters teaches a biodegradable bag having an outer layer of paper further teaches that the outer layer of the paper for the biodegradable bag is known in the prior art to have a basis weight of between 60 and 120 GSM (Translation: the outer bag has a paper layer with a weight per unit area between 30 gsm and 120 gsm, in particular between 50 gsm and 100 gsm).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Weder by providing a layer of paper having a basis weight of no more than 120 gsm or between 60 and 120 gsm, as taught by Kosters, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known and suitable material and basis weight for the construction of a biodegradable bag and as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Additionally, basis weights of paper are well-known and gsm is a standard universal measurement that applies to all paper types. Accordingly, choosing the desired basis weight depending on the intended use of the paper would have been obvious and the results would have been predictable.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weder in view of Gates, Strathmann and Kosters, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ishizaki (US 2004/0057636 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 9 above, but fails to teach the inclined seal seams comprising unsealed portions. Ishizaki teaches a packaging bag having inclined seal seams (21) at a bottom of the bag and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the inclined seal seams with unsealed portions (21) so that trapped air inside the bag can be exhausted through the unsealed portions (paragraph 38 and FIG. 2).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Weder by providing the inclined seal seams with unsealed portions, as taught by Ishizaki, in order to provide a means for exhausting air trapped inside the bag.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weder in view of Gates, Strathmann and Kosters, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Brinton, Jr. (US 5,679,421 A, hereinafter Brinton).
Regarding claim 11, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 4 above, wherein the heat sealable material is a polymer (Weder: column 7 lines 36-43) but fails to specifically teach the polymer being a polyethylene. Brinton teaches a biodegradable bag and further teaches than an outer layer of kraft paper and an inner layer of a polyethene are well-known and suitable materials for the construction of a biodegradable bag (abstract, column 2 line 53-column 3 line 67).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Weder by forming the heat sealable material of a polyethylene, as taught by Brinton, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known and suitable material for the construction of a biodegradable bag and as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weder in view of Gates, Strathmann and Kosters, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brinton.
Regarding claim 12, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the paper being kraft paper. Brinton teaches a biodegradable bag and further teaches than an outer layer of kraft paper and an inner layer of a polyethene are well-known and suitable materials for the construction of a biodegradable bag (abstract, column 2 line 53-column 3 line 67).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Weder by forming the paper of kraft paper, as taught by Brinton, as is has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known and suitable material for the construction of a biodegradable bag and as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weder in view of Gates, Strathmann and Kosters, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Capy et al. (US 8,991,460 B2, hereinafter Capy).
Regarding claim 14, Weder as modified by Gates, Strathmann and Kosters teaches the bag of claim 4 above, but fails to teach the sealing layer having a basis weight between 1 and 16 GSM applied to the layer of the paper. Capy teaches a paper-based packaging bag having a sealing layer made of a heat sealable material and further teaches that sealing layers having a basis weight between 1 and 16 gsm are well-known (column 2 lines 37-44).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Weder providing the sealing layer having a basis weight of between 1 and 16 gsm, as taught by Kosters, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known and suitable basis weight for sealing layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 25, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Strathmann concerns a materially different packaging concept, is not persuasive.
Strathmann discloses that the paper packaging of the invention is made of a paper-based material, with paper, cardboard or paperboard being possible examples of the paper-based material (Translation page 2, paragraph 8). Accordingly, the packaging concept is not materially different. Additionally, the use of paper-based materials that are more environmentally friendly and the motivation to provide paper-based materials that are more environmentally friend would have been obvious regardless of the specific paper-based material.
Applicant’s argument the resulting combination of a paper that is at least 90% overall paper by weight in combination with an upper limit of 120 gsm is novel and non-obvious is not persuasive.
Each individual factor is known. As stated above, the paper-based material of Strathmann includes paper and providing a paper that is at least 90% paper by weight is well-known and desirable. Additionally, basis weights of paper are well-known, including paper with a low basis weight, and gsm is a standard universal measurement that applies to all paper types. Accordingly, choosing the desired basis weight depending on the intended use of the paper would have been obvious and the results would have been predictable.
Accordingly, there is no persuasive evidence indicating that the combination is novel and non-obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
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.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights