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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Fully” should be “fully”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-6 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.
Claims 5-6 recite “or other flexible materials known to those in the art” and “or other rigid materials known to those in the art” these limitations are indefinite as it is unclear exactly what materials would be considered to meet this language. For this reason, the scope of claims 5 and 6 is unclear.
The term “rigid” in claim 6 is unclear as it is unclear exactly how rigid something must be in order to meet this limitation. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed that a portion not shown or described to change shape under normal use is considered rigid.
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, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Che (US 2008/0173662 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 7 Che discloses a roll of pet waste bags (Abstract), comprising: fully separated (noting Fig. 5B), but temporarily connected flattened bags allowing bags to be pulled off one by one (Paragraph 0072), the flattened bags are interlocked through friction of the waste bag surfaces (Paragraph 0072), and there is a core made of the flexible bags themselves wound into a cylinder (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 1 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDonald (US 2017/0370056 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 4 McDonald discloses a roll of pet waste bags (Abstract), comprising: fully separated (Fig. 2, Paragraph 0039), but temporarily connected flattened bags allowing bags to be pulled off one by one (Fig. 3) the flattened bags are interlocked through friction of the waste bag surfaces (Paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 5, McDonald discloses the bags are made of flexible plastic (Paragraph 0009).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richards (US 2020/0262647 A1).
Regarding claim 1 and 3, Richards discloses a roll (2) of waste bags capable of holding pet waste, comprising: fully separated, but temporarily connected (via adhesive) flattened bags allowing bags to be pulled off one by one (Paragraph 0016-0017).
Regarding claim 5, Richards discloses the bags are made of flexible (Figs. 1-6) plastic (Paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 7, Richards discloses there is a core made of the flexible bags themselves wound into a cylinder (Fig.1).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wood (US 2021/0371188 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wood discloses a roll (Figs. 3A-3B) of waste bags capable of holding pet waste, comprising: fully separated, but temporarily connected flattened bags allowing bags to be pulled off one by one (Paragraph 0017-0018).
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Wood discloses the flattened bags are interlocked through 1 or more folds (to the degree that the material 120 is folded around inserted portion 100) and friction of the waste bag surfaces.
Regarding claim 5, Wood discloses the bags are made of flexible plastic (Paragraphs 0002-0003).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McDonald (US 20170370056 A1) in view of Kasinkas (US 3348762 A).
Regarding claim 6, McDonald discloses the device including a core (12) but is silent with respect to the material of the core.
Kasinkas teaches the ability to have a roll of bags around a core 16, whereby the core is mate of cardboard (Col. 2; Ll. 26-29) and is shown to hold its shape and is not described as being flexible.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of McDonald and use the teaching of Kasinkas and make the core out of carboard because such a change would have required a mere choice of a known suitable material in the art. It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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.
/M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734