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 § 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) 1-6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (U.S. Pat. No. 7,229,677) in view of Waltermire et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 11,261,017).
Regarding claim 1: Miller discloses a method of making a multi-ply bag, the method comprising:
forming a blank, wherein forming the blank comprises the steps of:
obtaining a first sheet and a second sheet, each of the first sheet and the second sheet comprising a paper layer, see for example (Figs. 1-2; via the shown sheet different layers; for example, 26 and 22 or 26 and flute medium 36);
applying a metallized film to a first surface of the first sheet (via metalized film 28 and/or 24); and
adhering the second sheet to a second surface of the first sheet using adhesive applied intermittently to one of the first sheet and the second sheet (Fig. 3; via folder gluer 62) such that a plurality of voids are defined by the first sheet, the second sheet, and the adhesive, see for example (Fig. 2; via the shown spaces between the adhered sheets 26 to flute 36, appears to be bonded at certain spots of the rising portions of 28);
folding the blank along fold lines of the blank, each fold defining one of a main panel, a side panel, a bottom panel, and a subpanel, see for example (Fig. 1; via the shown folded blank to form container and/or Fig. 3; via folder gluer 62 and/or “cut-out in the blanks for the boxes…and the flexo folder-gluer”);
adhering at least one main panel to at least one other main panel to define walls of the bag, the walls being formed of the main panels and the side panels, see for example (Fig. 1; via the shown walls of the final formed container), wherein the metallized film is arranged to define an inner surface of the bag, the inner surface defining a cavity of the bag (Fig. 2; via “an inside layer” and/or “an inside layer of metallized polyester film (radiant barrier) 24”).
Miller may not suggest the made bag is a “repulpable” bag, wherein the multi-ply bag with all elements of the repulpable blank is repulpable (it is noted though that Miller’s bag is a recycling bag; “paper recycler”). However, Watermire discloses similar method with the step of manufacturing “box blanks is repulpable”, “insulation batt is repulpable”, while the box could comprise metal material “the box 101 can comprise…, metal”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified and/or used Miller’s method to come up with a final manufactured “repulpable” bags, as suggested by Watermire, in order to come up with environmentally friendly made bags.
Regarding claim 2: Miller discloses that the metallized film comprises multiple layers and wherein at least one of the multiple layers is a reflective layer; see for example (“an inside layer of metallized polyester film (radiant barrier) 24 is laminated to 57# kraft liner 26”).
Regarding claim 3: wherein at least one of the multiple layers is a protective layer (via “(protective) corrugated boxes”).
Regarding claim 4: Miller discloses the step of adhering the second sheet to the second surface of the first sheet further comprises applying adhesive to one of the first sheet and the second sheet in an adhesive pattern, see for example (Fig. 2; via the shown bonded pattern of layer 26 with the flute 36).
Regarding claim 5: Miller discloses that the adhesive pattern comprises a first adhesive pattern and a second adhesive pattern (Fig. 2; via the shown different bonding patters and/or columns between layer 26 and flute 36).
Regarding claim 6: Miller discloses that at least one of the plurality of voids is isolated (Fig/ 2; via the shown voids areas between the bonding spots of 26 and 36).
Regarding claim 8: Miller discloses that each of the first sheet, the second sheet, and the film is repulpable, see for example (Fig. 1 & 2; inherently the shown layers and flutes could be separated to different layers individually).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the secondary applied art of Waltermire ‘017 does not suggest the claimed “multi-ply bag including all elements of the repulpable blank is repulpable”.
The Office believes that the applied art ‘017 indeed clearly suggesting “all elements” of the bag is “repulpable”, see for example Figs. 1-4; via box assembly 100 with the shown its multiple-plays being “repulpable”, “the insulated box assembly 100 can be repulpable”.
In respect to the argument that ‘017 does not suggest the use of “metallized film”. The Office believes that ‘017 clearly using metallized film, via metal material 101 of the box assembly 100, while referring to the entire box assembly 100 as being “repulpable” via “the insulated box assembly 100 can be repulpable”.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, both applied arts of Miller ‘677 and Waltermire ‘017 related to the same cardboard made containers, which would be obvious to use one’s teaching to modify the other. For example, since both applied arts related to the same cardboard boxes art, it would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to have modified and/or used Miller’s method to come up with a final manufactured “repulpable” bags or box, as suggested by Watermire, in order to come up with environmentally friendly made bags.
It is noted that, since the applied arts of record suggest all the claimed elements including the claimed “repulpable” elements, coming up with “repulpable” to part and/or entire box assembly would be inherent for environmental improvement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMEH TAWFIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4470. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Shelle Self can be reached at 571-272-4524. 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.
/SAMEH TAWFIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights