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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on April 23, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims 1 and 15 substantially overlap in scope and they should be examined together. This is not found persuasive because Group I does not require a vehicle and a lavatory within an internal cabin of claim 15 of Group II, and the invention of Group II has separate utility such as one that does not use spray nozzles for the water outlet. Because the features of these inventions are different, they are therefore patentably distinct. Accordingly, the required search differs, thus the “serious burden” has been established.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term "means" or "step" or a term used as a substitute for "means" that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word "for" (e.g., "means for") or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term "means" or "step" or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
If claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" (or "step"), they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, if claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" (or "step"), they are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2, 4, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rieger et al. (hereinafter “Rieger”) (US 9,593,476 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Rieger discloses a system comprising:
a trash container (3) configured to retain trash (i.e. dirty toilet paper) within an internal chamber (see fig. 3 and below);
a sink (5) configured to retain water, wherein the sink comprises a first drain (see the annotated drawing below) configured to allow the water to pass out of the sink;
a water outlet (see the annotated drawing below) disposed proximate to a top of the internal chamber of the trash container; and one or more conduits (see the annotated drawing below) that fluidly connect the first drain to the water outlet (see the annotated drawing below),
wherein the water outlet is configured to receive the water that passes out of the sink via the one or more conduits (col. 8, line 65 to col. 9, line 1) such that the water saturates and compacts the trash within the internal chamber (It is noted that when the water enters the internal chamber, the water inherently saturates and compacts the dirty toilet paper within the internal chamber).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the system of claim 1, further comprising a reservoir (see the annotated drawing above and col. 8, lines 61-62, which discloses that the line 21 may be designed as a reservoir) fluidly connecting the water outlet and the one or more conduits (see the annotated drawing above), wherein the reservoir is configured to receive a portion of the water that passes out of the sink (see the annotated drawing above).
Regarding claim 4, the system of claim 1, wherein the trash container (3) comprises a second drain (see the annotated drawing above), and wherein the second drain is configured to allow the water to pass therethrough (see the annotated drawing above).
Regarding claim 8, Rieger discloses a method for a system comprising:
a trash container (3) configured to retain trash (i.e. dirty toilet paper) within an internal chamber (see the annotated drawing above);
a sink configured to retain water, wherein the sink comprises a first drain (see the annotated drawing above) configured to allow the water to pass out of the sink (see the annotated drawing above);
a water outlet (see the annotated drawing above) disposed proximate to a top of the internal chamber of the trash container (3); and
one or more conduits (see the annotated drawing above) that fluidly connect the first drain to the water outlet (see the annotated drawing above),
wherein the water outlet is configured to receive the water that passes out of the sink via the one or more conduits (col. 8, line 65 to col. 9, line 1) such that the water compacts the trash within the internal chamber, the method comprising:
saturating and compacting the trash within the internal chamber of the trash container with water that passes out of the water outlet (It is noted that when the water enters the internal chamber, the water inherently saturates and compacts the dirty toilet paper within the internal chamber).
Regarding claim 9, the method of claim 8, further comprising receiving, by a reservoir (see the annotated drawing above) fluidly connecting the water outlet and the one or more conduits, the water that passes out of the sink (col. 8, lines 61-62, which discloses that the line 21 may be designed as a reservoir).
Regarding claim 11, the method of claim 8, further comprising allowing the water to pass through a second drain (see the annotated drawing above) of the trash container.
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 5-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieger in view of Marion (US 2022/00818888A1).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 12-13, Rieger discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. Rieger does not expressly disclose the trash container further comprises a valve proximate to the second drain, wherein the valve is a float valve.
Marion, in a related art, discloses a system comprising a sink (see “sink” in fig. 2) and a trash container system (see the left portion of figure 2), wherein a the trash container system comprises a float valve (220) proximate to a drain (see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the trash container of Rieger with a float valve proximate to the second drain, as taught by Marion, in order to improve controlling the flow of water in the trash container after each flush by a user.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieger in view of Hoffjann et al. (hereinafter “Hoffjann”) (DE 102 29 799 A1).
Rieger discloses the invention substantially as claimed as set forth above. Rieger discloses the water outlet (see the annotated drawing above). Rieger does not expressly discloses wherein the water outlet comprises one or more spray nozzles.
Hoffjann, in a related art, discloses a system comprising a sink (2) for allowing water pass out of the sink into an outlet of a container (11) (see fig. 1), wherein the outlet comprises one or more spray nozzles (12) (see fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the outlet of Rieger with one or more spray nozzles, as taught by Hoffjann, for better coverage and uniformity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 3, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “wherein a linkage operatively couples the cover to one or both of the water outlet or the reservoir, and wherein movement of the cover into the open position is configured to allow the water to pass out of the water outlet”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 10, the claim would be allowable because the prior art of record, considered alone or combination, neither anticipated nor renders obvious “moving a cover of the trash container into an open position; and allowing the water to pass out of the water outlet in response to said moving”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2020/0002089 A1 discloses a trash receptacle for separating liquids and solids.
US 11,441,302 discloses a food waste disposer (18) connected to a sink (20), in which the food waste disposer can be considered as a trash container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights