DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action acknowledges the applicant’s amendment filed 23 December 2025. Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior office 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 Objections
As an initial matter, applicant is reminded that amendments to an application, including claims, should follow the guidelines set forth in MPEP 714 and 37 C.F.R. 1.121. Normally, claims would be considered non-responsive for the issues below but examiner will proceed with examination to advance prosecution. If these issues continue to occur, a non-complaint amendment will be mailed out until all issues are resolved correctly. Please see the example below for a proper amendment to a claim:
Original claim:
1. A garbage can, said garbage can comprising: a liner roll compartment securely built underneath a bottom of said garbage can, configured to store and hold a can liner roll.
Amended claim:
1. (currently amended) A garbage can assembly, said garbage can assembly comprising: a bottom mounted liner roll compartment disposed underneath a closed bottom base of said garbage can assembly, configured to store and hold a of trash bag liners.
Furthermore, although each claim was amended, none of the claims include the required markings, as described above. Furthermore, some claims, claims 5 and 8 for example, claims something completely different then he previous claim set filed 6/16/2025. Again, when amending claims, applicant should apply the proper status identifier and mark up the claims, as shown above, to make it clear what is being changed in the claim.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1 December 2025. These drawings are not acceptable.
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding the new figures, filed 1 December 2025, figure 1 of the new figures do not match the original figure 1, filed 5/16/2023. It is unclear if the new figures of 12/12025 are intended to replace the old figures of 5/16/2023 or if the new figures of 12/1/2025 are in addition to the old figures of 5/16/2023 since the applicant did not properly label the figure.
Also, since new “figure 1” does not match original figure 1, filed 5/16/2023, it appears new figure 1 is new matter. As shown below, figure 1 has been amended to a point unrecognizable to the originally filed drawing. Since figure 1, filed 12/1/2025, contains new matter not disclosed in the originally filed application, figure 1 is not acceptable.
PNG
media_image1.png
719
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
526
353
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However since the claimed features not shown in the drawings are considered new matter, these features are not allowed to be added to the figures. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 amendment filed 1 December 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The applicant states “Applicant hereby amends the specification to conform reference numerals and terminology to the replacement drawings and amended claims. All component reference characters have been made consistent throughout the written description and figures. The specification is updated so that reference numerals (1)-(12) correspond to the elements shown in replacement FIG. 1, including:
garbage can assembly (1), container body (2), open top end/rim (3), trash bag liner (4), closed bottom base/divider plate (5), liner roll compartment (6), roll of trash bag liners (7), slotted dispensing opening/feed slot (8), protective door (9), latch/seal (10), caster wheels (11), and foot-activated locking brake mechanisms (12). No new matter is introduced by these conforming amendments”. However, most of these limitations are new matter since they were never originally disclosed in the original disclosure. The original disclosure filed 4/10/2024 is the roadmap the applicant can follow when making changes. Anything added to the claims, specification and drawings that are not in the originally filed disclosure are considered new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the applicant introduces the following limitations:
“a plurality of caster wheels”: The specification makes no mention of the wheels being multidirectional swivel casters only that a plurality of wheels are present.
“a foot-activated locking brake mechanism”: The specification makes no mention of a locking mechanism.
“a protective door”: The specification makes no mention of a locking mechanism.
“divider plate”: The specification makes no mention of a locking mechanism.
Regarding claim 3, the applicant introduces “the protective door is hinge-mounted and includes a latch/seal that, when the protective door is in the closed position, substantially seals the liner roll compartment against entry of liquids and debris”. This limitation was never disclosed in the originally filed disclosure.
Regarding claim 4, the applicant introduces “the roll of trash bag liners is a continuous roll of interconnected liners separated by perforations, such that removing one liner from the container body draws a next liner from the roll upward through the slotted opening into the container body”. This limitation was never disclosed in the originally filed disclosure.
Regarding claim 5, the applicant states “The garbage can assembly of claim 1, wherein the liner roll compartment is enclosed and isolated from an interior waste-collection space of the container body to prevent moisture or contamination of the roll of trash bag liners”. This was never disclosed in the originally filed disclosure.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant introduces “the plurality of caster wheels includes four caster wheels positioned near corners of the closed bottom base/divider plate”. This limitation was never disclosed in the originally filed disclosure.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant introduces “each of the four caster wheels includes a foot-activated locking brake mechanism operable to lock the caster wheel against rotation and swiveling”. This limitation was never disclosed in the originally filed disclosure
Regarding claim 8, the applicant introduces “wherein the liner roll compartment includes a moisture-resistant internal lining”. This limitation was never disclosed in the originally filed disclosure.
Dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected as depending from rejected base claims since they inherently contain the same deficiencies therein.
Claim 7 is 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.
Regarding claim 7, the applicant states “wherein each of the four caster wheels includes a foot-activated locking brake mechanism operable to lock the wheel against rotation and swiveling”. However, claim 1, from which claim 7 indirectly depends, states “foot-activated locking brake mechanisms on at least two of the caster wheels configured to selectively immobilize the garbage can assembly”. It is unclear if the “foot-activated locking brake mechanisms” of claim 1 and the “foot-activated locking brake mechanism” of claim 7 are supposed to be the same locking mechanisms or different locking mechanisms. For purposes of examination, examiner will treat them as the same and read the limitations as follows “wherein each of the four caster wheels includes the foot-activated locking brake mechanism operable to lock the wheel against rotation and swiveling”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (US 20150375920), in view of Uffner et al. (US 20170217678) and Norman (US 20100133215).
Regarding claim 1, Hammond teaches a garbage can assembly (figure 1A and 3A, reference 10), comprising: a container body (figure 1A, reference 15) having an open top end/rim (figure 1A, reference 18) and a closed bottom base/divider plate (figure 3A, reference 17); a bottom-mounted liner roll compartment disposed in or beneath the closed bottom base/divider plate (figure 1A, reference 23/25), the liner roll compartment configured to house a roll of trash bag liners (figure 1A, reference 20); the closed bottom base/divider plate including at least one slotted dispensing opening/feed slot (figure 1A, reference 29) aligned with a corresponding opening of the liner roll compartment (figure 1A, near reference 20 and figure 8) through which trash bag liners from the roll are dispensable upward into the container body (figure 8, reference 20); a protective door (figure 7, reference 52) for the liner roll compartment (figure 8), the protective door being movable between an open position providing access to the roll of trash bag liners (figure 6) and a closed position closing the liner roll compartment to inhibit entry of moisture, liquids, and debris (figure 8 and paragraph 47); whereby, upon removal of a filled trash bag liner from the container body, a next trash bag liner from the roll of trash bag liners is automatically dispensed through the slotted dispensing opening/feed slot into the interior of the container body, ready for use, while the roll of trash bag liners is protected from moisture and the container is mobile yet capable of secure positioning (paragraph 31 and 32).
Hammond does not teach a plurality of wheels attached to an underside of the container body to support the assembly for rolling movement. However, Uffner does teach a plurality of wheels attached to an underside of the container body to support the assembly for rolling movement (figure 1, reference 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Hammond to include a plurality of wheels attached to an underside of the container body to support the assembly for rolling movement, as disclosed by Uffner, because including wheels allows for moving the assembly with ease.
Hammond, in view of Uffner, do not teach the wheels being multidirectional swivel casters; and foot-activated locking brake mechanisms on at least two of the wheels to selectively immobilize the garbage can assembly. However, Norman does teach the wheels being multidirectional swivel casters (figure 1, reference 14 and paragraph 34); and foot-activated locking brake mechanisms on at least two of the wheels to selectively immobilize the garbage can assembly (paragraph 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of Hammond, in view of Uffner, to include the wheels being multidirectional swivel casters; and foot-activated locking brake mechanisms on at least two of the wheels to selectively immobilize the garbage can assembly, as disclosed by Norman, because including the wheels being multidirectional swivel casters; and foot-activated locking brake mechanisms on at least two of the wheels to selectively immobilize the garbage can assembly allows for easy movement without tipping and locking to prevent the assembly from moving, as explained by Norman (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 5, Hammond, in view of Uffner and Norman, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Hammond teaches the liner roll compartment is enclosed and isolated from an interior waste-collection space of the container body to prevent moisture or contamination of the roll of trash bag liners (figure 8: when the compartment 23/25 is placed within the container body, it is enclosed and isolated from an interior waste-collection space of the container body to prevent moisture or contamination of the roll of trash bag liner).
Regarding claim 6, Hammond, in view of Uffner and Norman, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Norman teaches the plurality of caster wheels comprise four caster wheels (figure 1 and 2C, reference 14) positioned near corners of the closed bottom base/divider plate (figure 1 and 2C, reference 14).
Regarding claim 7, Hammond, in view of Uffner and Norman, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 6, as shown above. Furthermore, Norman teaches each of the four caster wheels includes the foot-activated locking brake mechanism operable to lock the wheel against rotation and swiveling (figure 1, reference 14 and paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 8, Hammond, in view of Uffner and Norman, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Furthermore, Hammond teaches the liner roll compartment includes a moisture-resistant internal lining (figure 1a: since the trash bag liners are placed in the liner roll compartment, the liner roll compartment includes moisture resistant internal lining since the liners are moisture resultant and are removed from the compartment to cover the container body. Furthermore, since the compartment is made from plastic or metal [paragraph 29], it would inherently include a moisture resistant internal lining).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (US 20150375920), in view of Uffner et al. (US 20170217678) and Norman (US 20100133215), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Egan et al. (US 20120267375).
Regarding claim 3, Hammond, in view of Uffner and Norman, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Modified Hammond does not teach the protective door is hinge-mounted and includes a latch/seal that when the protective door is in the closed position, substantially seals the liner roll compartment against entry of liquids and debris. However, Egan does teach the protective door (figure 3, reference 16) is hinge-mounted (figure 3, reference 27) and includes a latch/seal (figure 3, reference 26) that when the protective door is in the closed position, substantially seals the liner roll compartment against entry of liquids and debris (paragraph 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of modified Hammond, to include the protective door is hinge-mounted and includes a latch/seal that when the protective door is in the closed position, substantially seals the liner roll compartment against entry of liquids and debris, as disclosed by Egan, because including the protective door is hinge-mounted and includes a latch/seal that when the protective door is in the closed position, substantially seals the liner roll compartment against entry of liquids and debris allows for access of the liners but the ability to seal off the liners from leaking refuse, as explained by Egan (paragraph 40)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (US 20150375920), in view of Uffner et al. (US 20170217678) and Norman (US 20100133215), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leon (US 20100206880).
Regarding claim 4, Hammond, in view of Uffner and Norman, teach all of the claim limitations of claim 1, as shown above.
Modified Hammond does not teach wherein the roll of trash bag liners is a continuous roll of interconnected liners separated by perforations, such that removing one liner from the container body draws a next trash bag liner from the roll upward through the slotted dispensing opening/feed slot. However, Leon does teach wherein the roll of trash bag liners is a continuous roll of interconnected liners separated by perforations, such that removing one liner from the container body draws a next trash bag liner from the roll upward through the slotted dispensing opening/feed slot (paragraph 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the assembly of modified Hammond, to include the roll of trash bag liners is a continuous roll of interconnected liners separated by perforations, such that removing one liner from the container body draws a next trash bag liner from the roll upward through the slotted dispensing opening/feed slot, as disclosed by Leon, because including the roll of trash bag liners is a continuous roll of interconnected liners separated by perforations, such that removing one liner from the container body draws a next trash bag liner from the roll upward through the slotted dispensing opening/feed slot allows for easily getting the next liner when removing the previous one.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the art rejections, in accordance with MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 70 USPQ2D 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding the claims, applicant states “Hammond does not teach the claimed underside roll compartment with upward automatic dispensing. Hammond does not teach or suggest: a bottom-mounted liner roll compartment (6) disposed in or beneath a closed bottom base/divider plate (5); an aligned slotted dispensing opening/feed slot (8) through the base to dispense liners upward into the container interior; or the claimed relationship where removal of a filled liner automatically dispenses the next liner into position”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. These limitations are, in fact, disclosed by Hammond, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Applicant further states “Uffner does not provide the missing structure or automatic-advance
function. Uffner fails to disclose a protected roll compartment integrated into the underside/base of a garbage can with an aligned upward feed slot that automatically advances liners into the can interior. Again, as stated above, these limitations are disclosed by Hammond and are not required to be disclosed by Uffner.
Applicant further states “Norman's wheel locks are unrelated to Applicant's protected-roll
dispensing system. Norman teaches caster brakes but is unrelated to protected liner roll storage, sealing, or upward automatic dispensing and provides no motivation to combine into Applicant's integrated structure”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants’ argument is essentially stating that Norman is non-analogous art. In response to applicant's argument that the prior art reference Norman is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Norman discloses a rolling device which can hold refuse. This would be analogous art. Furthermore, Norman pertains to applicants’ particular problem of finding a way to make a stationary object easily movable. Norman teaches this function thus also making it analogous art.
Applicant further states “Egan does not suggest sealing a bottom-mounted liner roll compartment that dispenses liners upward through aligned base openings, nor motivate incorporation into Hammond for Applicant's hygienic roll-protection function”. Egan was not used to teach sealing a bottom-mounted liner roll compartment that dispenses liners upward through aligned base openings. This feature was disclosed by Hammond, as shown above.
Lastly, applicant argues “The cited references do not teach or motivate Applicant's unified system: 1. liners stored below and isolated from waste in a protected compartment (6); 2. liners dispensed upward through aligned slot openings (8) automatically as liners are removed; and 3. mobility with secure positioning via caster wheels (11) and foot-activated locking brake mechanisms (12)”. Since all of these limitations are disclosed by the prior art, as shown in the rejection above, examiner can only assume applicant was stating that applicant feels there is no motivation to combine the references. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivations are provided above in the rejection. Each motivation, described in the rejection above, is either directly from the prior art references or based on knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Since the prior art still discloses the claim limitations, the claims remain rejected.
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 JAVIER A PAGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 6:30am-4:30pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/JAVIER A PAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735