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 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.
The term “semi-extensible type” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “semi-extensible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "i.e." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is not clear whether the recited tensile strength in the machine direction and transverse direction are part of the claimed invention or not. It is respectfully suggested applicant amend the phrase to read as follows: - - each of said outer paper sheet and internal paper sheet has a weight of 70-90 g/m² and has a tensile strength in the machine direction MD of 6.4-7.8 kN /m and a tensile strength in the transverse direction TD of 4.7-5.8 kN/m measured according to ISO 1924-3:2019
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “water-based type” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “water-based type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is respectfully suggested that applicant delete the term “type”
The term “isothiazol-3-one type” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “isothiazol-3-one type” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is respectfully suggested that applicant delete the term “type”.
The phrase, “at least one element of the isothiazol-3-one type, such as for example 1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one, 5-chloro-2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one. (CMIT) and/or 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one, and mixtures thereof” is an improper Markush group (MPEP 2117) which renders the claim indefinite. It respectfully suggested that applicant amend the phrase as follows: - - at least one isothiazol-3-one selected from the group consisting of 1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2H)-one, 5-chloro-2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one. (CMIT) and 2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one, and mixtures thereof - -
Allowable Subject Matter
If applicant overcomes the 112 rejections set forth above, claims 1-10 would be allowable because the prior art does not teach or suggest applicant’s Bag as recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 1-9 pm 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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C MIGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
MCM
July 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights