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 without traverse of Invention 1, Species 2 in the reply filed on 7/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/14/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-8 and 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagar et al. (US 10723533, hereinafter ‘Zagar’) in view of Briggs et al. (US 11753534, hereinafter ‘Briggs’).
Zagar discloses a secondary packaging transport bag comprising: a body (2) formed from a multilayer polyethylene film (col. 2, ll. 55-57), said body defining a front panel (32) and a rear panel (34) located opposite said front panel, said front and rear panels defining an open top edge and being connected along opposite, left and right peripheral edges and being connected along a bottom edge to define an internal cavity configured to receive packages in a distribution hub (see Fig. 4), said body having a resealable closing means (18) proximate to said open top edge; except does not expressly disclose the film containing post-consumer resin as claimed.
However, Briggs teaches using post-consumer resin in the formation of polymeric packaging film materials (Abstract).
Zagar as modified above further discloses said resealable closing means is located at said open top edge (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Zagar as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the particulars of the film material as claimed.
However, it is noted that varying the thickness of a film material or the specific proportions of the material used was well within the level of ordinary skill in the art since prior to the invention by applicant.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the film have a thickness of about 4 mil, 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use at least 20% post-consumer resin by weight, 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.
Zagar as modified above further discloses said body includes at least two vent holes that extend fully through both of said front and rear panels at a location below said resealable closing means (24, 26); said vent holes are capable of withstanding at least 25 reuses at less than 50% deformation (functional/intended use recitation; dependent entirely on how the bag is used); said bottom edge includes a gusset (6) to permit axial expansion of said internal cavity.
Regarding claim 8, Zagar as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the materials of the slider/tracks as claimed.
However, it is noted that polymeric/polyethylene material use was well within the level of ordinary skill in the art since prior to the invention by applicant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use at least 20% post-consumer resin by weight, 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 claims 11-14, Zagar as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the particulars sizes of the packaging or details of the film material as claimed.
However, it is noted that varying the size of a packaging bag or the specific details of the material used was well within the level of ordinary skill in the art since prior to the invention by applicant.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the bag have a size of about 20 inches by 36 inches with a depth of about 10 inches, 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. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a material with an impact strength of about 670g, a machine direction flexural modulus of about 30-40 kpsi, and a transverse direction flexural modulus of about 40-50 kpsi, 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.
Zagar as modified above further discloses said body is capable of being recycled, after no fewer than 25 uses (functional/intended use recitation).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Zagar as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the particular strength of the packaging as claimed.
However, it is noted that varying the size of a packaging bag or the specific details of the material used in order to achieve desired functional strenghts was well within the level of ordinary skill in the art since prior to the invention by applicant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a material that is configured to remain closed when said top edge of said body is subjected to a pulling force of up to 25 lbf in a vertical direction that is perpendicular to a central horizontal axis and is configured to remain closed when said front and rear panels of said body are subjected to a separating force of up to 12 lbf in a horizontal direction that is perpendicular to said central horizontal axis, 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagar et al. (US 10723533, hereinafter ‘Zagar’) in view of Briggs et al. (US 11753534, hereinafter ‘Briggs’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sargeant et al. (US 2019/0126599, hereinafter ‘Sargeant’).
Zagar as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the corona treatment details as claimed.
However, Sargeant teaches corona treating film material such that it has a surface energy of about 50 dyne (para 0059) as claimed.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to corona treat the film taught by Zagar as modified above such that it has a surface energy of about 50 dyne as taught by Sargeant, in order to support enhance layer adherence as taught by Sargeant (para 0059).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagar et al. (US 10723533, hereinafter ‘Zagar’) in view of Briggs et al. (US 11753534, hereinafter ‘Briggs’) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schafer (US 11866225).
Zagar as modified above discloses all limitations of the claim(s) as detailed above except does not expressly disclose the external pouch as claimed.
However, Schafer teaches a similar device with an external pouch (26) that is adhered to, or integral with, one of said front and rear panels for retaining scannable tracking documentation.
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to add the external pouch taught by Schafer such that it has a to the packaging bag as taught by Zagar as modified above, in order to hold a label as taught by Schafer.
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
September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights