DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 2-5 are 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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claims 2-5 describe the invention in terms of a particular user. Therefore, whether a device falls within the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained until a particular user engages the device. Consequently, the claim is indefinite. Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (BdPatApp & Inter 1989).
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) 1, 2-5, and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eric Sugalski (US 2008/0006223 A1 – hereinafter Sugalski).
Re Claims 1, 10, and 11:
Sugalski discloses a method for dispensing a bag from a bag dispenser unit (203) comprising: moving a shutter (212) away from an opening (at 210) of the bag dispenser unit (203) to expose a bag roll inside the bag dispenser unit (203) (shutter is rotatably openable and closable); grasping a bag from the bag roll from an interior of the bag dispenser unit via the opening (at 210); pulling the bag out of the bag dispenser unit (203) to unroll the bag from the bag roll; and detaching the bag from the bag roll (see paragraphs [0051-0052] and Figs. 11-16).
Re Claims 2-5:
Sugalski discloses including unfolding the bag from a folded condition (see paragraph [0035, 0038, 0052, 0060-0061, and 0068-0069]) (Examiner notes that unrolling bags is unfolding the bags from a folded condition, Examiner further notes that a bag is capable of being used as described in claims 2-5).
Re Claim 12:
Sugalski discloses inserting the bag roll into the bag dispenser unit via the opening (see paragraph [0051]).
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) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugalski in view of Leslie Hollister (US 3,667,597 – hereinafter Hollister).
Re Claims 6 and 7:
Sugalski discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach including spooling a free end of the bag roll into the bag dispenser unit after the detaching.
Hollister teaches including spooling a free end of a roll into a dispenser unit after the detaching (The roll is connected to the knob (62) and they rotate together, thus reversing the knob would spool the roll (see co;. 4 lines 1-20) (see Fig. 4)). Re Claim 7: Hollister teaches wherein spooling the free end of the roll includes rotating an axle of the dispenser unit about a rotational axis (at 58 – a central axis) (see co;. 4 lines 1-20) (see Fig. 4)). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sugalski with that of Hollister, so that a roll can be controlled to place a strip of material in a desired position.
Further Re Claim 8:
Sugalski discloses wherein moving the shutter (212) away from the opening (at 210) includes rotating the shutter (212) (see paragraphs [0051-0052] and Figs. 11-16).
Further Re Claim 9:
Sugalski discloses wherein rotating the shutter (212) includes rotating the shutter (212) about said rotational axis (a central axis) (212A) (see Fig. 12).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugalski in view of Giovanna F. Muscarello (US 4,721,264 – hereinafter Muscarello).
Re Claim 13-14, 16, and 18:
Sugalski discloses a bag dispenser unit (203) for dispensing bags comprising: a casing having an inner cavity for receiving a roll of bags and defining an opening (at 210) for outletting a free end of the roll of bags to dispense bags (see Fig. 11); a cap mechanism (at 212) rotatably mounted to the casing in a first rotational degree of freedom, the cap mechanism (at 212, at 220) having a shutter portion (212) sized to close the opening (at 210), the cap mechanism (at 212, at 220) rotatable between a first orientation in which the shutter portion (212) closes the opening, and a second orientation in which the shutter portion (212) is away from the opening (at 210) (see Figs. 11-12); but fails to teach an axle rotatably mounted to the casing or the cap mechanism in a second rotational degree of freedom and having an axle support configured to be engaged with an interior of the roll of bags.
Muscarello teaches an axle (spring bar) rotatably mounted to a casing (30) or a cap mechanism (31) in a second rotational degree of freedom (independent rotation-like) and having an axle support (main body of spring bar as commonly known within the art) configured to be engaged with an interior of a roll of (products) (see col. 4 lines 25-50) (see Figs. 1-10). Re Claim 14: Muscarello teaches wherein the axle (spring bar) is rotatably mounted to a cap mechanism (31) (see Fig. 7). Re Claim 16: Muscarello teaches wherein the cap mechanism (31) is rotatably mounted to the casing (30) about rotational axis (at 35), and the axle (spring bar) rotates about the rotational axis (at 35) (see Fig. 7). Re Claim 18: Muscarello teaches wherein the cap mechanism (31) is snap-fitted (spring into journals 35, 36) to the casing (30) (see Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sugalski with that of Muscarello to allow for a roll to rotate as desired, as known within the art.
Further Re Claim 17:
Sugalski discloses wherein the opening (ay 210) extends between 120 degrees to 180 degrees of a circumference of the casing (see Fig. 12).
Further Re Claim 19:
Sugalski discloses wherein the cap mechanism (at 212, at 220) has an arch-shape handle (220) by which the cap mechanism (at 212, at 220) is rotatable relative to the casing (see Fig. 11).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugalski in view of Muscarello and further in view of Hollister.
Re Claim 15:
Sugalski in view of Muscarello discloses the device of claim 14, but fails to teach wherein the axle has a knob on an outside of the cap mechanism.
Hollister further in view teaches wherein an axle (54) has a knob (62) on an outside (see Figs. 1-8). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sugalski in view of Muscarello with that of Hollister to allow for a roll to rotate so that a free end may be located proximate to an opening. Examiner notes that the combination would be capable of providing wherein an axle has a knob on an outside of a cap mechanism, for wherein a knob, as suggested by Hollister, is combined with the dispenser unit of Sugalski, the knob, would be on an outside of the cap mechanism which extends beneath along the sidewall wall the knob is attached to. Such would be obvious in view of the corresponding parts operating in a predictable manner without any additional inventive skill.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugalski in view of Muscarello and further in view of Timothy Edwards (UD D521,781 S – hereinafter Edwards).
Re Claim 20:
Sugalski in view of Muscarello discloses the device of claim 14, but fails to teach wherein the arch-shape handle has a slit.
Edwards further in view teaches wherein an arch-shape handle has a slit. (see upper handle and slit of Fig. 2) (see Figs. 1-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Sugalski in view of Muscarello with that of Edwards to maximize a device space for things such as accessories which could be attached to the slit for carrying.
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