DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
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, 2, 7-9, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gaby Schulze (US 2016/0316976 A1 – hereinafter Schulze) in view of Hussain Y.A.M Mothaffar (US 2014/0103059 A1 – hereinafter Mothaffar) and David F. Morris (US 5,634,617 – hereinafter Morris).
Re Claims 1, 2, and 21:Schulze discloses a (product) dispenser, comprising: an ellipsoidal housing (1) comprising at least two equal principal horizontal axes (axes from 16 to 16, axes from 3 to an opposite side of the container) (see Fig. 1), an interior (product) storage area (near 3), a lower housing (6), and an upper housing (5); the lower housing (6) comprising a bottom wall (12) and a first side wall (surrounding at 2,6); the bottom wall (12) defining a floor of the interior (product) storage area; and, the upper housing (5) comprising a top wall (1) and a second side wall (surrounding at 2,5) the top wall (1) comprising a (product) dispensation aperture (8), the upper housing (5) disconnectably engaged to the lower housing (6) (see Figs. 1-4), but fails to teach a floor stand comprising a stand side wall, a housing shelf, a base, and a top end, the stand side wall connected to the base, the stand side wall defining an interior trash receiving area, the stand side wall comprising a trash receptacle aperture in communication with the interior trash receiving area, the housing shelf supports the housing within the floor stand and extending above the top end, the bottom wall of the housing is below the housing shelf, the housing is removable from the stand to provide access through the top end to the interior trash receiving area.
Mothaffar teaches a floor stand (29) comprising a stand side wall (12 - cylindrical), a housing shelf (32), a base (near 14), and a top end (near 18), the stand side wall (12) connected to the base (near 14), the stand side wall (12) defining an interior trash receiving area (see lower housing at 16), the stand side wall (12) comprising a trash receptacle aperture (18) in communication with the interior trash receiving area (see lower housing at 16), the housing shelf (32) supports a housing (38) within the floor stand (29) and extending above the top end (near 18), the housing (38) is removable from the stand (12) to provide access through the top end (near 18) to the interior trash receiving area (see lower housing at 16) (see paragraph [0020, see Figs. 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze with that of Mothaffar to provide an all in one device, thus, maximizing convenience of use for a user, while also minimizing space.
Morris teaches a bottom wall of a housing (15) is below a housing shelf (14) (see col. 2 lines 30-65, see Figs. 1-3, see cylindrical stand). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze with that of Mothaffar and Morris to provide a support assembly using an alternative coupling technique between the stand and container, which would allow for stabilizing a container of a spherical shape.
Further Re Claim 7:
Schulze discloses wherein the upper housing (5) rotationally engages the lower housing (6) (see paragraph [0041]).
Further Re Claim 8:
Schulze discloses a detent mechanism (15, 16) for releasably holding the upper housing (5) engaged to the lower housing (6) (see Fig. 1).
Further Re Claim 9:
Schulze discloses wherein the detent mechanism (15, 16) comprises a projection (16) and recess (15), the projection (16) removably received in the recess (15) to releasably hold the upper housing (5) engaged to the lower housing (6) (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Re Claims 24:
Schulze discloses a housing comprising a plurality of walls defining an interior storage area and comprising a top wall and a bottom wall, the top wall (1) comprising a (product) dispensation aperture (8) (see Figs. 1-4), but fails to teach a floor stand comprising a stand side wall, a housing shelf, a base, and a top end, the stand side wall connected to the base, the stand side wall defining an interior trash receiving area, the stand side wall comprising a trash receptacle aperture in communication with the interior trash receiving area, the housing shelf supports the housing within the floor stand and extending above the top end, the bottom wall of the housing is below the housing shelf, the housing is removable from the stand to provide access through the top end to the interior trash receiving area.
Mothaffar teaches a floor stand (29) comprising a stand side wall (12), a housing shelf (32), a base (near 14), and a top end (near 18), the stand side wall (12) connected to the base (near 14), the stand side wall (12) defining an interior trash receiving area (see lower housing at 16), the stand side wall (12) comprising a trash receptacle aperture (18) in communication with the interior trash receiving area (see lower housing at 16), the housing shelf (32) supports a housing (38) within the floor stand (29) and extending above the top end (near 18), the housing (38) is removable from the stand (12) to provide access through the top end (near 18) to the interior trash receiving area (see lower housing at 16) (see paragraph [0020, see Figs. 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze with that of Mothaffar to provide an all in one device, thus, maximizing convenience of use for a user, while also minimizing space.
Morris teaches a bottom wall of a housing (15) is below a housing shelf (14) (see col. 2 lines 30-65, see Figs. 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze with that of Mothaffar and Morris to provide a support assembly using an alternative coupling technique between the stand and container, which would allow for stabilizing a container of a spherical shape.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris and further in view Sellars et al. (US 2008/0083772 A1 – hereinafter Sellars).
Re Claims 3 and 4:
Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the upper housing comprises a handle, the top wall comprises a handle recess, the handle is moveable from a stored position where the handle is within the handle recess and a raised position where the handle extends out of the handle recess.
Sellars further in view teaches wherein an upper housing comprises a handle (54), a top wall comprises a handle recess (54.1), the handle (54) is moveable from a stored position where the handle (54) is within the handle recess (54.1) and a raised position where the handle (54) extends out of the handle recess (54.1) (see Fig. 13). Re Claim 4: Sellars teaches a lid (30.1) mounted to the upper housing, the lid (30.1) is movable between a closed position where the lid (30.1) covers a wipe dispensation aperture and an open position where the lid (30.1) is positioned to allow access to the wipe dispensation aperture (see Figs. 12-13 and paragraph [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris with that of Sellars to allow for assisted transport of a container, while also maintaining a low profile while not in transport and in a dispensing position.
Claim(s) 16, 25, 26, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris and further in view of Sellars and Thomas G. Beaham (US 310,639 – hereinafter Beaham).
Re Claims 16, 25, 26, and 27:
Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a lower housing comprises a first side handle and a second side handle above the bottom wall; the housing shelf is a first housing shelf, the floor stand comprises a second housing shelf; the first housing shelf supports the first side handle and the second housing shelf supports the second side handle to support the housing within the floor stand and extending above the top end.
Sellars further in view teaches wherein a lower housing comprises a first side handle (56) and a second side handle (56) above a bottom wall (see Fig. 14, see paragraph [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze with that of Sellars to allow for assisted transport of a container, while also maintaining a low profile while not in transport and in a dispensing position.
Beaham further in view teaches a housing shelf (C’ - horizontal) is a first housing shelf; the first housing shelf supports the first side handle (B) to support a housing (A) within a floor stand and extending above a top end (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris with that of Sellars and Beaham to allow for an alternative connection means of a spherical-like container and a supporting stand, allowing the container to rest within the stand. Examiner notes that combination would be capable of providing the floor stand comprises a second housing shelf (Mothaffar and Morris teaches first and second shelves 32-Mothhaffar, 14-Morris) and the second housing shelf supports the second side handle (Sellars teaches first and second handles) by way of duplicating of a single structure as suggested by Morris and known to one of ordinary skill in the art without changing the primary purpose of the invention or including any additional inventive skill. Examiner further notes that Beaham teaches a horizontal shelf and horizontal handle (see Fig. 1), and Morris teaches various shapes of a shelf-like member (col. 4 lines 45-65). The combination would be capable of providing horizontal shelves as suggested by both Beaham and Morris and the combination as cited.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze in view of Mothaffar, Morris and Sellars and further in view of Karen Factor (US 11,078,-13 B2 – hereinafter Factor).
Re Claims 5 and 6:
Schulze in view of Mothaffar, Morris and Sellars discloses the device of claim 4, but fails to teach wherein the lid is mounted to the upper housing to provide a planar path of motion to the lid between the closed position and the open position, and comprising a post, the post connected to the lid, the post extending perpendicular from the lid, the post pivotally received in a post mount aperture of the upper housing, the lid is pivotal about the post mount aperture to move between the closed position and the open position.
Factor further in view teaches wherein a lid (318) is mounted to an upper housing to provide a planar path of motion (see arrows – Fig. 4) to the lid (318) between a closed position and an open position (see Figs. 1-9). Re Claim 6: Factor further in view teaches comprising a post (324), the post (324) connected to the lid (318), the post (324) extending perpendicular from the lid (318), the post (324) pivotally received in a post mount aperture of the upper housing (see Fig. 3), the lid (318) is pivotal about the post (324) mount aperture to move between a closed position and the open position. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze in view of Mothaffar, Morris and Sellars with that of Factor to provide an alternative lid opening and closing means as known within the art and suggested by Factor as an alternative.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze in view of Mothaffar, Morris and Sellars and further in view of Factor and Bing et al. (US 2022/0192441 A1 – hereinafter Bing).
Re Claims 6:
Schulze in view of Mothaffar, Morris and Sellars discloses the device of claim 4, but fails to teach comprising a post, the post connected to the lid, the post extending perpendicular from the lid, the post pivotally received in a post mount aperture of the upper housing, the lid is pivotal about the post mount aperture to move between the closed position and the open position.
Factor further in view teaches comprising a post (324), the post (324) connected to the lid (318), the post (324) extending perpendicular from the lid (318), the post (324) pivotally received in a post mount aperture of the upper housing (see Fig. 3), the lid (318) is pivotal about the post (324) mount aperture to move between a closed position and the open position. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze in view of Mothaffar, Morris and Sellars with that of Factor to provide an alternative lid opening and closing means as known within the art and suggested by Factor as an alternative.
Bing further in view teaches a post (82) pivotally received in a post mount aperture (58 or 78) of an upper housing (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze in view of Mothaffar, Morris and Sellars with that of Factor and Bing to provide an alternative lid opening and closing means as known within the art and suggested by Factor as an alternative.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris and further in view of Baines et al. (US 2006/0029455 A1 – hereinafter Baines).
Re Claims 10:
Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris discloses wherein the detent mechanism (15, 16) comprises a plurality of protrusions (16) and a plurality of receivers (15), the upper housing (5) comprises the plurality of protrusions or the plurality of receivers (15) and the lower housing (6) comprises the other of the plurality of protrusions (16) or the plurality of receivers (see Schulze - Fig. 1), but fails to teach each of the plurality of protrusions comprises a detent projection and each of the plurality of receivers comprises a detent recess, each of the plurality of protrusions is receivable in to a corresponding receiver of the plurality of receivers, and each detent projection is receivable into a corresponding one of the detent recesses to disconnectably engage the upper housing to the lower housing.
Baines further in view teaches each of a plurality of protrusions (44) comprises a detent projection (49) and each of a plurality of receivers (12) comprises a detent recess (13), each of the plurality of protrusions (44) is receivable in to a corresponding receiver (12) of the plurality of receivers (12), and each detent projection (49) is receivable into a corresponding one of the detent recesses (13) to disconnectably engage an upper housing (37) to a lower housing (8) (see Figs. 1-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris with that of Baines to provide additional support for a connection of two parts, by assuring additional gripping support when the two parts some together so as to not be dislodged unintentionally.
Further Re Claims 12:
Schulze discloses wherein each of a plurality of protrusions (16) are fixed to a bottom interior of the second side wall or a top interior of the first side wall (surrounding at 2,6), and each of the plurality of receivers (15) are fixed to the other of the bottom interior of the second side wall (surrounding at 2,5) or the top interior of the first side wall (see Fig. 2). Examiner notes that reversing the components to other side would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art for the reversal of components in a prior art reference, where there is no disclosed significance to such reversal, is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955); In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim(s) 11, 13, 14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze in view of Mothaffar, Morris, and Baines and further in view of Palmer et al. (5,443,179 – hereinafter Palmer).
Re Claims 11, 13, 14, and 17:
Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris discloses wherein the detent mechanism (15, 16) comprises a plurality of protrusions (16) and a plurality of receivers (15), the upper housing (5) comprises the plurality of protrusions or the plurality of receivers (15) and the lower housing (6) comprises the other of the plurality of protrusions (16) or the plurality of receivers (see Schulze - Fig. 1), but fails to teach wherein the plurality of protrusions comprises at least four protrusions, and the plurality of receivers comprises at least four receivers, and each of the protrusions is spaced apart ninety degrees from each adjacent protrusion, and each of the receivers is spaced apart ninety degrees from each adjacent receiver.
Baines teaches wherein a plurality of protrusions (44) comprises at least four protrusions (see paragraphs 0027 and 0028]), and the plurality of receivers (12) comprises at least four receivers (see paragraphs [0027 and 0028]) (see Figs. 1-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris with that of Baines to provide additional support for a connection of two parts, by assuring additional gripping support when the two parts some together so as to not be dislodged unintentionally. Examiner further notes that one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Palmer further in view teaches each of a protrusions (21) is spaced apart ninety degrees from each adjacent protrusion (21), and each of the receivers (31) is spaced apart ninety degrees from each adjacent receiver (31) (Examiner notes that Palmer shows connection points 90 degrees apart, similar to shown in Applicant’s drawings) (see Figs. 1-9B). Re Claim 17: Palmer further in view teaches wherein the upper housing is transparent or translucent (see col. 10 lines 15-30) (see Figs. 1-9B). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris with that of Baines and Palmer to provide a design configuration for connecting members to assure proper connection across an entirety of the device, while also allowing visibility of product within. Examiner further notes that while Palmer does not specifically disclose 90 degrees, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been obvious through routine experimentation and optimization, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify their invention to include the most optimum results and efficiency necessary for their particular invention since it has been held where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris and further in view of Alfred A. Anthony (4,221,293 – hereinafter Anthony).
Re Claim 15:
Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to specifically teach a lip and a slot, wherein the second side wall comprises the lip or the slot at a lower end of the second side wall and the first side wall comprises the other of the lip or the slot at an upper end of the first side wall, the lip is received in the slot when the upper housing is engaged to the lower housing.
Anthony further in view teaches a lip (32) and a slot (30), wherein a second side wall (15) comprises the lip (32) or the slot at a lower end of the second side wall (15) and the first side wall (12) comprises the other of the lip or the slot (20) at an upper end of the first side wall (12), the lip (32) is received in the slot (20) when an upper housing is engaged to a lower housing (see Figs. 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Schulze in view of Mothaffar and Morris with that of Anthony to provide a secure connection between two parts as known within the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm 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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 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 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.
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651