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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanchard (US 9,169,061 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Blanchard discloses an industrial containment bag designed for containing bulk materials (Abstract), said containment bag comprising a top portion, a bottom portion laterally spaced below said top portion, and side portions positioned between and perpendicular to said top and bottom portions, said side portions interconnecting with said top portion at the containment bag’s top perimeter edge, and said side portions interconnecting with said bottom portion at the containment bag’s bottom perimeter edge (Fig. 5), said industrial containment bag comprising, (a) a closeable opening positioned on said top portion (at 36, or 30), (b) a closure system (30) configured to seal said closable opening in a closed position, and (c) a means for reducing the torsional forces exerted on said closure system when said containment bag that contains bulk materials is lifted (20/50).
Regarding claim 4, Blanchard discloses said means for reducing the torsional forces are attached to the outside wall surfaces of said bag (50).
Regarding claim 5-6, Blanchard discloses said means for reducing the torsional forces has a belt-securing configuration of flap securing configuration comprising a series of individual strap systems, or considered to be thin flaps (50) wherein at least one of which can (a) cross over a portion of said closure system, (b) be pulled to reduce the torsional forces that will be exerted on the bag’s closure system when said bag is filled and subsequently lifted, transported, stored or disposed, and (c) be secured in this torsional force-reducing position (50).
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, 7-8, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchard (US 9,169,061 B2) in view of Nelson (US 2019/0375572 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Blanchard does not specifically disclose a means for visually inspecting the inside of said containment bag.
Nelson teaches the ability to have a bulk bag including an inspection opening allowing for visually inspecting the inside of the bag (Paragraph 0057) separate from a main opening or closing system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Blanchard and include a separate slit opening that is usable to inspect the interior of the bag in order to allow a user to check on the contends of the bag as suggested by Nelson.
Regarding claim 7-8, Blanchard discloses an industrial containment bag designed for containing bulk materials (Abstract), said containment bag comprising a top portion, a bottom portion laterally spaced below said top portion, and side portions positioned between and perpendicular to said top and bottom portions, said side portions interconnecting with said top portion at the containment bag’s top perimeter edge, and said side portions interconnecting with said bottom portion at the containment bag’s bottom perimeter edge (Fig. 5), said industrial containment bag comprising, (a) a closeable opening positioned on said top portion (at 36, or 30), (b) a closure system (30) configured to seal said closable opening in a closed position, and (c) a means for reducing the torsional forces exerted on said closure system when said containment bag that contains bulk materials is lifted (20/50).
Blanchard does not specifically disclose a means for visually inspecting the inside of said containment bag.
Nelson teaches the ability to have a bulk bag including an inspection opening allowing for visually inspecting the inside of the bag (Paragraph 0057) separate from a main opening or closing system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Blanchard and include a separate slit opening that is usable to inspect the interior of the bag in order to allow a user to check on the contends of the bag as suggested by Nelson.
Regarding claim 10, Blanchard discloses said means for reducing the torsional forces are attached to the outside wall surfaces of said bag (50).
Regarding claim 11-12, Blanchard discloses said means for reducing the torsional forces has a belt-securing configuration of flap securing configuration comprising a series of individual strap systems, or considered to be thin flaps (50) wherein at least one of which can (a) cross over a portion of said closure system, (b) be pulled to reduce the torsional forces that will be exerted on the bag’s closure system when said bag is filled and subsequently lifted, transported, stored or disposed, and (c) be secured in this torsional force-reducing position (50).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchard (US 9,169,061 B2) in view of Polett et al. (US 5,316,387 A).
Regarding claim 3, Blanchard does not specifically disclose said means for reducing the torsional forces are attached to the inside wall surfaces of said bag.
Polett teaches the ability to have a means for reducing the torsional forces exerted on the containment bag’s closure system when the containment bag is at least partially filled attached to an inside wall surface of the bag (36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Blanchard and use the teaching of Polett thereby including additional structural reinforcement thereby reducing the changes that the bag will fail structurally.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchard (US 9,169,061 B2) in view of Nelson (US 2019/0375572 A1) as applied to claim 8, and further in view of Polett et al. (US 5,316,387 A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Blanchard does not specifically disclose said means for reducing the torsional forces are attached to the inside wall surfaces of said bag.
Polett teaches the ability to have a means for reducing the torsional forces exerted on the containment bag’s closure system when the containment bag is at least partially filled attached to an inside wall surface of the bag (36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Blanchard and use the teaching of Polett thereby including additional structural reinforcement thereby reducing the changes that the bag will fail structurally.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland et al. (US 8,562,212 B1)(Strickland) in view of Buell (US 2014/0254956 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Strickland discloses an industrial containment bag (Fig. 10) designed for containing bulk materials, said containment bag comprising a top portion, a bottom portion laterally spaced below said top portion, and side portions positioned between, and perpendicular to, said top and bottom portions (Fig. 10) at the containment bag’s bottom perimeter edge, said industrial containment bag comprising, a closeable opening (via 1070) positioned on said top portion, a closure system which, when in its closed position, is centrally-positioned on said top portion and forms two-opposing triangular-shaped folds (1060A/1060B), and a means for securing the folded triangular shaped folds proximal to the top of the bag and over the closed opening (2000).
Strickland does not specifically disclose a means for independently securing each of the two-opposing triangular-shaped folds to said top portion.
Buell teaches the ability to have a bag including a closure system including triangular shaped end portions that each independently include securing means to secure the triangular shaped end portions to the outside surface of the bag (Figs. 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Strickland and replace the coupling strap (2000) with independently securing means to attach the triangular shaped folds to the top of the package because such a change would allow the portions to be secured in a fully closed position or detached separately thereby allowing a user to open only a portion of the opening system while maintaining some degree of structural stability.
Claims 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland et al. (US 8,562,212 B1)(Strickland) in view of Buell (US 2014/0254956 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Polett et al. (US 5,316,387 A).
Regarding claim 14, Strickland does not specifically disclose a means for reducing the torsional forces exerted on said containment bag's closure system, after, said containment bag is at least partially-filled with a bulk material, and said at least partially-filled containment bag's closure system is closed.
Polett teaches the ability to have a means for reducing the torsional forces exerted on the containment bag’s closure system when the containment bag is at least partially filled (36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Strickland and use the teaching of Polett thereby including additional structural reinforcement thereby reducing the changes that the bag will fail structurally.
Regarding claim 15, modified Strickland discloses said means for reducing the torsional forces is attached to the inside wall surface of said bag (Polett, 36).
Claims 14 and 16-18 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strickland et al. (US 8,562,212 B1)(Strickland) in view of Buell (US 2014/0254956 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Blanchard et al. (US 9,169,061 B2).
Regarding claim 14, Strickland does not specifically disclose a means for reducing the torsional forces exerted on said containment bag's closure system, after, said containment bag is at least partially-filled with a bulk material, and said at least partially-filled containment bag's closure system is closed.
Blanchard teaches the ability to have a means (50, Figs. 12-13) for reducing torsional forces exerted on a bags closure system (30) when the closure system is closed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Strickland and use the teaching of Blanchard thereby including additional structural reinforcement thereby reducing the changes that the bag will fail structurally.
Regarding claim 16, Blanchard discloses said means for reducing the torsional forces are attached to the outside wall surfaces of said bag (50).
Regarding claim 17-18, Blanchard discloses said means for reducing the torsional forces has a belt-securing configuration of flap securing configuration comprising a series of individual strap systems, or considered to be thin flaps (50) wherein at least one of which can (a) cross over a portion of said closure system, (b) be pulled to reduce the torsional forces that will be exerted on the bag’s closure system when said bag is filled and subsequently lifted, transported, stored or disposed, and (c) be secured in this torsional force-reducing position (50, Figs. 12-13).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
It is acknowledged that a restriction and election was made in the parent application 16/840,369. It is noted that the claims in the present application are considered to be generic to the different species as set forth in the restriction, or appear to read on the elected species.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 9 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 teaches all of the limitations of claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 9 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 teaches all of the limitations of claim 3.
Claims 7-8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 9 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 teaches all of the limitations of claims 7-8.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, 19 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 9, 19 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 teaches all of the limitations of claim 9.
Claims 13-14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 teaches all of the limitations of claims 13-14.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 9 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 teaches all of the limitations of claim 15.
Claims 4-6 and 16-18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 in view of Blanchard (US 9,169,061 B2).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 16-18, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 does not specifically disclose said means for reducing the torsional forces are attached to the outside wall surfaces of said bag said means for reducing the torsional forces has a belt-securing or flap securing configuration comprising a series of individual strap systems or flaps wherein at least one of which can (a) cross over a portion of said closure system, (b) be pulled to reduce the torsional forces that will be exerted on the bag’s closure system when said bag is filled and subsequently lifted, transported, stored or disposed, and (c) be secured in this torsional force-reducing position.
Blanchard teaches the ability to have a means (50, Fig. 12-13) for reducing torsional forces exerted on a bags closure system (30) when the closure system is closed including a series of strap systems, or flap systems, to the degree that portions 50 are considered thin flaps.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 and use the teaching of Blanchard and include a system of straps/flaps attached to an outside surface thereby including additional structural reinforcement thereby reducing the changes that the bag will fail structurally.
Claims 10-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 in view of Blanchard (US 9,169,061 B2).
Regarding claims 10-12, claims 9 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 does not specifically disclose said means for reducing the torsional forces are attached to the outside wall surfaces of said bag said means for reducing the torsional forces has a belt-securing or flap securing configuration comprising a series of individual strap systems or flaps wherein at least one of which can (a) cross over a portion of said closure system, (b) be pulled to reduce the torsional forces that will be exerted on the bag’s closure system when said bag is filled and subsequently lifted, transported, stored or disposed, and (c) be secured in this torsional force-reducing position.
Blanchard teaches the ability to have a means (50, Fig. 12-13) for reducing torsional forces exerted on a bags closure system (30) when the closure system is closed including a series of strap systems, or flap systems, to the degree that portions 50 are considered thin flaps.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of claims 9 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,492,194 and use the teaching of Blanchard and include a system of straps/flaps attached to an outside surface thereby including additional structural reinforcement thereby reducing the changes that the bag will fail structurally.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734