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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 (or as subject to pre-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(s) 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Auten et al. (US 4589570, hereinafter ‘Auten’).
Auten discloses a method for installing a bag (11) in a pail (3), comprising positioning a closed end of a bag in a pail through a central opening in the pail (10, figures 2(a) and 2(b)); deforming a top end of the bag from an unstretched condition to hook the bag onto a bag support at a top end of the pail (column 3, lines 8-42), such that the top end of the bag is open; and depositing waste in the bag via the top open end (column 2, lines 53 and 54), a weight of the waste being supported by the pail via the closed end of the bag being seated against a bottom of the pail (implicitly understood).
With respect to the additional features of claims 25 and 26, the deforming of the top end of the bag from the unstretched condition includes deforming the top end of the bag in a plastic deformation range (column 3, lines 27 and 28), and includes deforming the bag at separate locations (4) corresponding to separate hooking members (4) of the pail.
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) 1-16, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand et al. (WO 2019/092539, hereinafter ‘Morand’) in view of Fraser et al. (US 2010/0148256, hereinafter ‘Fraser’).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11, and 12, Morand discloses a bag (20') adapted for use in a waste disposal unit, the waste disposal unit (50) having a bag support (56) for hanging the bag opened (figure 4), the bag support delimiting a central opening (paragraph [0073]) for receiving the bag, the central opening having a cross-sectional area (figure 4), the cross-sectional area having a first maximum dimension and a second maximum dimension normal to the first maximum dimension, with the second maximum dimension at least 70% of the first maximum dimension (as per paragraph [0071], the cross-sectional area may be square, wherein first and second maximum dimensions may be equal), the bag support defining a hooking periphery along the central opening (paragraph [0072], figure 5), wherein a peripheral outline of the hooking periphery being greater than a peripheral outline of cross-sectional area (figure 5), and a waste receiving volume having a height-wise dimension extending from the bag support to a bottom of the Disposal unit (figure 4), the bag comprising a tubular body with a top open end (23) and a bottom closed end (24), the tubular body of the opened bag defining an internal volume for packing objects, the tubular body having a first section including the top open end, and at least a second section including the bottom closed end (figure 1), the first section being stretchable transversely from an unstretched condition to a stretched condition (paragraph [0064]). The internal volume of the bag of Morand reduces longitudinally between the top open end and the bottom closed end (figure 8).
While Morand strongly implies at paragraph [0064] that the bag and waste receptacle unit is configured such that the bag has, in an unstretched condition, a cross-sectional area less than the cross sectional area of the waste receptacle unit, this is not specifically recited. However, Fraser docs specifically mention that when the bag is opened in the unstretched condition, the first section having an open cross-sectional area smaller than the cross-sectional arca, and in the stretched condition, the open cross-sectional arca is at least equal to the cross-sectional area (paragraph [0071]). Fraser also discloses that the first section in an unstretched condition has an open cross-sectional area being at most 0.95CA (paragraph [0071).
Regarding the additional features of claims 3, 4, and 13, the bag of Morand has a tubular body with a length extending from the top open end to the bottom closed end that is greater than the height-wise dimension of the disposal unit (figure 4).
Regarding the additional features of claims 5-10 and 14-16, the bag of Morand has a tubular body in a flattened two-fold condition has a pair of side edges extending from a top edge in a direction of a bottom edge, the top edge delimiting the top open end, the bottom edge delimiting the bottom closed end (paragraph [0064]), wherein the top open end has a flattened two-fold width WA in accordance with POL/2 < WA ≤ 1.05 POL/2 (paragraph [0075]), where POL is defined as an outline of the hooking periphery. Morand as modified by FRASER requires that the periphery of the bag opening be smaller and it would be implicitly understood that this would affect this relation, and consequently a relation of 0.9 POL/2 < WA ≤ POL/2 would be arrived at without inventive thought. The side edges (22) of this bag are parallel from the top open end to the bottom closed end (figure 7, paragraph [0065]). The bag has a weld scam (25) extending from at least one of the side edges to the bottom closed end and forming a taper in the second section, the taper causing a reduction of open cross-sectional area of the bag in the second section (figure 8), and a flap (space between seam 25 and side edge 22 in figure 8) adjacent to the weld seam (figure 8), the flap extending between the weld seam and one of the side edges. The tubular body is made of at least two layers of film (paragraph [0048]), wherein the film is a compostable material (paragraph [0063]).
Regarding the additional features of claims 22 and 23, Morand discloses that the bags may be provided in either a bag roll (20) or a bag dispensing cassette (10) wherein the bags are connected end to end and from a bottom edge of a first of the bags (20) in the bag roll, to a top edge of a second of the bags (20") in the bag roll (figure 2 and figure 3). In cassette form, the tubular film is accumulated in a fanfold or multifold configuration (paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to arrive at the matter defined in claims 1-16, 22, and 23 by combining the teachings of documents Morand and Fraser.
Claim(s) 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morand et al. (WO 2019/092539, hereinafter ‘Di’) in view of Fraser et al. (US 2010/0148256, hereinafter ‘Fraser’) as applied to claims 1-16 above, and further in view of Tseng et al. (US 2018/0148256, hereinafter ‘Tseng’).
While Morand strongly implies at paragraph [0064] that the bag and waste receptacle unit is configured such that the bag has, in an unstretched condition, a cross-sectional area less than the cross sectional area of the waste receptacle unit, this is not specifically recited. Tseng teaches this.
Further, while Morand does not specifically mention the need for tear resistance in the provided bag, Tseng also teaches this. Specifically, Tseng teaches a first section (upper portion of bag 10) having an open cross-sectional area (P2) smaller than the cross-sectional area, and in the stretched condition, the open cross-sectional area is at least equal to a cross-sectional area of the central opening (paragraph [0019]), at most 0.95 times the cross-section (figure 1A). The bag of Tseng is made of material selected to be stretchable to gain the cross-sectional area at a top open end at least equal to that delimited by the hooking periphery (rim of R) without tearing (paragraph [0026] discusses the need for both first and second material to be tear-resistant). In the stretched condition, a cross-sectional area delimited by the hooking periphery is greater than or equal to 1.01 times the cross-sectional area and less than or equal to 1.2 times the cross-sectional area of the central opening (which range is served by the material properties discussed in paragraph [0026]). Tseng also discloses that the first section including the top open end having a width in a flattened two-fold condition (figure 4) and an elongation at break (paragraph [0026]) in a peripheral Direction selected SO as to have in an unstretched condition an open cross-sectional area between 90% and 100% of the cross-sectional area of the central opening (paragraph [0019]).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to arrive at the matter defined in claims 17-21 by combining the teachings of documents Morand and Tseng.
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 PETER N. HELVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm 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.
/PETER N HELVEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
September 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights