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) 1, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2017/0088349 A1)(Patel) in view of Cuisinier (US 6,808,073 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Patel discloses a trash container liner system (Figs. 10 and/or 13), comprising: a plurality of nested trash liners each including a belt portion (noting the hem area enclosing drawstring mechanism 23) that encircles an interior perimeter of a trash receptacle, each liner configured to be sequentially deployed after a prior liner is removed (Paragraph 0054); wherein the liner system includes a color-coded indicator on at least one of the liners to signal when the liner system requires replacement (Paragraphs 0052 and 0056).
Patel demonstrates the bags are sealed together and separable by tearing a perforated portion. Patel does not specifically disclose a removable adhesive strip on each of the plurality of liners, the removable adhesive strip configured to adhere one liner to another liner in the plurality of nested liners.
Cuisinier demonstrates a similar set of nested bags that are connected to one another by a removable adhesive strip on each of the plurality of liners, the removable adhesive strip configured to adhere one liner to another liner in the plurality of nested liners.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Patel and use the teaching of Cuisinier and connect the bags by a separable adhesive because such a change would have required the mere choice of one removable attachment mechanism over another and would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, modified Patel discloses each liner in the plurality of nested liners is formed from a biodegradable or compostable polymer material (Paragraph 0031 and 0036).
Regarding claim 12, Patel discloses a method for producing a liner system for a trash receptacle (Figs. 10 and 13), comprising: forming a plurality of liners, each liner having a belt portion (noting the hem area enclosing drawstring mechanism 23) configured to encircle a perimeter of a trash receptacle; attaching each liner to another liner in a nested configuration; incorporating a color-coded indicator on at least one liner to indicate when the liner system should be replaced (Paragraphs 0052 and 0056).
Patel demonstrates the bags are sealed together and separable by tearing a perforated portion. Patel does not specifically disclose a removable adhesive strip on each of the plurality of liners, the removable adhesive strip configured to adhere one liner to another liner in the plurality of nested liners.
Cuisinier demonstrates a similar set of nested bags that are connected to one another by a removable adhesive strip on each of the plurality of liners, the removable adhesive strip configured to adhere one liner to another liner in the plurality of nested liners.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Patel and use the teaching of Cuisinier and connect the bags by a separable adhesive because such a change would have required the mere choice of one removable attachment mechanism over another and would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2017/0088349 A1)(Patel) in view of Cuisinier (US 6,808,073 B2) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Boyd et al. (US 5,183,158 A)(Boyd).
Regarding claim 2, modified Patel and specifically Cuisinier discloses the ability to use any material that exhibits an adherent, tacking, or sticky character but does not specifically disclose a low-tack adhesive.
Boyd demonstrates a set of bags that are attached to one another using a low tack adhesive (Col. 4; Ll. 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Patel and use a low tack adhesive because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known suitably adhesive material for another. 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 3, modified Patel and specifically Cuisinier demonstrates the low-tack adhesive is a glue dot (30).
Regarding claim 13, Patel and specifically Cuisinier discloses the ability to use any material that exhibits an adherent, tacking, or sticky character in the form of a glue dot, but does not specifically disclose a low-tack adhesive.
Boyd demonstrates a set of bags that are attached to one another using a low tack adhesive (Col. 4; Ll. 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Patel and use a low tack adhesive because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known suitably adhesive material for another. 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2017/0088349 A1)(Patel) in view of Cuisinier (US 6,808,073 B2) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Clardy et al. (US 2009/0101652 A1)(Clardy).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, modified Patel discloses a color coded indicator, but not specifically disclose the indicator is positioned on the belt portion of a final liner in the plurality of nested liners.
Clardy demonstrates a similar set of bags including an information indicating section (123A, 124A, 125A) located in a belt area of the bag.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Patel and include the color coded indicator positioned on the belt portion of a final liner because such a change would have required a mere rearrangement of parts. (i.e. placing the indicator on the belt instead of elsewhere on the bag). It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 5-8, 10-11, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2017/0088349 A1)(Patel) in view of Cuisinier (US 6,808,073 B2) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Jean-Mary et al. (US 20180118415 A1)(Jean-Mary).
Regarding claims 5-7 and 14-15, modified Patel discloses the bag is made of polymeric material, but does not specifically disclose the belt portion is made of a polyethylene or polypropylene material, wherein the polyethylene or polypropylene material is selected from the group consisting of low-density polyethylene (LDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) or a drawstring made of a material selected from the group consisting of polyethylene and polypropylene.
Jean-Mary demonstrates construction of a similar bag and demonstrates known suitable materials including polyethylene or polypropylene material, wherein the polyethylene or polypropylene material is selected from the group consisting of low-density polyethylene (LDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) (Paragraphs 0053 and 0054).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Patel and use the teaching of Jean-Mary and make the belt portion and/or the drawstring out of polyethylene or polypropylene material, wherein the polyethylene or polypropylene material is selected from the group consisting of low-density polyethylene (LDPE), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) because such a change would have required a mere choice of a known suitable material. . 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 8, modified Patel discloses the drawstring (23) is configured to cinch the belt portion around the perimeter of a properly sized and configured trash receptacle when pulled.
Regarding claims 10-11 and 16-17, modified Patel does not specifically disclose the liners include an antimicrobial coating to inhibit microbial growth on the liners, or an additive in the material of the liners, the additive selected from the group consisting of thyme oil, mint oil, lemon grass oil, tea tree oil, cinnamon bark oil, methyl jasmonate, zinc pyrithione, and copper pyrithione.
Jean-Mary demonstrates a similar trash bag including an antimicrobial coating to inhibit microbial growth on the liners (Paragraph 0086), or an additive in the material of the liners, the additive selected from the group consisting of thyme oil, mint oil, lemon grass oil, tea tree oil, cinnamon bark oil, methyl jasmonate (Paragraph 0094), zinc pyrithione, and copper pyrithione (Paragraph 0058).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Patel and include an antimicrobial coating or additional additive to allow the bag to take advantage of any desired characteristics of the coating or additive as suggested by Jean-Mary.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2017/0088349 A1)(Patel) in view of Cuisinier (US 6,808,073 B2) and Clardy et al. (US 2009/0101652 A1)(Clardy).
Regarding claim 19, Patel discloses a trash liner system (Figs. 10 and 13), comprising: a plurality of trash liners nested within each other (Figs. 10 and 13), each trash liner configured with a belt portion (noting the hem area enclosing drawstring mechanism 23) and removably connected for sequential deployment of each liner upon removal of a preceding liner; and an indicator of a final liner within the plurality of nested trash liners to signal replacement of the liner system (Paragraphs 0052 and 0056).
Patel does not specifically disclose a removable adhesive strip on each of the plurality of liners, the removable adhesive strip configured to adhere one liner to another liner in the plurality of nested liners.
Cuisinier demonstrates a similar set of nested bags that are connected to one another by a removable adhesive strip on each of the plurality of liners, the removable adhesive strip configured to adhere one liner to another liner in the plurality of nested liners.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Patel and use the teaching of Cuisinier and connect the bags by a separable adhesive because such a change would have required the mere choice of one removable attachment mechanism over another and would have yielded predictable results.
Modified Patel discloses a color coded indicator, but not specifically disclose the indicator is positioned on the belt portion of a final liner in the plurality of nested liners.
Clardy demonstrates a similar set of bags including an information indicating section (123A, 124A, 125A) located in a belt area of the bag.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Patel and include the color coded indicator positioned on the belt portion of a final liner because such a change would have required a mere rearrangement of parts. (i.e. placing the indicator on the belt instead of elsewhere on the bag). It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US 2017/0088349 A1)(Patel) in view of Cuisinier (US 6,808,073 B2) and Clardy et al. (US 2009/0101652 A1)(Clardy) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Boyd et al. (US 5,183,158 A)(Boyd).
Regarding claim 20, modified Patel and specifically Cuisinier discloses the ability to use any material that exhibits an adherent, tacking, or sticky character compatible with repeated liner deployment and detachment from the trash receptacle but does not specifically disclose pressure-sensitive adhesive.
Boyd demonstrates a set of bags that are attached to one another using a low tack pressure sensitive adhesive (Col. 4; Ll. 33-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Patel and use a low tack pressure sensitive adhesive because such a change would have required a mere choice of one known suitably adhesive material for another. 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
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights