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 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “as” should be --has--, and
In line 3, “as” should be --has--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMullen (WO 2018/150156 A1).
Regarding claim 1, McMullen teaches a disposable pet waste container comprising:
a bag body formed of paper, the bag body having a first side opposite a second side, and an open top opposite an enclosed bottom (page 15 lines 19-24 and Fig. 1a, 1b);
an exterior surface of the bag body and an interior surface of the bag body, wherein the interior surface defines a volume sized to accommodate a pet owner hand through the open top (Fig. 1a); and
a protective barrier (20) on the exterior surface of the bag body (page 15 line 26-page 16 line 2 and Fig. 1a, 1b);
wherein the bag body is configured to be inverted in response to the pet owner grasping pet waste with the bag body, wherein the protective barrier directly contacts the pet waste during grasping of pet waste, wherein after inversion the protective barrier is on the inside of the inverted bag (page 16 lines 4-22) (page 15 line 1-page 17 line 2).
Regarding claim 2, McMullen teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the protective barrier is applied only to the exterior surface and not to the interior surface prior to inversion, wherein the protective barrier is biodegradable wax and defines a wax layer only on the exterior surface of the bag body (page 6 lines 17-32, page 8 lines 15-25, page 9 lines 4-14, page 15 line 26-page 16 line 2).
Regarding claim 6, McMullen teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the open top is wider that the enclosed bottom such that the first side and the second side of the bag body taper from the open top to the enclosed bottom (Fig. 1a, 2a).
Regarding claim 13, McMullen teaches a method comprising:
donning a disposable pet waste container by reaching through an open top towards an enclosed bottom of a bag body formed of paper, and the bag body having an exterior surface coated with wax (page 15 line 1-page 17 line 2 and Fig. 1a);
approaching pet waste with the donned disposable pet waste container (page 16 lines 4-22);
contacting the wax with the pet waste (page 16 lines 4-22);
grasping the pet waste(page 16 lines 4-22);
picking up the pet waste while continuing to grasp the pet waste (page 16 lines 4-22);
inverting the disposable pet waste container while continuing to grasp the pet waste(page 16 lines 4-22);
doffing the disposable pet waste container after inversion to retain the pet waste in a now-reversed interior of the bag body (page 16 lines 4-22); and
disposing the bag body containing the pet waste (page 16 lines 4-22).
Regarding claim 14, McMullen teaches the method of claim 13 above, wherein after doffing, twist closing the open top of the bag body (page 7 lines 27-31).
Regarding claim 15, McMullen teaches the method of claim 13 above, wherein inverting the disposable pet waste container while continuing to grasp the pet waste is accomplished by grasping a top edge of the bag body with an opposite hand than that which is grasping the pet waste, further comprising: pulling the top edge of the bag body toward the enclosed bottom of the bag body where the pet waste is grasped (page 16 lines 16-17- pulling the top edge toward the enclosed bottom is met by “the user inverts the bag on itself in order to enclose the waste material”).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMullen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nakajima (JP 2004-049110 A).
Regarding claim 3, McMullen teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the enclosed bottom of the bag body is non-gusseted (Fig. 1b) but fails to teach the first side of the bag body having a gusset and the second side of the bag body having a gusset.
Nakajima teaches an analogous disposable pet waste container comprising a bag body having a first side opposite a second side and an open top opposite an enclosed non-gusseted bottom. Nakajima further teaches that analogous containers are known in the prior art to be constructed with gussets (4) so that the open top is easy to open and spread and so that a hand can be easily inserted (Translation: paragraphs 21-24).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McMullen by configuring the first side of the bag body to have a gusset and the second side of the bag body to have a gusset, as taught by Nakajima, so that the open top is easy to open and spread and so that a hand can be easily inserted.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMullen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Weder (US 6,397,560 B1).
Regarding claim 4, McMullen teaches the container of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the first side of the bag body having a first gusset, the second side of the bag body having a second gusset, and the enclosed bottom of the bag body having a third gusset.
Weder teaches an analogous container comprising a bag body having a first side opposite a second side and an open top opposite an enclosed bottom. Weder further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the bag body with side gussets, a bottom gusset, or both, in order to permit the bag to conform to the shape of the object it contains and in order to permit the bag to be expanded and flattened as needed (column 1 lines 37-40, column 7 lines 6-20 and Fig. 7-10).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McMullen by configuring the first side of the bag body with a first gusset, the second side of the bag body with a second gusset, and the enclosed bottom of the bag body with a third gusset, as taught by Weder, in order to permit the bag to conform to the shape of the object it contains and in order to permit the bag to be expanded and flattened as needed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMullen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Rosensteel (US 2021/0284440 A1).
Regarding claim 5, McMullen teaches the container of claim 1 above, but fails to teach the paper of the bag body being kraft paper. Rosensteel teaches an analogous biodegradable material for dog waste and further teaches that kraft paper is a known material used for picking up dog waste (paragraph 23).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McMullen by alternatively using waxed kraft paper, as taught by Rosensteel, as kraft paper has been shown in the prior art to be a known material used for picking up dog waste and as 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.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMullen, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of DeMatteis (US 4,759,639 A).
Regarding claim 7, McMullen teaches the container of claim 1 above, wherein the bag body further comprises a top edge defining a portion of the open top of the bag body, wherein the top edge has a first end connected to the first side of the bag body and a second end connected to the second side of the bag body (Fig. 1a), but fails to teach the top edge being curved between the first end and the second end.
DeMatteis teaches an analogous container comprising a bag body having a first side opposite a second side, and an open top opposite an enclosed bottom, wherein a top edge defines a portion of the open top of the bag body, wherein the top edge has a first end connected to the first side of the bag body and a second end connected to the second side of the bag body. DeMatteis further teaches that analogous bags are known in the prior art to be configured with a flush cut top edge (FIG. 2) or alternatively with a curve cut top edge (FIG. 1-1B) (column 3 lines 32-37, column 3 line 64-column 4 line 4).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McMullen by alternatively configuring the top edge to be curved between the first end and the second end, as taught by DeMatteis, as it has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known and common alternative to a flush cut edge.
Regarding claim 8, McMullen as modified by DeMatteis teaches the container of claim 7 above, wherein the bag body further comprises: an apex in the top edge that is curved, wherein the apex is centered relative to a width of the bag body (DeMatteis: FIG. 1-1B).
Regarding claim 9, McMullen as modified by DeMatteis teaches the container of claim 7 above, wherein the bag body further comprises a radius of curvature of the top edge that is curved (DeMatteis: FIG. 1-1B), but fails to teach the radius of curvature being in a range from about 3 inches to about 6 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radius of curvature of the container of McMullen in view of DeMatteis in order to obtain the radius of curvature as claimed, as a change in size and/or shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration (i.e., radius of curvature) of the claimed invention is significant. Merely changing the size (i.e., radius of curvature) of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, McMullen as modified by DeMatteis teaches the container of claim 7 above, but fails to teach a minor first curvature at the first end of the top edge, wherein the minor first curvature is curved oppositely than the top edge, and a minor second curvature at the second end of the top edge, wherein the minor second curvature is curved oppositely than the top edge.
DeMatteis further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the container with a minor first curvature (21) at the first end of the top edge, wherein the minor first curvature is curved oppositely than the top edge, and a minor second curvature (21) at the second end of the top edge, wherein the minor second curvature is curved oppositely than the top edge, in order to form stress transfer tips (STT) that transfer stress to less vulnerable areas thus reducing the incidence of tearing (column 5 line 24-column 6 line 9 and FIG. 7).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McMullen by additionally configuring the bag body with a minor first curvature at the first end of the top edge, wherein the minor first curvature is curved oppositely than the top edge, and with a minor second curvature at the second end of the top edge, wherein the minor second curvature is curved oppositely than the top edge, as taught by DeMatteis, in order to form stress transfer tips that transfer stress to less vulnerable areas of the bag body thus reducing the incidence of tearing.
Regarding claim 11, McMullen as modified by DeMatteis teaches the container of claim 10 above, wherein the top edge is convexly curved, and wherein the minor first curvature and the minor second curvature are concavely curved (DeMatteis: FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 12, McMullen as modified by DeMatteis teaches the container of claim 11 above, wherein the bag body further comprises: a radius of curvature of a central major portion the top edge (R1), a radius of curvature of the minor first curvature at the first end (R2), and a ratio of R1 to R2 (DeMatteis: FIG. 7) but fails to specifically teach the ratio being in a range from about 4:0.5 to about 12:0.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radius of curvature of the container of McMullen in view of DeMatteis in order to obtain the radius of curvature and ratio as claimed, as a change in size and/or shape is not patently distinct over the prior art absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration (i.e., radius of curvature and ratio) of the claimed invention is significant. Merely changing the size (i.e., radius of curvature and respective ratio) of a component is insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art and is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMullen, as applied to claim 15 above, in view of DeMatteis.
Regarding claim 16, McMullen teaches the method of claim 15 above, wherein the method further comprises pulling the top edge of the bag body toward the enclosed bottom (page 16 lines 16-17- pulling the top edge toward the enclosed bottom is met by “the user inverts the bag on itself in order to enclose the waste material”) but fails to teach the top edge being curved and the bag body further including a side panel having an upwardly extending ear such that the pulling the top edge of the bag body toward the enclosed bottom further includes passing the top edge by the upwardly extending ear defined in the side panel of the bag body.
DeMatteis teaches an analogous container comprising a bag body having a first side opposite a second side, and an open top opposite an enclosed bottom, wherein a top edge defines a portion of the open top of the bag body, wherein the top edge has a first end connected to the first side of the bag body and a second end connected to the second side of the bag body. DeMatteis further teaches that analogous bags are known in the prior art to be configured with a flush cut top edge (FIG. 2) or alternatively with a curve cut top edge (FIG. 1-1B) (column 3 lines 32-37, column 3 line 64-column 4 line 4). DeMatteis also teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the container with side panels having a minor first curvature (21) at a first end of the top edge and at a respective one of the side panels, wherein the minor first curvature is curved oppositely than the top edge, and a minor second curvature (21) at a second end of the top edge and a respective one of the side panels, wherein the minor second curvature is curved oppositely than the top edge, in order to form stress transfer tips (STT) that transfer stress to less vulnerable areas thus reducing the incidence of tearing (column 5 line 24-column 6 line 9 and FIG. 7).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McMullen by alternatively configuring the top edge to be curved between the first end and the second end and by additionally configuring the bag body to further include a side panel having an upwardly extending ear, as taught by DeMatteis, as a curved top edge has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known and common alternative to a flush cut edge and in order to form stress transfer tips that transfer stress to less vulnerable areas of the bag body thus reducing the incidence of tearing. As McMullen already teaches the method of inverting the container, the structural modification of McMullen in view of DeMatteis would thereby result in passing the top edge by the upwardly extending ear defined in the side panel of the bag body when pulling of the top edge of the bag body toward the enclosed bottom.
Regarding claim 17, McMullen teaches the method of claim 15 above, but fails to teach a first minor curvature located at a first end of the top edge and a second minor curvature located at a second end of the top edge such that the method further comprises bending the first minor curvature and bending the second minor curvature in response to pulling the top edge.
DeMatteis teaches an analogous container comprising a bag body having a first side opposite a second side, and an open top opposite an enclosed bottom, wherein a top edge defines a portion of the open top of the bag body, wherein the top edge has a first end connected to the first side of the bag body and a second end connected to the second side of the bag body. DeMatteis further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the container with a minor first curvature (21) at a first end of the top edge and a minor second curvature (21) at a second end of the top edge in order to form stress transfer tips (STT) that transfer stress to less vulnerable areas thus reducing the incidence of tearing (column 5 line 24-column 6 line 9 and FIG. 7).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McMullen by configuring the bag body with a first minor curvature located at a first end of the top edge and a second minor curvature located at a second end of the top edge, as taught by DeMatteis, in order to form stress transfer tips that transfer stress to less vulnerable areas of the bag body thus reducing the incidence of tearing. As McMullen already teaches the method of inverting the container, the structural modification of McMullen in view of DeMatteis would thereby result in bending the first minor curvature and bending the second minor curvature in response to pulling the top edge.
Regarding claim 18, McMullen teaches the method of claim 15 above, wherein donning the disposable pet waste container comprises: reaching through the open top and beyond a top edge of the bag body and reaching though the open top and beyond a first end of the top edge and beyond a second end of the top edge (Fig. 1a) but fails to teach the top edge being curved at a central major portion of the top edge, and the bag body including a first minor curvature located at the first end of the top edge and a second minor curvature located at the second end of the top edge, wherein the first minor curvature and the second minor curvature are oppositely curved than the central major portion of the top edge, such that reaching through the open top includes reaching beyond the first and second minor curvature.
DeMatteis teaches an analogous container comprising a bag body having a first side opposite a second side, and an open top opposite an enclosed bottom, wherein a top edge defines a portion of the open top of the bag body, wherein the top edge has a first end connected to the first side of the bag body and a second end connected to the second side of the bag body. DeMatteis further teaches that analogous bags are known in the prior art to be configured with a flush cut top edge (FIG. 2) or alternatively with a curve cut top edge (FIG. 1-1B) (column 3 lines 32-37, column 3 line 64-column 4 line 4). DeMatteis also teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to provide the container with a minor first curvature (21) at a first end of the top edge, wherein the minor first curvature is curved oppositely than the top edge, and a minor second curvature (21) at a second end of the top edge, wherein the minor second curvature is curved oppositely than the top edge, in order to form stress transfer tips (STT) that transfer stress to less vulnerable areas thus reducing the incidence of tearing (column 5 line 24-column 6 line 9 and FIG. 7).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McMullen by configuring the top edge to be curved at a central major portion of the top edge and by configuring the bag body to include a first minor curvature located at the first end of the top edge and a second minor curvature located at the second end of the top edge, wherein the first minor curvature and the second minor curvature are oppositely curved than the central major portion of the top edge, as taught by DeMatteis, as a curved top edge has been shown in the prior art to be a well-known and common alternative to a flush cut edge and in order to form stress transfer tips that transfer stress to less vulnerable areas of the bag body thus reducing the incidence of tearing. As McMullen already teaches the method of inverting the container, the structural modification of McMullen in view of DeMatteis would thereby result in reaching beyond the first and second minor curvature when reaching through the open top.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMullen, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Nakajima.
Regarding claim 19, McMullen teaches the method of claim 13 above, but fails to teach expanding a first side gusset of the bag body in response to reaching through the open top and expanding a second side gusset of the bag body in response to reaching through the open top.
Nakajima teaches an analogous disposable pet waste container and method, wherein the container comprises a bag body having a first side opposite a second side and an open top opposite an enclosed non-gusseted bottom. Nakajima further teaches that analogous containers are known in the prior art to be constructed with gussets (4) so that the open top is easy to open and spread and so that a hand can be easily inserted (Translation: paragraphs 21-24). Nakajima further teaches a method corresponding to the structure of the pet waste container, wherein a first side gusset of the bag body expands in response to reaching through the open top and a second side gusset of the bag body expands in response to reaching through the open top (FIG. 2(a)).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McMullen by configuring the first side of the bag body to have a first side gusset and the second side of the bag body to have a second side gusset and by implementing a corresponding method whereby the first side gusset of the bag body expands in response to reaching through the open top and the second side gusset of the bag body expands in response to reaching through the open top, as taught by Nakajima, so that the open top is easy to open and spread and so that a hand can be easily inserted.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMullen, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Kolic (US 4,768,818 A).
Regarding claim 20, McMullen teaches the method of claim 13 above, but fails to teach expanding a bottom gusset defining the enclosed bottom of the bag body in response to reaching through the open top.
Kolic teaches an analogous disposable pet waste container and method, wherein the container comprises a bag body having a first side opposite a second side and an open top opposite an enclosed bottom. Kolic further teaches that it is known and desirable in the prior art to configure the enclosed bottom with a gusset configured to expand and form a pocket in response to reaching through the open top (column 1 line 51-column 3 line 15 and Fig. 1-6).
Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify McMullen by configuring the enclosed bottom of the bag body with a bottom gusset, wherein the bottom gusset expends in response to reaching through the open top, as taught by Kolic, in order to form a pocket that enables easy grasping of pet waste.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINA KAY ATTEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM EST.
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.
/NINA K ATTEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3734
/NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights