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 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 22 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 22 recites the limitation "the locking element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-10, 12, 13, 16, 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babineau et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20100276247) in view of Weathers et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20030173471).
Regarding Claim 1, Babineau et al. discloses a trash bin backboard apparatus comprising: a base 10 (Figure 1), wherein: the base comprises one or more walls 3/5/7 (Figure 1), the base is configured to be shaped as a chute by folding the one or more walls (Figure 1-3), the base is configured to be secured in an interior portion of a trash bin such that exterior surfaces of the one or more walls face interior surfaces of one or more trash bin walls (Figure 5) and at least a portion of the one or more walls is disposed outside the trash bin and above a top periphery of the trash bin when the base is secured in the interior portion of the trash bin 25a/27a/28a (Figure 5), wherein a bottom edge of at least one wall of the one or more walls touches a bottom interior surface of the trash bin when the base is secured in the interior portion of the trash bin (figure 5). Babineau et al. does not disclose the one or more trash bin walls are rigid. However, Weathers et al. teaches a rigid trash bin wall 12 (figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Babineau et al. to include the above, as taught by Weathers et al., in order to provide an easily movable and durable trash can.
Regarding Claim 2, Babineau et al. discloses the one or more walls comprise a first wall, a second wall and a third wall 3/5/7 (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Babineau et al. discloses the first wall, the second wall and the third wall form an integrated structure of the base (Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Babineau et al. discloses a first intersection edge of the first wall and the second wall is flexible 4 (Figure 1), and wherein the first wall and the second wall are configured to be moved relative to each other via the first intersection edge such that a plane of the first wall forms a first predefined angle relative to a plane of the second wall (figure 1-3).
Regarding Claim 5, Babineau et al. discloses a second intersection edge of the third wall and the second wall is flexible 6 (Figure 1), and wherein the third wall and the second wall are configured to be moved relative to each other via the second intersection edge such that a plane of the third wall forms a second predefined angle relative to the plane of the second wall (Figure 1-3).
Regarding Claim 6, Babineau et al. discloses the first predefined angle is equivalent to the second predefined angle (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 7, Babineau et al. discloses the first predefined angle and the second predefined angle are equivalent to 90 degrees (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 8, Babineau et al. discloses the first predefined angle and the second predefined angle are based on a shape of the interior portion of the trash bin (Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Babineau et al. discloses a trash bin backboard apparatus comprising: a base 10 (Figure 1), wherein: the base comprises one or more walls 3/5/7 (figure 1), the base is configured to be shaped as a chute by folding the one or more walls (Figure 1-3), the base is configured to be secured in an interior portion of a trash bin such that exterior surfaces of the one or more walls face interior surfaces of one or more trash bin walls (Figure 5) and at least a portion of the one or more walls is disposed outside the trash bin and above a top periphery of the trash bin when the base is secured in the interior portion of the trash bin 25a/27a/28a (Figure 5). Babineau et al. does not disclose the one or more trash bin walls are rigid and a connector originating from a middle section of at least one wall from the one or more walls, wherein the connector is configured to attach the at least one wall to a top portion of at least one trash bin wall. However, Weathers et al. teaches a rigid trash bin wall 12 (figure 1) and a connector 25 (figure 3; paragraph 29) originating from a middle section of at least one wall from the one or more walls, wherein the connector is configured to attach the at least one wall to a top portion of at least one trash bin wall (figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Babineau et al. to include the above, as taught by Weathers et al., in order to provide an easily movable and durable trash can while having a connection between the base and the bin to prevent unwanted movement.
Regarding Claim 10, Weathers et al. teaches the connector is disposed on an exterior or convex surface of the at least one wall (figure 5). Babineau et al. and Weathers et al. do not disclose the base is semi-circular in shape and the trash bin is circular in shape. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the base semi-circular in shape and the bin circular in shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding Claim 12, Weathers et al. teaches the connector is shaped as a wedge and configured to be positioned under a rim of the trash bin 25 (figure 4, the clip would be able to extend under a rim due to the structure of the clip).
Regarding Claim 13, Weathers et al. teaches the connector comprises a locking mechanism configured to lock the connector with the top portion of the at least one trash bin wall 25 (Figure 4, the clip can latch onto the too portion to lock the connector).
Regarding Claim 16, Weather et al. teaches the locking mechanism comprises one or more snap buttons (paragraph 29).
Regarding Claim 18, Babineau et al. discloses the exterior surfaces of the one or more walls touch the interior surfaces of one or more trash bin walls when the base is secured in the interior portion of the trash bin (figure 5).
Regarding Claim 19, Babineau et al. discloses the base is wedged and secured inside the trash bin such that the base tightly fits a trash bin wall (Figure 5). Babineau et al. and Weathers et al. does not disclose the trash bin is circular in shape and wherein the base is semi-circular in shape. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the base semi-circular in shape and the bin circular in shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP2144.04(IV)(B).
Regarding Claim 20, Babineau et al. discloses a trash bin backboard apparatus comprising: a base 10 (Figure 1), wherein: the base comprises one or more walls 3/5/7 (figure 1), the base is configured to be shaped as a chute by folding the one or more walls (Figure 1-3), the base is configured to be disposed outside of a trash bin (Figure 5) and at least a portion of the one or more walls is disposed outside the trash bin and above a top periphery of the trash bin (Figure 5). Babineau et al. does not disclose being secured to a trash bin exterior wall, the trash bin exterior wall is rigid, and a connector disposed on a middle section of at least one wall of the one or more walls, wherein the connector is configured to attach the at least one wall to a top portion of at least one trash bin wall. However, Weathers et al. teaches being secured to a trash bin exterior wall (Figure 4), the trash bin exterior wall is rigid 12 (Figure 1), and a connector 25 (Figure 4) disposed on a middle section of at least one wall of the one or more walls (Figure 4), wherein the connector is configured to attach the at least one wall to a top portion of at least one trash bin wall (Figure 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Babineau et al. to include the above, as taught by Weathers et al., in order to provide an easily movable and durable trash can while having a connection between the base and the bin to prevent unwanted movement.
Regarding Claim 21, Weathers et al. teaches the connector is disposed on an interior or concave surface of the at least one wall (figure 5). Babineau et al. and Weathers et al. do not disclose the base is semi-circular in shape and the trash bin is circular in shape. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the base semi-circular in shape and the bin circular in shape since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babineau et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20100276247) in view of Weathers et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20030173471) and Rugg et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20180265284).
Regarding Claim 11, Babineau et al. and Weathers et al. teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the connector is formed of a folded cut-out section of the at least one wall. However, Rugg et al. teaches the connector is formed of a folded cut-out section of the at least one wall 15 (Figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of the claimed invention to modify Babineau et al. and Weathers et al. to include the above, in order to prevent easily breaking of the connector.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babineau et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20100276247) in view of Weathers et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20030173471) and Wallek (U.S. Pub. No. 20070089803).
Regarding Claims 14 and 17, Babineau et al. and Weathers et al. teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the locking mechanism comprises an adhesive or the locking mechanism comprises a protrusion-and-hole locking arrangement. However, Wallek teaches an adhesive or the locking mechanism comprises a protrusion-and-hole locking arrangement (paragraph 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Babineau et al. and Weathers et al. to include the above, as taught by Wallek, in order to prevent movement of the base in the trash bin.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Babineau et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20100276247) in view of Weathers et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20030173471) and Willis (U.S. Patent No. 11267602).
Regarding Claim 15, Babineau et al. and Weathers et al. teach all the limitations substantially as claimed except for the locking mechanism comprises a VelcroTM tape. However, Willis teaches a Velcro tape 14/15 (figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Babineau et al. and Weathers et al. to include the above, as taught by Willis, in order to prevent movement of the base in the trash bin.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 II(A), MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH J VOLZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7pm 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, NATHAN JENNESS can be reached on (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.
/ELIZABETH J VOLZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3733