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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IV in the reply filed on June 27, 2021 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-53 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 27, 2021.
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.
Claims 54 and 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walters et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0257889), hereinafter “Walters”, in view of Bologna (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0095123) and Schneider et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0154669), hereinafter “Schneider”.
With respect to Claim 54, Walters, Figures 1-14, teaches a single handle 102 used to dispense stretch film from a roll 902 comprising:
a cylinder with side walls 108 (see Figure 4) having a closed bottom and an opening 128 on top of said cylinder for holding said stretch film 902;
said handle is deformable (see Paragraph [0047], lines 1-7, states that the slot 308 can provide the brake portion 302 with enough flexibility so that it can be made to move and contact the rotating member 104 when it is desired to tense the film or other material 910 being unrolled by the film dispenser 100).
Walters teaches all the elements of the handle except for a closed bottom.
However, Bologna, Figures 1 and 2, teaches a closed bottom 40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Walters with a closed bottom, as taught by Bologna, for the purpose of minimizing the number of parts necessary for the manufacturing of the handle.
Walters, paragraph [0056], line 14, teaches that handle 102 may be made of composites but it is unclear whether it is a fiber-based composites.
However, Schneider, Abstract, line 1, and Figure 4, teaches a handle 48 consisting of fiber-based composites.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann with a fiber-based composite handle, as taught by Schneider, for the purpose of providing a lightweight, strong, and aesthetically appealing handle. See paragraph [0025].
With respect to Claim 61, Walters further teaches wherein said handle 102 having an insert 115 is used in place of a core of said stretch film dispenser and inserted through said stretch film dispenser 902.
Claims 54-56 and 68-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0264277), hereinafter “Dahlmann”, in view of Bologna (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0095123) and Schneider et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0154669), hereinafter “Schneider”.
With respect to Claim 54, Dahlmann, Figures 1-10, teaches a handle 102 used to dispense stretch film from a roll 106 comprising:
a cylinder with side walls 214 (see Figures 6-7) having a closed bottom 210 and an opening 700 on top of said cylinder for holding said stretch film 106;
said handle is deformable (see Paragraph [0022], line 6, states that handle 102 can be clenched. Paragraph [0056], lines 10-19, teaches that handle 102 can be made from various materials including resins. Each of these materials must be resilient enough to allow compression of the holding member – See Paragraph [0056], lines 15-18. Clenching or compression of the handle 102 would render the handle to be deformable).
Dahlmann teaches all the elements of the handle except for a closed bottom.
However, Bologna, Figures 1 and 2, teaches a closed bottom 40.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dahlmann with a closed bottom, as taught by Bologna, for the purpose of minimizing the number of parts necessary for the manufacturing of the handle.
Dahlmann, paragraph [0056], line 14, teaches that handle 102 may be made of composites but it is unclear whether it is a fiber-based composites.
However, Schneider, Abstract, line 1, and Figure 4, teaches a handle 48 consisting of fiber-based composites.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann with a fiber-based composite handle, as taught by Schneider, for the purpose of providing a lightweight, strong, and aesthetically appealing handle. See paragraph [0025].
With respect to Claim 55, Dahlmann further teaches said handle having a collar 608 extending from the top opening.
With respect to Claim 56, Dahlmann further teaches said opening slides over an extended core 104 of said stretch film dispenser 106; said handle and said extended core have different coefficients of friction. See paragraph [0056] which describes the extended core could be made of paperboard and the handle could be made of polyethylene foam.
With respect to Claim 68, Dahlmann further teaches wherein said handle 102 is made of single piece molded construction. See Figure 7.
With respect to Claim 69, Dahlmann further teaches wherein said handle 102 is comprised of multiple pieces 214,220. See Figure 8.
Claim 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider as applied to Claims 54-56 and 68-69, and further in view of Parry et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,203,517), hereinafter “Parry”.
With respect to Claim 59, Dahlmann is advanced above.
Dahlmann teaches all the elements of the handle except for ribs or other projections extending from inner surface of said handle.
However, Parry, Figures 1-5, teaches a handle comprises ribs 52 or other projections extending from inner surface of said handle 18.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann with ribs extending from inner surface of said handle, as taught by Parry, for the purpose of creating a frictional braking torque, i.e., tangential frictional force between the ribs and inner surface of the hand grip and the surface of the middle segment 32 resists rotation of the spindle 12. See Column 6, lines 43-48.
Claim 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider as applied to Claims 54-56 and 68-69, and further in view of Kohn et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0072538), hereinafter “Kohn”.
With respect to Claim 60, Dahlmann is advanced above.
Dahlmann teaches all the elements of the handle except for a plug or extension in said opening on top of said cylinder that is inserted into a core of said stretch film dispenser.
However, Kohn, Figure 1, teaches a handle consisting of a plug or extension 18 in said opening on top of said cylinder 60 that is configured to be inserted into a core of said stretch film dispenser 100.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann with an extension, as taught by Kohn, for the purpose of locking the film core in place once it has been inserted into the dispenser.
Claims 62-67 and 73-74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider as applied to Claims 54-56 and 68-69, and further in view of Singh et al (Non-Patent Literature titled “Wood fiber reinforced bacterial bioplastic composites: Fabrication and performance evaluation”), hereinafter “Singh”.
With respect to Claims 62-67, Dahlmann in view of Bologna, Schneider and Parry are advanced above.
Dahlmann in view of Bologna, Schneider and Parry teach all the elements of the handle except for the handle’s fiber based composites consisting of a blend of wood pulp and a binding agent; a blend of wood pulp and bioplastic; a blend of wood pulp and recycled resins; a blend of plant-based fibers and a binding agent; a blend of plant-based fibers and bioplastic; or a blend of plant-based fibers and recycled resins.
However, Singh, Abstract and Introduction, discusses how wood fiber reinforced plastics have gained a major share in the consumer market. On page 1754, 1st column, Singh discusses that natural fibers are the emerging reinforcing agent in the polymer matrix due to their abundant availability, low cost, low density, and compatibility with nature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann in view of Schneider with the fiber composites being a blend of wood pulp and a binding agent;
a blend of wood pulp and bioplastic; a blend of wood pulp and recycled resins; a blend of plant-based fibers and a binding agent; a blend of plant-based fibers and bioplastic; or a blend of plant-based fibers and recycled resins, as taught by Singh, because of the materials reduced cost, weight, superior properties over wood and plastic alone, recycling ability, adaptation to the existing plastic processing techniques and above all the motivation of industry to ahead for the eco-friendly products.
With respect to Claim 73, Singh further teaches the material being recyclable.
With respect to Claim 74, Singh further teaches the material being biodegradable.
Claim 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider as applied to Claims 54-56 and 68-69, and further in view of Kohn et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0072538), hereinafter “Kohn”.
With respect to Claim 70, Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider are advanced above.
Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider teach all the elements of the handle except for a single handle application for rolls of stretch film being from about 2” to 15” wide.
However, Kohn, Figure 4, and paragraph [0025], lines 1-2, teaches a film being up to five inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann in view of Schneider with a film being from about 2” to 15” wide, as taught by Kohn, because one of ordinary skill would have been expected to have routinely experimented to determine the optimum dimensions for a particular use.
Claim 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider as applied to Claims 54-56 and 68-69, and further in view of Hua et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0175460).
With respect to Claim 71, Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider are advanced above.
Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider teach all the elements of the handle except for wherein said handle is a pair of handles used in a multiple handle application for rolls of stretch film from about 8” to 30” wide.
However, Hua, Figure 5, teaches wherein said handle is a pair of handles used in a multiple handle application for rolls of stretch film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider with two handles, as taught by Hua, for the purpose of handling stretch film roll of larger length.
It is unclear as to what is the length of the stretch film of Hua.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann in view of Schneider with a film being from about 8” to 30” wide, as taught by Hua, because one of ordinary skill would have been expected to have routinely experimented to determine the optimum dimensions for a particular use.
Claim 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider as applied to Claims 54-56 and 68-69, and further in view of Giuggio (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0045910).
With respect to Claim 72, Dahlmann in view of Schneider are advanced above.
Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Schneider teach all the elements of the handle except for the handle being compostable.
However, Giuggio, Paragraph [0019], lines 14-19, teaches a handle made of compostable material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann in view of Schneider with a handle being compostable, as taught by Giuggio, because a compostable material can be placed into a composition of decaying biodegradable materials, and eventually turns into a nutrient-rich material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Page 9 regarding the Walters reference, it is the applicants position that Walters teaches handles on both sides of film, not a single handle. In the instant case, there are no limitations in the claim that would preclude a second handle from being present. The independent claim sets forth a handle and Walters teaches a handle.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Page 9 regarding the Schneider reference, it is the applicants position that Schneider teaches against a deformable handle. In the instant case, the examiner was only using the teachings of Schneider to show that handles are known to be made of fiber-based composites. One of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of determining the flexibility necessary for a particular use. Therefore it is obvious to combine the Dahlmann and Schneider references for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Pages 9-12 regarding the combination of Dahlmann in view of Bologna, it is applicants’ position that Dahlmann cannot use the bottom of Bologna. In the instant case, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Further, it is the examiner’s position that Dahlmann and Bologna do not teach away from each other. Both references teach stretch film dispensers and both teach handles. Dahlmann teaches an open bottom and Bologna teaches a closed bottom. A person of ordinary skill in the art is capable of determining the best configuration for a particular use. Therefore, it is unclear as to how the references teach away from each other. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references for the reasons set forth above.
On page 11, applicants further argue that the cap of Dahlmann must be rotatable with the rotating member relative to the holding member. In the instant case, the Dahlmann reference does not teach the cap rotating. One of ordinary skill in the art would not rotate the cap in order to dispense the film. Therefore, the cap would be in a fixed position while the rotating member dispenses film. Therefore, it would be obvious to make the bottom of Dahlmann to be a closed bottom, as taught by Bologna, for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Page 11 regarding the Schneider reference, it is the applicants’ position that Schneider teaches against the handle being deformable. In the instant case, the examiner did not use the Schneider reference to teach flexibility. The examiner only used Schneider to teach the use of fiber-based composites. The level of flexibility of the fiber composite can be tailored by adjusting the type of fibers, their orientation, and the properties of the polymer matrix used to bind them together, allowing for customized applications where both strength and flexibility are needed depending on the design; making them versatile materials. One of ordinary skill would be able to determine how flexible or how rigid the material should be and would be able to manufacture the element accordingly.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on page 12 and the Dahlmann reference, it is the applicant’s position that Dahlmann is not a single piece construction. It is the examiner’s position that Dahlmann Figures 6 and 7 does teach this. Furhter, Dahlman, Paragraph [0056], last three lines, and Bologna, Paragraph [0028], teaches the handle being molded.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Pages 12 regarding the Parry reference, it is the applicants’ position that the ribs are on the spindle. In the instant case, it is the examiner’s position that it is known to add ribs in order to enhance braking. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add ribs for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Page 12 regarding the Kohn reference, it is the applicants’ position that the examiner stated that the Kohn provide advantage, but does not state what advantage is or why Dahlmann would be motivated. In the instant case, the examiner clearly set forth an obviousness statement.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Page 13 regarding the Singh reference, it is the applicants’ position that Singh only used to teach material and not frictional forces to assist in braking with dispenser, and therefore, examiner does not state if it would teach providing a frictional force. In the instant case, Dahlmann and Bologna already teach the frictional surfaces. Singh teaches the advantages and benefits of wood fiber reinforced plastics. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combines these references for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Page 14 regarding the Hua reference, it is applicants’ position that hubs of Hua are not deformable and that Hua teaches hubs placed within a material and not a stretch wrap dispenser that is placed within a handle. In the instant case, the examiner only used Hua to teach that it is known to use two handles. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide two handles to Dahlmann for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Page 14 regarding the Giuggio reference, it is the applicants’ position that Giuggio teaches a cosmetic brush system and a small compostable brush has nothing to do with a stretch dispensing handle. In the instant case, Giuggio was only used to teach that it is known to manufacture handles with compostable materials. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the handle of Dahlmann and Bologna of a compostable material for the reasons set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ARAUZ RIVERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6953. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM MDT.
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, Victoria P. Augustine can be reached on 313-446-4858. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM A. RIVERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights