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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 in the reply filed on 12/19/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1. This is found persuasive because and claim 1 is noted as being generic.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
No claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/19/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (JP 2021-160260).
Yamada discloses a self-supporting packaging bag formed by heat-sealing two body portions each including a substrate layer and a sealant layer, to a bottom tape including a substrate layer and a sealant layer and having a mountain fold (para 0027, 0032), comprising: two side seal portions adhering the two body portions to each other in a vertical direction of the self-supporting packaging bag (see Fig. 2); and bottom seal portions adhering the respective two body portions to the bottom tape in a horizontal direction of the self-supporting packaging bag (see Fig. 2), wherein the substrate layers and the sealant layers are made of similar resin materials (para 0032); a ratio a/L of a minimum width a of each of the bottom seal portions to a distance L from a base of each of the body portions to the mountain fold is 0.15 or greater and 0.50 or less (see Fig. 2; approximately 0.25 ratio shown); and when a boundary between each of the bottom seal portions and an unsealed portion is defined to be a bottom seal line, an angle α between the mountain fold and the bottom seal line at a point where the mountain fold and the bottom seal line intersect is 20° or greater and 45° or less (see Fig. 2; approximately 25-30 degree angle shown).
Yamada further discloses the two body portions and the bottom tape each include a gas barrier layer (52); and the self-supporting packaging bag is used in applications where heat treatment is performed at a temperature of 80°C or higher (functional/intended use limitations).
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) 2-4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP 2021-160260) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ilo et al. (JP 2021-054417, hereinafter ‘Ilo’).
Yamada discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the specific ratio of elastic moduli as claimed.
However Ilo teaches constructing a similar packaging with an elastic modulus of a sealant < 800 Moa (para 0086) as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a sealant with the claimed elastic modulus as taught by Ilo, since 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 8, Yamada discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the cutouts as claimed.
However, Ilo teaches a similar bag wherein the packaging bag further comprises joints (22) at which the two body portions are adhered to each other through respective cutouts, the cutouts being provided to respective sides of the bottom tape; and a ratio S2/S1 of an area S2 of each of the joints to an area S1 of a region R1 is 0.35 or greater and 0.60 or less, the region R1 being located between the base of each of the body portions and the mountain fold and extending a distance of 10 mm from a side of each of the body portions in an orthogonal direction (see Fig. 1).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the cutouts taught by Ilo to the base taught by Yamada, in order to aid in standing of the packaging without inhibiting spreading of the bottom film as taught b Ilo (para 0030).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP 2021-160260).
Yamada discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the particular angles as claimed.
However, it is noted that the general knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art since prior to the invention by applicant included the ability/motivation to vary the specific shape of the seal portion to an angle such as that which is claimed.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the seals of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (JP 2021-160260) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kenmochi et al. (JP 2020-040702, hereinafter ‘Kenmochi’).
Yamada discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the specific ratio of the opening size as claimed.
However, Kenmochi teaches a similar bag wherein the smaller opening results in conditions expressed by the following Inequality (1) are satisfied: 0.4 ≤ W/2L ≤ 0.8 ... (1) [In the inequality, W represents an opening width of the self-supporting packaging bag, and L represents a distance from a base of each of the body portions to the mountain fold.] (see Fig. 2).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the opening of whatever relative sizes were desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
March 2, 2026