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 .
Claim Objections
Claim1 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 11 of claim 1, “and and slides” should be changed to –and slides--. 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.
Claims 6-8, 10 and 12 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. The claims are considered vague and indefinite for the following reasons:
Independent claim 1 positively recites that the second door is pivotally coupled to the second sidewall. Dependent claim 6 sets forth that the second door is not coupled to the second side wall. It is unclear how the second door can be both pivotally coupled to the second side wall and not coupled to the second side wall.
Similarly, independent claim 1 positively recites that the second door is pivotally coupled to the second sidewall. Dependent claim 8 sets forth that the second door forms a ramp. It is unclear how the second door can be both pivotally coupled to the second side wall and form a ramp.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 10 and 12 recite the broad recitation “between about 33% and about 66%”, and the claims also recite “about 50%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The dependent claims not specifically mentioned are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim since they inherently contain the same deficiencies therein.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 10, 12 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPhee (U.S. 2006/0201939) in view of Chen et al. (CN 205652016U).
McPhee teaches a waste container 10, shown in figure 1, configured to receive waste material, the waste container 10 comprising a floor (at bottom of container), a first side wall (wall on left of figure 1) coupled to the floor, a second side wall (wall on right of figure 1) coupled to the floor and spaced apart from the first side wall, a back wall (wall located opposite 12A, 12B) coupled to the floor and extending between a back edge of the first side wall and a back edge of the second side wall, a front wall 12A coupled to the floor (while in closed position) and extending from a front edge of the first side wall (wall on left side) toward the second side wall (wall on right side) such that a gap is located between the front wall 12A and the second side wall (figure 2), a first door 12B slidable (as modified below) relative to the front wall, the first door 12B in the closed position extending from the front wall 12A to a front edge of the second side wall (wall on right side) such that all of the gap is blocked by the first door 12B, and a second door 20A pivotally coupled to the second side wall, (coupled via hinges to the second side wall), the second door 20A being pivotable between a second-door open position (figure 3) and a second-door closed position (figure 2), wherein when the first door 12B is in the open position such that the gap is not blocked by the first door and the second door is in the second-door closed position (figure 1), the second-door 20A extends from (I) the front wall and first door to (II) the front edge of the second side wall such that only a portion of the gap is blocked by the second door (when 20B is open), and wherein when the first door is in the open position and the second door is in the second- door open positioned, the gap is not blocked by the second door (when 20A, 20B and 12B are open).
McPhee discloses the claimed invention except for the first door being slidable relative to the floor. Chen et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with a first door slidably coupled to the floor (see element 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the container of McPhee with the first door being slidably coupled to the floor, as taught by Chen et al., in order to allow the second door to allow the first door to move to the open position with less force for easier movement of the door.
Further regarding claim 1, the first door, as modified by wall 4 of Chen et al. slides between an open position (figure 1 of Chen et al.) and a closed position (figure 2 of Chen et al.)
Regarding claim 3, the second door 20A pivots between the open position (figure 3) and the closed position (figure 2) about a generally vertical axis that is coplanar with the first side wall, the second side wall, the back wall, the front wall, and the first door (coplanar with an end of each of the walls as the container is rectangular).
Regarding claim 4, the generally vertical axis is normal to the floor (figure 3).
Regarding claim 5, the second door 20A is releasably coupled to both the second side wall (by removal of the hinge elements at 22, 32) and the floor (when 20A is locked in thee closed position.
Regarding claim 10, when the second door 20A is in the closed position, the portion of the gap that is blocked by the second door is between about 33% and about 66% (as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, the first door 12B has a first height relative to the floor (figure 1), and wherein when the second door 20A is in the closed position, the second door 20A has a second height relative to the floor that is between about 33% and about 66% of the first height (figure 1).
Regarding claim 21, wherein when the first door 12B is in the open position, the first door is aligned with the first side wall (the first door can pivot 90 degrees to an open position that is in alignment with the first side wall), and when the first door is in the closed position, the first door is aligned with the second door (the first door is aligned over the opening with the second door but not coplanar with the second door).
Regarding claim 22, the first door 12B is slidably mounted on at least a bottom rail that is positioned adjacent to the floor (as modified by Chen et al.), and wherein the when the second door 20A is in the closed position, the second door blocks at least a portion of the bottom rail from an interior of the waste container (blocks in that it stands between the bottom rail and the interior cavity).
Regarding claim 23, when the second door 20A is in the closed position, the second door is generally coplanar with the front wall (generally coplanar because the front surface of 20A is generally coplanar with the back surface of 12A).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPhee (U.S. 2006/0201939) in view of Chen et al. (CN 205652016U), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Andrews et al. (U.S. 1,740,000).
Regarding claim 14, the modified container of McPhee discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of wheels. Andrews et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with a plurality of wheels (see element 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of McPhee with the plurality of wheels, as taught by Andrews et al., in order to allow the user to move the container to another location without lifting the container.
Claims 15-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPhee (U.S. 2006/0201939) in view of Chen et al. (CN 205652016U), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hoesten et al. (U.S. 5,408,790).
Regarding claim 15, the modified container of McPhee discloses the claimed invention except for the drain pan and grate. Hoesten et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with a drain pan and a grate (see elements 34 and 60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of McPhee with a drain pan and a grate, as taught by Hoesten et al., in order to drain liquid out of the container.
Regarding claim 16, the modified container of McPhee discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of floor units. Hoesten et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with a plurality of floor units (see 10 in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of McPhee with the plurality of floor units, as taught by Hoesten et al., in order to allow the user to replace damaged units without replacing the entire floor.
Regarding claim 17, each of the plurality of floor units (as modified by Hoesten et al. above) is formed from a drain pan and a grate (elements 34 and 60 of Hoesten et al.) disposed on top of the drain pan, such that liquid waste in the waste container is able to pass through the grate of each of the plurality of floor units and collect in the drain pan of each of the plurality of floor units (see figure 1A of Hoesten et al.).
Regarding claim 19, the modified container of McPhee is rectangular and does not teach a square shape. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of McPhee with a square shape, instead of the rectangular shape, in order to store differently sized contents, and since there is no evidence that this particular configuration is significant, in addition the prior art shape of the floor would perform equally well. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 20, the floor has a generally planar cross-section extending along a first dimension and a second dimension, and wherein the plurality of floor units includes a first number of floor units extending along the first dimension and a second number of floor units extending along the second dimension (as modified by Hoesten et al. above), the first number being different than the second number such that the floor has a rectangular cross-section (rectangular shape shown in figure 3).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McPhee (U.S. 2006/0201939) in view of Chen et al. (CN 205652016U) and Hoesten et al. (U.S. 5,408,790), as applied to claim 16, above, and further in view of Andrews et al. (U.S. 1,740,000).
Regarding claim 18, the modified container of McPhee discloses the claimed invention except for the plurality of wheels. Andrews et al. teaches that it is known to provide a container with a plurality of wheels (see element 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified container of McPhee with the plurality of wheels, as taught by Andrews et al., in order to allow the user to move the container to another location without lifting the container.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection. The new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendment filed September 5, 2025. The secondary reference of Chen et al. has been added to the rejection of the independent claim for the teaching of providing a door that slides.
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 NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 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, Orlando E. Aviles can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736