DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 in response to Office Action 9/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Applicant argues that the pedal of primary prior art CheungUS as modified by secondary prior art CheungWO is not “slidable” as amended by function only, because CheungWO is pivotable (page 9 para 2). Examiner points out the broadest reasonable interpretation of pivotable includes slidable (e.g. a Swiss Army knife pivot slides tools out, sliding around the pivot point). In response to a POSITA not knowing how to combine, examiner notes a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. MPEP 2141.03 I. Applicant may intend “slidable” to mean “linearly slidable” from bias of their disclosed but yet unclaimed structure (in this claim; for instance the whole of allowable matter in claim 12 or 14 would provide structure). Applicant recognizes some structure is needed by arguing that an example of “slidable” involves at least the “slotted guide” of the allowable matter claims (page 10 para 2). Please see a detailed analysis in the rejection below, and the two pertinent references in the PTO-892 that disclose “linearly slidable” pedals.
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 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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 line 5 and last line, Claim 4 last line, Claim 5 last line, Claim 15 last line & Claim 20 line 7: “lever mechanism”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 14, "the slotted guide" lacks antecedent basis. Note: “slotted guide 22” is not equivalent to the “slotted guide” description of depression 38 which is only naming a shape ([0068] slotted guide shape of 38).
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 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.
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 1-11, 13, 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20090071959 by Cheung (hereinafter “CheungUS”) in view of WO 2015117561 by Cheung (hereinafter “CheungWO”).
Regarding claim 1, CheungUS teaches a waste bin (Fig 8, 100), comprising:
a container body (Fig 8, 110),
a pedal-operated swivel lid (Fig 8, 120),
a pedal (Fig 8, 142) located in a bottom region of the waste bin, on a front side thereof (142 is in a bottom region of 100 on a front side of 100), the pedal is connected via a lever mechanism (Fig 8, 150 with 130) to a pull (Fig 8, a pull element is tensile member 152), the pull runs on a rear side of the waste bin from the bottom region to a rear side of the swivel lid (152 runs from a rear side bottom region of 100 to a rear side of 120) and produces an operative connection between the pedal and the swivel lid (152 operatively connects 142 to 120),
the swivel lid (120) being attached via a hinge to the rear side of the waste bin, the hinge is arranged in an upper edge region of the container body (Fig 7, a hinge is rotating stub 124, attached to the bin 100 rear side in an upper region of body 110), and
the rear side of the swivel lid protruding beyond an axis of the hinge to the rear as far as a starting point for the pull (Fig 7 shows lid 120 protruding a vertical axis of axis 122 to a rear (to the right from viewer perspective) point of 152 (shown extending into the protrusion of 120)), and
in a second, extended position, the pedal protrudes beyond the front side of the waste bin and is operatively connected to the lever mechanism such that stepping upon the pedal opens the swivel lid (Figs 7-8, in a second position (Fig 7) pedal 142 protrudes beyond the bin front side so is capable of being stepped on to operate the lever mechanism 150 with 130 opening the lid 120 (Fig 8)).
But CheungUS does not explicitly teach the pedal first pushed-in position.
CheungWO, however, teaches a pedal is arranged extendably on the waste bin such that, in a first, pushed-in position, the pedal does not protrude beyond the front side of the waste bin (Figs 4-5 show a pedal 5 extendably arranged on a waste bin in a first pushed-in position (Fig 5) wherein 5 does not protrude beyond the front side face of the bin, and, in light of dependent claims 9-11 and 13,
is moveable – in a slotted guide proximal label 8 shown for hinging the pedal (Figs 2 & 4-5; i.e. slot guides hinging) – to a second position (Fig 4), wherein the hinging movement is necessarily at least partially prevented from freely returning to the first storage position (Fig 5) from the second extended position (Fig 4) by a latch of the bin which is friction from the hinge being “snap-mounted” structure); and the pedal is slidable out into a second, extended position (Fig 5 to Fig 4, pedal shown pivoting sliding out).
The purpose of a first pushed-in and a second slidable extended position and structure for the pedal is saving transportation and packaging space (CheungWO, page 3, para 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedal of CheungUS with structure for a first and second position as taught by CheungWO in order to advantageously save space in transport and storage since the pedal will be tucked away more bins can be crammed into said space, and beneficially protect the pedal from damage during said cramming versus being a spurious flange in the way.
Regarding claim 2, CheungUS further teaches the pull (Fig 8, tensile member 152) is composed of plastic and formed as a pull strap ([0333] 152 is composed of “thermoplastic packaging straps”), and the pull element is connectable to the swivel lid via an upper film hinge (Figs 2 & 8, an upper film hinge is an upper portion of 152; in light of the Applicant’s specification wherein [0020] the film hinge is “integrally formed” with the pull element/strap).
Regarding claim 3, CheungUS further teaches the pull (Figs 2 & 8, 152) is fixedly connected to an upper latch (Fig 7, an upper latch that can perform latching is a top portion of the upper portion of 152, proximal hinge 124, thereby being a fixedly connected integral portion of 152) via the upper film hinge (the upper portion of 152), and the upper latch (the top portion of 152 proximal 124) is latchable in a recess provided in the swivel lid (Fig 8, [0337], the upper latching element is necessarily capable of latching to 124, wherein 124 is in a recess of 120, because 152 pulls on 124 (since 124 is a non-integral element of 152), therefore must be connected/latchable/latching).
Regarding claim 4, CheungUS further teaches the pull (Fig 8, tensile member 152) is composed of plastic and is formed as a pull strap ([0333] 152 is composed of “thermoplastic packaging straps”), and the pull is connectable to the lever mechanism (150 with 130) via a lower film hinge (Figs 2 & 8, a lower film hinge is a lower portion of 152; in light of the Applicant’s specification wherein [0020] the film hinge is “integrally formed” with the pull element/strap).
Regarding claim 5, CheungUS further teaches the pull (Figs 2 & 8, 152) is fixedly connected to a lower latch (Fig 7, a lower latch that can perform latching is a bottom portion of the lower portion of 152, proximal a pivot 170, thereby being a fixedly connected integral portion of 152) via the lower film hinge (the lower portion of 152), and the lower latching element (the bottom portion of 152 proximal 170) is latchable in the lever mechanism (Fig 8, [0337], the lower latching element is necessarily capable of latching to 170, wherein 170 is in mechanism 150 with 130, because 152 is tensioned by 170 (since 170 is a non-integral element of 152), therefore the element must be connected/latchable/latching).
Regarding claim 6, CheungUS further teaches the pull is guided in a groove in the rear side of the waste bin (Fig 2 shows 152 guided in a groove in the rear side of the bin, formed by a guide element which is an upper-housing 160 (i.e. the groove is proximal the intersection of 152 and 160)).
Regarding claim 7, CheungUS further teaches a guide element (Fig 2, upper-housing 160) for guiding the pull in the groove (said 160 can guide 152 in the groove) located in an upper region of the groove (said 160 is located in an upper region of the groove).
Regarding claim 8, CheungUS further teaches the lever mechanism (Fig 8, 150 with 130) is designed such that
the pedal (142), in the second, extended position (Fig 8 shows 142 in the second extended position), is mounted (Fig 2, 142 is shown mounted) rotatably for rocking (Figs 7-8 shows 142 rotating rocking) in a pedal bearing point (Fig 7, 142 pivots in a center bearing point of center-hole axis 135),
with a pedal section which is oriented from the pedal bearing position to the front side of the waste bin (Figs 2 & 7, a pedal section of the pedal is shown as a left portion from viewer perspective, from 135 to the bin front side) and protrudes beyond said front side (142 protrudes beyond the bin front side), and with an actuating section which is oriented from the pedal bearing point to the rear side of the waste bin (Figs 2 & 7, an actuating section of the pedal is shown as a right portion from viewer perspective, from 135 to the bin rear side), and
a rocker (Figs 2 & 8, a rocker is pivoting member 170) is mounted rotatably (Figs 2 & 7-8 show 170 mounted rotatably) in a rocker bearing point (Fig 7, 170 pivots in a center bearing point of center-hole axis 172) for operatively connecting the pedal to the pull (Figs 7-8, 170 is shown capable of operating strap 152 through pedal 142 connection), wherein
the rocker (170) is connected in a rear rocker section to the pull element (152) for carrying tension (Fig 8, [0337], a rear section of 170 is shown capable of “tensioning up” 152), and a front rocker section is arranged above the actuating section (Fig 8, a front section of 170 is shown above the pedal actuating section) of the pedal in the second position (Fig 8, pedal 142 is in the second position) in order to be moved upward by said actuating section when the pedal section is stepped upon (Figs 7-8 show the front section of 170 capable of moving upward by the pedal 142 actuating section when the pedal section of the pedal is pedaled).
Regarding claim 9, CheungUS/CheungWO further teaches the pedal (CheungUS, Fig 8, 142) and the rocker (CheungUS, Fig 7, 170) are not fixedly connected to each other (CheungUS, Figs 7-8, the parts are separate and distinct, and shown sliding against one another, thereby not fixedly connected together), and therefore the pedal is moveable from the first (CheungWO, Fig 5, first pushed-in position allowed by hinge) into the second position (CheungUS, Fig 8, pedal is shown in second extended position, as modified by CheungWO, Fig 4, also shown in second position). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 10, CheungUS/CheungWO further teaches the actuating section of the pedal (CheungUS, Fig 8, the actuating section of 142) has a depression for receiving the front rocker section of the rocker in the first, pushed-in position of the pedal (CheungWO, Fig 5, while the pedal is in first position, this does not change the receiving capability of CheungUS rocker in the pedal depression), which depression is shaped as a slotted guide (CheungUS, Fig 23, a depression of the actuating section of 142, is shown proximal the front rocker section of 170 proximal 186, wherein the pedal depression has a slotted guide shape capable of receiving the rocker section. Examiner notes that “a slotted guide shape” is very broad, broader than “slot” for example) such that,
when the pedal (CheungUS, Fig 8, 142) is extended into the second position (CheungUS, Fig 8, second position shown), the rocker (CheungUS, 170) produces a substantially play-free operative connection between the pedal and the pull and then to the swivel lid only toward an end of the extension movement (CheungUS, Figs 7-8, 170 is shown capable of operating strap 152 through pedal 142 connection, near an ending duration of the pedal being extended/shifted as shown in Fig 8, that operates the lid 120). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 11, CheungUS/CheungWO further teaches the pedal (CheungUS, Fig 8, 142, as modified by CheungWO) is moveable from the first into the second position in a slotted guide (see 35 USC 112 above, “a slotted guide” hereinafter is a body element, whereas in claim 10 the same words describe a shape of the pedal element (i.e. the depression)) arranged in the container body (CheungWO, the pedal 5 is moveable – in a slotted guide proximal label 8 shown for hinging the pedal (Figs 2 & 4-5; i.e. slot guides hinging) – to a second position (Fig 4)). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 13, CheungUS/CheungWO further teaches a latch to prevent movement of the pedal from the second, extended position back into the first, pushed-in position (CheungWO, the hinging movement is necessarily at least partially prevented from freely returning to the first storage position (Fig 5) from the second extended position (Fig 4) by a latch of the bin which is friction from the hinge being “snap-mounted”). See details in the parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify.
Regarding claim 15, CheungUS further teaches a trough-shaped insert that is insertable into the container body for covering the lever mechanism (Figs 1 & 7, an element that is trough-shaped and that can be inserted into body 110 is a lower-housing 160, shown covering the mechanism 150 with 130).
Regarding claim 18, CheungUS further teaches the frame is clipable into the swivel lid (EAFC8, the front frame of the frame is capable of clipping/snapping/contact fitting to the lid 120 via shown contact).
Regarding claim 19, CheungUS further teaches a damper element (Fig 4, [0066] [0067] [0344] [0348-0351], a damper element is stationary member 174 of a damper mechanism (damper device) dampens/acts on the pivoting of a pivot member 170 (e.g. a rocker)) for a damped closing movement of the swivel lid, the damper element acts on the rocker and slows down a movement thereof (Fig 9 shows the damper, acting on a rocker 170, slowing down/dampening a lid 120 closing movement (arrow)).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20090071959 by Cheung (hereinafter “CheungUS”) in view of WO 2015117561 by Cheung (hereinafter “CheungWO”) in view of US Pub 20170253429 by Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 16, CheungUS further teaches the trough-shaped insert (Fig 1, lower-housing 160) sits removably in the container body (Figs 1 & 7, [0335], removably inserted) and is insertable.
But CheungUS/CheungWO does not explicitly teach a separate and distinct trough insertable specifically in a reverse orientation (i.e. flipped over; in a top view concave to convex position).
Yang, however, teaches an insertable trough that is capable of being inserted in a flipped over condition (Figs 9 & 10A show an insertable trough 132 that is necessarily capable of flipping over in a reverse orientation before insertion through the container cavity, and still perform its main covering function disclosed).
The purpose of a separate and distinct insertable trough is to “shield” the lower portion of the base (Yang [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the contents cavity of CheungUS/CheungWO with an insertable trough as taught by Yang in order to advantageously enhance cleanliness during handling of Cheung’s inserted bottom by shielding the container bottom from leaking trash bag contents.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20090071959 by Cheung (hereinafter “CheungUS”) in view of WO 2015117561 by Cheung (hereinafter “CheungWO”) in view of CN 114684514 by Hu et al. (hereinafter “Hu”) in view of CN 2137654 issued to Li (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 17, CheungUS further teaches a frame (see examiner annotated CheungUS Figure 8, hereinafter “EAFC8”; EAFC8, a frame is front frame with rear frame) for hanging garbage bags in the upper edge region of the container body (the frame is necessarily capable of holding bags, [0318] “bags”), wherein said frame includes a front frame part (EAFC8, front frame) and a rear frame part (EAFC8, rear frame), and at least the front frame part is placeable in a form-fitting manner onto an upper edge of the container body (EAFC8, front frame, shown form-fitting placement on an upper edge of the body).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But CheungUS/CheungWO does not explicitly teach the frame is adjustable.
Hu, however, teaches a front frame part and a rear frame part which are inserted into each other (Examiner notes “into each other” reasonably means “up to each other” in light of Applicant Figure 8 (e.g. not “into as “inside of”)) and are adjustable in a latching manner with respect to each other (Fig 1, a frame is removable locking ring 3 with a rear part 31, on the right from viewer perspective, and a front part 31, on the left from viewer perspective, wherein 3 is adjustable and latchable by telescopic belt 32).
The purpose of an adjustable frame is to press the frame on a garbage bag (Hu, page 3, first #2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of CheungUS with being adjustable as taught by Hu in order to advantageously increase securement of a garbage bag for less risk of slipping under filled weight or incidental jostling of the bin.
But CheungUS/CheungWO/Hu does not explicitly teach that the adjustable frame uses a rack and pinion mechanism to adjust.
Li, however, teaches a rack and pinion mechanism (Fig 1, rack 3 and 4 and pinion 51 form an adjustable frame of a refuse container).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the frame mechanism of Hu such that an adjustable rack and pinion mechanism for a frame of Li replaces the adjustable telescoping mechanism for a frame of Hu, as it is no more than a simple substitution of one adjuster for another that is known in the art for adjusting frames and would only produce predictable results. MPEP 2144.06 II. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (e.g. Applicant Figure 8 doesn’t show the pinion, just the rack).
Claims 20 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20090071959 by Cheung (hereinafter “CheungUS”) in view of WO 2015117561 by Cheung (hereinafter “CheungWO”) in view of CN 114684514 by Hu et al. (hereinafter “Hu”).
Regarding claim 20, CheungUS teaches a waste bin (Fig 8, 100), comprising:
a pedal-operated swivel lid (Fig 8, 120), the pedal-operated swivel lid is a single or multi-part swivel lid (120 comprises at least one or two parts) and is attached to a container body via at least one hinge, arranged in an upper edge region of the container body of the waste bin (Fig 7, a hinge is rotating stub 124, attached to the bin 100 rear side in an upper region of body 110),
a pedal (Fig 8, 142) located in a bottom region of the waste bin, on a front side thereof (142 is in a bottom region of 100 on a front side of 100), the pedal is connected via a lever mechanism (Fig 8, 150 with 130) to a push rod or to a pull element (Fig 8, a pull element is tensile member 152), which runs on a rear side of the waste bin from the bottom region to the swivel lid (152 runs from a rear side bottom region of 100 to a rear side of 120) and produces an operative connection between the pedal and the swivel lid (152 operatively connects 142 to 120),
in a second, extended position, the pedal protrudes beyond the front side of the waste bin and is operatively connected to the lever mechanism such that stepping upon the pedal opens the swivel lid (Figs 7-8, in a second position (Fig 7) pedal 142 protrudes beyond the bin front side so is capable of being stepped on to operate the lever mechanism 150 with 130 opening the lid 120 (Fig 8));
a frame (EAFC8, a frame is front frame with rear frame) for hanging garbage bags is provided in the upper edge region of the container body (the frame is necessarily capable of holding bags, [0318] “bags”), the frame includes a front frame part (EAFC8, front frame) and a rear frame part (EAFC8, rear frame), and a trough-shaped insert that is insertable into the container body (Figs 1 & 7, an element that is trough-shaped and that can be inserted into body 110 is a lower-housing 160, shown covering the mechanism 150 with 130), the trough-shaped insert sits removably in the container body (Figs 1 & 7, [0335], removably inserted) and is insertable in a reverse orientation into the container body in order to reduce a usable volume of the waste bin (the trough element can necessarily be inserted in a reverse/flipped-over orientation (i.e. while the container body is also flipped over)).
But CheungUS does not explicitly teach the pedal first pushed-in position.
CheungWO, however, teaches a pedal is arranged extendably on the waste bin such that, in a first, pushed-in position, the pedal does not protrude beyond the front side of the waste bin (Figs 4-5 show a pedal 5 extendably arranged on a waste bin in a first pushed-in position (Fig 5) wherein 5 does not protrude beyond the front side face of the bin, and, in light of dependent claims 9-11 and 13,
is moveable – in a slotted guide proximal label 8 shown for hinging the pedal (Figs 2 & 4-5; i.e. slot guides hinging) – to a second position (Fig 4), wherein the hinging movement is necessarily at least partially prevented from freely returning to the first storage position (Fig 5) from the second extended position (Fig 4) by a latch of the bin which is friction from the hinge being “snap-mounted” structure); and the pedal is slidable out into a second, extended position (Fig 5 to Fig 4, pedal shown pivoting and sliding out due to be hingedly mounted).
The purpose of a first pushed-in and a second extended slidable position and structure for the pedal is saving transportation and packaging space (CheungWO, page 3, para 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pedal of CheungUS with structure for a first and second position as taught by CheungWO in order to advantageously save space in transport and storage since the pedal will be tucked away more bins can be crammed into said space, and beneficially protect the pedal from damage during said cramming versus being a spurious flange in the way.
But CheungUS/CheungWO does not explicitly teach the frame is adjustable.
Hu, however, teaches a front frame part and a rear frame part which are inserted into each other (Examiner notes “into each other” reasonably means “up to each other” in light of Applicant Figure 8 (e.g. not “into as “inside of”)) and are movable to latch against each other in order to change a circumference of the frame by pulling apart or pushing together the frame parts (Fig 1, a frame is removable locking ring 3 with a rear part 31, on the right from viewer perspective, and a front part 31, on the left from viewer perspective, wherein 3 is adjustable and latchable by telescopic belt 32).
The purpose of an adjustable frame is to press the frame on a garbage bag (Hu, page 3, first #2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of CheungUS with being adjustable as taught by Hu in order to advantageously increase securement of a garbage bag for less risk of slipping under filled weight or incidental jostling of the bin.
Regarding claim 22, CheungUS further teaches at least the front frame part is placeable in a form-fitting manner onto an upper edge of the container body and is secured by at least one of pins or apertures (EAFC8, front frame, shown form-fitting placement on an upper edge of the body by apertures).
Regarding claim 23, CheungUS further teaches the frame is clipable into the swivel lid (EAFC8, frame is shown capable of clipping by structure into the lid 120).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub 20090071959 by Cheung (hereinafter “CheungUS”) in view of WO 2015117561 by Cheung (hereinafter “CheungWO”) in view of CN 114684514 by Hu et al. (hereinafter “Hu”) in view of CN 2137654 issued to Li (hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 21, CheungUS/CheungWO/Hu does not explicitly teach that the front frame part and the rear frame part are movable to latch against each other by a rack and pinion mechanism.
Li, however, teaches a rack and pinion mechanism (Fig 1, rack 3 and 4 and pinion 51 form an adjustable frame of a refuse container).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the frame mechanism of Hu such that an adjustable rack and pinion mechanism for a frame of Li replaces the adjustable telescoping mechanism for a frame of Hu, as it is no more than a simple substitution of one adjuster for another that is known in the art for adjusting frames and would only produce predictable results. MPEP 2144.06 II. Please note that in the instant application, the Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation (e.g. Applicant Figure 8 doesn’t show the pinion, just the rack).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 14 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.
None of the references found are obvious to combine into the structure of claims 12 and 14 that performs the pushed-in first position of the pedal without hindsight or denigrating the references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
CN 218840588 – pivotable and linearly slidable pedal (Figs 4 & 6)
US 20080245794 – pedal linearly slidable (Figs 8-10)
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 ERIC C BALDRIGHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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 5712705055. 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.
/ERIC C BALDRIGHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 19 March 2026