DETAILED ACTION
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 12 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 12, line 4 “a bottom closed end” should read “the bottom closed end”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over copending parent Application No. 17/674,441.
Given the 2/17/2022 claims of said parent application (also found in its US Pub 20220185542) compared to the instant claims 1-11, although claims 1-2 of issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are sufficiently identical due to mere grammar changes of the same structural elements in the same claimed order and function. Claims 3-11 are identical.
Given the 5/12/2026 claims of said parent application compared to the instant claim 12, A bag comprising a tubular body with a top open end and a bottom closed end, the tubular body having a larger open diameter at the top open end, the tubular body narrowing into a narrower open diameter adjacent to a bottom closed end, and the tubular body in a flattened two-fold condition having a pair of side edges extending from a top edge to a bottom edge, the top edge delimiting the top open end, the bottom edge delimiting the bottom closed end, wherein the pair of side edges are generally aligned relative to one another in a first portion adjacent to the top edge (Parent app claim 21, “bag in a flattened two-fold condition prior to hanging the deployed bag to the bag support has parallel side edges in the hooking section, the parallel side edges extending from the top open end and delimiting a bag interior” necessarily defines a bag tubular body, and parallel side edges means aligned relative to one another; with claim 23, “a filled bottom of the deployed bag”; and claim 10 “a tapered section of the deployed bag” means the bag bottom is narrower than the top diameter when the bag is open).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pub 20030161554 by Patridge et al. (hereinafter “Patridge”).
Regarding claim 12, Patridge teaches a bag comprising a tubular body (Fig 3, bag shown necessarily is tubular shaped when deployed) with a top open end (“open top end 220”) and a bottom closed end ([0026] “bottom 218” of “trash bag 210” is necessarily closed to hold trash making it a trash bag), the tubular body having a larger open diameter at the top open end (Fig 3, W3), the tubular body narrowing into a narrower open diameter adjacent to the bottom closed end (Fig 3, W4 is narrower than W3; and W3 is larger than W4), and the tubular body in a flattened two-fold condition having a pair of side edges extending from a top edge to a bottom edge, the top edge delimiting the top open end, the bottom edge delimiting the bottom closed end, wherein the pair of side edges are generally aligned relative to one another in a first portion adjacent to the top edge (examiner notes “adjacent” is a broad term wherein all parts are near each other; Fig 3 [0027] “the narrowing seals 226, 228 extend generally parallel to the sides 216a, 216b” meaning in the flattened condition shown, edges of sides 216a and 216b are shown delimiting 220 and 218, and are generally aligned relative to one another, including in a top first portion).
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.
Claims 1 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3198426 issued to Brighton (hereinafter “Brighton”) in view of US Pub 20030161554 by Patridge et al. (hereinafter “Patridge”).
Regarding claim 1, Brighton teaches a method for manipulating a deployed bag hanging from a disposal unit (a method of deploying a bag to hang from a disposal container unit comprises the following citations, outright or otherwise with MPEP 2112.02 where detailed), comprising:
unhooking (see examiner annotated Brighton Figure 7, hereinafter “EAFB7”; EAFB7, unhooks; col 1, lines 15-19, “a refuse container… in combination with a disposable refuse holding bag, which will securely retain said bag in open operative position but which will permit said bag to be quickly and easily placed in and removed from said operative position”) the deployed bag from a bag support of the disposal unit to which the deployed bag is hooked (EAFB7, bag hooking section) and kept open (EAFB7, unit bag support), the bag support forming a throat section (EAFB7, unit throat section (negative space) formed by unit bag support (positive structure));
after the unhooking, pulling the deployed bag upward (MPEP 2112.02, EAFB7, pulling upward, necessarily occurs because the bag is disclosed folded upward then down over the bag support (col 1, line 32, “folded thereover”), so to unfold the bag in reverse, its folded edge is necessarily pulled upward again in order to remove the bag (col 1, lines 17-18, “bag [is] removed from said operative [deployed] position”)) such that a filled bottom of the deployed bag is tautened (MPEP 2112.02, EAFB7, waste necessarily tautens the deployed bag, by filling a volume of the bag that resides in the unit waste volume) and has a cross-sectional size; and
in upward movement, passing the filled bottom of the deployed bag through the throat section of the bag support for the filled bottom to exit from a top of the disposal unit (EAFB7, MPEP 2112.02, pulling to pass through and exit the entire bag through the top of the unit).
PNG
media_image1.png
601
959
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Brighton does not explicitly teach a particular sizing of the bag.
Patridge, however, discloses a trash bag (see examiner annotated Patridge Figure 3, hereinafter “EAFP3”; EAFP3, bag of two panels 212 and 214, and parallel top end side edges [0027]) comprising:
with the cross-sectional size being smaller than a cross-section of the throat section (EAFP3, WC shown smaller than WA, and disclosed [0026] “The narrowing seals 226, 228 create a third width W.sub.3 and a fourth width W.sub.4 that are both less than an original width W.sub.1”, [0027] “third width W.sub.3 is greater than the fourth width W.sub.4”; since the open top end of the bag is larger than the bottom when folded or filled, and the hooking section is at the top end, the filled bottom will necessarily be smaller than a throat section of a disposal unit).
PNG
media_image2.png
714
651
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bag of Brighton to be a particular shape as taught by Patridge in order to advantageously facilitate gripping (Patridge, Title) and be used with more variety of trashcan sizes (Patridge, [0027]), and “the bag works with trashcans or containers of two different sizes, enabling consumers to purchase the bag without knowing the exact size of their container” (Patridge, [0025]).
Examiner notes that the resultant combination yields the claimed invention via the bag of Patridge replacing the bag of Brighton thereby conforming to placement and sizing arrangements as claimed to function as claimed. A POSITA is lifting a trash bag out top of a trashcan off its hooks.
Regarding claim 8, Brighton/Patridge further teaches unhooking the hooking section of the deployed bag from the bag support includes unhooking the hooking section of the deployed bag (EAFB7, col 1, lines 15-19, unhooking, the deployed bag of Brighton/Patridge) from at least two hooks defined by the bag support (see examiner annotated Brighton Figure 6, hereinafter “EAFB6”; EAFB6, from at least two hooks 44; wherein each 44 is separately formed, as indicated by gaps). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
PNG
media_image3.png
447
717
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Brighton/Patridge further teaches unhooking the hooking section of the deployed bag (EAFB7, col 1, lines 15-19, unhooking, the deployed bag of Brighton/Patridge) from the at least two hooks includes unhooking the hooking section of the deployed bag (EAFB6 & EAFB7, deployed bag unhooks from at least two hooks 44) from elongated (EAFB6 & EAFB7, each of the at least two hooks is shown elongate) curved hooks (EAFB7, each of the at least two hooks 44 is curved where the bag curves over (as in Applicant [0073] Fig 5, hooks 56)). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 10, Brighton/Patridge further teaches passing in upward movement the filled bottom of the deployed bag through the throat section of the bag support (EAFB7, pass through of the entire bag (Patridge) via throat section) includes passing a tapered section of the deployed bag through the bag support, the tapered section being between the hooking section and the filled bottom (EAFP3, WA (hooking) to WC (filled) shows a tapered section between them). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 11, Brighton/Patridge further teaches passing in upward movement the filled bottom of the deployed bag (Patridge bag) through the throat section of the bag support (EAFB7, pass through of the entire bag via throat section) includes centering waste deposited into the deployed bag along a vertical axis of the disposal unit (MPEP 2112.02, centering of waste necessarily occurs due to the bag structure and gravitational force). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat 3198426 issued to Brighton (hereinafter “Brighton”) in view of US Pub 20030161554 by Patridge et al. (hereinafter “Patridge”) in view of US Pat 5738239 issued to Triglia (hereinafter “Triglia”).
Regarding claim 2, Brighton/Patridge further teaches pulling the deployed bag upwardly (EAFB7, pulling unhooks the deployed bag (Patridge) upward).
But Brighton/Patridge does not explicitly teach pulling a subsequent bag attached to the deployed bag.
Triglia, however, discloses pulling a subsequent bag attached to a bottom of the deployed bag (Fig 1, pulling upward a deployed full bag 28 pulls an attached next/subsequent bag 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disposal unit bottom and deployed bag of Brighton with a subsequent bag and structure as taught by Triglia in order to advantageously increase ease of refill versus a refilling via a source of bags more distant from the unit.
(wherein Triglia further teaches in light of dependent claims 3-7 the related:
Fig 1, unrolling a bag roll 34 in a cassette that is dispensing system 24 that is located in the bottom of the disposal unit,
detaching by pulling off the subsequent bag via perforation lines 44, wherein said line 44 is a junction of a deployed bag bottom edge and a subsequent bag leading edge,
then hooking the subsequent bag in the same manner as the deployed bag by its hooking section folded onto support, Fig 1 (e.g. the figure shows both the bag and the subsequent bag in the deployed/open state))
Regarding claim 3, Brighton/Patridge/Triglia further teaches pulling the subsequent bag includes unrolling the subsequent bag from a bag roll located at a bottom of the disposal unit (Triglia, Fig 1, unrolling a bag roll 34 in a cassette that is dispensing system 24 that is located in the bottom of the disposal unit). See details in the parent claim 2 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 4, Brighton/Patridge/Triglia further teaches pulling of the subsequent bag includes pulling off the subsequent bag from a bag roll cassette located at the bottom of the disposal unit (Triglia, Fig 1, detaching by pulling off the subsequent bag via perforation lines 44, wherein said line 44 is a junction of a deployed bag bottom edge and a subsequent bag leading edge). See details in the parent claim 2 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 5, Brighton/Patridge/Triglia further teaches including detaching the deployed bag from the subsequent bag attached to the bottom of the deployed bag along tear-off perforation lines at a junction between a bottom edge of the deployed bag and a leading edge of the subsequent bag (Triglia, Fig 1, detaching by pulling off the subsequent bag via perforation lines 44, wherein said line 44 is a junction of a deployed bag bottom edge and a subsequent bag leading edge). See details in the parent claim 2 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 6, Brighton/Patridge/Triglia further teaches hooking a hooking section of the subsequent bag to the bag support to keep the subsequent bag open (Triglia, Fig 1, then hooking the subsequent bag in the same manner as the deployed bag by its hooking section folded onto support, Fig 1 (e.g. the figure shows both the bag and the subsequent bag in the deployed/open state)). See details in the parent claim 2 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 7, Brighton/Patridge/Triglia further teaches hooking the hooking section of the subsequent bag includes stretching (examiner notes “stretching” does not mean elastic deformation of the bag because the Applicant’s specification does not support such an explicit definition (i.e. “stretching” and deformation of any kind are not disclosed, except for mere product by process of “prestretching”); therefore, the term “stretching” is broadly reasonably interpreted as “hooking” or “flexibly folding over”) the subsequent bag and folding its hooking section (Triglia, Fig 1, then hooking the subsequent bag in the same manner as the deployed bag by its hooking section folded onto support, Fig 1 (e.g. the figure shows both the bag and the subsequent bag in the deployed/open state)) onto the bag support (onto, EAFB7, unit bag support). See details in the parent claim 2 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 Jenness can be reached on 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights