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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024, 02/13/2025, 05/14/2025 and 07/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the air displacement hole from claim 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
Regarding claim 22, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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) 1-5, 8-12, 15, 18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ingelgem et al. US 2023/0064927 A1 in view of Ackerman et al. US 6,046,443, herein after referred to as Van Ingelgem and Ackerman respectively.
Regarding claim 1 Van Ingelgem discloses a package (1000 package) comprising:
a bag (100 bag) and at least one stack (Fig. 2) of absorbent pads (200 absorbent articles) arranged in the bag (Fig. 2), the bag (100) being made of a paper material (abstract line 4),
wherein the bag (100) has a sealed bottom (110 closed bottom), a sealed top (120 closed top), and a peripheral wall (130 peripheral wall) extending between the bottom (110) and the top (120),
the peripheral wall (130) comprising a front wall (133 front wall), an opposite rear wall (134 rear wall), and first and second side walls (131 first side wall and 132 second side wall, Fig. 2) connecting the front and rear walls (Fig. 2),
wherein the sealed top (122) has been formed by adhering inner surface top portions (Fig. 2) of the peripheral wall (130) to one another such that:
a first top portion of the front wall (133) is adhered to an adjacent first top portion of the second side wall (132) to form a first adhered portion (front 122 wing) having a first length (ls2 length),
a second top portion of the front wall (133) is adhered to an adjacent first top portion of the first side wall (131) to form a second adhered portion (front 121 wing) having a second length (ls1 length),
a first top portion of the rear wall (134) is adhered to an adjacent second top portion of the second side wall (132) to form a third adhered portion (rear 122) having a third length (ls2 length),
a second top portion of the rear wall (134) is adhered to an adjacent second top portion of the first side wall (131) to form a fourth adhered portion (rear 121) having a fourth length (ls1), and
a third top portion of the front wall (133) is adhered to a third top portion of the rear wall (134) to form a fifth adhered portion (portion between 121 and 122) having a fifth length (ls, Fig. 2).
Van Ingelgem is silent to wherein the fifth length is smaller than each one of the first, second, third, and fourth lengths.
Ackerman teaches a bag (10 bag, Figs. 1-6) with a front wall (11), back wall (12) and two side walls (13 and 14, Fig. 2), wherein a top portion of the front wall (11) is adhered to an adjacent top portion of the both side walls (Figs. 5-6) each having a first and second length (the length of 13a and 14a) and a top portion of the rear wall (12) is adhered to an adjacent top portion of each side wall (Figs. 5-6) each having a third and fourth length (the length of 13b and 14b, Fig. 5) and a top portion of the front wall is adhered to a top portion of the rear wall (shown in Fig. 6) having a fifth length (the length is between 23 and 24 in Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fifth length (the portion of front wall connected to the rear wall) to be shorter than the connected portion of front and rear walls connected to the side walls as doing so is well known in the art and would yield predictable results. Also, having wings (the portion of the front/rear wall adhered to either side wall) with a greater length allows the user to grip the wing portions easier and open the bag when the user wants to. Additionally, a change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art
Regarding claim 2 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according to claim 1 and further disclose wherein the fifth length (length between 23 and 24, Fig. 6 Ackerman) is less than 75% of a shortest one of the first, second, third, and fourth lengths (Fig. 6 Ackerman).
Regarding claim 3 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according to claim 1. Van Ingelgem discloses substantially all the limitations of the claim(s) except for the fifth length being between 1-30mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to change the length, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than a prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device
Regarding claim 4 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1 and further discloses wherein the first, second, third, and fourth lengths are equal (Fig. 2 and Fig. 6 Ackerman).
Regarding claim 5 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1 and further discloses the bag comprises an adhesion layer (145 portion of 140 sealable coating, Fig. 2) provided on the inner surface portions of the peripheral wall (130), said adhesion layer (145 and 140) being used for adhering said inner surface portions to one another (paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 8 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 5 and further discloses wherein the adhesion layer (140 and 145) is a hot-melt adhesion layer (paragraph [0154]).
Regarding claim 9 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1 and further discloses wherein the paper material has a basis weight between 50 and 90 g/m2 as measured according to the ISO 536 standard (paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 10 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1 and further discloses wherein the bag comprises at least one weakening line (126 and 128 tear strips) for opening the bag (paragraph [0100], lines 27-29).
Regarding claim 11 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 10 and further discloses wherein the at least one weakening line (126 and 128) comprises a perforation line or a score line (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 12 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 10 and further discloses wherein the at least one weakening line (126) is formed in or adjacent to at least one of said adhered portions (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 15 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1 and further discloses that different stacking directions (paragraph [0015] and [0017] lines 8-10). Van Ingelgem as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a stacking direction of each one of the at least one stack of absorbent pads is perpendicular to the first and second side walls of the bag. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the stack perpendicular to the first and second side walls, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. Additionally it is also obvious to try the arrangement and there are a finite number of identified, predictable arrangements with a reasonable expectations of success.
Regarding claim 18 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1 and further discloses wherein the sealed bottom (110) of the bag (100) is formed by folding and adhering a portion of the paper material to form a flat and rectangular bottom (paragraph [0086], lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 21 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1. Van Ingelgem as modified is silent to the peripheral wall of the bag comprises an overlap seam extending from the bottom of the bag to the top of the bag, wherein the overlap seam is formed at the front wall or at the rear wall.
Ackerman additionally teaches a peripheral wall (11, 12, 13, 14) comprising an overlap seam (Figs. 1-2 and shown near 10 in Fig. 5) extending from a bottom (16 bottom end) of the bag to the top of the bag (Figs. 1-2) and wherein the overlap seam if formed at the rear wall (Figs. 1-2 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bag of Van Ingelgem to include the overlap seam as taught by Ackerman as doing so is well known in the art and would yield predictable results. Additionally, is allows an alternative way of manufacturing the bag.
Regarding claim 22 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1 and further discloses wherein the bag is opaque and the absorbent pads, such as a wrapper of individually wrapped absorbent pads, cannot be seen through the bag (the bag is made from paper material which is at least opaque for lighter paper and can be combined with additional materials [paragraph [0008] so as to not be see through). Additionally, 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(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ingelgem in view of Ackerman as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. US 2003/0213082 A1, herein after referred to as Tanaka.
Regarding claim 6 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 5. Van Ingelgem as modified is silent to the adhesion layer has a basis weight of 28-45 g/m2.
Tanaka teaches an adhesion layer for a paper release film with a basis weight of between 28-45 g/m2 (paragraph [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an adhesion layer with a basis weight between 28-45 g/m2 as taught by Tanaka as doing so is well known in the art and would yield predictable results. A larger basis weight also creates a thicker and stronger bond which will prevent he package from being accidentally opened. Additionally, 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.
Regarding claim 7 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 6 and further discloses wherein a ratio between a basis weight of the paper material and the basis weight of the adhesion layer is within a range of 1.6-2.5 (the ratio of the range of the basis weight and adhesion layer is between 1.7-2).
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ingelgem in view of Ackerman as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kuitunen US 2021/0292068 A1, herein after referred to as Kuitunen.
Regarding claim 13 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1. Van Ingelgem is silent to the bag comprises at least one notch for tearing open the bag.
Kuitunen teaches a bag (10) with an adhered portions (12 first end seam and 13 second end seam) with at least one notch (18 opening initiation point) for tearing open the bag (paragraph [0106] lines 2-6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the notch for tearing open the package as taught by Kuitunen as doing so is well known in the art and would yield predicable results. Additionally, the notch helps to guide the direction of force for the user to more easily tear the bag.
Regarding claim 14 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 13 and further discloses wherein the at least one notch (18) is formed in or adjacent to at least one of said adhered portions (Figs. 1A-1C and 1E Kuitunen).
Claim(s) 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ingelgem in view of Ackerman as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Lee US 2017/0057721 A1, herein after referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 16 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1. Van Ingelgem as modified is silent to wherein each one of the at least one stack of absorbent pads comprises a plurality of folded and individually wrapped absorbent pads.
Lee teaches a bag (10 outer packaging) with at least one stack of absorbent pads (52 absorbent articles) that are folded and individually wrapped (50 wrapper) absorbent pads (Figs. 2-4C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the individually folded and wrapped absorbent pads as taught by Lee as doing so is well known in the art and will yield predictable results. Additionally, the folded and wrapped pad allow the user to transport the individual absorbent pad discreetly and without contaminating the absorbent pad before use.
Regarding claim 17 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 16 and further discloses wherein a wrapper (50) of each individually wrapped absorbent pad (52) comprises a sealed wrapper portion (60 sealed edge) facing upward within the bag (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 20 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1 and further discloses different arrangement of absorbent articles is contemplated (paragraph [0017], lines 8-10). Van Ingelgem as modified is silent to the specific arrangement of the at least one stack of absorbent pads comprises two stacks of absorbent pads.
Lee teaches a bag with two stacks (Figs. 1-3) of absorbent articles (50 individual wrapped absorbent article).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the two stacks of absorbent pads as taught by Lee as doing so is well known in the art and would yield predictable results. Additionally, is allows the interior volume of the container to be optimized for a high capacity of absorbent pads.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Ingelgem in view of Ackerman as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Warashina US 2024/0025609 A1, herein after referred to as Warashina.
Regarding claim 19 Van Ingelgem as modified discloses the package according claim 1. Van Ingelgem as modified is silent wherein the bag comprises an air displacement hole at or close to the bottom of the bag for allowing air to escape from the bag.
Warashina teaches a bag (10 packaging bag) for an absorbent article (20 sheet rolls) with an air displacement hole at or close to the bottom of the bag for allowing air to escape (paragraph [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the air displacement hole as taught by Warashina as doing so is well known in the art and would yield predictable results. Additionally, it will allow the bag to be taken to different altitudes without fear or rupture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lauren Kmet whose telephone number is (313)446-4834. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/L KMET/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735