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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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, 4-6, 9, 10, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner (D461,027) in view of Clark et al. (5,868,447).
RE claims 1 and 10, Gardner (D461,027) discloses a waste collection assembly (see Figs. 1-21), comprising: a collector configured to collect and transmit waste having: a body (see Exhibit A) formed by an outer and inner surface; a channel; a surface having positioned along the bottom front surface of the said collector; a pole adaptor (see Exhibit A) having a coupler position; a receptacle (see Fig. 7) configured secure the waste transmitted through the channel; at least one coupler (see Exhibit A) configured to secure said receptacle to the terminal portion of said collector; and a pole (see Exhibit A) configured to be secured with said pole adaptor through said coupler position, but does not specifically show a forked surface having a plurality of tines positioned along the bottom front surface of the said collector. However, Figs. 1-3 of Clark et al. (5,868,447) teach a forked surface having a plurality of tines (60, 60) (see Col. 3, lines 43-65) positioned along the bottom front surface of the said collector. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plurality of tines on the along the bottom front surface of the said collector of Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) as taught Clark et al. (5,868,447) to allow the tines to penetrate the waste and to effectively collect the waste.
RE claims 2 and 11, Fig. 7 of Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) shows a waste bag, but does not specifically teach a plastic bag. However, Clark et al. (5,868,447) teaches a waste bag (90, 92) being made of plastic (from Col. 2, line 65, to Col. 3, line 10). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plastic material on the waste bag of Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) as taught Clark et al. (5,868,447) to provide a light bag to a user.
RE claims 4, 5, and 13, Figs. 7 and 9 of Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) show a lower guide extension (see Exhibit A) positioned on the bottom portion of the collector and configured to extend into said receptacle and an upper guide extension (see Exhibit A) positioned on the top portion of the collector and configured to extend into said receptacle.
Exhibit A
[AltContent: textbox (Lower guide extension (RE claim 4))][AltContent: textbox (Upper guide extension (RE claims 4 & 5) )][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Elongated pole)][AltContent: textbox (Body )][AltContent: textbox (Channel )][AltContent: textbox (Pole adaptor)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Front bottom surface)]
RE claim 6, Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) shows that said collector, coupler, pole adaptor and said pole comprise a unitary integral component.
RE claims 9 and 16, Fig. 8 of Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) displays
said pole is secured with said pole adaptor and positioned at approximately about 40 degree (measured), which is between 30 degree and 60 degree) angle relative to said collector when positioned along a horizontal axis.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner (D461,027) and Clark et al. (5,868,447) and further in view of Willis (4,149,745).
RE claims 3, 13, 17, and 18, Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027), as presented above, discloses all the structural elements as recited except having a catch positioned along the bottom surface of said collector body and configured to secure said plastic bag to the terminal portion of said collector and at least one notch positioned on the upper surface of said body and configured to secure said plastic bag to the terminal portion of said collector. However, Figs. 1 and 2 of Willis (4,149,745) teaches a catch (36, 38) positioned along the bottom surface and at least one notch (46, 48) positioned on the upper surface of said body. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a catch (36, 38) positioned along the bottom surface and at least one notch (46, 48) positioned on the upper surface of said body of Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) as taught by Willis (4,149,745) to provide as a means to secure the bag.
RE claims 2 and 11, Fig. 7 of Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) shows a waste bag, but does not specifically teach a plastic bag. However, Fig. 1 of Willis (4,149,745) teaches a waste plastic bag (11) (see Col. 3, lines 13-30). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a plastic bag on the Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) as taught Willis (4,149,745) to provide a light bag to a user.
RE claim 19, Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) shows that said collector, coupler, pole adaptor and said pole comprise a unitary integral component.
Claims 7, 8, 14, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gardner (D461,027) and Clark et al. (5,868,447) and further in view of Northrop et al. (US 2011/0049917).
RE claims 7, 8, 14, and 20, Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027), as presented above, shows a pole, but does not show a telescoping pole or handle. However, Fig. 7 of Northrop et al. (US 2011/0049917) teaches a waste collector having a pole adaptor with an inner thread (52) and a telescoping handle or pole (16). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mechanical engineering art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a thread connection on the adaptor and a telescoping pole on the Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) as taught by Northrop et al. (US 2011/0049917) to provide a convenience to assemble or disassemble to a user.
RE claim 15, Fig. 8 of Gardner waste collection assembly (D461,027) shows that an integral pole adaptor positioned on the top surface of said collector and extending beyond the terminal plane of said channel.
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 PAUL T CHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6922. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30 PM.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL T CHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3651