Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/028,898

WASTE STORAGE FILM REFILL

Final Rejection §102§103§112
Filed
Mar 28, 2023
Examiner
VOLZ, ELIZABETH J
Art Unit
3733
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Sangenic International Limited
OA Round
4 (Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
722 granted / 1082 resolved
-3.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
58 currently pending
Career history
1140
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
41.3%
+1.3% vs TC avg
§102
32.9%
-7.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1082 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . 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 1-4, 6-8 and 15-17 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the flattened package" in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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) 1-4, 7, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinohara et al. (JPH11100014). Regarding Claim 1, Shinohara et al. discloses a waste storage refill 21 (Figure 4) for a waste storage cassette to be mounted in a waste storage device 26 (Figure 4), the waste storage refill comprising: a tubular film folded over in alternate directions to form concentric pleats that are stacked in a radial direction (Figure 4) such that pulling an end of the tubular film axially expands the pleats (Figure 4); wherein the concentric pleats are formed into a ring (Figure 5) that is squashed flat by drawing together two diametrically opposed points on the ring to form a refill package that is approximately cuboid in shape (Figure 5); and wherein the together across the diameter of the tubular film to form a flattened package (Figure 12) that is openable such that the concentric pleats again form a ring for insertion into a waste storage cassette (Figure 4 and 5). Regarding Claim 2, Shinohara et al. discloses the pleats are disposed circumferentially such that each pleat is parallel to the axis of the tubular film (Figure 4). Regarding Claim 3, Shinohara et al. discloses each pleat comprises an approximately equal length of the tubular film (Figure 4). Regarding Claim 4, Shinohara et al. discloses one end of the tubular film protrudes from the concentric pleats such that it may be pulled to axially expand the pleats (Figure 4). Regarding Claim 7, Shinohara et al. discloses the tubular film is formed from a plastic or bioplastic (paragraph 11). Regarding Claim 15, Shinohara et al. discloses a method of refilling a waste storage cassette, the waste storage cassette comprising an inner wall defining a substantially tubular core (Figure 4), an outer wall and a storage section provided between the inner wall and the outer wall (Figure 4), the method comprising: inserting a waste storage refill according to claim 1 into the storage section such that the concentric pleats of the tubular film surround the tubular core (Figure 4 and 5), wherein the step of inserting the waste storage refill includes opening the flattened package such that the concentric pleats form a ring (Figure 5). Regarding Claim 17, Shinohara et al. discloses pulling an end of the tubular film from the storage section, passing the end of the tubular film through the tubular core and knotting the end of the tubular film (Figure 4). 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 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al. (JPH11100014). Regarding Claims 6 and 8, Shinohara et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the depth of the stacked concentric pleats in the flattened package is between 45 mm and 55 mm thick; wherein each pleat is between 70 mm and 80 mm in the axial direction of the tubular film; or wherein the length of the flattened package is between 261 mm and 267 mm and the tubular film is between 0.005 mm and 0.02 mm thick. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the above since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP2144.05(III)(C). Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al. (JPH11100014) in view of Cudworth (WO2017042591). Regarding Claim 16, Shinohara et al. teaches all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the waste storage cassette further comprises a flange detachably coupled to an upper edge of the outer wall and extending radially inward to at least partly cover the storage section, the method further comprising detaching the flange from the outer wall prior to inserting the waste storage refill into the storage section, and replacing the flange afterwards. However, Cudworth teaches a flange 178 (Figure 6c) detachably coupled to an upper edge of the outer wall and extending radially inward to at least partly cover the storage section (Figure 6c), the method further comprising detaching the flange from the outer wall prior to inserting the waste storage refill into the storage section, and replacing the flange afterwards. (figure 6b and 6c). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shinohara et al. to include the above, as taught by Cudworth, in order to help cover and protect the film. Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 and 15-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-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 JENNESS can be reached at (571)270-5055. 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. /E.J.V/Examiner, Art Unit 3733 /DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 28, 2023
Application Filed
May 21, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Aug 22, 2024
Response Filed
Dec 18, 2024
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Apr 24, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Apr 25, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112
Sep 12, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 08, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600528
PACKAGE AND CLOSURE FOR PACKAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595885
NONUNIFORM WALL THICKNESS PROFILE FOR TEARDROP PRESSURE VESSELS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577039
WASTE MANAGEMENT RECEPTACLE SYSTEM FOR CONTAINMENT OF ODOROUS WASTE AND METHOD OF USING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12559304
SECURE BIN FOR SELECTIVE DEPOSIT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12559307
TRASH CAN ASSEMBLY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+18.5%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1082 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month