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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that It is observed that Morand is entirely silent regarding any loosened/taut portions along the bag roll when stored in the receptacle; nothing in Morand identifies, discusses, or even recognizes that a defined portion of the bags starting from the free end - enclosed in the receptacle - should be maintained in a loosened condition while the remainder is in a taut condition. The Office's statement that "bags will be in a taut condition inside the casing compared to the first few sheets near the free end' (page 3, OA) is unsupported speculation not attributable to any disclosure in Morand. It is the Examiner's personal supposition about how a roll of bags would behave inside a container, advanced without a single item of supporting evidence. In addition, the Office relies on the free end of the bag shown in Fig. 3 of Morand in the rejection, where such free end has already been pulled outside the receptacle in the state shown, and as such Fig. 3 provides no information on the condition of that free end before its dispensing.
The Office bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case, and that burden must be discharged with articulated reasoning grounded in factual findings supported by the record. An
examiner may not resort to speculation, unfounded assumption, or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis of a rejection. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (the tribunal "must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings"); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (rejection cannot rest on mere conclusory statements). Here, the record contains no evidence at all, no reference passage, no textbook, no technical publication, no declaration, establishing that the bags of Morand's roll exist in the claimed loosened-then-taut arrangement inside the casing. Because the sole support is the Examiner's personal interpretation, the prima facie case has not been made out.
To the extent the Office's statement is intended as an assertion of well-known behavior or official notice, that reliance is impermissible. The Federal Circuit has squarely held that an examiner may not invoke "common knowledge" or "common sense" to fill in a missing structural claim limitation absent evidentiary support. K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Techs., LLC, 751 F.3d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Official notice is limited to facts that are "capable of such instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute," and therefore cannot substitute for evidentiary support of a disputed claim limitation central to the rejection. MPEP § 2144.03(A); In re Ahlert, 424 F.2d 1088, 1091 (CCPA 1970). The loosened/taut arrangement is not such a fact - it is the very feature that distinguishes claim 29 from Morand.
If the rejection is to be maintained on this basis, the Examiner is respectfully required to support the assertion with documentary evidence or, in the alternative, an affidavit or declaration setting forth the specific factual findings and their basis. An assertion repeated without evidence in a subsequent action cannot cure the defect, and Applicant respectfully submits that any newly supplied evidence would constitute a new ground of rejection to which Applicant is entitled to respond.
The Office's reliance on In re Aller in the current rejection was also misplaced, but also would still be improper, since no specific proportion of bags in a loosened condition and a taut condition is recited in claim 29 as presented. There can be no optimization of a parameter that the prior art neither discloses nor recognizes as a variable. Because Morand nowhere discloses maintaining a defined portion of the roll loose and the remainder taut, there is no "general condition" in Morand to be optimized, and no basis on which a person of ordinary skill would have been prompted to select a proportion of a quantity the reference never contemplates. Cf. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977) (optimization rationale inapplicable where the parameter optimized was not recognized in the art as result-effective).
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the applicant regarding the rejection of independent claim 29 for the following reasons:
The outer layers of a plastic bag roll are loose because of the winding physics during manufacturing, where tension relaxes as the outer layers expand outward.
The outer bags are loose for the following reasons:
Winding Tension: Machines wind plastic film tightly around a central core.
Elastic Recovery: Plastic stretches slightly under tension. As layers build up on the outside, the inner layers compress, and the outer layers relax and loosen.
The inner bags are taut for the following reasons:
Core Pressure: The layers closest to the center are pressed tightly against the hard core.
Accumulated Weight: The weight and pressure of all the outer layers squeeze the inner layers down.
Less Room to Expand: The inner core restricts movement, keeping the plastic flat, tight, and close together.
Therefore, even though Morand is silent regarding the limitation “a length of the roll of bag in the casing starting from the free end, includes one or more outer passes of film in a loosened condition and a remainder of the roll of bag in the casing forms an interior portion of a spiral of film in a taut condition”, they are inherent features of the plastic roll of film illustrated in the figures 1-2 of Morand for reasons given above. Thus, the Applicant’s argument has been considered; however, the Examiner is not persuaded by said arguments.
Applicant argues that claims 31-35 are allowable due to their dependency on claim 29.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant given the rejection of claim 29 is upheld in the office action.
Applicant argues that claims 41,44 are allowable due to their dependency on claim 29. Moreover, the Office's stated motivation to combine Morand with Chen is limited to the assertion that "the use of such opening in the dispensing of plastic bags is very well-known in the art that merely provides another dispensing opening configuration and does not impart any novelty whatsoever on the claim limitation." (page 7, OA)
This statement is incorrect. Applicant observes that the Office concedes that Morand does not disclose each element of the rejected claims and, therefore, the claims are novel over the cited art.
Moreover, this is a conclusory statement without "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness" (KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). A bald assertion that a feature is "well-known" - without identifying any teaching, suggestion, benefit, or problem that would have prompted the artisan to modify Morand's slit opening 41 to include Chen's flared larger portion - does not satisfy the Office's burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Morand's slit is already functional to dispense the free end of the bag roll, and the Office Action articulates no more than a mere conclusory statement.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant given the rejection of claim 29 is upheld in the office action. Regarding the use of Chen to teach the following:
Claim 41, Morand does not disclose wherein the opening defines a larger portion, the slit flaring into the larger portion.
Chen discloses wherein the opening (10,11,12) defines a larger portion (12), the slit (11) flaring into the larger portion (12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the opening defines a larger portion, the slit flaring into the larger portion because the use of such opening in the dispensing of plastic bags is very well-known in the art that merely provides another dispensing opening configuration and does not impart any novelty whatsoever on the claim limitation.
Claim 44, Morand does not disclose wherein the larger portion is located away from a center of the casing, at one end of the slit.
Chen discloses wherein the larger portion (12) is located away from a center of the casing (1), at one end of the slit (11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the larger portion is located away from a center of the casing, at one end of the slit because the use of such opening in the dispensing of plastic bags is very well-known in the art that merely provides another dispensing opening configuration and does not impart any novelty whatsoever on the claim limitation.
The obviousness rationale is not a mere conclusory statement. The Chen prior art provided the evidence to illustrate that such dispensing opening for plastic bags is very well known in the art and it isn’t a novel feature as alleged by the Applicant. The Applicant’s entire argument pertains to the use of a very rudimentary dispensing opening feature that is well known in the art and does not have any novelty feature whatsoever as clearly disclosed by the Chen reference.
Applicant argues that claims 41-42 are allowable. Applicant respectfully traverses. As with the parallel rejection based on Chen, the sole articulated rationale for combining Barella with Morand is that Barella's opening "is very well-known in the art" and "merely provides another dispensing opening configuration" (page 8, OA). The Office identifies no problem in Morand that would have prompted the artisan to redesign the slit opening 41, and no benefit taught by Barella that would have suggested its adoption in Morand's cassette. Absent any teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the references themselves, the proposed combination reflects an impermissible use of the present application's disclosure as a template.
In addition, with respect to claim 42, the Office refers to the interference tab 9 of Barella as being a "tear-off tab", which is not. The interference tab (9) of Barella is consistently described as a permanent structural element that remains attached to the containment surface/enclosure. None of the cited art in the present rejection therefore discloses a tear-off tab.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The rejections of claims 41-42 are herein restated:
Claim 41, Morand does not disclose wherein the opening defines a larger portion, the slit flaring into the larger portion.
Barella discloses wherein the opening (fig.1) defines a larger portion (2,11), the slit (5,12) flaring into the larger portion (2,11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the opening defines a larger portion, the slit flaring into the larger portion because the use of such opening in the dispensing of plastic bags is very well-known in the art that merely provides another dispensing opening configuration and does not impart any novelty whatsoever on the claim limitation.
Claim 42, Morand does not disclose wherein a tear-off tab is provided and extends only in the larger portion without extending in the slit.
Barella discloses wherein a tear-off tab (9) is provided and extends only in the larger portion (2,11) without extending in the slit (5,12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein a tear-off tab is provided and extends only in the larger portion without extending in the slit to further enhance the dispensing of flexible sheets by allowing for the sheets to be torn off faster and dispensed, thereby providing the user with a quicker and efficient dispensing experience without ripping the material incorrectly.
Applicant’s entire argument pertains to the use of a very rudimentary dispensing opening with a flaring slit and a tear-off feature that is well known in the art and does not have any novelty feature whatsoever as clearly illustrated by the Barella reference. Changing and/or modifying a dispensing opening of a container with very well-known features does not impart any novelty in the claim limitation since it is well within the scope for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claim 43 is improper. the Examiner's motivation - that adding Thoren's second tear-off tab would "further enhance the dispensing of flexible sheets by allowing for the sheets to be torn off. faster and dispensed, thereby providing the user with a quicker and efficient dispensing experience" - relies on the alleged "tear-off tab of Barella, which is an interference tab that is a permanent structural element that remains attached to the containment surface/enclosure. Such motivation is not related to having a tear-off tab as recited in the claims, and not disclosed or suggested by either one of the two other references. Moreover, Thoren, which is directed to a dispenser having tearing teeth 17 arranged to sever sheets from a web, addresses a problem that does not arise in Morand's bag-roll cassette, in which bags are already interconnected by tear-off perforation lines 26. There is therefore no reason to seek teachings in Thoren in the first place.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant. The rejection of claim 43 is restated herein:
Claim 43, Morand in view of Barella discloses wherein the tear-off tab is a first tear-off tab (Barella, 9, see the rejection of claims 41-42), the first tear-off tab partially obstructing the larger portion (2,11, Barella) without obstructing the slit (5,12, Barella).
Morand in view of Barella do not disclose wherein the casing including a second tear-off tab, the first tear-off tab and the second tear-off tab each partially obstructing the larger portion without obstructing the slit.
Thoren discloses wherein the casing (10) including a second tear-off tab (fig.3; plurality of tearing tabs/teeth 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand in view of Barella with wherein the casing including a second tear-off tab, the first tear-off tab and the second tear-off tab each partially obstructing the larger portion without obstructing the slit in order to further enhance the dispensing of flexible sheets by allowing for the sheets to be torn off faster and dispensed, thereby providing the user with a quicker and efficient dispensing experience without ripping the material incorrectly. Furthermore, the use of multiple tearing tabs/teeth is apparently well-known in the flexible sheet dispensing art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would implement the combination of Morand, Barella, and Thoren to arrive at the limitations of claim 43. The use of a plurality of tear-off tabs for separating perforated sheets is greatly beneficial because it makes it much faster and easier to start pulling a plastic sheet from a perforated roll without ripping the material incorrectly.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claims 45-49 are improper due to their dependence on claim 29.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant given the rejection of claim 29 is upheld in the office action.
Applicant argues that the rejection of claims 45-46,50 are improper. Applicant respectfully traverses. Kastanek is directed to a paperboard carton for dispensing articles through a die-cut opening in a paperboard cover; it is not a bag-dispensing cassette and is structurally and functionally remote from Morand. The Examiner's rationale that Kastanek's cover, panel, and removable strip arrangements are "notoriously well-known in the dispensing of articles art for enabling the dispensing of articles from a container" (page 11, OA) is generic and does not identify any teaching, suggestion, or problem in Morand that would have prompted the artisan to import Kastanek's paperboard-carton features into Morand's bag dispensing cassette 40. Such conclusory reasoning is insufficient to sustain an obviousness rejection, which must be supported by "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning" (KSR Int'l Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
In response, the Applicant is herein referred to the new rejection using the Vovan et al. prior art as a secondary reference:
Claim 50, Morand in view of Damaghi do not disclose wherein a removable strip at least partially obstructs the opening.
Vovan discloses wherein a removable strip (30) at least partially obstructs the opening (removable strip 30 partially covers the opening of the plastic container). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand in view of Damaghi with wherein a removable strip at least partially obstructs the opening because such dispensing configuration primarily provide tamper evidence ensuring the package has not been opened prior to purchase and/or use by a consumer or contaminated.
The Kastanek prior art was not used to teach the limitation of dependent claim 50.
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 29-52 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 29 recites “a roll of bags connected end to end, the roll of bags wherein the bags spiral from a free end to a center of the roll”. The underlined limitations are not understood by the Examiner. Clarification of the claim is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 29-30,35,38-40,51-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand et al. (WO 2019/092539).
Claim 29, Morand discloses a bag-dispensing cassette (10) comprising: a roll of bags (20) connected end to end (para.0023), the roll of bags (20) wherein the bags spiral from a free end to a center of the roll (from fig.2, the roll of bags spiral from the free rend to the center of the roll of bags); and a casing (40) enclosing the roll, the casing having an elongated shape (see fig.3), an opening (41) defining a slit for passing an end of the roll to exit the casing (this is very apparent from fig.3); wherein a length of the roll of bag in the casing starting from the free end, includes one or more outer passes of film in a loosened condition (outer layers of a plastic bag roll are loose because of the winding physics during manufacturing, where tension relaxes as the outer layers expand outward; layers closest to the center are pressed tightly against the hard core; the weight and pressure of all the outer layers squeeze the inner layers down with less room to expand; the inner core restricts movement, keeping the plastic flat, tight, and close together) and a remainder of the roll of bag in the casing (40) forms an interior portion of a spiral of film in a taut condition (bags will be in a taut condition inside the casing compared to the first few sheets near the free end; furthermore, fig.2 clearly illustrate the interior portion of the roll of bag in a spiral form in a taut condition).
Claim 30, Morand discloses wherein the bags in the roll are defined by a tubular body with a top open end and a bottom closed end (fig. 2), the tubular body having a larger open diameter (fig.2) at the top open end, the tubular body narrowing into a narrower open diameter (fig.2; WA is larger than WC; WC is adjacent to a bottom closed end) adjacent to a bottom closed end (fig.2), and the tubular body in a flattened two-fold condition having a pair of side edges extending from a top edge to a bottom edge (fig.2), the top edge delimiting the top open end (fig.2), the bottom edge delimiting the bottom closed end (fig.2), wherein the top edge and the bottom edge are straight and parallel to one another (see fig.2), wherein at least one weld seam (25) causes the narrowing and extending to the bottom closed end so as to define a taper of the open diameter extending to the bottom closed end (see fig.2; weld seam 25 causes taper from around 20B down to 20C).
Claim 35, Morand discloses wherein the bag has a total length L, the taper has a length LD (fig.2).
Although Morand does not explicitly disclose wherein 0.30L>LD>0.15L, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the 0.30L>LD>0.15L limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 38, Morand discloses wherein the at least one weld seam (25) includes a pair of segments (fig.2; left & right weld seams that mirror each other) defining the taper and being mirror images of one another.
Claim 39, Morand discloses wherein the segments (fig. 2; left & right weld seams that mirror each other) are arcuate (see fig.2).
Claim 40, Morand discloses wherein flaps (para.0080; flaps are formed to the exterior of weld seams 25) are adjacent to the segments (25), the flaps excluded from the open diameter (para.0080).
Claim 51, although Morand does not disclose wherein between 2% and 15% of the roll of bags in the casing in a loosened condition while the remainder of the roll of bags in the casing is in the taut condition (refer to the rejection of claim 29 regarding the loosened and taut condition), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the between 2% and 15% of the bags in the roll in the casing limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 52, Morand discloses wherein the length of the roll of bag in the loosened condition is taut at a tension less than that in the remainder of the roll of bags in the taut condition (see rejection of claim 29 regarding the loosened and taut condition; furthermore, from fig.1, it is very apparent that the length of the roll of bag in the loosened condition is taut at a tension less than that in the remainder of the roll of bags; this is an inherent feature due to the basics of winding physics of plastic roll of film around a central core/tube as shown in Morand fig.1 element 30).
Claims 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand et al. (WO
2019/092539) in view of Daniels (US 2005/0269349).
Claim 31, Morand discloses wherein the bag includes a curved segment at the top open end having a width WA in the flattened two-fold condition, another straight segment having a width WC (fig.2) in the flattened two-fold condition, WA>WC, a tapering segment between the segments, wherein the taper is between WC and the bottom closed end (fig.2).
Morand does not disclose wherein the bag includes a straight segment at the top open end having a width WA in the flattened two-fold condition, a tapering segment between the straight segments.
Daniels discloses wherein the bag (105) includes a straight segment (above 265, where 240 points) at the top open end having a width WA in the flattened two-fold condition (fig.2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the bag includes a straight segment at the top open end having a width WA in the flattened two-fold condition, a tapering segment between the straight segments simply because it's a matter of design choice to have a different shaped top segment since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 32, although Morand does not explicitly disclose wherein the taper (para. 0005-0012) has a minimum width WD in the flattened two-fold condition, 0.50 WC < WD < 0.98WC, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the taper's minimum width limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 33, although Morand does not explicitly disclose wherein 0.65 WA < WC <0.85WA, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the taper's minimum width limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 34, Morand discloses the other straight segment having the width WC has a length LC, the tapering segment has a length LB, and the taper has a length LD (fig. 2).
Morand does not disclose wherein the straight segment having the width WA has a length LA, wherein LC>2(LA+LB).
Daniels discloses wherein the straight segment having the width WA has a length LA (above 265, where 240 points). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the straight segment having the width WA has a length LA, wherein LC>2(LA+LB) simply because it's a matter of design choice to have a different shaped top segment since a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim 35, Morand discloses wherein the bag has a total length L, the taper has a length LD (fig.2).
Although Morand does not explicitly disclose wherein 0.30L>LD>0.15L, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the 0.30L>LD>0.15L limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 41,44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand et al. (WO
2019/092539) in view of Chen (US 2003/0136793).
Claim 41, Morand does not disclose wherein the opening defines a larger portion, the slit flaring into the larger portion.
Chen discloses wherein the opening (10,11,12) defines a larger portion (12), the slit (11) flaring into the larger portion (12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the opening defines a larger portion, the slit flaring into the larger portion because the use of such opening in the dispensing of plastic bags is very well-known in the art that merely provides another dispensing opening configuration and does not impart any novelty whatsoever on the claim limitation.
Claim 44, Morand does not disclose wherein the larger portion is located away from a center of the casing, at one end of the slit.
Chen discloses wherein the larger portion (12) is located away from a center of the casing (1), at one end of the slit (11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the larger portion is located away from a center of the casing, at one end of the slit because the use of such opening in the dispensing of plastic bags is very well-known in the art that merely provides another dispensing opening configuration and does not impart any novelty whatsoever on the claim limitation.
Claims 41-42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand et al. (WO 2019/092539) in view of Barella (US 2007/0194036).
Claim 41, Morand does not disclose wherein the opening defines a larger portion, the slit flaring into the larger portion.
Barella discloses wherein the opening (fig.1) defines a larger portion (2,11), the slit (5,12) flaring into the larger portion (2,11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the opening defines a larger portion, the slit flaring into the larger portion because the use of such opening in the dispensing of plastic bags is very well-known in the art that merely provides another dispensing opening configuration and does not impart any novelty whatsoever on the claim limitation.
Claim 42, Morand does not disclose wherein a tear-off tab is provided and extends only in the larger portion without extending in the slit.
Barella discloses wherein a tear-off tab (9) is provided and extends only in the larger portion (2,11) without extending in the slit (5,12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein a tear-off tab is provided and extends only in the larger portion without extending in the slit to further enhance the dispensing of flexible sheets by allowing for the sheets to be torn off faster and dispensed, thereby providing the user with a quicker and efficient dispensing experience without ripping the material incorrectly.
Claim 43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand et al. (WO 2019/092539) in view of Barella (US 2007/0194036) in view of Thoren et al. (US 8,511,511).
Claim 43, Morand in view of Barella discloses wherein the tear-off tab is a first tear-off tab (Barella, 9, see the rejection of claims 41-42), the first tear-off tab partially obstructing the larger portion (2,11, Barella) without obstructing the slit (5,12, Barella).
Morand in view of Barella do not disclose wherein the casing including a second tear-off tab, the first tear-off tab and the second tear-off tab each partially obstructing the larger portion without obstructing the slit.
Thoren discloses wherein the casing (10) including a second tear-off tab (fig.3; plurality of tearing tabs/teeth 17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand in view of Barella with wherein the casing including a second tear-off tab, the first tear-off tab and the second tear-off tab each partially
obstructing the larger portion without obstructing the slit to further enhance the dispensing of flexible sheets by allowing for the sheets to be torn off faster and dispensed, thereby providing the user with a quicker and efficient dispensing experience without ripping the material incorrectly. Furthermore, the use of multiple tearing tabs/teeth is apparently well-known in the flexible sheet dispensing art and does not impart any novelty on the claim limitation.
Claims 45-48 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand et al. (WO 2019/092539) in view of Damaghi et al. (US 8,245,865).
Claim 45, Morand does not disclose wherein the casing has a cover and a receptacle, the opening being in the cover.
Damaghi discloses wherein the casing has a cover (22,30) and a receptacle (12,16), the opening (opening formed by panels 22,30) being in the cover (22,30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the casing has a cover and a receptacle, the opening being in the cover because such dispensing configuration are widely known in the dispensing of articles art for enabling the dispensing of flexible sheets of which plastic bags are from a container.
Claim 46, Morand does not disclose wherein the cover has a pair of panels, the opening being between the panels.
Damaghi discloses wherein the cover (22,30) has a pair of panels (22,30), the opening (opening formed by panels 22,30) being between the panels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the cover has a pair of panels, the opening being between the panels because such dispensing configuration are widely known in the dispensing of articles art for enabling the dispensing of flexible sheets of which plastic bags are from a container.
Claim 47, Morand does not disclose wherein a rim is defined at the periphery of the bag- dispensing cassette.
Damaghi discloses wherein a rim (figs.1-3; the outer edge/border of 12 & 16) is defined at the periphery of the flexible sheet dispensing cassette (figs.1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein a rim is defined at the periphery of the bag-dispensing cassette because such dispensing configuration are widely known in the dispensing of articles art for enabling the dispensing of flexible sheets of which plastic bags are from a container.
Claim 48, Morand does not disclose wherein one or both panels of the pair of panels define an inward abutment formation.
Damaghi discloses wherein one or both panels (22,30) of the pair of panels define an inward abutment formation (22,24; fig.3; inward abutment as 22 extends from 24 which is inward into the container). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein one or both panels of the pair of panels define an inward abutment formation because such dispensing configuration are widely known in the dispensing of articles art for enabling the dispensing of flexible sheets of which plastic bags are from a container.
Claim 49 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand et al. (WO 2019/092539) in view of Damaghi et al. (US 8,245,865) in view of Baer (US 2011/0011876).
Claim 49, Morand does not disclose wherein the pair of panels are molded with the receptacle, living hinges are formed at a junction between the pair of panels and the receptacle.
Damaghi discloses wherein the pair of panels (22,30) are molded (22,30 are molded to 16) with the receptacle (12,16), a living hinge (C4:L5-45; panel 30 has a living hinge) is formed at a junction between the panel (30) and the receptacle (12,16). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the pair of panels are molded with the receptacle, a living hinge is formed at a junction between the panel and the receptacle because the use of living hinge/s are widely known in flexible sheet dispensers since they are durable, cost-effective, and provide one-piece construction for frequent, repeated opening and closing without breaking.
Baer discloses wherein the pair of panels (33,37) are molded with the receptacle (4), living hinges (fig.5; living hinges at 72,99) are formed at a junction (see fig.5) between the pair of panels (33,37) and the receptacle (4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand with wherein the pair of panels are molded with the receptacle, living hinges are formed at a junction between the pair of panels and the receptacle because the use of living hinge/s are widely known in flexible sheet dispensers since they are durable, cost-effective, and provide one-piece construction for frequent, repeated opening and closing without breaking.
Claim 50 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand et al. (WO 2019/092539) in view of Damaghi et al. (US 8,245,865) in view of Vovan et al. (US 7,631,776).
Claim 50, Morand in view of Damaghi do not disclose wherein a removable strip at least partially obstructs the opening.
Vovan discloses wherein a removable strip (30) at least partially obstructs the opening (removable strip 30 partially covers the opening of the plastic container). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the device of Morand in view of Damaghi with wherein a removable strip at least partially obstructs the opening because such dispensing configuration primarily provide tamper evidence ensuring the package has not been opened prior to purchase and/or used by a consumer or contaminated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI whose telephone number is (571)272-6557. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, GENE CRAWFORD can be reached at (571) 272-6911. 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.
/AYODEJI H OJOFEITIMI/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights