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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 8, “said empty area” should be --said at least one empty area--,
In line 13, “the portion” should be --a portion--,
In line 13, “able to be positioned” should be --positioned--,
In line 14, “said empty area” should be --said at least one empty area--,
In lines 16-17, “able to be positioned” should be --positioned--, and
In line 17, “said empty area” should be --said at least one empty area--.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “said portion of said reinforcing element” should be --said at least said portion of said reinforcing element--, and
In lines 1-2, “able to be positioned” should be --positioned--,
In line 2, “said empty area” should be --said at least one empty area--, and
In line 3, “papers transparent” should be --transparent papers--.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 5, “said empty area” should be --said at least one empty area--, and
In lines 5-6, “the non-overlapping part” should be --a non-overlapping part--.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “said cutouts” should be --said at least one cutouts--, and
In line 3, “said empty area” should be --said at least one empty area--.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “a window, hole or opening (9) able to be positioned” should be --the window or opening positioned --, and
In lines 2-3, “said empty area” should be --said at least one empty area--.
Claims 2-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, “Bag” should be --The bag--.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “Bag (1) consisting of a single body formed by an external surface (2) and by at least one bottom (3) fixed to said external surface (2)” in lines 1-2 and the limitation “said bottom (3) consists of a first flap (3a) and a second flap (3b)” in line 3. However, the claim further recites the limitation “said bag (1) also comprises a transparent covering element (5) applied to said bottom (3)” in lines 7-8 and “said bag (1) is also provided with a reinforcing element (6) applied on said transparent covering element (5)” in lines 10-11. It is not clear how the bag can consist of a single body and also include a transparent covering element and a reinforcing element. It is also not clear how the bottom can consist of a first flap and a second flap and also include a transparent covering element and a reinforcing element. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite as it is not clear what the “consisting of” language is intended to encompass and/or exclude.
For the purpose of examination, the bottom will be considered to comprise a single body formed by an external surface and by at least one bottom fixed to said external surface and the bottom will be considered to comprise a first flap and a second flap.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, independent claim 1.
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 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hoesen (US 303,899 A) in view of Bowater (FR 1362573 A) and Stillman et al. (US 3,285,497 A, hereinafter Stillman).
Regarding claim 1, Van Hoesen teaches a bag comprising a single body (A) formed by an external surface and by at least one bottom fixed to said external surface (Fig. 1-5), wherein:
said bottom comprises a first flap (p) and a second flap (m) which are arranged so as not to overlap each other, or to only partially overlap each other, to create in every case at least one empty area (b) between said first flap and second flap (Fig. 1, 4, 5),
said bag also comprises a covering element (B) applied to said bottom and arranged so as to cover at least said at least one empty area (page 1 lines 7-86 and Fig. 1-5).
Van Hoesen fails to teach the covering element being a transparent covering element. Bowater teaches an analogous bag having an external surface, a bottom with first and second flaps, and at least one empty area (2) and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to close or cover the at least one empty area with a sheet of transparent material (3) so that the product can be seen when the bag is stacked on a shelf lying down (Translation paragraph 0001 and Figure).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Van Hoesen by alternatively providing a transparent covering element, as taught by Bowater, in order to provide a transparent viewing window so that the product can be seen when the bag is stacked on a shelf lying down.
Van Hoesen also fails to teach a reinforcing element applied on said transparent covering element, wherein at least a portion of said reinforcing element positioned in correspondence with said at least one empty area of the bottom is made of transparent material, and/or wherein said reinforcing element is provided with a window or opening positioned in correspondence with said at least one empty area of the bottom. Stillman teaches a bag formed from a transparent base film layer (11) and further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to reinforce the transparent base film layer with a transparent thermoplastic coating (17) in order to impart additional properties, such as high tear strength, to the transparent base film layer (column 2 line 56-column 3 line 24).
Accordingly, in order to impart high strength properties to the transparent covering element, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to reinforce the transparent covering element of Bowater with a transparent thermoplastic coating, as taught by Stillman, whereby at least a portion of said reinforcing element positioned in correspondence with said at least one empty area of the bottom is made of transparent material and/or whereby said reinforcing element is provided with a window or opening (transparent coating provides window due to transparency) positioned in correspondence with said at least one empty area of the bottom.
Regarding claim 2, Van Hoesen as modified by Bowater and Stillman teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein said transparent covering element is made with transparent plastic material or transparent papers (Bowater: Translation paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 3, Van Hoesen as modified by Bowater and Stillman teaches the bag of claim 2 above, wherein said at least said portion of said reinforcing element positioned in correspondence with said at least one empty area of the bottom is made of transparent plastic material or transparent papers (Stillman: column 3 lines 13-23).
Regarding claim 4, Van Hoesen as modified by Bowater and Stillman teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein each of said first flap and said second flap is provided at a central part thereof, with at least one cutout (b) so that, when said first flap and said second flap partially overlap each other, said at least one cutout with which each of said first flap and said second flap is provided creates overall said at least one empty area in a non-overlapping part of said first flap and second flap (Van Hoesen: Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5).
Regarding claim 5, Van Hoesen as modified by Bowater and Stillman teaches the bag of claim 4 above, wherein said at least one cutouts are substantially semi-circular in shape so that, when said first flap and said second flap partially overlap each other, said at least one empty area is substantially circular in shape (Van Hoesen: Fig. 1, 3, 4, 5).
Regarding claim 6, Van Hoesen as modified by Bowater and Stillman teaches the bag of claim 5 above, wherein said reinforcing element is provided with the window (transparent coating provides window due to transparency) positioned in correspondence with said empty area (Van Hoesen: Fig. 4 and Stillman: column 3 lines 13-23).
Regarding claim 7, Van Hoesen as modified by Bowater and Stillman teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein said reinforcing element has substantially the same shape (rectangle) of said bottom (Van Hoesen: Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Van Hoesen as modified by Bowater and Stillman teaches the bag of claim 7 above, wherein said bottom and said reinforcing element are substantially rectangular in shape (Van Hoesen: Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, Van Hoesen as modified by Bowater and Stillman teaches the bag of claim 1 above, wherein said bottom of the bag has a flat, at least partially rigid surface (Van Hoesen: Fig. 4, 5, Bowater: Translation paragraph 0001 and Stillman: column 2 line 56-column 3 line 24). The additional two layers of Bowater and Stillman added to the bottom of Van Hoesen would impart additional structure to the bottom of the bag that is not imparted to other parts of the bag, thereby rendering the bottom partially rigid and less flexible compared to the other parts of the bag.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hoesen in view of Bowater and Stillman, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McCall et al. (US 3,485,438 A, hereinafter McCall).
Regarding claim 9, Van Hoesen as modified by Bowater and Stillman teaches the bag of claim 1 above, but fails to teach each of said external surface and said bottom comprising at least two sheets superimposed on each other. McCall teaches an analogous bag having an external surface and a bottom with two flaps. McCall further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to form the bag from a multi-ply material having an outer ply that provides liquid or moisture proofing and an inner ply that provides strength (column 2 lines 21-28).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify Van Hoesen by forming each of said external surface and said bottom with at least two sheets superimposed on each other, as taught by McCall, in order to impart liquid or moisture proofing as well as strength to the bag.
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