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 § 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 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohn et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0072538), hereinafter “Kohn”, in view of Blok (U.S. Patent No. 8,616,490), and Giblin (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0141182) and Bologna (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0095123).
With respect to Claim 1, Kohn, Figures 1-5, teaches a handle 12 used with a stretch film dispenser to dispense stretch film from a roll comprising:
a cylinder 60 with side walls having an opening (space between elements 50 and 52) on top of said cylinder 60 within said side walls, for holding said stretch film 100;
said handle 12 being deformable.
It is unclear whether the bottom of Kohn is closed.
However, Blok, Figures 1-3, teaches a closed bottom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kohn with a closed bottom, as taught by Blok, for the purpose of securing the film dispensing core within the handle.
Kohn teaches the handle being made of foam but is silent on whether other materials such as recycled resin could be used.
However, Giblin, Paragraph [0034], lines 4-5, and Figure 4, teaches that it is known for a handle to consist of recycled resins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann with a handle consisting of recycled resin, as taught by Giblin, for the purpose of providing a lightweight and strong handle made of recycled materials rather than new and raw materials. Further, the use of recycled materials would save in manufacturing costs.
Kohn in view of Giblin teaches all the elements of the handle except for the handle being recyclable.
However, Bologna, Paragraph [0007], lines 1-3, teaches the handle being recyclable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kohn in view of Giblin with a recyclable handle, as taught by Bologna, for the purpose of conserving natural resources by reducing the need to mine, harvest, and extract virgin materials, reducing pollution by eliminating the extraction and processing of raw materials, and decreasing landfill waste.
With respect to Claim 8, Kohn further teaches wherein said handle 102 having an insert 50,52 is used in place of a core of said stretch film dispenser and inserted through said stretch film dispenser.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, and 15-16 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 Giblin (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0141182).
With respect to Claim 1, 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 bottom 210 and an opening 700 on top of said cylinder for holding said stretch film 106;
said handle 102 being deformable.
Dalhmann teaches all the elements of the handle except for a closed bottom.
However, Bologna, Figures 1 and 2, teaches a cylinder having a closed bottom 40 and an opening on top of said cylinder within said side walls.
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.
Dalhmann in view of Bologna teaches all the elements of the handle except for the handle being recyclable.
However, Bologna, Paragraph [0007], lines 1-3, teaches the handle being recyclable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kohn in view of Giblin with a recyclable handle, as taught by Bologna, for the purpose of conserving natural resources by reducing the need to mine, harvest, and extract virgin materials, reducing pollution by eliminating the extraction and processing of raw materials, and decreasing landfill waste.
Dahlmann, paragraph [0056], line 14, further teaches that handle 102 may be made of composites but it is unclear whether it is a recycled resin.
However, Giblin, Paragraph [0034], lines 4-5, and Figure 4, teaches a handle consisting of recycled resins.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann with a handle consisting of recycled resin, as taught by Giblin, for the purpose of providing a lightweight and strong handle made of recycled materials rather than new and raw materials. Further, the use of recycled materials would save in manufacturing costs.
With respect to Claim 2, Dahlmann further teaches the handle having a collar 110 extending from the top opening.
Giblin further teaches that it is known for handles to be made of materials consisting of recycled resins. See Paragraph [0034], lines 1-5.
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 to be made of materials consisting of recycled resins, as taught by Giblin, because such would allow to reduce the need to harvest new materials.
With respect to Claim 3, Dahlmann further teaches said opening slides over an extended core 104 of said stretch film dispenser 106.
With respect to Claim 4, Bologna, Figure 1, teaches a groove 30 extending around said core to removably attach to a handle 16.
With respect to Claim 5, Dahlmann further teaches wherein 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 7, Dahlmann further teaches wherein said handle 102 consists of an insert or extension (upper part of element 104) located at said top of said handle that is configured to be inserted into a core of said stretch film dispenser, and an outer surface configured to be grasped by a user.
With respect to Claim 9, Giblin further teaches wherein the recycled resins are 100% post-consumer recycled content. See Paragraph [0034], lines 4-5.
With respect to Claim 15, Bologna further teaches wherein said handle 102 is a single piece, integral, seamless construction. See Figures 1 and 2.
With respect to Claim 16, Dahlmann further teaches wherein said handle 102 is comprised of multiple pieces 214,220. See Figure 8.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Giblin as applied to Claims 1-5, 9, and 15-16, and further in view of Parry et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,203,517), hereinafter “Parry”.
With respect to Claim 6, 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.
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Giblin as applied to Claims 1-5, 9, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Hu et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0258266), hereinafter “Hu”.
With respect to Claim 10, Dahlmann in view of Giblin are advanced above.
Dahlman in view of Giblin teaches all the elements of the handle except for wherein said recycled resins are a blend of post-consumer recycled content with virgin resin.
However, Hu, Paragraph [0064], lines 1-8, teaches that recycled resins can be a blend of post-consumer recycled content with virgin resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann in view of Giblin with the ability to combine post-consumer recycled content with virgin resin, as taught by Hu, for the purpose of an effort to improving the properties of a resultant article (e.g., compression molding article and/or injection molding article) formed using the composition. See Paragraph [0006], lines 12-15.
Claims 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Giblin as applied to Claims 1-5, 9, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Kulshrestha et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0116628), hereinafter “Kulshrestha”.
With respect to Claim 11, Dahlmann in view of Giblin are advanced above.
Dahlmann in view of Giblin teach all the elements of the handle except for wherein said recycled resins are 100% post-industrial recycled content.
However, Kulshrestha, Paragraph [0012], lines 7-11, teaches using recycled resins being 100% post-industrial recycled content.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann in view of Giblin with recycled resins being 100% post-industrial recycled content, as taught by Kulshrestha, because of The increased interest in utilizing recycled thermoplastic polymeric materials is driven by a number of factors, including increased customer awareness and concern for protection of the environment, environmentally preferred purchasing policies developed by customers, recognition of benefits of environmental stewardship in marketing by brand owners and by institutional customers who can market product themselves, development of new regulations and environmental policies intended to reduce the carbon footprint, and a desire to reduce the increasing costs of storage and/or landfill space coupled with more stringent regulations for disposal and incineration. See Paragraph [0003].
With respect to Claim 13, Kulshrestha further teaches wherein said recycled resins contain 100% recycled content as a blend of post-consumer and post-industrial recycled content. See Paragraph [0012], lines 7-11.
Claims 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Giblin as applied to Claims 1-5, 9, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Rohatgi et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0021915), hereinafter “Rohatgi”.
With respect to Claim 12, Dahlmann in view of Giblin are advanced above.
Dahlmann in view of Giblin teach all the elements of the handle except for wherein said recycled resins are a blend of post-industrial recycled content with virgin resin. However, Rohatgi, Paragraph [0072], lines 6-13, teaches wherein said recycled resins are a blend of post-industrial recycled content with virgin resin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Dahlmann in view of Giblin with a blend of post-industrial recycled content with virgin resin, as taught by Rohatgi, for the purpose of providing an element having high strength, low density, and other characteristics. See Paragraph [0031].
With respect to Claim 14, Rohatgi further teaches wherein said recycled resins contain a blend of post-consumer and post-industrial recycled content with virgin resin. See Paragraph [0072], lines 6-13.
Claim 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Giblin as applied to Claims 1-5, 9, and 15-16, and further in view of Kohn et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0072538), hereinafter “Kohn”.
With respect to Claim 17, Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Giblin are advanced above.
Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Giblin 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 Bologna and Giblin 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 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Giblin as applied to Claims 1-5, 9, and 15-16, and further in view of Hua et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0175460), hereinafter “Hua”.
With respect to Claim 18, Dahlmann in view of Bologna and Giblin are advanced above.
Dahlmann in view of Giblin 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 Giblin 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 Bologna and Giblin 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1 and 8 and the Kohn and Giblin references on Page 4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to applicant’s remarks regarding the combination of Dahlmann and Bologna and Giblin on Pages 5-6, it is the applicant’s position that the prior art must be considered in its entirety, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. In the instant case, the examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would have been motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated in the primary reference. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom and skill, rather than the converse, is presumed on the part of those of ordinary sill 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.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on Page 5, last two paragraphs, regarding the Giblin reference, it is applicant’s position that it is not obvious to provide the device of Dahlmann with an added handle of recycled resin of Giblin and states that they are not attacking the references individually.
In the instant case, it is the examiner’s position that a handle can be made of any material. Dahlmann teaches that a handle that can be made of various materials. Giblin does teach a handle being made of recycled resins. It is of little or no consequence whether Giblin relates to a shrink label container. The examiner is only using Giblin to teach that it is known to make handles from recycled resins. Therefore, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the handle of Dahlmann from recycled resins.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on Page 6 regarding Claim 2, it is applicant’s position that Dahlmann does not teach recycled resins and as above no reason to combine with the handle of Giblin being shrink label container with applied handle for stretch wrap film of Dahlmann.
In the instant case, Claim 2 refers to the collar and not any material. Either way, applicants cannot attack the references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of reference. Dahlmann teaches a handle can be made of various materials. Giblin teaches that it is known to make handles from recycled resins. Therefore, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the handle of Dahlmann from recycled resins.
With respect to applicant’s remarks regarding Claim 3, Dahlmann does teach the structure set forth in Claim 3.
With respect to applicant’s remarks regarding Claim 4, it is applicant’s position that the rotating member is attached to the cap and therefore there is no reason to add the groove. In the instant case, the examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would have been motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated in the primary reference. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom and skill, rather than the converse, is presumed on the part of those of ordinary sill in the art. Both the Dahlmann and Bologna references teach fairly similar structure for the film handle and therefore 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.
With respect to applicants’ remarks regarding Claim 5, it is the applicants’ position that if the handle were made of recycled resins, which it does not teach, would it have a different coefficient of friction from the extended core, and this is not taught in Dahlmann. In the instant case, the examiner pointed to paragraph [0056] teaching that the extended core could be made of paperboard and the handle could be made of polyethylene foam. If the extended core is made of paperboard and the handle is made of recycled resins, as taught by Giblin, it is the examiner’s position that both these elements would have different coefficients of friction.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on Page 7 regarding Dahlmann and Claim 9, it is the applicants’ position that Dahlmann teaches many types of materials the handle can be made of, however, none of the materials related to recycled resin or 100% post-consumer recycled resin. And, that Giblin relates to a shrink label container and not a wrap dispenser. In the instant case, applicants cannot attack the references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of reference. Dahlmann teaches a handle can be made of various materials. Giblin teaches that it is known to make handles from 100% post-consumer recycled resins. See Paragraph [0034], lines 4-5. Therefore, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the handle of Dahlmann from 100% post-consumer recycled resins. It should be noted that the examiner did not use the Giblin reference to teach a shrink label container.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on page 7 regarding Dahlmann and Claim 15, it is the applicant’s position that Dahlmann does not teach a handle made of a single piece construction. It is the examiner’s position that element 102 is of a single piece construction.
Regarding applicants’ remarks on pages 7-8 regarding Claim 16, it is the applicants’ remarks that Claim 16 is not obvious over the prior art. See examiner’s remarks above regarding Claim 1.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on Page 9 regarding the Parry reference, it is the applicant’s position that the examiner admits ribs are not on handle as claimed, but on spindle which rubs against handle. In the instant case, the examiner never stated that the “ribs are on spindle which rubs against handle”. The examiner clearly stated
“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.”
Parry clearly teaches that ribs 52 are on the inner surface of the handle.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Page 9 regarding the Dahlmann, Bologna, Giblin, and Hu, references, it is the applicants’ position that Hu teaches polyolefin blends including polyctene with compatibilizer. In the instant case, these remarks are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Hu, Paragraph [0064], line 4 clearly teaches the use of virgin resins. Applicants further state that Hu does not teach products for and specifically does not teach stretch wrap handles. It should be noted that applicants cannot attack the references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of reference. Dahlmann teaches a handle can be made of various materials. Giblin teaches that it is known to make handles from recycled resins. Hu teaches that other materials can be used. As such, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Pages 8-9 regarding the Kulshrestha reference, it is the applicant’s position that Kulshrestha does not teach using recycled resin for stretch wrap handles. In the instant case, it should be noted that applicants cannot attack the references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of reference. Dahlmann teaches a handle can be made of various materials. Giblin teaches that it is known to make handles from recycled resins. Kulshrestha teaches that other materials can be used. As such, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to applicants’ remarks on Page 9 regarding the Rohatgi reference, it is the applicant’s position that there is no relation between wood-like decking material and stretch wrap handle. In the instant case, it should be noted that applicants cannot attack the references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of reference. Dahlmann teaches a handle can be made of various materials. Giblin teaches that it is known to make handles from recycled resins. Rohatgi teaches that other materials can be used. As such, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to applicant’s remarks regarding on Page 9 regarding Claim 17, it is applicants’ position that claim 17 is not obvious over the prior art. In the instant case, it is the examiner’s position that Claim 17 is obvious for the reasons set forth above.
With respect to applicant’s remarks on page 9 regarding Claim 18 and the Hua reference, it is the applicant’s position that Dahlmann does not teach handle for larger rolls. In the instant case, it is the examiner’s position that the handle can be modified to accommodate rolls depending on the size and the application. Therefore, Dahlmann could not handle a large film roll having a large length. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second handle to accommodate larger rolls.
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