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 § 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.
Claim 4-6 and 10-18 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.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 recite the limitation "the edge" in line 2 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed to be an upper edge forming an opening of the bag.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 recite “second first hole” it is unclear if this is intended to be a second instance of the first hole, or some other hole entirely. For this reason, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the “second first” hole is a second hole that has attributes described immediately thereby, and do not necessarily include any of the features of the first hole.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 recite “the vertical edge” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the vertical edge is an edge between the flat panels and the perforated panels.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 recite “third first hole” it is unclear if this is intended to be a third instance of the first hole, or some other hole entirely. For this reason, the scope of the claim is unclear. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that the “third first” hole is a third hole that has attributes described immediately thereby, and do not necessarily include any of the features of the first hole.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the front" and “the back in lines 7-8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed to be an upper edge forming an opening of the bag. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that one flat panel defines a front panel, and the other flat panel defines a back panel
Claims 14-18 are rejected as depending from claim 13 and therefore incorporating the indefinite scope.
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, 7, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Booth (GB 2,496,910 A).
Regarding claim 1, Booth discloses a foldable paper bag (Fig. 1, noting card material is a form of paper stock), comprising: two flat panels (3/4) being parallel; two perforated panels (18/19) being parallel; and a bottom panel (2), wherein each of the perforated panels connects the flat panels, and the bottom panel connects the flat panels and the perforated panels (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein each of the perforated panels has a first series of perforations (21/22), a second series of perforations (23/27), and a third series of perforations (24/26), wherein the first series of perforations are arranged along a first straight line (Fig. 1, and Page 5; Ll. 10-12), which is parallel with a normal of a surface of the bottom panel in a carrying mode (noting they are perpendicular to the bottom panel), wherein the second series of perforations are arranged along a second straight line (Fig. 1), wherein the third series of perforations are arranged along a third straight line (Fig. 1); and wherein an end of the first straight line is adjacent to an opening of the foldable paper bag (Page 6; Ll. 12-16), and the other end of the first straight line is adjacent to an end of the second straight line and an end of the third straight line (Figs. 1 and 2), and another end of the second straight line is connected to a side connecting the perforated panel and one of the flat panels (Fig. 1), and another end of the third straight line is connected to another side connecting the perforated panel and another flat panel (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Booth discloses a foldable paper bag (Fig. 1, noting card material is a form of paper stock), comprising: two flat panels (3/4) being parallel; two perforated panels (18/19) being parallel; a bottom panel (2), wherein every perforated panel has perforations arranged in a vertically flipped "Y" shape having a leg and two arms (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein when the foldable paper bag is in an upright position, every arm of the vertically flipped "Y" shape is connected to one of the vertical edges of the perforated panel (noting 23 and 24 extend toward a junction between walls 18 and 3 and 4 respectively), and the leg (21) of the vertically flipped "Y" shape is vertically extend towards an opening of the foldable paper bag.
Regarding claim 13, Booth discloses foldable paper bag (Fig. 1, noting card material is a form of paper stock), comprising: two flat panels (3/4) being parallel; two perforated panels (18/19) being parallel, a bottom panel (2), wherein every perforated panel has perforations that divided the perforated panel into a front section (Fig. 2, noting the panel to which leader line of 18 points), a back section (noting the opposite section to the aforementioned section), and a lower section (25), and wherein when the foldable paper bag is in an upright position, the front section is connected to the front flat panel (3), and the back section is connected to the back flat panel (4), and the lower section and a bottom panel of the foldable paper bag are connected (Fig. 2).
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, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth (GB 2,496,910 A) in view of Choi (WO 2014081183 A1).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 14, Booth does not specifically disclose every perforated panel has a first hole, and the first hole is located at the position where the first, second, and third straight lines meet, or the perforated panel has a first hole, and the first hole is located at the junction of the vertically flipped "Y" shape, or the perforated panel has a first hole, and the first hole is located at the position where the front, the back, and the lower sections meet.
Choi demonstrates a similar foldable and transformable bag including a vertically extending perforated line that forms an intersection with a lower perforated line (12) whereby the intersection includes an incision hole (30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Booth and use the teaching of Choi and include a hold located at the intersection of the vertical and lower perforation lines because such a change would allow the hole to help prevent propagation of a tear line in a direction that deviates from the perforation lines, or to act to vent or drain moisture as suggested by Choi.
Claim(s) 3, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth (GB 2,496,910 A) in view of Padan (US 2016/0083143 A1).
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 15, Booth discloses that the vertical lines of weakness (21/22) can divide panels (18/19) into equal parts, or be “offset from the centres of the panels” (Page 5; Ll. 25-27) but does not specifically disclose every perforated panel has a crease, and the crease extends vertically when the foldable paper bag is in an upright position, and the crease and the portion of the perforations that form a vertical straight line keep a gap in-between.
Padan demonstrates a similar convertible bag including side panels with a central fold (Fig. 1) and have at least one vertical scored seam (128) spaced from the central fold.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Booth and include a central fold line such that the device can be folded into a compact configuration, and space the perforation line from the fold in order to change the relative sizes of the panels when the bag is in an open configuration after the perforations are torn.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth (GB 2,496,910 A) in view of Markus et al. (US 3,615,711 A)(Markus).
Regarding claims 4, 6, 10, 12, 16, and 18, Booth does not specifically disclose every perforated panel has a notch on the edge that form the opening of the foldable paper bag, and the notch is align with a portion of the perforations that is vertically arranged when the foldable paper bag is in an upright position, or every perforated panel has a third first hole form between the perforations and the opening of the foldable paper bag, and the third first hole is aligned with portion of the perforations that is vertically arranged when the foldable paper bag is in an upright position.
Markus teaches a backage including a tearing portion whereby the beginning of the rearing portion includes a notch (34) at an upper edge, and a hole (32) between the tear line and below the upper edge, both aligned with the tear line (Figs. 2 and 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Booth and use the teaching of Markus and include a notch and opening in the upper portion of the panels 18/19 in order to help initiate the tearing of the perforated portions more easily, as well as to help control the tearing. Or alternatively, the hole would allow the bag to be held on a hook in a semi-open condition by extending a hook through the hole as demonstrated by Markus
Claim(s) 5, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booth (GB 2,496,910 A) in view of Varanasi (US 2005/0045706 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 17, Booth does not specifically disclose every perforated panel has a second first hole form on the vertical edge, and the second first hole is aligned with portion of the perforations that is not vertically arranged when the foldable paper bag is in an upright position.
Varanasi demonstrates a transformable carton including tear lines (322), that extend toward a vertical edge and further include holes (350) formed on a vertical edge and aligned with the perforations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art take the device of Booth and use the teaching of Varanasi and include holes at the vertical edges where the diagonally extending perforation lines intersect therewith in order to help control the tear line in the proximity of the edge as demonstrated by Varanasi.
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
