DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Amendment filed 8/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending in the present application.
Claim Interpretation
As an initial matter, the Examiner wishes to identify the effective filing date of Applicant claims. Specifically, claims 1-10 carry the effective filing date (10/25/2010) of the provision document 61/392603 since all the claimed subject matter is disclosed in the foreign priority document. Claims 11-16 however carry the effective filing date of this application (1/17/2025) since the limitation “positioning the annular body in a cassette support of the bin in any one of four possible angular orientations in the cassette support” is no supported in the prior filed applications. The respective effective filing dates will be used for the purpose of prior art rejections in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, and 11-16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand US 2006/0248862 (hereinafter Morand) in view of Dayton US 2008/0310772 (hereinafter Dayton).
PNG
media_image1.png
792
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re. Cl. 1, Morand discloses: A film-supporting device (17, Fig. 1) for use with a waste disposal unit (see Fig. 1) comprising: an annular body (see 17, Fig. 1-2 and Paragraph 0028 also discusses the use of the cassette in Morand US 2003/0121923 which will also be referenced throughout this rejection and referred to as Morand 923) removably insertable in the waste-disposal unit (see Fig. 1) and including an inner annular wall (see Fig. 1 and also 116a, Fig. 3-4 in Morand 923) delimiting a central opening of the annular body (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3-4 in Morand 923), an outer annular wall (see Fig. 1 and also 118a, Fig. 3 in Morand 923), a bottom horizontal wall at a bottom end of the annular body (see Fig. 1, 23 and 120, Fig. 4 in Morand 923), outlines of each of the central opening and the outer annular wall in a transverse plane of the device having variable sectional dimensions with a first diameter being of greater dimension than a second diameter (Paragraph 0033 in Morand 923, the device is oval shaped, thus having the two diametrical dimensions, one being larger than the other), and tubular film about an outward radial surface of the inner annular wall (see Fig. 1, where 18 is located and 122, Fig. 4 in Morand 923), with a free annular end dispensed outwardly from the inner annular wall (see Fig. 1, as being routed out of 17 and into 19 towards 35), the free annular end being adapted to be closed to form a bag with an opening of the bag being accessible through the central opening (see Fig. 1, by 35); wherein a central perimeter of the cavity defined between the outlines in the transverse plane is greater than a central perimeter of a similarly-defined cavity of a circular film-supporting device, where a circular outer annular wall and a circular central opening of the circular film-supporting device each have a constant diameter respectively equal to said minimum diameter of each said outline in the transverse plane (see Fig. 1, the central perimeter of 17 is greater than a smaller similar cavity which is circular in nature having the smaller diameter of the oval), and wherein a quantity of said tubular film in the cavity is greater than a quantity of tubular film in the cavity of the circular film-supporting device (as discussed in Paragraph 0040, Applicant states that by having the particular dimensions A1>A2, the cassette necessitates that it has a greater amount of tubular film than cassettes without such outlines for a same minimal dimension A2 thereby stating the ability to support more film is a function of the shape of the device as claimed; Since Morand meets Applicant’s claim language as discussed above, by being oval, it also discloses this limitation in the same manner as discussed in Paragraph 0040; Further, the Applicant's claim compares the invention to a "similarly-defined cavity of a circular film supporting device" throughout the claim which could be a variety of different circular film supporting devices as long as the constant diameter is equal to A2. The circular film supporting device could be totally empty, half empty, mostly empty or totally full. In the event that the circular film supporting device is empty, by having any length of circular tubing within the Morand device (shown in Fig. 1-2 for example) would produce a quantity of tubular film in the cavity greater than an quantity of tubular film in the cavity of the circular film supporting device, thus meeting Applicant’s claim language in a different interpretation).
Re. Cl. 2, Morand discloses: an outer periphery of the annular body as defined by the outer annular wall has an outline geometrically similar to the outline of the central opening (see Fig. 2, both shown as rounded)
Re. Cl. 3, Morand discloses: a cover wall (114, Fig. 3-4 in Moran 932) projecting radially outwardly from the inner annular wall (see Fig. 3-4 in Morand 923).
Re. Cl. 4, Morand discloses: an outer periphery of the annular body as defined by the cover wall has an outline geometrically similar to the outline of the central opening (Col. 4, Lines 4-10 in Morand 923, the oval shape of the cassette 110 includes the cover, thus the cover has an oval shape just like the opening).
Re. Cl. 5, Morand discloses: the cover wall comprises a tear- off portion to access the free end of tubular film (Paragraph 0009 in Morand 923).
Re. Cl. 6, Morand discloses: a flange on the outer annular wall (21, Fig. 1), with an undersurface of the flange defining a shoulder for seating the film-supporting device (Paragraph 0029, Lines 13-15).
Re. Cl. 11, Morand discloses: A method of installing a film-dispensing cassette (17, Fig. 1-2) in a bin (1, see Fig. 1), the film-dispensing cassette including an annular body (see 17, Fig. 1-2 and Paragraph 0028 also discusses the use of the cassette in Morand US 2003/0121923 which will also be referenced throughout this rejection and referred to as Morand 923), an outer periphery having a central opening from a bottom to a top of the annular body (see 19, Fig. 1), the annular body receiving in a volume thereof a tubular film in an accumulated condition radially outward of the central opening (see 18, Fig. 1-2), the method comprising: pulling a free end of tubular film from a top of the annular body (see Fig. 1, out of 21); passing the free end of the tubular film through the central opening of the annular body (see Fig. 1, down towards 35);and positioning the annular body in a cassette support (14, 16, Fig. 1 or Paragraph 0029, Lines 13-15) of the bin (see Fig. 1).
Re. Cl. 12, Morand discloses: closing the free end of the tubular film to form a bag (see Fig. 1, at 53).
Re. Cl. 13, Morand discloses: the closing includes knotting the free end of the tubular film (see Fig. 1, 53).
Re. Cl. 14, Morand discloses: connecting a cover to a top edge of an inner annular wall of the annular body to help retain the tubular film in the annular body in the accumulated condition (114, Fig. 3-4 in Moran 932)
Re. Cl. 15, Morand discloses: removing a tear-off strip of a cover along a frangible joint thereby defining a radial gap that exposes the tubular film in the annular body (Paragraph 0009 in Morand 923).
Re. Cl. 16, Morand discloses: the positioning includes placing the annular body above a bag-closing mechanism of the bin (see 25, Fig. 1).
Re. Cls. 1, 7-8 and 11, Morand and Morand 932 discloses disclose that other shapes other than ovals can be used for the cassette (see Paragraph 0033, Lines 1-7). However, it is not disclosed that the outlines each having in the transverse plane of the device at least two of the first diameter of generally equal dimension and at least two of the second diameter of generally equal dimension, with the first diameter being the maximum diameter of the outline in the transverse plane, and with the second diameter being the minimum diameter of the outline in the transverse plane (Cl. 1), the outline of the central opening is a super-ellipse (Cl. 7), or the outline of the central opening is a squircle (Cl. 8) or the outer periphery having four corners, positioning the annular body in any one of four possible angular orientations of the cassette in the cassette support (Cl. 11). Dayton discloses a waste disposal system (Fig. 11a), a waste disposal unit (1104), a film supporting device (1102, 100, Fig. 11a and Fig. 1) removably mountable to the waste disposal unit (see Fig. 11a), wherein the film supporting device comprises a central opening and an outer wall (see annotated figure 1), outlines each including two first diameter being maximum diameters and two second diameters being minimum diameters (see annotated figure 1, note only the outline of the central opening is shown but the outer wall has an identical shape and thus has the same dimensions). Re. Cls. 7-8, Dayton discloses the outline of the central opening is super-ellipse (shown as a square with rounded corners, see Fig. 1) and a squircle (see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the cassette as disclosed by Morand to be shaped as disclosed by Dayton with reasonable expectation of success since Dayton states that such a modification facilitates storage by stacking and arranging the structures by placing multiple structures alongside one another in a storage cube (Paragraph 0091, Lines 13-20). Such a configuration would be desirable for shipping and/or storing the cassettes.
Re. Cl. 11, specifically regarding the limitation “positioning the annular body in any one of four possible angular orientations of the cassette in the cassette support,” it is the Examiner’s position that the proposed combination would result in the claimed method. As seen in Fig. 1-2 of Morand, the cassette (17) and support (14,16) have mating profiles since (17) sit within (14, 16) and modifying the cassette to be square with rounded corners as discussed above would modify the support so that it fits the cassette in any one of four possible positions since squares inherently have sides of equal length.
Claim 9 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand in view of Dayton as applied above, and further in view of Stravitz US 7712285 (hereinafter Stravitz).
Re. Cl. 9, the combination discussed above does not disclose wherein the cover wall has a plurality of through bores spaced apart along a circumference of the cover wall. Stravitz discloses a folding film dispensing cassette (94’ Fig. 13a) which includes a cover (112’) which has a plurality of through bores (140, Fig. 13a) spaced apart along a circumference of the cover wall (see Fig. 13a). The through bores forms a closing mechanism which can function to close up the cassette once the entire tubular film has been used (Col. 18, Lines 44-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the combined device to include the hinge and through bores of Stravitz since Stravitz states that such a modification would eliminate the need to tie the tubing when the length of available tubing is exhausted and or the pail is full which provides a sealing mechanism (Col. 17, Lines 50-54) and the holes are capable of being used to hold the cassette in a folded state (Col. 18, Lines 50-53).
Claim 10 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morand in view of Dayton applied above, and in further view of Morand US 2009/0100806 (hereinafter Morand 806).
Re. Cl. 10, the combination of Morand in view of Dayton does not disclose a clearance defined by a portion of the inner annular wall extending obliquely upward from a junction with the bottom horizontal wall, said portion of the inner annular wall joining with an upright portion of the inner annular wall whereby the clearance opens into the central opening. Morand 806 discloses that it is known to have a clearance defined by a portion of the inner annular wall extending obliquely upward from a junction with the bottom horizontal wall, said portion of the inner annular wall joining with an upright portion of the inner annular wall whereby the clearance opens into the central opening (see Fig. 1, created by 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the outer annular wall of the Morand cassette to taper toward the bottom wall as disclosed by Morand 806 with reasonable expectation of success since Morand 806 states that such a modification ensures that cassette is properly installed within the holder when it is in use (Paragraph 0037, Lines 17-23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re. Applicant’s argument that claims 11-16 carry the effective filing date of provisional application (US 61/392603), the Examiner has considered Applicant’s argument, but it is not persuasive. Applicant cites paragraph 0031 which discusses the rotational symmetry of the shape of the cassette which merely describes what shape the cassette is. Then Applicant cites paragraphs 0025 and 0037 which discuss that the cassette is supported or held by a support amounting to a disclosure of the cassette positioned within the bin. The Examiner does not disagree with this position; however, the claim requires far more than that. The claim requires positioning the annular body in any one of four possible angular orientations within the support. This requires the cassette to have four possible positions within the support which is not specifically supported in the provisional application in the Examiner’s position. For instance, the support could not exactly match the size and shape of the cassette, thereby not enabling a total of four positions. Therefore, Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive since the claim limitation goes beyond the scope of the provisional application.
Re. Applicant’s argument that the Examiner failed to provide adequate motivation to combine the references, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner set forth specific reasoning for the proposed modification found in the secondary, Dayton reference. The reasoning being that the shape would facilitate placing the structures alongside one another in a storage cube (Paragraph 0091, Lines 13-20). Applicant appears to misconstrue the motivation provided by the Examiner arguing that the collapsible feature of Dayton is what provides the advantage. The Examiner understands Paragraph 0091 to be referring to the collapsible nature of the sidewalls (110) would result in a device having a smaller vertical profile. However, Dayton states that when they are collapsed, they “conform to a square” and storage of the box may be facilitated by arranging the collapsed structures. For example, multiple folded squares may be placed alongside one another in a storage cube (Paragraph 0091, Lines 13-20). Therefore, when folded or collapsed into the square shape as discussed, the square shape facilitates storage in an arrangement where they are placed alongside one another within the storage cube as discussed in Dayton’s cited example. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found the motivation adequate as set forth by the Examiner.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this instance, the Examiner has not relied upon Applicant’s disclosure to form the combination of references since the motivation comes from the Dayton reference itself. Applicant’s argument is considered but is not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mowers US 2008/0272140, Jurus US 2006/0010837 and Chomik US 2003/0218022 disclose other known film supporting devices presented to the Applicant for their consideration.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E GARFT whose telephone number is (571)270-1171. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at (571)272-4797. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GARFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights