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 Restriction
Applicant’s election (with traverse) of Invention 1 [claims 1-8] among Invention 2 [claims 9-15, 17] and Invention 3 [claims 18-20] is acknowledged. Traversal is on the ground(s) Inventions 1-3 are not patentably distinct, restriction is improper under 35 U.S.C §121 / MPEP §806.05(h) / apparatus and method claims are closely related and do not impose a serious search or examination burden. Applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive since Inventions 1-3 are classified in different search areas (i.e., B65F1/006 for storage apparatus / B65F2210/135 for method of storing waste / B65F1/16 for method for manufacturing a storage container respectively) thus a search burden is present. Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on August 22, 2025. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim(s) 1-8 are pending and will be examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the following informalities:
CLAIM(S)
Claim 1 is objected because parenthesis in listing (being exemplary --a. a. an outer container-- [line 2]) are missing. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 16 is absent from the listing of claims.
Appropriate correction 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/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-Al A 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites --wherein the outer container comprises a base with a drain-- [lines 2-3] wherein --base-- is vague and indefinite. For purposes of examination --base-- will be interpreted as being a “horizontal wall” located on the “bottommost end” of the --cavity--.
Claims 2-8 rejected by dependency of claim 1.
Claim 2, recites --substantially cover top of lid.-- [line 2] wherein --top-- lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Claim 7, recites --plurality of holes are least 3 holes at 120 degrees angles to each other in a side of the outer container -- [lines 2-3] wherein --side-- is vague and indefinite. For purposes of examination --side-- will interpreted as a “frustum wall” connected to the --base--.
Claim 7, recites --plurality of holes are least 3 holes at 120 degrees angles to each other in a side of the outer container-- [lines 2-3] wherein --plurality of holes are least 3 holes at 120 degrees angles to each other side-- is vague and indefinite. For purposes of examination --3 holes at 120 degrees angles to each other-- will interpreted as --3 holes-- in the --side-- having their “centers” at the same “height” relative to the “base” and being displaced to each other (i.e., their “centers”) at a --120 degrees-- angle radially relative to a ”center axis” of the “side”.
Claim 8, recites --plurality of holes are least 4 holes at 90-degree angles to each other on the circumference-- [lines 2-3] wherein --4 holes at 90-degree angles to each other on the circumference-- is vague and indefinite. For purposes of examination --4 holes at 90-degree angles to each other-- will interpreted as --4 holes-- in the --side-- having their “centers” at the same “height” relative to the “base” and being displaced to each other (i.e., their “centers”) at --90-degree angles-- radially relative to a ”center axis” of the “side”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of SPIWAK (U. S. Patent No. US12054338B2) hereinafter SPIWAK.
Regarding claim 1, SPIWAK teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 below) a storage apparatus (FIG. 4) comprising:
a. an outer container 1 with a cavity 2 inside (FIG. 1) the outer container 1,
wherein the outer container 1 comprises a base 3 with a drain 4,
wherein the drain 4 is a hole (FIG. 1) on the base 3;
b. a lid 30 that fits on the outer container 1 that conceals the cavity 2 in the outer container 1; and
c. an inner container 7 that is smaller (FIG. 5) than the outer container 1 is placed inside (FIG. 1) the cavity 2 of the outer container 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
385
504
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
171
469
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
632
449
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
444
526
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, SPIWAK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SPIWAK further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) apparatus (FIG. 4), further comprising an ornamental tree 41 that is attached to the lid 30 to substantially cover (FIG. 4) top of the lid 30.
Regarding claim 3, SPIWAK (as applied to claim 2 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SPIWAK further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) apparatus, further comprising at least one handle 33 attached to the lid 30.
Regarding claim 4, SPIWAK (as applied to claim 3 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SPIWAK further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) apparatus (FIG. 4), wherein at least a portion (FIG. 4) of the handle 33 is inside (FIG. 1) the ornamental tree 41.
Regarding claim 5, SPIWAK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SPIWAK further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) apparatus (FIG. 4), wherein the outer container 1 is a flowerpot and the lid 30 is an inverted saucer pan for the flowerpot and the inner container 7 is a nursey pot.
Regarding claim 6, SPIWAK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SPIWAK further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) apparatus (FIG. 4), further comprising a plurality of holes 6 in the outer container 1, wherein the holes 6 allow for quicker off-gassing of items in the cavity 2.
Regarding claim 7, SPIWAK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SPIWAK further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) apparatus (FIG. 4), wherein the plurality of holes 6 are least 3 holes at 120 degrees angles to each other in a side (FIG. 1) of the outer container 1.
Regarding claim 8, SPIWAK (as applied to claim 1 above) teaches all the limitations of the claim. SPIWAK further teaches (see FIG. 1 - FIG. 5 above) apparatus (FIG. 4), wherein the plurality of holes 6 are four holes 6 at 90-degree angles to each other on the circumference (FIG. 1) allowing for quick and even distribution on the off-gassing and odor control.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
McConnell et. al. (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20190152694A1): Teaches a “container” with similar attributes as the claimed invention.
Clements (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20100252557A1): Teaches a “can” with similar attributes as the claimed invention.
Vargo (U. S. Patent Application Publication US20070175901A1): Teaches a “pail” with similar attributes as the claimed invention.
Winden et. al. (U. S. Patent US4955497A): Teaches a “litter container” with similar attributes as the claimed invention.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS JAVIER RODRIGUEZ MOLINA whose telephone number is (571) 272-8947. the examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, ANTHONY D. STASHICK can be reached on (571) 272-4561. 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.
/M.J.R.M./
/Anthony D Stashick/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3735