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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Paragraph 0023, Lines 4-5. Replacing “The first coupling element 322 and the second coupling element 324 define a slot for receiving the one or more coupling structures of the bag holder.” with “The first coupling element 516 and the second coupling element 518 define a slot for receiving the one or more coupling structures of the bag holder.” (emphasis added)
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 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. Claim 15 recites the limitation “the first coupling structure” in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 further recites the limitation “the second coupling structure”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Factor (WO 2015113022 A2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Factor teaches a juvenile wheeled good system [Factor Fig. 8; Factor Paragraph 0026: “FIG. 8 shows a perspective view of an example embodiment of a clamp- equipped trash container in use with a stroller according to the present disclosure.”] comprising: a juvenile wheeled good comprising a frame coupled to one or more wheels [Factor Fig. 8; Factor Paragraph 0067: “container 100 can be used with many types of frame portions, such as a unitary frame, an assembled frame, a stroller frame member, a sleeve extending over a stroller frame portion”]; a container configured to be removably coupled to the frame [Factor Figs. 8 and 6; Factor Paragraph 0024: “FIG. 6 shows a top view of an example embodiment of a clamp-equipped trash container clamping a cylindrical bar according to the present disclosure.”]; and a bag holder configured to be removably coupled to a surface of the container [Factor Figs. 5B, 5C, and 5D: a case of a plurality of single use trash bags ready for placement into a pivotally open lower compartment of a trash container according to the present disclosure.”].
Regarding Claim 2, Factor teaches the juvenile wheeled good of claim 1, wherein the juvenile wheeled good is a stroller [Factor Fig. 8].
Regarding Claim 3, Factor teaches the juvenile wheeled good system of claim 1, wherein the frame is a wagon [Factor Paragraph 0067: “other forms of transport devices include wheelchairs, hand trucks, golf carts, walking frames, or shopping carts.”].
Regarding Claim 4, Factor teaches the juvenile wheeled good system of claim 1, wherein the container is a cup holder [Factor Paragraph 0007: “the caretaker can desire to use the cup-holder for another purpose, such as a containing a mobile phone, a beverage container, and so forth”].
Regarding Claim 5, Factor teaches the juvenile wheeled good system of claim 1, wherein the bag holder is sized to receive a roll of waste disposal bags [Factor Fig. 5B; Factor Paragraph 0086: “A case 162 stores a plurality of trash bags 158, which can be single use trash bags.”].
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)(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.
Claims 7-9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Berry (US 8353603 B2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, Berry teaches a multi-functional container [Berry Abstract: “A pet item storage unit including a body having first and second portions. The first portion includes a first storage compartment having a lid adapted to secure items inside the first storage compartment. The second portion includes a second storage compartment adapted to hold a plurality of disposable bags and includes an open slot for removal of at least one of the bags.”] comprising: a first container having a bottom wall and one or more side walls, the bottom wall and the one or more side walls defining a first void [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Characters 74 and 70]; and a bag holder having a second void configured to hold a plurality of bags and having one or more coupling structures configured to removably couple the bag holder to the first container at one or more of the bottom wall and one or more side walls of the first container [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Character 82; Berry Paragraph 23: “A plurality of bags 22 are disposed in the second housing 82”].
Regarding Claim 8, Berry teaches the multi-functional container of claim 7, wherein the bag holder is configured to removably couple to the bottom wall [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Characters 82, 42, and 30].
Regarding Claim 9, Berry teaches the multi-functional container of claim 7, wherein the first container comprises one or more coupling elements extending from the bottom wall and defining a slot for receiving the one or more coupling structures of the bag holder [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Characters 74 and 72 and unnumbered slot (typ) on outer periphery of bottom wall 30].
Regarding Claim 12, Berry teaches the multi-functional container of claim of claim 7, wherein the bag holder comprises a body having a first side wall at a first side and a second side wall at a second side, wherein at least one of the first side wall and the second side wall has a coupling structure configured to removably couple the bag holder to the container [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Characters 82 and 42].
Regarding Claim 13, Berry teaches the multi-functional container of claim 12, wherein both the first side wall and the second side wall have coupling structures configured to removably couple the bag holder to the container [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Characters 82 and 42].
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Berry (US 8353603 B2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 14, Berry teaches a bag holder [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Character 82; Paragraph 23: “A plurality of bags 22 are disposed in the second housing 82”] comprising: a first structure comprising a body having a first side wall at a first side and a second side wall at a second side, the first side wall and the second side wall each having an edge extending along a third side, the edge of the first side wall and the edge of the second side wall being spaced apart [Berry Figs. 3, 9, and 10, Reference Character 16 (comprising Reference Characters 82 and 86) constitutes the body; wall edges defined by lines connecting coupling elements 42 (typ)]; a first coupling element on the edge of the first side wall and a second coupling element on the edge of the second side wall, both the first coupling element and the second coupling element configured to removably couple the bag holder to a second structure comprising a third coupling element and a fourth coupling element and the body defining a void for holding a plurality of bags and having a bag opening through which one or more bags of the plurality of bags are removed from the void [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Characters 42 (typ): first and second coupling elements; and 44 (typ): third and fourth coupling elements].
Regarding Claim 15, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 14, wherein the first coupling structure and the second coupling structure each comprise a hook [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Character 42 (typ)].
Regarding Claim 16, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 14, wherein the first coupling structure and the second coupling structure are each integrally formed with the body [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Characters 42 (typ): coupling structures; and 82: body].
Regarding Claim 17, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 14, further comprising the body having a curved wall at a fourth side joining the first side wall and the second side wall, wherein the bag opening is in the curved wall [Berry Figs. 9 and 10, Reference Character 86].
Regarding Claim 18, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 17, wherein the body is configured to flex at the curved wall so that the first side wall and the second side wall are capable of being moved closer together [Berry Figs. 3, 9, and 10, Reference Characters 16 (comprising Reference Characters 82 and 86); Berry Paragraph 6: A second portion includes a second compartment having an at least partially flexible portion with a slot disposed therethrough and being removably connected with the first portion.”].
Regarding Claim 19, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 14, wherein the body is a flexible body [Berry Figs. 3, 9, and 10, Reference Characters 16 (comprising Reference Characters 82 and 86); Berry Paragraph 6: “A second portion includes a second compartment having an at least partially flexible portion with a slot disposed therethrough and being removably connected with the first portion.; Berry Paragraph 23: a pliable cover 86 (FIG. 9) is disposed over the second housing 82 securing the bags 22 inside the second housing 82.”].
Regarding Claim 20, Berry teaches the bag holder of claim 14, wherein the bag holder is sized to receive pet waste disposal bags [Berry Paragraph 2: “bags for picking up and disposing of pet feces in common areas.”].
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 (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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Factor (WO 2015113022 A2) in view of Lau et al. (US 10683128 B1) (hereinafter “Lau”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, Factor teaches a juvenile wheeled good system comprising a bag holder but does not teach a bag opening at a bottom side of the bag holder. Lau teaches the juvenile wheeled good system of claim 5, further comprising a bag opening at a bottom side of the bag holder through which one or more waste disposal bags are removed from a void while the bag holder is coupled to the surface of the container, the bag opening being smaller than the roll of waste disposal bags [Lau Figs. 1-3; Paragraph 101: In FIG. 2, the bottom cap has been removed to expose bag opening 145 of bag 110. A user can place one or more items 225 inside the bag, replace the bottom cap, and flip the bottle right-side up.]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the juvenile wheeled good system of Factor to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a bag opening at a bottom side in view of Lau. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Factor and Lau because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing storage space and dispensing capability, as recognized by Lau [Lau Paragraph 2: “People also have a need to carry other things as well such as their keys, credit cards, identification cards, public transit cards, money, pills, snacks, and so forth.as recognized by Lau.”; Lau Paragraph 4: “a new type of hydration and storage container that is capable of adjusting to accommodate an individual user's need to carry hydration fluids and other things.”]. It should be noted that while Lau does not explicitly indicate the use of the void (Lau Reference Character 110) and hole (Lau Reference Character 120) (referred to by Lau as the “bag”) to contain and dispense waste disposal bags, Lau’s void and hole arrangement would allow these functions; nothing in Lau’s disclosure precludes the use of Lau’s void and hole to contain and dispense waste disposal bags. It should be further noted that while Lau’s invention applies to a beverage bottle instead of a cup/beverage holder, known work in one field of endeavor that may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, F.). Relevant design incentives would include reduced weight, manufacturing complexity, and cost of the cup itself.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US 8353603 B2) in view of Factor (WO 2015113022 A2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 10, Berry teaches a multi-functional container comprising a container coupling element but does not teach removable coupling to a juvenile wheeled container. Factor teaches the multi-functional container of claim 7, wherein the one or more side walls of the first container comprises a container coupling element configured to removably couple the first container to a juvenile wheeled carrier [Factor Figs. 8 and 6, Reference Character 102]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the multi-functional container of Berry to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, removable coupling to a juvenile wheeled carrier in view of Factor. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Berry and Factor because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing comfort for the user, as recognized by Factor [Factor Paragraph 0069: “The user rotates container 104 against clamp 102, for instance via bridge 1 12, such that container 104 is in a comfortable position for the user, such as upright perpendicular to a ground surface, parallel to the ground surface, inclined with respect to the ground surface, and so forth.”].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berry (US 8353603 B2) in view of Factor (WO 2015113022 A2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 11, Berry teaches a multi-functional container comprising a container coupling element but does not teach a cup. Factor teaches the multi-functional container of claim 7, wherein the first void of the first container is sized to receive a cup [Factor Figs. 8 and 9]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the multi-functional container of Berry to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a void sized for a cup in view of Factor. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Berry and Factor because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing multi-purpose containment space, as recognized by Factor [Factor Paragraph 0076: “contain trash, such as a used wet wipe, a used tissue, and so forth.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613