DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous claim objections and 1112 rejections have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Claims 1-9 and 13-16 have been amended. Claims 17-19 have been cancelled. Claim 20 has been added. Claims 1-16 and 20 remain pending in the application.
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 § 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, 5, 8, 9, 15, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US 4,911,561 A) in view of Neeman (EP 3 901 054 A1) and Weder et al. (US 5,899,047 A, hereinafter Weder).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner teaches a packaging bag comprising a web having a front wall (10), a rear wall (11) having a section (7) projecting beyond the front wall on an open top bag edge (5), stacking openings (12, 13, 4a) disposed in the section of the rear wall projecting beyond the front wall, and wherein the front wall and the rear wall have chamfered corners (15) at a bottom bag edge opposite the open top bag edge (column 3 line 49-column 4 line 38 and Fig. 5, 17, 18).
Wagner fails to teach the web being formed at least in part of paper. Neeman teaches an analogous packaging bag comprising a web having a front wall (5), a rear wall (6) having a section (26) projecting beyond the front wall on an open top bag edge (30), and stacking openings (27) disposed in the section of the rear wall projecting beyond the front wall. Neeman further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to form the web at least in part of paper having a sealable inner coating so that the bag is more environmentally friendly (Translation-Description, Figure 1 description and Fig. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Wagner by forming the web at least in part of paper having a sealable inner coating, as taught by Neeman, so that the bag is more environmentally friendly.
Wagner also fails to teach the packaging bag being closable at a top region via a transverse sealing seam. Weder teaches an analogous packaging bag having a front wall (22) and a rear wall (24) having a section projecting beyond the front wall on an open top bag edge (Fig. 17C). Weder further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the packaging bag to be closable at a top region via a transverse sealing seam (72) so that the bag can be selectively closable (column 9 lines 15-30, column 14 lines 3-20 and Fig. 17C).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Wagner by configure the packaging bag to be closable at a top region via a transverse sealing seam, as taught by Weder, so that the projecting section can be selectively folded over and sealed to the front wall to close and seal the bag.
Regarding claim 2, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder 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 (8) (Wagner: column 3 lines 61-65 and Fig. 5, 17, 18).
Regarding claim 4, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder 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 (Neeman: Translation-Description, Figure 1 description).
Regarding claim 5, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder teaches the bag of claim 4 above, wherein the sealing layer covers said layer of the paper completely on the side adjacent to the packaging space (Neeman: Translation-Description, Figure 1 description).
Regarding claim 8, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder teaches the bag of claim 4 above, wherein the front wall and the rear wall are connected to one another at lateral edges (2) via longitudinal sealing seams (Wagner: column 3 lines 49-51 and Fig. 1, 5, 17, 18).
Regarding claim 9, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder 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 (8) and wherein bottom gusset portions of the bottom gusset are joined at corners to the adjacent front wall or to the adjacent rear wall via included seal seams (15) (Wagner: column 3 lines 61-65 and Fig. 5, 17, 18).
Regarding claim 15, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder 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, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder 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 (8) (Wagner: column 3 lines 61-65 and Fig. 5, 17, 18) and wherein bottom gusset portions of the bottom gusset are at least partially joined together at side edges of the bottom gusset (Wagner: column 3 lines 61-65 and Neeman: Translation-apply sealing lacquer or wax where outside-to-outside sealing is required). Wagner teaches the bottom gusset portions of the bottom gusset being at least partially joined together at side edges of the bottom gusset. Accordingly, modifying Wagner to include the material structure disclosed by Neeman, which includes an outer paper layer, would also include applying a sealing lacquer or wax where outside-to-outside sealing is required by Wagner.
Regarding claim 20, Wagner teaches a packaging bag comprising a web having a front wall (10), a rear wall (11) having a section (7) projecting beyond the front wall on an open top bag edge (5), stacking openings (12, 13, 4a) disposed in the section of the rear wall projecting beyond the front wall, and wherein the front wall and the rear wall have chamfered corners (15) at a bottom bag edge opposite the open top bag edge (column 3 line 49-column 4 line 38 and Fig. 5, 17, 18).
Wagner fails to teach the web being formed at least in part of paper, 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 the packaging space. Neeman teaches an analogous packaging bag comprising a web having a front wall (5), a rear wall (6) having a section (26) projecting beyond the front wall on an open top bag edge (30), and stacking openings (27) disposed in the section of the rear wall projecting beyond the front wall. Neeman further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to form the web at least in part of paper, wherein a layer of the paper is at least partially coated with a sealing layer made of a heat sealable material on a side adjacent to the packaging space so that the bag is more environmentally friendly and also heat sealable (Translation-Description, Figure 1 description and Fig. 1).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Wagner by forming the web at least in part of paper, 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 the packaging space, as taught by Neeman, so that the bag is more environmentally friendly and also heat sealable.
Wagner also fails to teach a heat seal lacquer being 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 teaches an analogous packaging bag having a front wall (22) and a rear wall (24) having a section projecting beyond the front wall on an open top bag edge (Fig. 17C). Weder further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide a heat seal lacquer (72) to the front wall in at least one region adjacent the open top bag edge of the bag below the projecting section on an outer side so that the projecting section can be selectively folded over and sealed to the front wall to close and seal the bag (column 9 lines 15-30, column 14 lines 3-20 and Fig. 17C).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Wagner by applying a heat seal lacquer to the front wall in at least one region adjacent to the open top bag edge of the bag below the projecting section on an outer side, as taught by Weder, so that the projecting section can be selectively folded over and sealed to the front wall to close and seal the bag.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Neeman and Weder, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Strathmann (DE 10 2019 132 879 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder teaches the bag of claim 1 above, but fails to specifically teach a proportion of the 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 Wagner as modified by Neeman 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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Neeman and Weder, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Cheeley (US 3,314,591 A).
Regarding claim 6, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder teaches the bag of claim 5 above, but fails to teach an additional layer of a heat sealable material coated only in sections on the sealing layer. Cheeley teaches a packaging bag comprising a layer of heat sealable material and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide an additional layer of heat sealable material coated only in sections intended to be heat sealed in order to ensure effective sealing in the intended sections (column 2 line 36-column 3 line 48).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Wagner as modified by Neeman by providing an additional layer of a heat sealable material coated only in sections on the sealing layer, as taught by Cheeley, in order to ensure effective sealing in sections intended to be heat sealed.
Regarding claim 7, Wagner as modified by Neeman, Weder and Cheeley 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).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Neeman and Weder, as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ishizaki (US 2004/0057636 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder 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 Wagner 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 Wagner in view of Neeman and Weder, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Brinton, Jr. (US 5,679,421 A, hereinafter Brinton).
Regarding claim 11, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder teaches the bag of claim 4 above, but fails to teach the heat sealable material being 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 Wagner as modified by Neeman 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 Wagner in view of Neeman and Weder, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brinton.
Regarding claim 12, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder 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 Wagner as modified by Neeman 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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Neeman and Weder, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kosters (EP 3 792 192 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder teaches the bag of claim 4 above, but fails to teach the layer of the paper having a basis weight of between 60 and 120 GSM. Kosters teaches a biodegradable bag having an outer layer of paper and an inner layer of a heat sealable material and 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 Wagner as modified by Neeman by providing a layer of paper having a basis weight of 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner in view of Neeman and Weder, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Capy et al. (US 8,991,460 B2, hereinafter Capy).
Regarding claim 14, Wagner as modified by Neeman and Weder 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 Wagner as modified by Neeman by 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 December 23, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Wagner teaches a shopping bag and sealing the top area of a shopping bag would defeat the purpose of a shopping bag, is not persuasive.
Wagner’s disclosure of the bag being intended for use as a shopping bag does not teach away from the bag having other alternative uses as Wagner does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage other uses. Similarly, Wagner’s lack of disclosure of a transverse sealing seam does not teach away from the bag having a transverse sealing seam as Wagner does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage the bag having a transverse sealing seam.
Further, Weder teaches a consumer type bag and further teaches that it would be desirable to seal a consumer bag after being filled with contents.
It should also be noted that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations and while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114).
Applicant’s argument that the use of a heat-sealing seam would not be practical because it is primarily an industrial process that would be difficult to implement in retail is not persuasive.
The argument that a combination would not be practical does not mean that one of ordinary skill in the art would not make the combination and would not discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from seeking the advantages expected from the combination.
Applicant’s argument regarding claims 15 and 20 are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., heat sealable areas to fold down the top area, whereby sections of the front wall are connected to each other via the heat-sealable areas) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
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 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