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 Group I, Species I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 7/11/2025 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 11-20 are withdrawn.
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 3-6 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.
The term “moisturizing solution” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “moisturizing solution” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification fails to further define this term. What is a moisturizing solution specifically? Is the presence of moisture (aka a damp or moistened wipe) enough to meet the claimed limitation. Moisturize meaning to "make less dry" (Oxford Languages). For the purposes of examination, the term shall be broadly interpreted.
The term “bacteria fighting solution” in claim 4is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “bacteria fighting solution” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification fails to further define this term. What For example, some all natural deodorizing wipes are made from all natural ingredients (such as coconut oil, aloe, etc.). Would this suffice as a bacteria fighting solution? Note, the term antibacterial or antimicrobial or antifungal is not used. For the purposes of examination, the term shall be broadly interpreted.
The term “insect-repelling solution” in claim 5is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “insect-repelling solution” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification fails to further define this term. What For example, some all natural insect repellants are made from all natural ingredients (such as lemongrass, citronella). Would this suffice as an insect-repelling solution? For the purposes of examination, the term shall be broadly interpreted.
The term “weather-resistant material” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ““weather-resistant material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term "waterproof" or "water resistant" is not being used. What makes a material "weather resistant". This doesn't mean that water cannot penetrate or even that the material is rain resistant. The specification fails to suggest a material that is considered "weather-resistant". The term "weather-resistant" is broad and will therefore be broadly interpreted..
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Wheeler (US 8256384 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Wheeler discloses a pet waste bag and wipe-carrying device comprising: a body comprised of a first pocket (58) and a second pocket (56); a handle (28); an attachment fastener (54); a wipe (48); and a waste bag (50).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Wheeler discloses pet waste bag and wipe-carrying device of claim 1, wherein the wipe is comprised of a moistened wipe. (Abstract sanitary wipe)
Examiner Note: Sanitary wipes are commonly known to be moistened wipes.
With respect to claim 3, Wheeler discloses pet waste bag and wipe-carrying device of claim 2, wherein the wipe is comprised of a moisturizing solution. (Abstract sanitary wipe)
With respect to claim 4, Wheeler discloses pet waste bag and wipe-carrying device of claim 2, wherein the wipe is comprised of a bacteria-fighting solution.
Examiner Note: Sanitary wipes are known for sanitizing properties which can be understood to be bacteria fighting. Refer to column 1 lines 40-46 of Wheeler.
With respect to claim 6, Wheeler discloses the pet waste bag and wipe-carrying device of claim 1, wherein the body is comprised of a weather-resistant material. It is understood that Wheelers device is used for outdoor purposes. The term weather-resistant is being broadly interpreted (see 112b above). Therefore it is understood that the materials utilized in Wheeler are suitable for outdoor usage and can be viewed as “weather-resistant”.
With respect to claim 7, Wheeler discloses the pet waste bag and wipe-carrying device of claim 1, wherein the handle is comprised of a grip area. (can be considered the area for gripping – no structural limitation)
With respect to claim 9, Wheeler discloses the pet waste bag and wipe-carrying device of claim 1, wherein the attachment fastener is comprised of a clip (54).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 8256384 B2) in view of Loizides (US 20100037828 A1).
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the wipe is comprised of an insect-repelling solution. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely pet wipes, Loizides taught of that wet wipes can prevent insect bites (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wet wipes of Wheeler to include an insect repelling feature (the sanitization of bacteria) as taught by Loizides in order to prevent bug bites.
Examiner Note: Loizides essentially teaches that a solution that can clean fecal bacteria can limit insect attraction. As the term insect-repelling is broadly interpreted, this wipes of Wheeler can be viewed as insect repelling.
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the waste bag is comprised of a scent. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely pet wipes, Loizides taught of that scented bags to eliminate odor (abstract). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bags of Wheeler to include a scent as taught by Loizides in order to eliminate odor.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 8256384 B2) in view of DeMaso (US 20080099596 A1).
With respect to claim 5, the references as applied to claim 2, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the wipe is comprised of an insect-repelling solution. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely sanitary wipes, DeMaso taught of that sanitary wipes that can include compositions for insect repellent (page 4 [0033]). Since Wheeler is used for outdoors purposes (further Loizides teaches that fecal matter attracts insects – abstract), it would have been obvious to incorporate an insect repellant feature to the sanitary wipes. It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wet wipes of Wheeler to include an insect repelling feature as taught by DeMasos in order to prevent bug bites.
Examiner Note: Alternate view of insect repellant rejection.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 8256384 B2) in view of Sugalski (US 20080006223 A1).
With respect to claim 8, the references as applied to claim 7, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the grip area is comprised of a raised or recessed texture. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely pet leashes, Sugalski taught of a handle that includes a grip area (201) to help the user aid in gripping the handle (page 3 [0048]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handle of Wheeler to include a recessed/raised grip area on the handle as taught by Sugalski in order to allow for better gripping.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-8256384-B2 OR US-7976083-B2 OR US-10492472-B1 OR US-7931170-B2 OR US-6257473-B1 OR US-7506615-B1 OR US-9078417-B1 OR US-11884439-B2 OR US-20100037828-A1 OR US-20080006223-A1 OR US-20150197903-A1 OR US-20230417004-A1 OR US-20190191669-A1 OR US-20170101753-A1 OR US-20060231043-A1 OR US-20240141605-A1 OR US-20200018028-A1 OR US-20190338480-A1 OR US-20090315350-A1 OR US-20080101731-A1 OR US-20060180608-A1 OR US-20220053735-A1 OR US-20180220624-A1 OR US-20150337510-A1 OR US-20090151645-A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735