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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 July 2025.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 1 is indefinite because it introduces two “bases” without specifying proper distinction. This causes antecedence errors when “the base” is referenced and it can’t be determined which of the two bases is intended. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the base" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 is indefinite because it introduces two “bases” without specifying proper distinction. This causes antecedence errors when “the base” is referenced and it can’t be determined which of the two bases is intended. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the base" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The “base” confusion can be remedied by referring to “a lid assembly base” and “a body bottom end base.”
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian (US 11845607) in view of Sutton (US 2020/0290798).
Christian discloses a detachable trash can device (see exploded view of Fig. 2, lid detaches and body detaches from bottom end base) comprising: a body 14 comprised of an opening and an interior space; a lid assembly (lid 16); and a base (12) comprised of a first locking mechanism (tab 30) and a foot pedal (projecting ledge 32 as shown to be engaged by foot F in Fig. 4). Christian fails to disclose a lid that attaches to the lid base via a hinge. Sutton teaches a similarly constructed trash can having a lid assembly, the lid assembly comprises a lid assembly base (collar 40) and a lid 18 attached to the lid assembly base via a hinge. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a lid assembly base and hinge to provide a lid that opens without detaching the lid so that the lid doesn’t become mishandled, damaged, lost or misplaced.
Re claims 3-4, the device of Sutton is comprised of a second locking mechanism [lid release catch; elements 48, 100 (striker), 102(arms)] which secures the lid to the base when hinged closed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the second locking mechanism to lock the lid in closed position to prevent inadvertent lid opening from rough handling or wind blowing.
Re claim 5, the first locking mechanism is comprised of a bayonet type latch or a clip.
Re claim 6, the first locking mechanism can be disengaged by the foot pedal 32.
Re claim 7, the lid assembly base and lid of Sutton comprise dishwasher-safe material (see paragraph [35]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the lid material of Christian to be dishwasher safe for easy cleaning and disinfecting of the lid.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian in view of Sutton as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dafoe (US 2017/0158427).
The combination fails to disclose a lid handle. Dafoe teaches a lid handle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a lid handle to provide a secure grip on the handle and lid when a user’s hands are soiled, wet or slippery so that the lid may easily be lifted or moved.
Claim(s) 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dafoe in view of Sutton.
Dafoe discloses a detachable trash can device (see exploded view of Fig. 1, body detaches from bottom end base) comprising: a body 15 comprised of a handle (50, 55), an opening and an interior space; a lid assembly (hinged lid 45); and a base (18) comprised of a first locking mechanism (tab 30) and a disengaging mechanism (within the slidable, releasable engagement of the tab 30 with lugs 25). Dafoe fails to disclose a lid that attaches to the lid base via a hinge. Sutton teaches a similarly constructed trash can having a lid assembly, the lid assembly comprises a lid assembly base (collar 40) and a lid 18 attached to the lid assembly base via a hinge. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a lid assembly base and hinge to provide a hinged lid that opens without detaching the lid so that the lid doesn’t become mishandled, damaged, lost or misplaced. The hingedly attached lid assembly base and lid allow for detachment of the lid assembly as a unit for easy cleaning or replacement.
Re claim 9, the lid of Dafoe is comprised of a handle.
Re claims 10-11, the device of Sutton is comprised of a second locking mechanism [lid release catch; elements 48, 100 (striker), 102(arms)] which secures the lid to the base when hinged closed. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add the second locking mechanism to lock the lid in closed position to prevent inadvertent lid opening from rough handling or wind blowing.
Re claims 12 and 13, the first locking mechanism of Dafoe is comprised of a bayonet type latch or a clip 30 which can be disengaged by the disengaging mechanism.
Re claim 14, the disengaging mechanism is comprised of a bayonet type latch 30.
Re claim 15, the detachable trash can device of Dafoe is comprised of a dishwasher-safe material (paragraph [35]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CASTELLANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
sjc/STEPHEN J CASTELLANO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733