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.
Claim(s) 50-53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens (US 4,299,324 A) in view of Clipner (US 3,173,602 A).
Regarding claim 50, Dickens discloses a refuse bag (Figs. 1 and 3) with at least one filling opening for refuse and at least two refuse bag areas (Fig. 3), which are fillable via the at least one filling opening for the at least two refuse bag areas, wherein each refuse bag (Fig. 3) has a main bag wall (208, 210) on which at least one connecting wall (204) is provided, by means of which refuse bag areas (Fig. 3) are formed, wherein the at least one connecting wall extends at least in sections in the longitudinal direction.
Dickens does not specifically disclose the refuse bag areas are each separable from the refuse bag non-destructively, so that the refuse bag areas form separate refuse bags after separation from the refuse bag, and wherein a material weakening for non-destructive separation is formed on the at least one connecting wall.
Clipner demonstrates a similar bag construction including two different bag areas but the different bag areas are attached via sleeve and connecting walls (164/162) and including a peroration (270) thereby allowing the bag areas to be separable non-destructively (Col. 5; Ll. 19-25), so that the refuse bag areas form separate bags after separation from the bag, and wherein a material weakening for non-destructive separation is formed on the at least one connecting wall.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Dickens and attach the compartments with a sleeve including a perforated area allowing the compartments to be separated to allow the compartments to be used separately as suggested by Clipner.
Regarding claim 51, modified Dickens and specifically Clipner discloses the main bag wall is an outer wall (150/152/170) and the connecting wall (162/164) comprises two layers, one of which, after separation, belongs to a first separate refuse bag and another of which belongs to a second separate refuse bag (noting perforation 270 will split the device between connecting walls 162 and 164, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 52, modified Dickens and specifically Clipner discloses all connecting walls (162/164) are provided side by side on one side of the main bag wall (150/152/170, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 53, modified Dickens shows the refuse bag areas are formed differently (Noting different formed areas of Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 54-56 and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens (US 4,299,324 A) in view of Clipner (US 3,173,602 A) as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Epelshtein et al. (US 2013/0322787 A1)
Regarding claims 54-56, modified Dickens does not specifically disclose at least two refuse bag areas are provided in different sizes, at least two refuse bag areas are provided in different colours, or at least two refuse bag areas comprise different materials, in particular the different materials comprise at least two of plastic film, recycled plastic, compostable plastic, aluminium, paper, cellulose and hemp.
Epelshtein demonstrates a similar bag with separable units whereby each unit is noted as being able to be different sizes, different colors, and different materials (Paragraphs 0025-0026).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Dickens and use the teaching of Epelshtein and allow the compartments to be different sizes, colors, and materials in order to signify or be configured to hold different types of waste as suggested by Epelshtein. Further the choice of plastic film, recycled plastic, compostable plastic, aluminium, paper, cellulose and hemp would have required a mere choice of known suitable materials 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.
Regarding claim 58, modified Dickens discloses at least one of the at least two refuse bag areas has a folded bottom (30).
Claim(s) 57 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens (US 4,299,324 A) in view of Clipner (US 3,173,602 A) as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Merritt (US 5,167,342 A).
Regarding claim 57, modified Dickens discloses the refuse bag comprises a plurality of individual bags (Fig. 3), which provide the refuse bag areas, but does not specifically disclose the individual bags are connected to a material projection at least in a region on a side adjacent to the filling opening.
Merritt demonstrates a trash bag having multiple refuse bag areas that include a material projection (50) at least in a region on a side (noting it projects from the vertical sides) adjacent to the filling opening (noting the region where the projections attach is adjacent to the opening) and the projections further include grasping portions.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Dickens and include a material projection that connects the bag portions similar to that of Merrit in order to include an additional are where the bag/bag portions can be grasped and manipulated or carried.
Claim(s) 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens (US 4,299,324 A) in view of Clipner (US 3,173,602 A) as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Thomas (FR 3021962 A1).
Regarding claim 59, modified Dickens does not specifically disclose a first one of the at least two refuse bag areas comprises a connecting element which is configured to be able to releasably connect the first one of the at least two refuse bag areas to a second one of the at least two refuse bag areas, in particular the first one of the at least two refuse bag areas comprises an adhesive surface, in particular wherein the adhesive surface is provided with a removable protective layer.
Thomas discloses a waste reception assembly including a plurality of refuse bag areas and a first one of the at least two refuse bag areas comprises a connecting element (12) which is configured to be able to releasably connect the first one of the at least two refuse bag areas to a second one of the at least two refuse bag areas (Fig. 8), in particular the first one of the at least two refuse bag areas comprises an adhesive surface (12). Additionally, Thomas demonstrates including a protective layer over an adhesive surface (Page 6 of the translation, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Dickens and include an adhesive, similar to that of Thomas, to connect the bag sections to one another because such a change would allow the bag portions to be connected or reconnected to one another thereby allowing the user to modify their configuration. Additionally, including a protective strip would help maintain the adhesive in a usable condition as suggested by Thomas.
Claim(s) 60-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens (US 4,299,324 A) in view of Clipner (US 3,173,602 A) as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Kwak (KR 101746472 B1).
Regarding claim 60, modified Dickens does not specifically disclose at least one refuse bag area comprises a machine-readable information carrier, wherein the information carrier is in particular a QR code.
Kwak demonstrates a garbage bag including at least one refuse bag area comprises a machine-readable information carrier, wherein the information carrier is in particular a QR code (Page 5, 5th paragraph of the translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Dickens and include a QR code similar to that of Kwak in order to allow the bag to digitally convey information to a QR code reader and display or transfer information.
Regarding claims 61-66, modified Dickens and specifically Kwak demonstrates the information carrier is configured to be able to cause a device reading the information carrier to output text information, to install or execute a software, to call up a website, or to execute combinations thereof, a portable electronic communication device, in particular a smartphone (Page 4, 1st paragraph of the translation, and/or Page 5, 2nd to last paragraph), wherein the portable electronic communication device comprises means for reading the information carrier and means for outputting information, and wherein the portable electronic communication device is configured to be caused, by reading the information carrier, to output text information and/or to install or execute a software and/or to call up a website, and information on refuse collection is output, the execution of the software caused by reading the information carrier also comprises the entry of a value in a database (Page 4; first paragraph of the translation), wherein the portable electronic communication device is configured to carry out a payment transaction via the software (Page 5, 5th paragraph of the translation), and it is noted that the smartphone is structurally capable of determining a device location (via GPS or triangulation) and is configured to determine the device location before outputting the regulations for refuse disposal and/or the instructions for refuse collection and to be able to output the instructions for regulations for refuse disposal or the instructions for refuse collection depending on the determined device location.
Claim(s) 67-68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens (US 4,299,324 A) in view of Clipner (US 3,173,602 A) and Kwak (KR 101746472 B1) as applied to claim 62 above, and further in view of Narayan (US 2022/0219206 A1).
Regarding claims 67-68, modified Dickens does not specifically disclose calling up the website and/or executing the software also comprises executing a refuse disposal analysis application, wherein the refuse disposal analysis application is configured to be able to analyze the disposal of the refuse, in particular on the basis of user information or the entries in the database, depending on the regulations for refuse disposal, in particular the disposal of the refuse is alternatively or additionally analyzed using the identified refuse items, or calling up the website and/or executing the software also comprises executing a visual identification application, wherein the visual identification application is configured to be able to identify refuse items located on visual images.
Narayan demonstrates a garbage visual analyzing to identify refuse items (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Dickens and include a visual analyzing component in order to more accurately determine the treatment and/or handling of the garbage or recycling.
Claim(s) 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dickens (US 4,299,324 A) in view of Clipner (US 3,173,602 A) as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of FR 2732665 A1.
Regarding claim 69, modified Dickens demonstrates bags separable from one another by material weakenings, but does not specifically disclose a refuse bag roll with a plurality of refuse bags wherein the refuse bags are rolled up one after the other and material weakenings extending in the transverse direction of the refuse bag roll, in particular wherein the refuse bags lie in the refuse bag roll transversely to the longitudinal extension thereof, so that the filling openings points to one side.
FR 2732665 A1 demonstrates packaging of bags in a roll such that separations of the bags extend transversely and the bags lie in the refuse bag roll such that the filling openings point to one side (Fig. 12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Dickens and package a series of the bags within a roll such that the weakened portions extend transversely and the openings point to one side because such a change would allow for the bags to be stored in a compact and accessible configuration as demonstrated by FR 2732665 A1.
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
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights