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 .
This instant Office action supersedes the previous Office action, mailed 4/9/2026.
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed on 9/4/2025 and the Appeal Brief filed 2/11/2026. Claims 1-26 are pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 2/11/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below.
/ORLANDO E AVILES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
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 selectively sealable vent, as recited in claim 20, 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
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.
Claims 21-22 and 24 are 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.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the film" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “film” was not previously recited in the claim from which claim 21 depends, only a “film side”.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the film" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “film” was not previously recited in the claim from which claim 22 depends, only a “film side”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the film" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “film” was not previously recited in the claim from which claim 24 depends, only a “film side”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 does not further limit the claim from which it depends (claim 6). It does not provide any further limitations to the plurality of wall panels or the bottom wall panel of the blank. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O'Hara US 2021/0139200 A1, previously cited.
PNG
media_image1.png
706
501
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
700
464
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 1, O'Hara discloses a multi-ply bag (inner bag 20; described in para. 0053-0055 and shown in Fig. 2AB and the blank in Fig. 3) comprising: a plurality of wall panels (304/305/308/309/310/311) having a top edge and a bottom edge; and a bottom panel (306) connected to the bottom edge; wherein the plurality of wall panels and the bottom panel comprise a cavity (shown in Fig. 2B) defined between the plurality of wall panels and the bottom panel, an inner sheet (plurality of planar sheet materials/liners; para. 0072 and 0075) facing the cavity, the inner sheet comprising a base layer (second planar sheet/liner) and a film (a metallic thin-film coating; para. 0041-0042, 0053 and claim 1 and 2), an outer sheet (fluted sheet; para. 0053, fluting being arranged on the outer surface) disposed opposite the cavity relative to the inner sheet (planar sheet/liner; para. 0041-0042), and at least one adhesive (para. 0013, 0046 and 0075, recites a glue is applied to the tips of the fluted sheet on one side to attach to the inner sheet/liner) coupling the inner sheet and the outer sheet, the film coupled to the base layer, the film positioned facing and defining the cavity between the plurality of wall panels and the bottom panel (claim 2), the outer sheet and the inner sheet being repulpable (para. 0070).
O'Hara recites towards the end of para. 0012, the inner container is formed of a fluted sheet material, a planar sheet material and a metallic thin-film coating, each fluted and planar sheet material having an inner face and an outer face. In Para. 0053, it recites, at least one surface of the fluted and non-fluted (planar) sheets is coated with a metallization layer, and para. 0042, recites, at least one inner face is provided with a thin film metallic coating. Therefore, both surfaces may be coated with a metallization film layer and the film positioned facing and defining the cavity.
Throughout the specification, O'Hara recites the use of a metallic thin-film coating on the sheets when forming the container, in para. 0070, it recites that the metals used to form the metallized film are so thin that it takes on the characteristics of paper, and is treated and breaks down the same way paper materials are. Therefore, metallized film is repulpable in the same way the paper materials are.
O’ Hara discloses the film layer (metallic thin-film coating) defines an interior of the container, with the first five lines of Para. 0013 and 0053, with the fluted sheet forming the outside surface of the container and the planar sheet attached to the fluted sheet, the film attached to an inner surface of the sheet and at least one adhesive (Para. 0013, 0046 and 0075) coupling the inner sheet and the outer sheet.
With regards to claim 2, O’ Hara (Fig. 2B and 3) discloses the wall panels (304/305/308/309/310/311) comprise main panels and side panels.
With regards to claim 3, O’ Hara (para. 0075) the adhesive is an adhesive pattern (para. 0075; each tip of the fluted sheet). (Para. 0075, recites a glue is applied to the tips of the flutes on one side to attach the inner liner to the flutes of the corrugated sheets, therefore, a pattern of an adhesive is formed.)
PNG
media_image3.png
210
256
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 4, O’ Hara discloses the adhesive pattern (para. 0075; each tip of the fluted sheet is glued) is discontinuous such that a one or more void is defined between the inner sheet and the outer sheet.
(O’ Hara recites in Para. 0075, a glue is applied to the tips of the flutes, therefore the glue is interrupted by the spacing, and the voids are formed by the spacing formed between the glued tips.)
With regards to claim 6, O’ Hara (Fig. 2B and 3) discloses the plurality of wall panels (304/305/308/309/310/311) and the bottom panel 306 are formed from a unitary blank.
With regards to claim 7, O’ Hara (Fig. 2B and 3) discloses the plurality of wall panels (304/305/308/309/310/311) and the bottom panel 306 are portions of the unitary blank.
With regards to claim 8, O’ Hara (Fig. 2B and 3) discloses the film comprises a reflective layer. (aluminum; Para. 0054 and 0076)
With regards to claim 9, O’ Hara (Fig. 2B and 3) discloses the reflective layer comprises metal. (aluminum; Para. 0054 and 0076)
With regards to claim 10, O’ Hara (Para. 0076) discloses the film comprises multiple layers (aluminum and micro plastics; multiple layers of film coatings, Para. 0043 and 0076) and wherein at least one of the multiple layers is a reflective layer (aluminum; Para. 0076).
With regards to claim 11, O’ Hara discloses at least one of the multiple layers is a protective layer. (water resistance coating; end of Para. 0076)
Claim(s) 12-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by O'Hara US 2021/0139200 A1, previously cited.
With regards to claim 12, O’ Hara discloses a multi-ply bag (double sided cardboard; para. 0075) comprising: a metallized film (inner planar sheet/liner with a metallic thin-film coating; para. 0075) having a first film surface and a second film surface, the first film surface facing a bag interior; a first paper layer (fluted sheet material; para. 0075) having a first paper surface and a second paper surface, the second film surface applied to the first paper surface; a second paper layer (outer planar; para. 0075) having a third paper surface and a fourth paper surface, the second paper layer coextensive with the first paper layer, the third paper surface coupled to the second paper surface by a plurality of adhesive areas (glued fluted tips; see claim 3); and a plurality of voids (shown above, see claim 4) defined by the first paper layer, the second paper layer, and the plurality of adhesive areas.
With regards to claim 13, O’ Hara (para. 0075) discloses the plurality of adhesive areas comprise at least one adhesive pattern. (glued fluted tips; see claim 3)
With regards to claim 15, O’ Hara (para. 0075) discloses the metallized film is a film assembly, and wherein the film assembly comprises at least one reflective layer (aluminum; see claim 10) and at least one protective layer (water resistance coating; see claim 11). (process of applying aluminum and micro plastics coatings; multiple layers of film coatings, Para. 0043 and 0076)
With regards to claim 16, O’ Hara discloses the bag is repulpable. (See claim 1, for the details of the repulping of the bag.)
With regards to claim 17, O’ Hara discloses the bag is repulpable. (See claim 1, for the details of the repulping of the bag.)
With regards to claim 18, O’ Hara (para. 0075) discloses each of the first paper layer (fluted sheet material; para. 0075), second paper layer (outer planar; para. 0075), and metallized film (inner planar sheet/liner with a metallic thin-film coating; para. 0075) are repulpable.
(See claim 1, for the details of the repulping of the bag.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Hara US 20210139200 A1 in view of Fu et al. US 2018/0148246 A1, both previously cited.
With regards to claims 5 and 14, O’ Hara discloses at least one void but it does not specifically disclose it is vented.
However, Fu teaches that it was known in the art to have a bag with multiple layers have at least one void 909 vented. (Fig. 9 and Para. 0065, recites the void may be, one continuous air gap, or a plurality of separate air gaps isolated from one another between the substrates or open spaces)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the voids in O’ Hara by providing a vent as taught by Fu for the purposes of keeping the layers spaced apart.
Claim(s) 19-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O'Hara US 2021/0139200 A1 in view of Fu et al. US 2018/0148246 A1, both previously cited.
With regards to claim 19, O’ Hara (para. 0075) discloses a multi-sheet bag comprising: an inner sheet assembly (planar sheet/liner) having a film side (a metallic thin-film coating; para. 0041-0042, 0053) defining an interior surface of the multi-sheet bag, the inner sheet assembly having an opposite side; an outer sheet (fluted sheet) coupled to the opposite side; at least one void (spacing formed between the fluting portions; shown above) disposed between the inner sheet and the outer sheet.
O’ Hara discloses a void but it does not specifically disclose at least one vent defined between the at least one void and an exterior of the multi-sheet bag.
However, Fu teaches that it was known in the art to have a bag with multiple layers have at least one void 909 vented. (See claim 5, for Fu teaching of a vented void.)
With regards to claim 20, the combination of O’ Hara in view of Fu discloses each of the at least one vent (909; Fu) is selectively sealable. (When bag 10 closes around bag 20 when placed inside, each of the voids vent are selectively sealed.)
With regards to claim 21, O’ Hara discloses the film is a metallized film. (aluminum; para. 0043 and 0076)
With regards to claim 22, O’ Hara discloses the film comprises a reflective layer. (aluminum; para. 0076)
With regards to claim 23, O’ Hara discloses the reflective layer comprises metal. (aluminum; para. 0076)
With regards to claim 24, O’ Hara discloses the film comprises multiple layers and wherein at least one of the multiple layers (aluminum and micro plastics; multiple layers of film coatings, Para. 0043 and 0076) is a reflective layer (aluminum; para. 0076).
With regards to claim 25, O’ Hara discloses at least one of the multiple layers is a protective layer. (water resistance coating; end of Para. 0076)
With regards to claim 26, O’ Hara discloses the inner sheet assembly (planar sheet/liner) and the outer sheet (fluted sheet) are repulpable. (See claim 1, for the details of the repulping of the bag.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Appeal filed, filed 2/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-26 under 103 with O’ Hara in view of Bannister have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made with regards to claims 1-4, 6-13 and 15-18 in view of O’ Hara and later with regards to claims 5, 14 and 19-26, with O'Hara in view of Fu.
The Applicant argues the repulpability of the container of O'Hara. Throughout the specification, O'Hara recites the use of a metallic thin-film coating on the sheets when forming the container, in para. 0070, it recites that the metals used to form the metallized film are so thin that it takes on the characteristics of paper, and is treated and breaks down the same way paper materials are. Therefore, metallized film is repulpable in the same way the paper materials are.
However, with regards to the Applicant argument that O'Hara fails to disclose a film positioned facing and defining the cavity. As stated above, O'Hara recites at the end of para. 0012, the inner container is formed of a fluted sheet material, a planar sheet material and a metallic thin-film coating, each fluted and planar sheet material having an inner face and an outer face. In Para. 0053, it recites, at least one surface of the fluted and non-fluted (planar) sheets is coated with a metallization film layer, and para. 0042, recites, at least one inner face is provided with a thin film metallic coating. Therefore, both surfaces may be coated with a metallization film layer and the film positioned facing and defining the cavity.
The Applicant provides arguments with regards to the “metallization film layer” of O'Hara. The Applicant argues “O'Hara further explains that the deposited aluminum is so thin that it "takes on the characteristics of paper," confirming that the cavity boundary remains paper rather than a film layer. Thus, O'Hara discloses metallized paper, not a discrete film that itself defines the cavity. A surface coating applied on a paper layer is structurally and functionally distinct from a cavity-defining film layer, as required by the claims.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assessment. Throughout the specification, O'Hara, recites “metallization film layer” is applied to the surfaces of the sheets of the inner container. O'Hara referencing the film taking on the “characteristics of paper” is in regards to the fact that the film is repulpable, breaks down and as if it is a paper material. The claim requires a film positioned facing and defining the cavity. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of a film is “a thin covering or coating”. O'Hara discloses a thin coating (metallization film layer) coating positioned on the planar and fluted sheets facing and defining the cavity of the container, therefore, it meets the claimed limitation.
The Applicant argues the modification of O'Hara in view of Bannister to teach the “venting structure”. As noted above, the above rejection no longer relies on Bannister for its teaching of the vented voids. However, the rejection has introduced Fu to teach that it was known in the art to have a multi-ply bag that includes voids that are vented. Fu recites the voids can be one continuous air gap, or a plurality of separate air gaps isolated from one another between the substrates or open spaces, for the purposes of keeping the layers (sheets) spaced apart.
The Applicant argues that with the previous rejection, to include a vent and selectively sealable vents to the container of O'Hara would require, “1. Relocating O'Hara's metallized coating from a paper surface to a cavity-defining liner; and 2. Re-engineering O'Hara's structure to incorporate Bannister's venting architecture.” As stated above, Bannister is no longer being applied, Fu teaches voids can be vented and sealed between the layers of sheet materials. O'Hara discloses the layers of sheet materials including the fluted sheets, planar sheets and metallization film layers, in para. 0075, it recites glue is applied to the tips of the fluted sheet to attach the inner planar sheet/liner, forming the adhesive pattern and the voids between them, therefore, there will be no relocation of structures with regards to O'Hara.
The Applicant argues O'Hara teaches away from the presently claimed invention because it does not disclose a repulpable multi-ply paper in which an inner sheet is adhesively coupled to an outer sheet as required by the claims of the present application. Further stating “O'Hara specifically teaches a "bag-in-a-bag" construction, in which an inner container is closed and sealed within an outer container (see O'Hara, 11 [0011]-[0013], FIG. 2C (describing a sealed inner container enclosed within a separate outer container to form a bag-in- a-bag structure)).” The Applicant respectfully disagrees. The rejection of the claims are made based on the inner container 20 of O'Hara. Shown in the annotated drawing above, fluted sheet materials, a planar sheet materials and metallic thin-film coatings, each fluted and planar sheet material having an inner face and an outer face. In Para. 0053, it recites, at least one surface of the fluted and non-fluted (planar) sheets is coated with a metallization layer, and para. 0042, recites, at least one inner face is provided with a thin film metallic coating. Therefore, both surfaces may be coated with a metallization film layer and the film positioned facing and defining the cavity.
The Applicant also provides arguments regarding the combination of O’ Hara and Bannister. However, as stated above, the Examiner is no longer relying on the prior art Bannister in the above rejection, therefore, arguments and remarks regarding the prior art are moot.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENINE SPICER whose telephone number is (313)446-4924. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm, 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/JENINE SPICER/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights