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 § 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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (WO 00/02782).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a method of making a bag (200), comprising the steps of: providing a bag having a first bag wall (202), a second bag wall (201), a first side wall (904a) and a second side wall (904b), with the first and second bag walls opposing each other, and wherein each bag wall comprises at least a first polymeric layer and a second polymeric layer, with the bag defining a first end and a second end, wherein the first bag wall extends (at 213) beyond the second bag wall and each of the bag walls have an interior surface and an exterior surface; adding an ink treatment (pg. 19, ll. 2-6) to a portion of an interior surface of the first bag wall proximal the first end of the bag, an exterior surface of the second bag wall proximal the first end of the bag, or both; folding the portion of the first bag wall extending beyond the end of the second bag wall over the end of the second bag wall and contacting a portion of the interior surface of the first bag wall proximal the end of the first bag wall with a portion of the exterior surface of the second bag wall proximal the end of the second bag wall, thereby creating an overlay portion of the first and second bag walls; applying heat, pressure, or both to a first portion of the overlay portion of the first and second bag walls to form a seal between of the first portion of the overlay portion of the first and second bag walls. See Figs. 1-2.
Regarding claim 10, a bag is made according to the process of claim 1. See Fig. 1.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied above in further view of Venkatasanthanam (US 20020119292).
Regarding claim 2, Smith does not disclose the ink as claimed. Venkatasanthanam, which is drawn to a bag, discloses an ink treatment that comprises a polyamide ink, a nitrocellulose ink, a urethane-based ink, or a combination thereof. See [00137]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use ink as disclosed by Venkatasanthanam, 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. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 3, Smith does not necessarily disclose the bag wall as claimed. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the overlay portion comprise a portion of the bag wall approximately ¼ inch to 2 inches from the top end of the bag, 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). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, 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.
Regarding claim 4, a second portion (Fig. 2, at 213) of the first bag wall extends beyond the overlay portion and is not sealed to the second bag wall.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied above in further view of Bazbaz (US 2014/0105523).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Smith does not disclose gas as claimed. Bazbaz, which is drawn to a bag, discloses a step of applying heat, pressure, or both, comprises directing heated gas at the overlay portion, wherein said heated gas comprises air at or above a predetermined temperature. See [0022]. Thus, it 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 to use heated gas, as disclosed by Bazbaz, to apply heat on the bag of Smith in order to seal the bag.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied above in further view of Harder (WO 2012/178204).
Regarding claim 7, Smith does not disclose the step as claimed. Harder discloses a step of applying heat, pressure, or both, comprises moving the overlay portion of the bag at a predetermined speed past a nozzle blowing heated air within a predetermined temperature range on the overlay portion. See [0058]. Thus, it 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 to have the bag of Smith move as disclosed by Harder in order to apply the heat efficiently to multiple bags.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied above.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add a second ink treatment to the portion of the interior surface of the first bag wall, the portion of the exterior surface of the second bag wall, or both, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith as applied above in further view of Geyer (US 2005/80036716).
Regarding claim 9, Smith does not disclose a treatment as claimed. Geyer, which is drawn to a bag, discloses that it is known in the art to treat a surface of an analogous bag by ionization (corona discharge) in an area that has been applied with ink ([0005] and [0022]). Thus, it 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 to use to provide a step of applying a second treatment to the portion of the interior surface of the first bag wall, the exterior surface of the second bag wall, or both, wherein the second treatment comprises at least one of: an ionization treatment, treatment with a resin, or varnish, or polymeric material, or treatment with pressure, temperature, or both, in the bag of Smith, as disclosed by Geyer, in order to enhance the ink retaining characteristics of the bag material.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (WO 00/02782) in view of Venkatasanthanam (US 20020119292), Bazbaz (US 2014/0105523) and Geyer (US 2005/80036716).
Regarding claim 11, Smith discloses a method of making a bag (200), comprising the steps of: providing a bag having a first bag wall, a second bag wall, a first side wall, and a second side wall, with the first and second bag walls opposing each other, treating a first portion of an interior surface of the first bag wall proximal the first end of the first bag wall, a first portion of an exterior surface of the second bag wall proximal the first end of the second bag wall, or both, with a first treatment; and folding the portion of the first bag wall extending beyond the first end of the second bag wall over the first end of the second bag wall and contacting a portion of the interior surface of the first bag wall proximal the first end of the first bag wall with a portion of the exterior surface of the second bag wall proximal the first end of the second bag wall, thereby creating an overlay portion of the first and second bag walls; applying heat, pressure, or both to a first portion of the overlay portion of the first and second bag walls to form a seal between the first portion of the overlay portion of the first and second bag walls; and wherein the first treatment comprises an ink treatment and the second treatment comprises at least one of an ionization treatment, an ink treatment, a treatment with a resin, varnish, or polymer, or a treatment with pressure, temperature, or both. See Figs. 1-2; and pg. 19, ll. 2-6.
Bazbaz discloses bag walls comprises a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer comprises a woven layer and further comprises polyethylene, polypropylene, or a combination thereof, wherein the second layer comprises a film layer and further comprises polyethylene, polypropylene, or a combination thereof, with the first bag wall and the second bag wall each having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end of the first bag wall extends beyond the first end of the second bag wall. See Fig. 15; [0020], [0027] and [0068]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the Smith bag with a first side wall, and a second side wall wherein the first and second side walls are disposed on opposite sides of the front and back walls and connecting the front wall to the back wall; wherein each of the front wall, back wall, first side wall and second side wall comprise two layers comprising (i) a first layer comprising a woven polymer, and (ii) a second layer comprising a polymer film; wherein the woven polymer and the polymer film comprise the same polymer, as in Bazbaz ‘523, in order to render the bag suitable for food, animal food, or other bulk items including liquids, solids, powders, chemicals or the like (Bazbaz; paragraphs [0008], [0074]), and be able to be manufactured more quickly and less costly than conventional woven bags while still providing the strength and durability and reducing the potential for tearing, damage, infestation, and loss of contents (Bazbaz; paragraphs [0029], [0030]).
Geyer teaches that it is known in the art to treat a surface of an analogous bag by ionization (corona discharge) in an area that has been applied with ink (paragraphs [0005] and [0022]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a second surface treatment comprising ionization in addition to a first surface treatment comprising an application of ink at a portion of the interior surface portion of the back wall or a portion of the exterior surface portion of the front wall, or both, in the Smith bag, as in Geyer, in order to enhance the ink retaining characteristics of the bag material.
Regarding claims 12-18, Smith as modified above sufficiently discloses the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK J BATTISTI whose telephone number is (571)270-5709. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm M-F.
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.
/DEREK J BATTISTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights