DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/26/2026.
Claims 1-34 are pending, Claims 20-34 are withdrawn, and Claims 1-19 have been examined.
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
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera (US 7,398,789 B1) in view of Pettit (US 3,881,950) (previously cited by Applicant).
Re claim 1, Herrera discloses a container assembly (abstract, see figs. 1-5) having a residential refuse bin washer system (abstract) for a front load refuse collection vehicle, the container assembly comprising:
a base (see figs. 1-4 base of vehicle);
a receptacle (ref. 16 washing bin) connected to the base and having side walls, a bottom wall and a drain (ref. 60);
the drain being in fluid connection with at least one fluid tank (ref. 34);
at least one spray conduit (refs. 14, 44, 4648) having a distal end extending above the bottom wall of the receptacle;
the at least one spray conduit being in fluid connection with at least one fluid tank and at least one fluid pump (see fig. 2; see also fig. 5);
a residential refuse bin lifter assembly (see fig. 4, ref. 76);
wherein the residential refuse bin lifter assembly is movable between a retracted rest position proximate one of the side walls of the receptacle and a raised and inverted position disposed above the receptacle (col. 5 line 40 to col. 6 line 20).
Herrera does not disclose the base configured to be lifted by a container assembly lift apparatus of a front refuse collection vehicle (Herrera having the container assembly mounted to the vehicle bed).
However, Pettit teaches it is well-known in the refuse drum cleaning art (abstract) to provide a container assembly (ref. 23) for washing by spray (ref. 45) having a base (ref. 37, 38) configured to be lifted by a container assembly lift apparatus (ref. 20, 21) of a refuse collection vehicle (see figs. 1 and 4-6).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container assembly of Herrera to further be configured to be lifted by a container assembly lift apparatus, as suggested by Pettit, in order to enable dumping of the flushing mechanism.
Re claims 2-4, Herrera discloses wherein the base further comprises at least one front load refuse collection vehicle mounting assembly (see fig. 1 ref. 76, the combination of both embodiments). wherein the at least one front load refuse collection vehicle mounting assembly further comprises at least one releasable connector; wherein the at least one releasable connector further comprises at least one fork pocket (see fig. 1 ref. 82 forks).
Re claim 5, Herrera discloses wherein the at least one fluid tank in fluid connection with the drain and the at least one fluid tank in fluid connection with the at least one spray conduit comprise the same fluid tank (see fig. 2 refs. 60, 64, 66, 70, 72, 74, 30, 34 to fig. 3 ref. 54, 56, 46, 48).
Re claim 6, Herrera discloses further comprising a fluid filtration system (refs. 66 separator member, 72 particulate filter) in fluid connection between the drain and the at least one fluid tank in fluid connection with the drain.
Re claim 8, Herrera discloses wherein the at least one spray conduit extends upward from the bottom wall of the receptacle (see figs. 1-4, ref. 46 extending upward).
Re claims 9-10, Herrera discloses wherein the at least one fluid tank connected to the at least one spray conduit is located remotely from the at least one spray conduit (see figs. 1-4). wherein the remotely located at least one fluid tank connected to the at least one spray conduit is disposed below the bottom wall of the receptacle (see figs. 1-2 at least portion of ref. 34 is below a bottom wall from which ref. 36, 38 extend).
Re claim 11, Herrera discloses wherein the at least one spray conduit further comprises at least one spray nozzle at the distal end (ref. 48).
Re claims 12-15¸ Herrera discloses wherein the residential refuse bin lifter assembly is connected to the base (see figs. 1 and 3). wherein the residential refuse bin lifter assembly is connected to the base via mounting to one of the side walls of the receptacle (see fig. 4 ref. 76 extending from sidewall). wherein the residential refuse bin lifter assembly pivots relative to the receptacle; wherein the residential refuse bin lifter assembly further comprises a pivotal connection to the receptacle (col. 5 lines 37-39 pivotally coupled).
Re claim 16¸ Herrera discloses wherein the residential refuse bin lifter assembly further comprises extendable linkage (see fig. 4 ref. 86 armature).
Re claim 17, Herrera discloses wherein the residential bin lifter assembly is further movable to an intermediate extended position between the retracted position proximate one of the side walls of the receptacle and the raised and inverted position disposed above the receptacle (inherent in lifting motion that it is movable through an intermediate extended position).
Re claims 18-19, Herrera discloses wherein the residential refuse bin lifter assembly further comprises a residential refuse bin gripper; wherein the bin gripper further comprises gripper arms or a gripper hook (see fig. 4 ref. 88).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrera in view of Pettit, as applied above, and further in view of Diamond (US 3,291,144 A).
Re claim 7, Herrera/Pettit discloses as shown above, but does not explicitly disclose a fluid heater. However, Diamond discloses it is very old and well-known in the container assembly lift apparatus and bin cleaning art (title) to include a fluid heater (see fig. 3 ref. 47) in fluid connection between the at least one fluid tank (ref. 46) in fluid connection with the at least one spray conduit and the at least one distal end (ref. 30 boom to ref. 90 nozzle).
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the container assembly lift apparatus of Herrera/Pettit to further include a fluid heater, as suggested by Diamond, in order to heat liquid for enhanced cleaning and sanitization.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/26/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made further in view of Pettit (US 3,881,950) (previously cited by Applicant).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
WO2006099680A1 note detachable and mountable bin washing apparatus.
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 KEVIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7299. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am to 6:30pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached on 571-272-1414. 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.
KEVIN G. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/KEVIN G LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1711
/MICHAEL E BARR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights