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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Priority
It is noted that Applicant claims priority to provisional application 63/438,014 with a priority date of 1/10/23.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 10, 2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because it was not signed as required per 37 CFR 1.33. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Carlisle Food Service Product: Bronco 32 Gal Black Trash Can Dome Lid Model #34103403 with trash can bottom as evidenced by Carlisle Waste & Material Handling Brochure dated 2015, Carlisle Waste Containers Brochure, Home Depot & Webstaurant Store websites illustrating the product.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses a target comprising a cylinder with a bottom that resides on a surface and a top having a landing surface that is flat and abuts a vertical opening with a door that swings on a hinge (Webstaurant & Carlisle Waste Container). It is noted that a waste container and lid above is capable of being used as a toss game set and the preamble does not further any structural limitations in this situation. MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding Claim 3, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses, wherein the landing surface forms a partial circle (Webstaurant, Carlisle Waste Container, Home Depot).
Regarding Claim 4, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses, wherein the landing surface has a flat portion that abuts the door (Webstaurant, Carlisle Waste Container, Home Depot).
Regarding Claim 6, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses, wherein the cylinder comprises a wall, and wherein the top is removeable from the wall (Webstaurant, Carlisle Waste Container, Home Depot).
Regarding Claim 7, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses, wherein the hinge is configured to generate a closing load that biases the door in a closed position (Webstaurant, Carlisle Waste Container, Home Depot).
Regarding Claim 8, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses, wherein the hinge comprises a spring that generates a closing load that biases the door in a closed position (Home Depot review mentions the spring).
Alternatively, Claim(s) 1, 3, 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng, CN 201520374541.
PNG
media_image2.png
503
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, the Zheng a target comprising a cylinder with a bottom that resides on a surface and a top having a landing surface that is flat and abuts a vertical opening with a door that swings on a hinge (Zheng describes garbage bins which affix to the cover and therefore are cylindrical and are placed on the ground). It is noted that the waste container and lid above is capable of being used as a toss game set and the preamble does not further any structural limitations in this situation. MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding Claim 3, Zheng discloses, wherein the landing surface forms a partial circle (Zheng Fig. 1 #5).
Regarding Claim 4, Zheng discloses, wherein the landing surface has a flat portion that abuts the door (Zheng #3 abutting #5).
Regarding Claim 6, Zheng discloses, wherein the cylinder comprises a wall, and wherein the top is removeable from the wall (Zheng #2 removable cover from garbage bin which inherently has a wall).
Regarding Claim 7, Zheng discloses, wherein the hinge is configured to generate a closing load that biases the door in a closed position (Zheng #7)
Regarding Claim 8, Zheng discloses, wherein the hinge comprises a spring that generates a closing load that biases the door in a closed position (Zheng #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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Carlisle Food Service Product: Bronco 32 Gal Black Trash Can Dome Lid Model #34103403 with trash can bottom as evidenced by Carlisle Waste & Material Handling Brochure dated 2015, Carlisle Waste Containers Brochure, Home Depot & Webstaurant Store websites illustrating the product.
Regarding Claim 2, the Carlisle Food Service Product Bronco 32 Black Trash Can Dome Lid lacks in having the landing surface having a diameter that matches the diameter of the cylinder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to change the diameter of the landing surface of the Carlisle Food Service Product Bronco 32 Black Trash Can Dome Lid so as to have a larger surface area on the front of the waste can lid to support objects; furthermore, an increased diameter of the landing surface would not perform any differently than the original lid. It is noted that a change in size is considered obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 5 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Carlisle Food Service Product: Bronco 32 Gal Black Trash Can Dome Lid Model #34103403 with trash can bottom as evidenced by Carlisle Waste & Material Handling Brochure dated 2015, Carlisle Waste Containers Brochure, Home Depot & Webstaurant Store websites illustrating the product in view of Fernandez et al. (US 9,155,950).
Regarding Claim 5, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses a cylinder with a wall but lacks in an opening proximate the bottom. Fernandez teaches of a toss game in which there is an opening proximate the bottom of a target device for a toss game (Fernandez Fig. 7A, #73b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to cut a hole in the trash can of Carlisle in order to retrieve tossed objects through the side wall. It has been well known throughout the years to play toss games with trash receptacles as any type of container can work for a toss game and it would have been obvious to cut a hole in one as taught by Fernandez’s toss game for easy retrieval of tossed objections.
Regarding Claim 9, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses a target comprising a cylinder and a top removable from the cylinder, the top having a flat planar surface that abuts a door that swings on a hinge, wherein the door is arranged at an angle relative to the flat planar surface (Webstaurant, Carlisle Waste Container and Home Depot). The Carlisle Bronco product lacks in disclosing a toss game and a bag. It is noted that a waste container and lid above is capable of being used as a toss game set and the preamble does not further any structural limitations in this situation. MPEP 2111.02. However, Fernandez teaches of a toss game set with target container and a bag (Fernandez Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the bags of Fernandez in a toss game with the Carlisle Bronco Product being the target. Toss games using waste containers are well known and to utilize the bag as taught by Fernandez with the Carlisle Bronco Product results in a fun game activity with a substantial weighted bag to be able to be thrown into the Carlisle Bronco Product door in the lid.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Fernandez teaches wherein the bag has a carrying portion that is filled with material particularly sand (Fernandez Fig. 2G, col. 6 lines 21-31).
Regarding Claims 12 and 14, Fernandez teaches wherein the bag has a carrying portion that is filled with material and a knotted portion (Fernandez col. 6 lines 44-61, Fig.2H, 2I).
Regarding Claim 13, Fernandez teaches wherein the bag has a carrying portion that is filled with material and a knotted portion that is configured to allow releasable access to the carry portion (Fernandez col. 6 lines 44-61, Fig.2G, 2H, 2I).
Regarding Claim 15, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses wherein the top has a stepped shoulder portion that fits onto the cylinder (Webstaurant, Carlisle Waste Container, Home Depot).
Regarding Claim 16, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses wherein top has a stepped shoulder portion that overlaps with the cylinder (Webstaurant, Carlisle Waste Container, Home Depot).
Regarding Claim 17, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses wherein top has a stepped shoulder with a first part that resides in proximity to the cylinder (Webstaurant, Carlisle Waste Container, Home Depot).
Regarding Claim 18, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses, wherein top has a stepped shoulder with a first part that resides in proximity to the cylinder and a second part extends from the first part to the flat planar shoulder (Webstaurant, Carlisle Waste Container, Home Depot).
Regarding Claim 19, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses wherein the cylinder is circular (Webstaurant, Carlisle Waste Container, Home Depot).
Regarding claim 20, the Carlisle Bronco product discloses a cylinder with a wall wherein the cylinder has a bottom configured to reside on a surface but lacks in an opening proximate the bottom. Fernandez teaches of a toss game in which there is an opening proximate the bottom of a target device for a toss game (Fernandez Fig. 7A, #73b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to cut a hole in the trash can of Carlisle in order to retrieve tossed objects through the side wall. It has been well known throughout the years to play toss games with trash receptacles as any type of container can work for a toss game and it would have been obvious to cut a hole in one as taught by Fernandez’s toss game for easy retrieval of tossed objections.
Alternatively, Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, CN 201520374541.
Regarding Claim 2, Zheng lacks in having the landing surface having a diameter that matches the diameter of the cylinder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to change the diameter of the landing surface Zheng so as to have a larger surface area on the front of the waste can lid to support objects; furthermore, an increased diameter of the landing surface would not perform any differently than the original lid. It is noted that a change in size is considered obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Alternatively Claim(s) 5 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng, CN 201520374541 in view of Fernandez et al. (US 9,155,950).
Regarding Claim 5, Zheng discloses, a cylinder with a wall but lacks in an opening proximate the bottom. Fernandez teaches of a toss game in which there is an opening proximate the bottom of a target device for a toss game (Fernandez Fig. 7A, #73b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to cut a hole in the trash can of Zheng in order to retrieve tossed objects through the side wall. It has been well known throughout the years to play toss games with trash receptacles as any type of container can work for a toss game and it would have been obvious to cut a hole in one as taught by Fernandez’s toss game for easy retrieval of tossed objections.
Regarding Claim 9, Zheng discloses a target comprising a cylinder and a top removable from the cylinder, the top having a flat planar surface that abuts a door that swings on a hinge, wherein the door is arranged at an angle relative to the flat planar surface (Zheng Fig. 1). Zheng lacks in disclosing a toss game and a bag. It is noted that a waste container and lid above is capable of being used as a toss game set and the preamble does not further any structural limitations in this situation. MPEP 2111.02. However, Fernandez teaches of a toss game set with target container and a bag (Fernandez Fig. 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the bags of Fernandez in a toss game with trash can of Zheng being the target. Toss games using waste containers are well known and to utilize the bag as taught by Fernandez with the Zheng trash can results in a fun game activity with a substantial weighted bag to be able to be thrown into the trash can of Zheng.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Fernandez teaches wherein the bag has a carrying portion that is filled with material particularly sand (Fernandez Fig. 2G, col. 6 lines 21-31).
Regarding Claims 12 and 14, Fernandez teaches wherein the bag has a carrying portion that is filled with material and a knotted portion (Fernandez col. 6 lines 44-61, Fig.2H, 2I).
Regarding Claim 13, Fernandez teaches wherein the bag has a carrying portion that is filled with material and a knotted portion that is configured to allow releasable access to the carry portion (Fernandez col. 6 lines 44-61, Fig.2G, 2H, 2I).
Regarding Claim 15, Zheng discloses wherein the top has a stepped shoulder portion that fits onto the cylinder (Zheng Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16, Zheng discloses wherein top has a stepped shoulder portion that overlaps with the cylinder (Zheng Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 17, Zheng discloses wherein top has a stepped shoulder with a first part that resides in proximity to the cylinder (Zheng Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Zheng discloses, wherein top has a stepped shoulder with a first part that resides in proximity to the cylinder and a second part extends from the first part to the flat planar shoulder (Zheng Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 19, Zheng discloses wherein the cylinder is circular (Zheng Fig. 1 since the lid is circular it is inherent that cylinder also is).
Regarding claim 20, Zheng discloses a cylinder with a wall wherein the cylinder has a bottom configured to reside on a surface but lacks in an opening proximate the bottom. Fernandez teaches of a toss game in which there is an opening proximate the bottom of a target device for a toss game (Fernandez Fig. 7A, #73b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to cut a hole in the trash can of Zheng in order to retrieve tossed objects through the side wall. It has been well known throughout the years to play toss games with trash receptacles as any type of container can work for a toss game and it would have been obvious to cut a hole in one as taught by Fernandez’s toss game for easy retrieval of tossed objections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. 1,161,089 Waldo – discloses a cylindrical container with a top with a hinged door.
U.S. 2015006225 Sciandra – discloses a toss game with a cylindrical container including a slot in the container.
U.S. 3,219,227 Deisner – discloses a cylindrical container with a top with a hinged door.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE K BROCKETTI whose telephone number is (571) 272-0206. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/JULIE K BROCKETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3700