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 .
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 “gusseted seam” 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
Claims 10, 14 and 21 recite the limitation "the flap." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 12, 17, 18, 20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Co et al. (US 2006/0018570).
Regarding claim 1, Co discloses a disposable bag, comprising: a first side wall; a second side wall; and a tie strip (116) secured to the second side wall. See Figs. 5A-9D.
Regarding claim 2, the first and second side walls have top edges that define an opening (114) of the bag therebetween, and the tie strip is secured adjacent to the opening. See Figs. 5A-9D. Se
Regarding claim 12, a width of the tie strip is about equal to a width of the bag. See Fig. 5A.
Regarding claim 17, the first and second side walls are joined by a heat seal to define first and second side seams that are positioned adjacent to respective first and second side edges of the bag. See Abstract.
Regarding claim 18, a fold between the first and second side walls defines a bottom edge of the bag. See [0012].
Regarding claim 20, at least one perforation line (122) for removing the tie strip from a remainder of the bag. See Fig. 5B.
Regarding claim 31, Co discloses a roll comprising a plurality of the bag of claim 1. See Fig. 1A.
Claim(s) 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin (US 6,086,524).
Regarding claim 33, Martin discloses a plurality of disposable bags, comprising: a first side wall (at 100); and a second side wall (at 102), wherein each of the bags is formed as a tube in which the side walls are joined by a heat seal to provide a closed bottom edge, wherein one of the bags comprises a first perforation line (at 118) adjacent to the heat seal of the next bag that allows separation of the bag from the next bag, and wherein the bag comprises a second perforation line (106) adjacent to the first perforation line that defines a tie strip therebetween. See Figs. 1-3.
Claim(s) 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 8,465,205).
Regarding claim 34, Chen discloses a disposable bag, comprising: a first side wall (102); and a second side wall (101); wherein the first and second side walls have top edges that define an opening of the bag therebetween, wherein the top edge of the second side wall extends beyond the top edge of the first side wall to define a flap (200), wherein the flap comprises at least two layers and a heat seal (203) extends at least partially across a width of the flap to hold the at least two layers together, and wherein the flap is separatable from the remainder of the bag to serve as a tie strip (202). See Figs. 1-4.
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) 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Co as applied above in further view of Kelly et al. (US 5,407,419).
Regarding claim 3, Co does not disclose the top edge as claimed. Kelly, which is drawn to a bag, discloses a top edge (20) of a second side wall that extends beyond the top edge of a first side wall to define a flap. See Fig. 1. 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 top edge of Co extend as disclosed by Kelly in order to protect the tie from undesired detachment.
Regarding claim 4, Co, as modified above, discloses the claimed invention except for the tie strip secured to an inner surface of the flap. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the tie strip located as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5, as modified above, the tie strip is loosely adhered to the inner surface of the flap.
Regarding claim 6, as modified above, the tie strip is secured to the inner surface of the flap with adhesive.
Regarding claim 7, as modified above, the tie strip is capable of being secured to the flap with at least one weld (124). See Fig. 5C.
Regarding claim 8, the at least one weld is positioned intermediate of a width of the bag. See Fig. 5C.
Regarding claim 9, as modified above, the at least one weld is capable of being positioned intermediate of a height of the flap.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Co as applied above in further view of Chen (US 8,465,205).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses a flap (200) that can be the tie strip and is separatable from the remainder of the bag. See Figs. 1-4. 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 tie strip of Co be a flap as disclosed by Chen in order to have an integral tie formed in the bag wall.
Regarding claim 11, as modified above, the flap is formed of two layers of the second side wall, joined together by a heat seal (203). See Chen, Fig. 2.
Claim(s) 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Co as applied above in further view of Kelly et al. (US 5,407,419).
Regarding claim 13, Co does not disclose a second strip. Kelly, which is drawn to a bag, discloses a second tie strip (77’) that is secured adjacent to an opening. See Fig. 8. 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 a second strip as disclosed by Kelly on the bag of Co in order to further secure the bag in a closed position. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a second strip, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 14, Kelly discloses a flap (20) with a tie strip positioned in parallel along the flap. See Figs. 1-3. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the tie strips located as claimed, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 15, as modified above, widths of the tie strips are each about equal to a width of the bag.
Regarding claim 16, the first side wall, the second side wall, and the tie strips are joined by a heat seal positioned adjacent to a first side edge of the bag. See Figs. 7A-7B.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Co as applied above in further view of Auer et al. (US 3,982,687).
Regarding claim 19, Co does not disclose a gusset as claimed. Auer, which is drawn to a bag, discloses at least one of a side edge and a bottom edge of the bag comprising a gusseted seam. See Figs. 7-8. 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 a gusset as disclosed by Auer on the bag of Co in order to all for the expansion of the bag to fit different sized items.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Co as applied above in further view of Lipes (US 5,199,794).
Regarding claim 21, Co does not disclose the material as claimed. Lipes, which is drawn to a bag, discloses a first layer, the second layer and the tie strip are each formed of a biodegradable plastic material, a compostable plastic material, and/or a recyclable plastic material. See Abstract; and col. 1, ll. 43-46. 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 the material of Lipes for the bag of Co in order to recycle the bag.
Claim(s) 22-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Co as applied above.
Regarding claims 22-25, Co discloses the claimed invention except for the material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the claimed material in order to have a strong and flexible bag, 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 claims 26 and 27, Co discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Co as applied above in further view of O’Brien (US 2,849,171).
Regarding claim 28, Co does not disclose the bag as claimed. O’Brien, which is drawn to a bag, discloses at least one of the first layer and the second layer is substantially transparent or translucent, and the tie strip is substantially translucent or opaque. See Col. 1, ll. 59-72. 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 be transparent, translucent, or opaque in order to see contents therein.
Claims 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Co as applied above in further view of Simon (US 3,674,135).
Regarding claim 29, Co does not disclose the tie as claimed. Simon, which is drawn to a bag, discloses a tie strip (62) that is colored. 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 tie strip of Co be colored in order to more easily identify the tie strip.
Regarding claim 32, Co does not disclose lines as claimed. Simon discloses perforation lines (30) arranged alongside side edges between adjacent ones of the bags. See Figs. 1-4. 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 perforation lines as disclosed by Simon the roll of Co in order to facilitate separation of individual bags.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Co as applied above in further view of Hartsfield (US 6,086,253).
Regarding claim 30, Co does not disclose the strip as claimed. Hartsfield, which is drawn to a bag, discloses a tie strip capable of comprising text. See col. 4, ll. 22-24. 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 tie strip of Co comprise text, as disclosed by Hartfield, in order to convey a message to a user.
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