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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “62” has been used to designate both the legs and the weighing scales, reference character “80” has been used to designate both the package and the filling opening, and reference character “84” has been used to designate both the pipe and the volume sensor.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "52" and "52A" have both been used to designate the environment.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 10B (Figure 5) and 64 (Figures 14-15).
The drawings are further objected to because: in Figure 8, bottom compartment 20C appears to be erroneously labeled with “20B”; in Figure 13, door 37 appears to be erroneously labeled with “36”; and in Figure 16, reference numeral “82” appears to be pointing to the wall of the waste apparatus, but this numeral has been used in the specification and in Figure 17 to designate the water pump, so this appears to be incorrect.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 2 line 11: “Fig. 7 describes the first step” should read “Fig. 7 describes the second step”
Page 4 lines 7-8: “roof opening 12” should read “roof opening 12A”
Page 6 line 14: “supplied in in a tough cardboard holder” should read “supplied in a tough cardboard holder”
Page 7 line 1: “Waster apparatus 10” should read “Waste apparatus 10”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “to second compartment” should be amended to “to said second compartment”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a processing device comprising a transfer device, for transferring said waste from said first compartment to said second compartment, and for then partitioning said first compartment from said second compartment” in Claim 1, “an air deflating device, for deflating said second compartment” in Claim 5, and “an air inflating device, for inflating said second compartment” in Claim 6.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structures described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations: the transfer device of the processing device has the structure of openable floor 12B to perform the functions of transferring the waste from the first compartment to the second compartment and partitioning the compartments (pg. 3 lns 19-20, pg. 7 lns 11-13); and the air deflating device and the air inflating device both have the structure of pump 30 to perform the respective functions of deflating an inflating the second compartment (pg. 5 lns 1-3 and lns 8-10).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westera et al., hereinafter Westera (EP 0748738).
Regarding Claim 1, Westera discloses (Figure 1) a waste apparatus (col. 1 lns 3-4), comprising: a first compartment (waste chute 1) for manually inserting waste thereinto from an environment (col. 1 ln 56); a second compartment (plastic bag 7) being discardable, for discarding said second compartment while containing said waste (col. 1 lns 24-28, col. 2 lns 38-41: waste is contained in the plastic bag, which is then discarded after being sealed); and a processing device (opening 9) comprising a transfer device (receiving portion 6 with sealing device 12), for transferring said waste from said first compartment to said second compartment, and for then partitioning said first compartment from said second compartment (col. 2 lns 55-58, col. 3 lns 2-6: waste passes into plastic bag 7 via receiving portion 6, and plastic bag 7 is then partitioned from waste chute 1 via sealing device 12), thereby said waste is stored within said second compartment separated from said environment, for allowing delaying said discarding said second compartment while containing said waste (col. 1 lns 34-42).
Regarding Claim 2, Westera discloses (Figure 1) said processing device (opening 9) further comprises a waste diminishing device (shredder 3 and suction device 10/11), thereby said waste stored within said second compartment (plastic bag 7) separated from said environment is diminished (col. 1 lns 25-28, lns 57-58), thereby allowing plural transfers of said waste to second compartment for each discarding thereof (col. 1 lns 52-53: the waste is diminished by the shredder 3 before being transferred into the plastic bag 7; as many transfers of said diminished waste as possible before the plastic bag is filled is allowed).
Regarding Claim 3, Westera discloses (Figure 1) said waste diminishing device comprises a shredder (shredder 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Westera discloses (Figure 1) said waste diminishing device comprises an air deflating device (suction device 10/11), for deflating said second compartment (plastic bag 7) onto said waste, thereby to diminish said waste (col. 1 lns 24-28).
Regarding Claim 6, Westera discloses (Figure 1) said waste diminishing device comprises an air inflating device (suction device 10/11; col. 3 lns 7-8: vacuum pump 11 can be used to put air into the device, and thus functions as an air inflating device).
Examiner note: The limitation “for inflating said second compartment for providing empty space to add waste” is considered to be a recitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). Vacuum pump 11 of the disclosed suction device 10/11 is capable of flowing air into the shredder 3 and waste chute 1 (col. 3 lns 7-8), which are in fluid communication with plastic bag 7 via opening 9 and receiving portion 6; therefore, if sealing device 12 is not engaged, vacuum pump 11 is capable of inflating the plastic bag 7, so this limitation of the claim is met.
Regarding Claim 7, Westera discloses (Figure 1) said waste diminishing device comprises: an air pump (vacuum pump 11) and an air directing device comprising a compartment (line 10 and interior compartment formed by waste chute 1, shredder 3, and opening 9) comprising at least one valve (lid 2; col. 2 lns 4-10: lid 2 functions as a valve by restricting air flow from the environment into the device while vacuum pump 11 is sucking air out of the plastic bag 7).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westera as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et al., hereinafter Chen (CN 108636555). For text citations of Chen, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature.
Regarding Claim 4, Westera does not disclose a water pump for cleaning at least the first compartment. In the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches (Figures 1-2) a waste apparatus ([0002] lns 1-2), comprising a first compartment (feeding hopper 110 of feeding mechanism 100) for inserting waste thereinto ([0025] lns 2-3: waste is inserted via feeding mechanism 100), a processing device comprising a waste diminishing device (crushing mechanism 200 and grinding mechanism 300), and a water pump (water pump 410) for cleaning at least said first compartment ([0032] lns 1-4). Including the water pump allows the residual waste to be rinsed away, resulting in a cleaner and more hygienic apparatus ([0025] lns 6-10). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the waste apparatus disclosed by Westera such that it further comprises a water pump for cleaning at least said first compartment, as taught by Chen, in order to rinse away residual waste and improve the cleanliness and hygiene of the apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Powers (US 3,899,967) discloses a waste apparatus comprising a discardable compartment which is deflated to compress the waste therein, and then reinflated to create empty space to add more waste, wherein the deflation and reinflation is repeated until the compartment is completely filled.
Randall et al. (US 1,372,190) discloses a waste apparatus comprising a discardable compartment for containing waste, which is compressed via an air deflation device comprising an air pump and valves.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725