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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, all of the limitations of claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 20 is 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.
Claim 20 recites “The assembly of claim 18, wherein the dispenser comprises an elongated section comprising the mounting element, and the mounting element comprises one or more openings configured to receive a belt or other accessory therethrough.” Examiner notes that the mounting member claimed in claim 20 appears to be different from that as claimed in claim 18, yet claim 20 claims them as the same. It is unclear to the Examiner as to what is being claimed.
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) 11, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robert et al. (US 2020/0002080 A1 – hereinafter Robert)
Re Claim 11:
Robert discloses a glove dispensing assembly comprising: a collapsible dispenser (10) comprising: a dispenser body (100) including a top (130), a bottom (opposite top (130), and at least one side (142, 144) defining an enclosed space having a volume, the top, bottom, and at least one side each being formed from a flexible material (see paragraph [0067]); and a resealable opening (at 110) into the enclosed space located on the top (130), the bottom, or a side of the at least one side; and a stack of interfolded gloves (12), each glove in the stack including a finger end (40) and a cuff end (30), the stack (12) including an initial glove and a plurality of subsequent gloves; the stack of interfolded gloves (12) being disposed in the enclosed space of the dispenser; the dispenser being configured to collapse as gloves of the stack of gloves contained within the enclosed space are dispensed such that the volume of the enclosed space decreases (see Figs. 1-9).
Re Claim 12:
Robert discloses a lid (112) sealing the resealable opening (see Figs. 1 and 4).
Re Claim 14:
Robert discloses the lid (112) comprising single piece of rigid material comprising an outer perimeter (116) coupled to the flexible material and a movable member (114) configured to move between an open configuration in which the opening is exposed and a closed configuration in which the opening is covered, a movable portion (114) of the lid being a cut-out portion of the single piece of rigid material (see Figs. 1-9).
Re Claim 15:
Robert discloses wherein at least a portion (portion near 110) of the flexible material is exposed within the outer perimeter of the lid when the movable member is in the open configuration (see Fig. 1).
Re Claim 16:
Robert discloses the movable portion having a cantilever snap and the outer perimeter having a corresponding slot in which the cantilever snap is configured to lock in place in the closed configuration (see paragraph [0069]).
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 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert in view of Woodrow J. Hargraves (US 2,887,216 – hereinafter Hargraves).
Re Claims 1 and 7:
Robert discloses a collapsible dispenser (10) (see paragraph [0012]), the dispenser comprising: a dispenser body (100) including a top (130), a bottom (opposite top (130)), and at least one side (142, 144) defining an enclosed space having a volume, wherein the dispenser body (100) is formed from a flexible material (see paragraph [0067]); an opening (110) into the enclosed space being located on the top (130), the bottom, or a side of the at least one side of the dispenser body (100), wherein the dispenser (10) is configured to collapse as contents contained within the dispenser are dispensed (see Figs. 1-9), but fails to teach an elastic strap coupled to the dispenser body.
Hargraves teaches an elastic strap (18) coupled to a dispenser body (24) (see Figs. 1-4)). Re Claim 7: Hargraves teaches wherein the elastic strap (18) comprises an elongated body extending from a first end to a second end, further comprising a strap coupling element (20) at each of the first end and the second end (see Figs. 2 and 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Robert with that of Hargraves, to maintain a container in a desired position. Examiner further notes that the combination would allow for collapsing as contents contained within the dispenser are dispensed since Robert teaches collapsing as dispensing, and using Hargraves resilient bands, which purpose is to provide compression, would predictably result in compression of a flexible package while dispensing.
Claim(s) 2-6, 8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert in view of Hargraves, and further in view of Stollery et al. (GB 2,489,326 A – hereinafter Stollery).
Re Claims 2-6, 8, and 17:
Robert in view of Hargraves discloses a rigid lid (112), wherein the rigid lid (112) comprises a rigid perimeter (116) coupled to the top, bottom, or side of the at least one side of the dispenser body (100) and a movable lid (at 112) coupled to the rigid perimeter (116) (see Robert - paragraph [0069], but fails to teach the rigid perimeter comprising at least one retaining element configured to retain the elastic strap, and the elastic strap being coupled to the rigid perimeter.
Stollery teaches a rigid perimeter (20) comprising at least one retaining element (25) configured to retain an elastic strap (24), and the elastic strap (24) being coupled to the rigid perimeter (20) (see Figs. 3 and 4). Re Claim 3: Stollery teaches wherein the at least one retaining element (25) comprises a tab (see central tab portion (near 13) delimited by notches) extending from an edge (inner edges of notches) of the rigid perimeter (see Figs. 3and 4). Re Claims 4-6: Stollery teaches wherein the at least one retaining element (25) comprises a pair of retaining elements (25, 25) disposed on opposing first and second sides of the rigid perimeter (see Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Robert in view of Hargraves with that of Stollery, to maintain a stack against an opening in optimal positioning for dispensing. Stollery teaches a rigid member for holding elastic bands, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, that the rigid member (lid) of Robert could provide the engagements as suggested by Stollery and in view of the combination of Robert, Hargraves, and Stollery as cited.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert in view of Hargraves and Stollery, and furth in view of Winterton U. Day et al. (US 3,197,062 – hereinafter Day)
Re Claim 9:
Robert discloses a collapsible dispenser (see Figs. 1-4), but fails to teach wherein the elastic strap comprises an elastic ring configured to surround the dispenser body, wherein the elastic ring is configured to cover the opening.
Hargraves teaches an elastic strap (18) coupled to a dispenser body (24) (see Figs. 1-4)). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Robert with that of Hargraves, to maintain a container in a desired position.
Stollery teaches wherein the elastic strap (24) comprises an elastic ring (circular loop which surrounds the device) configured to surround the dispenser body (see Figs 3 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Robert in view of Hargraves with that of Stollery, to maintain a stack against an opening in optimal positioning for dispensing.
Day further in view teaches wherein a ring (35, 48, 56) is configured to cover an opening (33, 49, 60) (see Figs. 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Robert in view of Hargraves and Stollery, with that of Day, to protect the contents of a container during shipping or prior to use.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert in view of Krauth et al. (US 2008/0128451 A1 – hereinafter Krauth).
Re Claim 13:
Robert discloses the device of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein an inner surface of the lid further comprises an adhesive region.
Krauth teaches wherein an inner surface of a lid further comprises an adhesive region (see Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Robert with that of Krauth, to allow a lid to easily join and seal a container.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert in view of Harry A. Loder (US 4,586,630 – hereinafter Loder).
Re Claims 18 and 19:
Robert discloses the device of claim 12, but fails to teach a mounting element coupled to the dispenser body, wherein the mounting element is configured to mount the dispenser to a surface; and wherein the mounting element comprises an adhesive region comprising an adhesive material configured to adhere to the surface.
Loder teaches a mounting element (36) coupled to a dispenser body, wherein the mounting element (36) is configured to mount the dispenser to a surface (see col. 3 lines 53-67) (see Fig. 3). Re Claim 19: Loder teaches wherein the mounting element (36) comprises an adhesive region comprising an adhesive material configured to adhere to the surface (see col. 3 lines 53-67) (see Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Robert with that of Loder, to support a container in a given desired position.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert in view of Loder and further in view of Betty J. Murphy (4,570,820 – hereinafter Murphy).
Re Claim 20:
Robert in view of Loder discloses the device of claim 18, but fails to teach wherein the dispenser comprises an elongated section comprising the mounting element, and the mounting element comprises one or more openings configured to receive a belt or other accessory therethrough
Murphy further in view teaches wherein a dispenser comprises an elongated section comprising a mounting element (21), and the mounting element (21) comprises one or more openings configured to receive a belt or other accessory (16) therethrough (see Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Robert in view of Loder with that of Murphy, to allow a lid to easily join and seal a container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights