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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "40" and "46" as shown in figures 4A and 4B have both been used to designate, “the package” (See paragraph 33 on page 10 of the specification as filed).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “46” has been used to designate both the “sealing weld line” and “the package” (see paragraph 33 on page 10 of the specification as filed.
Figure 5B and 5C should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). That is, paragraphs 9 and 34 as filed refers to figures 5A-5C as prior art, but only figure 5A is labeled as prior art.
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. 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 Objections
Claims 1, 3, 11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 11 and claim 11, line 11 recite, “wherein the label, adhesive and bag.” For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “wherein the label, the adhesive and the bag.”
Claims 3 and 13 recite, “wherein the plurliaty of perforations comrpise a first section of cuts that include perforations with a mix of shorter and longer length adjacent to a second section of cuts that include perforations with a mix of longer and shorter length.” For matters of form, this limitation should be amended to recite, “wherein the plurality of perforations comprise a first section of cuts that include perforations having a length that is shorter and longer than each other, the first section of cuts is adjacent to a second section of cuts that include perforations having a length that is shorter and longer than each other.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 1, lines 13, 15, 18; claim 9, claim 10; and claim 11, lines 13, 14 and 19 all recite, “the film,” which lacks proper antecedent basis. It is not clear whether this is referring to the “first polyolefin film” or the “second polyolefin film.” This rejection can be overcome by amending “the film” to recite, “the first polyolefin film.”
Claim 1, line 17 also recites, “the edge of the flap” which lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 5, lines 2-3 and claim 15, lines 3-5 recite, “the cuts” and “the section of cuts,” which lack proper antecedent basis.
Claims 6 and 16 recite, “with a length longer than the length of all other perforations.” This limitation is not clear as to what “other perforations” are being referred to: other perforations of the plurality of perforations or any other possible perforation.
Claims 2-4, 7, 8, 12-14, 17-20 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (GB 2352227) in view of Lyzenga (US 20120128835).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider teaches a flexible film package (see the abstract, plastic bag), comprising a bag that is capable of bulk placement on a wicket (see figure 1 and 3, item 12 and page 5, lines 14-17) and comprising perforations on a front surface of the bag to define edges of an opening of the bag (see figure 3, item 18 and page 6, lines 17-25).
Schneider further discloses a label (Figure 3, item 15 and page 6, lines 14-17) that comprises an adhesive thereon (see page 6, lines 19, “adhesive label”), which is clearly in contact with and therefore disposed on the front surface of the bag, as shown in figure 3. It would have been obvious for substantially of the back surface of the label to comprise the adhesive since the label is adhered to the front surface of the bag and allows for resealing of the bag.
Schneider further teaches that the label covers perforations and covers the opening defined by the perforation, as shown in figure 3 and 4, albeit not in their entirety. Schneider’s label, adhesive and perforations are configured such that when the label is pulled away from the bag, a segment of the film of the bag between the perforations tears such that the label remains adhered to a second portion of the film to form a flap, because the purpose of Schneider’s adhesive label is to tear the perforations 18 and then provide a recloasable portion of the bag (see at least, page 6, lines 7-25). Since the label is used as an opening and closing flap and because the perforations 18 as shown in figure 3 have a “U” shape, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the label would have remained adhered to a second portion of the film of the bag to form a flap opening the bag.
Claim 1 differs from Schneider in specifically reciting that the bag comprises a first polyolefin film and the label comprises a second polyolefin film and that label is “of sufficient size to cover the perforations in the front surface of the bag and the opening defined by the perforations,” and “wherein the label and the adhesive on the back surface of the label extend past the edge of the flap opening to allow the label to be reclosed and re-adhere to the first portion of the film of the bag surrounding the opening.”
Lyzenga (US 20120128835) teaches flexible packages having a label (see figure 57-59, item 40’’) having an adhesive thereon on substantially all of a back surface of the label (figure 58, item 30’’; paragraph 151 and figure 26) and where the label is in contact with a front surface of the bag (see figure 57-58) and is of a sufficient size to cover perforations in the front surface of the bag and the opening defined by the perforations (See figure 57 where the label covers perforations 42a’’ as well as an opening formed by the perforation s(see figure 57 and 58, item 12’’). Lyzenga further teaches at paragraph 89 that 42a’’ and 12’’ are formed via score lines which can be a discontinuous set of perforations. At paragraph 193, Lyzenga teaches that the label is non-peelable at an end of the package and also forms a flap. Figures 47-49 and 51-56 also variations in the line of perforations for producing an opening. As also shown in figure 51, the adhesive on the bag surface of the label extends past the edge of the flap opening (figure 51, item 44’’) to allow the label to be reclosed and re-adhere to the first portion of the film of the bag surrounding the opening.
If it could have been construed that Schneider did not specifically teach that the adhesive on the back surface of the label separates from a first portion of the film of the bag, then it is noted that Lyzenga teaches in figure 58 and paragraph 94, that the adhesive is arranged such that the label is pulled away from the bag, the adhesive on a back surface of the label is separated from a first portion of the film of the bag, so as to use the label as the means for re-sealing and re-adhering the label to the bag to close the bag.
Since Schneider already teaches that the particulars of the label are not limiting (see page 7, lines 1-4), to therefore modify Schneider and to use a label that covers the entirety of the perforations and the opening formed by the perforations and which label extends beyond an edge of the flap opening would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of ensuring the requisite closing of the opening. That is, such a modification to have the label and adhesive cover the entirety of the perforations and opening formed therefrom and extend past edges of the formed flap opening after tearing would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for ensuring that the opening was completely closed and securely closed so as to minimize and/or prevent contaminants from entering the package after opening.
Furthermore, modifying Schneider to use an adhesive as taught by Lyzenga that remains with the label and separates from the film of the bag would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on conventional expedients for similar labels used to close packages and to lower the chances of food products from contaminating the adhesive. That is, as shown in figure 58, pulling away of the label with the adhesive therein would provide distance between the food and the adhesive to help prevent the food from contacting the adhesive.
Regarding the bag comprising a first polyolefin film and the label comprising a second polyolefin film, it is noted that the claim reads on both films being the same polyolefin film In this regard, Lyzenga teaches that the bag can be made from polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene (see paragraph 87) and the closure label can comprise a polyolefin such as polypropylene (see paragraph 91).
Since Schneider teaches a plastic bag, to therefore modify Schneider and to specifically use known plastics such as polyolefins including polypropylene would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design based on conventional types of plastics used for a similar purpose.
Regarding claim 2, in view of Lyzenga (see figure 9, item 216; figure 32, item 42b’ and figure 50, item 42g’), the prior art combination teaches that the plurality of perforations define three sides of a “substantially” rectangular flap opening on the front surface of the bag, especially since Lyzenga’s perforated shape resembles that of figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings.
To modify Schneider to use other known shapes for flap openings would have been an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, such as based on the desired size of opening required for accessing the contents of the package.
Regarding claim 8, in view of Lyzenga as applied to claim 1, the combination teaches that the first polyolefin film and the second polyolefin film can be the same polyolefin, such as polypropylene and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the first polyolefin film and the second polyolefin film would have been of the same recyclable category.
Regarding claims 9-10, it is noted that since the combination already teaches that the purpose of the adhesive as part of the label is for being able to reseal the opening of the bag, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the prior art adhesive would have had sufficient tack and would have been capable of allowing the label to re-adhere when the flap is opened and closed at least 10 and at least 15 times because this limitation is an intended use limitation which would also have depended on the specific manner in which the package was used. That is, since the prior art teaches the structure of the package and using an adhesive that is designed to be able to repeatedly reseal the label to the opening, the prior art would have been capable of the intended use. It is further noted that neither the claims nor specification provide any particular specificity as to the particular type of adhesive and the claims do not provide any additional specificity with respect to the adhesive such that since the prior art teaches a pressure-sensitive resealable adhesive, the prior art would have been capable of the intended use. Nonetheless, Lyzenga further teaches using any of a variety of pressure sensitive adhesives (paragraph 93) with varying degrees of thickness (see paragraph 93) for allowing the package to be repeatedly opened and closed (paragraph 94) resealed (see paragraph 93-95). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination to use a label with sufficient tack to allow for repeated opening and closing of the label for ensuring that the contents of the package remained protected.
Claims 11, 12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (GB 2352227) in view of Lyzenga (US 20120128835) and in further view of Varbanov (US 20150329259) and Brosch (US 20160137374).
Regarding claim 11, Schneider teaches packaged foodstuff in a flexible film package comprising a plastic bag (see the abstract, plastic bag; see page 1, lines 4-6 “bread or the like”), and comprising perforations on a front surface of the bag to define edges of a tear flap opening of the bag (see figure 3, item 18 and page 6, lines 17-25).
Schneider further discloses the bag comprises a bottom gusset (see figure 1 and 3, item 3), a sealed top (see figure 4, item 19, 21; page 9, lines 25-26); and a foodstuff item within the bag (see page 1, lines 4-6).
There is a label (Figure 3, item 15 and page 6, lines 14-17) that comprises an adhesive thereon (see page 6, lines 19, “adhesive label”), which is clearly in contact with and therefore disposed on the front surface of the bag, as shown in figure 3. It would have been obvious for substantially of the back surface of the label to comprise the adhesive since the label is adhered to the front surface of the bag and allows for resealing of the bag.
Schneider further teaches that the label covers perforations and covers the opening defined by the perforation, as shown in figure 3 and 4, albeit not in their entirety.
Schneider’s label, adhesive and bag are configured such that when the label is pulled away from the bag – which would obviously have required some amount of force – the force would have been sufficient to separate the adhesive backing of the label from a first portion of the film of the bag extending beyond the tear flap opening and to tear the film bag between the perforations such that the label remains adhered to a second portion of the film to form a flap, because the purpose of Schneider’s adhesive label is to tear the perforations 18 and then provide a recloasable portion of the bag (see at least, page 6, lines 7-25). Since the label is used as an opening and closing flap and because the perforations 18 as shown in figure 3 have a “U” shape, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the label would have remained adhered to a second portion of the film of the bag to form a flap opening the bag.
It would also have been obvious to one having oirndary skill in the art that the opening (see figure 3, item 15, 18) would have been of a size that was sufficient to remove portions of foodstuff, because this is the purpose of Schneider’s opening.
Claim 11 differs from Schneider in specifically reciting that the bag comprises a first polyolefin film, a gusseted and sealed top, welded side seals, and the label comprises a second polyolefin film and that label is “of sufficient size to cover the perforations in the front surface of the bag and the opening defined by the perforations,” and “wherein the adhesive on a portion of the back surface of the label retains sufficient tack to re-adhere to the first portion of the film of the bag” and that the foodstuff item comprises multiple pieces disposed in the bag.
Lyzenga (US 20120128835) teaches flexible packages having a label (see figure 57-59, item 40’’) having an adhesive on substantially all of a back surface of the label (figure 58, item 30’’; paragraph 151 and figure 26) and where the label is in contact with a front surface of the bag (see figure 57-58) and is of a sufficient size to cover perforations in the front surface of the bag and the opening defined by the perforations (See figure 57 where the label covers perforations 42a’’ as well as an opening formed by the perforation s(see figure 57 and 58, item 12’’). Lyzenga further teaches at paragraph 89, that 42a’’ and 12’’ are formed via score lines which can be a discontinuous set of perforations. At paragraph 193, Lyzenga teaches that the label is non-peelable at an end of the package and also forms a flap. Figures 47-49 and 51-56 also variations in the line of perforations for producing an opening. As also shown in figure 51, the adhesive on the label extends past the edge of the flap opening (figure 51, item 44’’) to allow the label to be reclosed and re-adhere to the first portion of the film of the bag surrounding the opening.
If it could have been construed that Schneider did not specifically teach that the adhesive on the back surface of the label separates from a first portion of the film of the bag, then it is noted that Lyzenga teaches in figure 58 and paragraph 94, that the adhesive is arranged such that the label is pulled away from the bag, the adhesive on a back surface of the label is separated from a first portion of the film of the bag, so as to use the label as the means for re-sealing and re-adhering the label to the bag to close the bag.
Lyzenga further teaches in figures 57-59 that the opening is of a sufficient size to allow removal of a pieces of a foodstuff item comprising multiple pieces (see paragraph 3, 79, 80, 189).
Since Schneider already teaches that the particulars of the label are not limiting (see page 7, lines 1-4), to therefore modify Schneider and to use a label that covers the entirety of the perforations and the opening formed by the perforations and which label extends beyond an edge of the flap opening and which label comprises an adhesive that separates from the bag when pulling of the label, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for the purpose of ensuring the requisite closing of the opening. That is, such a modification to have the label and adhesive cover the entirety of the perforations and opening formed therefrom and extend past edges of the formed flap opening after tearing would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for ensuring that the opening was completely closed and securely closed so as to minimize and/or prevent contaminants from entering the package after opening.
Furthermore, modifying Schneider to use an adhesive as taught by Lyzenga that remains with the label and separates from the film of the bag would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on conventional expedients for similar labels used to close packages and to lower the chances of food products from contaminating the adhesive. That is, as shown in figure 58, pulling away of the label with the adhesive therein would provide distance between the food and the adhesive to help prevent the food from contacting the adhesive.
Regarding the bag comprising a first polyolefin film and the label comprising a second polyolefin film, it is noted that the claim reads on both films being the same polyolefin film In this regard, Lyzenga teaches that the bag can be made from polyolefins such as polyethylene and polypropylene (see paragraph 87) and the closure label can comprise a polyolefin such as polypropylene (see paragraph 91).
Since Schneider teaches a plastic bag, to therefore modify Schneider and to specifically use known plastics such as polyolefins including polypropylene would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design based on conventional types of plastics used for a similar purpose.
Regarding the specific type of food, since Schneider is not limiting as to the particular food to be packaged and since Lyzenga also teaches a bag with a similar type of resealable opening for accessing the contents of the package, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Schneider to package foods with a plurality of pieces as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design.
Since the combination teaches using an adhesive to reseal the package, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the combination is teaching that the label retains sufficient tack to re-adhere the first portion of the film to the bag.
Further regarding the bag comprising a gusseted and sealed top and welded side seams, it is initially noted that Schneider teaches one way to close the top of the bag but is not specific as to a gusseted top and welded side seals.
Varbanov (US 20150329259) teaches bags that can comprise a bottom gusset (see paragraph 56) together with welded side seams (see figure 7 and 8, item 6a-6d) and a sealed and gusseted top (see figure 7, item 9a, 9b and 10 and paragraph 55 and 94).
Brosch (US 20160137374) also teaches a flexible package comprising welded side seams (see figure 1, item 30, 31 and paragraph 72) a bottom gusset (see figure 6, item 39) and a gusseted and sealed top such that the package can be symmetrically shaped (see figure 2 where there are two side walls and paragraph 146 where both the top and the bottom of the side walls can be attached by single or multiple folds or gussets to provide asymmetrically shaped container).
To therefore modify the combination and to provide a gusseted sealed top wall would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, based on conventional expedients for how to shape a bag, as taught by Brosch, and for the purpose of and for the purpose of providing a symmetrically shaped package
Regarding claim 12, in view of Lyzenga (see figure 9, item 216; figure 32, item 42b’ and figure 50, item 42g’), the prior art combination teaches that the plurality of perforations define three sides of a “substantially” rectangular flap opening on the front surface of the bag, especially since Lyzenga’s perforated shape resembles that of figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings.
To modify Schneider to use other known shapes for flap openings would have been an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, such as based on the desired size of opening required for accessing the contents of the package.
Regarding claim 17, in view of Lyzenga as applied to claim 11, the combination teaches that the first polyolefin film and the second polyolefin film can be the same polyolefin, such as polypropylene and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the first polyolefin film and the second polyolefin film would have been of the same recyclable category.
Regarding claim 18, in view of Varbanov and Brosch, the combination teaches that the sealed top comprises a weld seam (see Varbanov, figure 8, item 10 and paragraph 109), such that the sealed top would comprise a weld seam without excess film extending beyond the weld seam.
Regarding claims 19-20, it is noted that since the combination already teaches that the purpose of the adhesive as part of the label is for being able to reseal the opening of the bag, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the prior art adhesive would have had sufficient tack and would have been capable of allowing the label to re-adhere when the flap is opened and closed at least 10 and at least 15 times because this limitation is an intended use limitation which would also have depended on the specific manner in which the package was used. That is, since the prior art teaches the structure of the package and using an adhesive that is designed to be able to repeatedly reseal the label to the opening, the prior art would have been capable of the intended use. It is further noted that neither the claims nor specification provide any particular specificity as to the particular type of adhesive and the claims do not provide any additional specificity with respect to the adhesive such that since the prior art teaches a pressure-sensitive resealable adhesive, the prior art would have been capable of the intended use. Nonetheless, Lyzenga further teaches using any of a variety of pressure sensitive adhesives (paragraph 93) with varying degrees of thickness (see paragraph 93) for allowing the package to be repeatedly opened and closed (paragraph 94) resealed (see paragraph 93-95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination to use a label with sufficient tack to allow for repeated opening and closing of the label for ensuring that the contents of the package remained protected.
Claims 3-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, which relies on Schneider (GB 2352227) as the primary reference, and in further view of Bazbas (US 20150266644), Rogers (US 20090317578) and Tinoco (US 20170137196).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the combination as applied to claims 1 and 11 teaches that the plurality of perforations comprise a first and second section of cuts, where each of the first and second section of cuts include perforations which would obviously have had some length.
Claims 3 and 13 differ from the combination, as applied to claim 1, in specifically reciting that “the plurality of perforations comprise a first section of cuts that include perforations with a mix of shorter and longer length adjacent to a second section of cuts that include perforations with a mix of longer and shorter length.”
Bazbas (US 20150266644) teaches perforations (see item 22 and 23 of the figures and paragraph 96) that are covered by a label (see figure 1, item 25 and paragraph 96, “cover 25”) and the perforations can vary in size, shape, length and spacing so that a tear may start easily at a particular location of the weakened portion and yet extend or propagate with more difficulty in a second portion of the weakened portion in which the cuts and/or perforations are shorter or have more spacing between (see paragraph 147). This appears to be similar to the purpose of the mix of shorter and longer length perforations of the first and second sections of the plurality of perforations, as disclosed at paragraph 16 of applicant’s specification as filed.
Rogers (US 20090317578) specifically shows a label (see figure 5, item 50, 54; paragraph 44) covering perforations (Figure 5, item 52a-52d and 52f-52h) that form an opening (see figure 6) of a bag (see figure 4a-4b). Rogers teaches that the lines of weakness can include scored segments that can vary in length from 0.12-4.4mm with the distance of the connections or bridges between them varying from 0.4-4mm (see paragraph 41) for allowing the consumer to easily open the package while providing a degree of strength to withstand filling, packing and handling (see paragraph 42).
Tinoco (US 20170137196) teaches a bag comprising a label (figure 11, item 1110) and which label covers a plurality of perforations (figure 11, item 1120; paragraph 37). Tinoco further teaches in figure 7 that the scoring can comprise a mix of short and long scores that are adjacent to each other (see figure 7, item 700 which are long scores, and item 705,706 which are short scores). Tinoco teaches that such scoring can also provide tamper evidence (see paragraph 53).
To therefore modify the perforations of the Schneider/Lyzenga combination to include a mix of shorter and longer length perforations adjacent another mix of shorter and longer length perforations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, for controlling the propagation of the opening of the package, as taught by Bazbas, to provide the requisite degree of strength for packaging while also allowing a consumer to easily open the package as taught by Rogers and for tamper evidence as taught by Tinoco
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Bazbas, Rogers and Tinoco incorporated herein as applied to claims 3 and 13 above to teach variation in the length of perforations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have included perforations that are not uniform in length for the purpose of controlling the propagation of the opening of the package, for providing the requisite degree of strength for packaging while also allowing a consumer to easily open the package and for tamper evidence.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Bazbas, Rogers and Tinoco incorporated herein as applied to claims 3 and 13 above to teach that it has been known in the art to provide cuts that require a lower pull force and to also include cuts that require a higher pull force, for the purpose of controlling the propagation of the opening of the package, for providing the requisite degree of strength for packaging while also allowing a consumer to easily open the package and for tamper evidence. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Schneider/Lyzenga combination to include a first section of cuts that require a lower pull force and a second section of cuts that require a higher pull force for these same reasons.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, which relies on Schneider (GB 2352227) as the primary reference, and in further view of Bazbas (US 20150266644) and in further view of Rugenstein (US 4460088).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the claims differ from the combination, as applied to claim 1, in specifically reciting that, “the plurality of perforations include a central perforation with a length longer than the length of all other perforations, where the central perforation is disposed at a central location of the plurality of perforations under a pull tab of the label where the label is initially pulled away from the bag.”
Regarding claim 6, it is initially noted that Bazbas teaches perforations (see item 22 and 23 of the figures and paragraph 96) that are covered by a label (see figure 1, item 25 and paragraph 96, “cover 25”) and the perforations can vary in size, shape, length and spacing so that a tear may start easily at a particular location of the weakened portion and yet extend or propagate with more difficulty in a second portion of the weakened portion in which the cuts and/or perforations are shorter or have more spacing between (see paragraph 147). This appears to be similar to the purpose of the mix of shorter and longer length perforations of the first and second sections of the plurality of perforations, as disclosed at paragraph 16 of applicant’s specification as filed.
Even further, Rugenstein (US 4460088) further teaches a package comprising an adhesive label (see figure 6, item 50 and at least, column 4, line 56-64) usable for repeated opening and closing of the package (see column 4, lines 52-55). Rugenstein further teaches a centrally positioned perforation (see figure 6, item 32) that is longer than the other perforations 29 and 30 for the purpose of facilitating the start of the tearing open operation (see column 3, lines 38-47).
To therefore modify the Schneider/Lyzenga combination which teaches tearing from a centrally positioned perforation and to have the centrally positioned perforation longer than all other perforations would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of making it easier to initiate the tearing of the perforated section for access to the contents.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Schneider (GB 2352227) as the primary reference, and in further view of Farnia (EP 0878407).
Regarding claim 7, Schneider teaches that there are hanging holes (see figure 1, item 12 and page 5, lines 14-17) and that there are perforations (see figure 1, item 7 and 8 and page 5, lines 4-5) that would separate the bag from the wicket lip including holes.
If it was not clear on the bag comprising a wicket lip including holes and perforations to separate the bag from the wicket lip, then it is further noted that Farina (EP 0878407) teaches bags for holding food (see the abstract and figure 1, item 1) and which bags also include a “wicket lip” including holes (see figure 1, item 9; column 1, lines 50-53) and a line of perforation to separate the wicket lip from the bag (see figure 1, item 7 and column 1, lines 53-67). To therefore modify Schneider and to use a wicket lip including holes and perforations to separate the bag from the wicket lip would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as a substitution of one expedient for hanging bags for another, both recognized for the same purpose of allowing the bag to hang and to subsequently removing the hanging portion when using the bag.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, which relies on Schneider (GB 2352227) as the primary reference, and in further view of Unger (US 20240116694).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, in view of Lyzenga as applied to claim 1 and 11, the combination teaches that the first polyolefin film and the second polyolefin film can be the same polyolefin, such as polypropylene and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the first polyolefin film and the second polyolefin film would have been of the same recyclable category.
Further regarding the limitation that the first and second polyolefin film meet the same recyclable category, it is noted that Unger (US 20240116694) teaches flexible packaging using a sheet of material that is recyclable, such as polyethylene or polypropylene and where the package and the dispensing fitment can be made from the same polymer (see paragraph 10).
To therefore modify the combination to use the same type of polyolefin with the same recyclable category would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of making the package more easily recyclable and therefore environmentally friendly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Boekeloo (US 20160176601) discloses a perforated opening portion of a package comprising a centrally positioned longest perforation (see paragraph 50).
Adams (US 20090297074) discloses welded side seams (see figure 2, item 1 and 2) and a gusseted top wall (see the abstract) and which gusset allows for providing a better definition to the shape of the package (see paragraph 13 and see paragraph 15). The gusseted top wall is sealed since the top wall is sealed to the side walls (see the abstract: “top wall (3) joined at its periphery (6) to flexible side walls”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights