Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patents a Paper Bag (theguardian.com)
mspohr writes: Continuing its leadership in innovation, Apple has patented a paper bag. We all remember the groundbreaking "rounded corners" innovation, now we have a paper bag! Just try to make your own paper bag and you'll be speaking with Apple lawyers. (Note: In fairness to Apple, this is a "special" paper bag which is stronger due to numerous improvements on your ordinary recycled paper bag -- just don't try to copy it.) The patent application summarizes the bag as follows: "A paper bag is disclosed. The paper bag may include a bag container formed of white solid bleached sulfate paper with at least 60% post-consumer content." Apple's patented paper bags are designed to be sturdy, while remaining "both pearly white and environmentally friendly." Let's just hope they don't remove the handles...
Sounds like it should be sent to Unpatent.
https://unpatent.co/
While the thought of a patent on a paper bag seems silly, if you actually read the patent there is a lot more to it than just patenting what you think of as a paper bag, it's a complete redesign of how a bag is made. While this does not mean the patent should be approved, it's certainly wouldn't impact normal paper bags.
Go read the patent. This isn't a design patent. It's a patent on how to reinforce or fold the edges of a paper bag to make it strong enough to have 60% or more of recycled material. Using more recycled material makes the bag weaker, so they've strengthened the corners and edges by folding down a flap of paper or gluing on a flap of paper (I don't understand how that isn't obvious). Look at the image. I've seen bags that look exactly like that, except they probably weren't 60% recycled. This is Apple about to publicly advertise that since they care so much about the environment, their bags will be more environmentally friendly than every one else's, while quietly suing everyone else behind the scenes to keep them from making 'greener' products. Look at how environmentally friendly we are by preventing companies from using recycled materials unless they pay us! All hail the innovative Apple. Good PR, better marketing, and another revenue stream!
Look at this claim:
[0058] It will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that many modifications and variations are possible in view of the above teachings, and that by applying knowledge within the skill of the art, one may readily modify and/or adapt for various applications such specific embodiments, without undue experimentation, without departing from the general concept of the present invention. For example, in some embodiments, instead of or in addition to reinforcement inserts to strengthen the bag container having high (e.g., greater than 50%, 60%, greater than 60%) post-consumer-content, a matte plastic film may be applied to bag container 200, the matte plastic film having a higher resistance to tearing than the other material of bag container 200. Such film could be applied to one or both of the entirety of the interior surface or exterior surface of bag container 200, or to discrete areas thereof (e.g., the areas corresponding to those reinforced by reinforcement inserts as described in above embodiments).
The patent.
More specifically, they *applied* to patent a particular way of reinforcing a paper bag made of white recycled paper, and a particular type of self-retracting handle that falls down into the bag, made of twisted paper.
Bleached recycled paper tends to be weak, so that's why reinforcement would be good.
I don't know whether the patent will ever issue. If it does, it will probably be narrowed in scope first. The usual process is that the applicant writes the initial application to be as broad as they think they might get away with, then it's made more specific as needed to actually get approved.
Go read the patent. This isn't a design patent. It's a patent on how to reinforce or fold the edges of a paper bag to make it strong enough to have 60% or more of recycled material. Using more recycled material makes the bag weaker, so they've strengthened the corners and edges by folding down a flap of paper or gluing on a flap of paper (I don't understand how that isn't obvious). Look at the image. I've seen bags that look exactly like that, except they probably weren't 60% recycled. This is Apple about to publicly advertise that since they care so much about the environment, their bags will be more environmentally friendly than every one else's, while quietly suing everyone else behind the scenes to keep them from making 'greener' products. Look at how environmentally friendly we are by preventing companies from using recycled materials unless they pay us! All hail the innovative Apple. Good PR, better marketing, and another revenue stream!
Look at this claim:
[0058] It will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that many modifications and variations are possible in view of the above teachings, and that by applying knowledge within the skill of the art, one may readily modify and/or adapt for various applications such specific embodiments, without undue experimentation, without departing from the general concept of the present invention. For example, in some embodiments, instead of or in addition to reinforcement inserts to strengthen the bag container having high (e.g., greater than 50%, 60%, greater than 60%) post-consumer-content, a matte plastic film may be applied to bag container 200, the matte plastic film having a higher resistance to tearing than the other material of bag container 200. Such film could be applied to one or both of the entirety of the interior surface or exterior surface of bag container 200, or to discrete areas thereof (e.g., the areas corresponding to those reinforced by reinforcement inserts as described in above embodiments).
The patent.
The part in bold that you are mentioning will be ignored (and subsequently removed) by any sane examiner in the later stages of the process. Such parts of the /description/ commonly try to enlarge the scope of protection beyond that of the claimed subject-matter and hence are not allowed due to lack of clarity (of scope). What matters are the claims. If the description is broader than the claims, it either becomes a clarity problem and will be removed, or the claims have to be amended to bring claims and description in unison, before the patent is granted. Ideally.
In the USPTO, vague formulations like 'spirit of the invention' is often use to cover more than it should. This way there is a grey area what is and what is not in the 'spirit' of the invention, in case someone opposes the patent or comes up with derived (but different) products which do not fall in the scope of the claims.
Since lately 'spirit of the invention' is searched for directly they came up with the 'general concept' formulation, which is less vague, but still not desired.
Btw, it's not a patent yet.