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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 2, and 4-14 in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 15-21 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-14 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 1 recites the limitation "the detecting". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "configured to determine an indication an amount of the flexible tubing used and/or…" The phrasing of the claim renders the scope indefinite as it is not clear what is required by the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “configured to determine an amount of the flexible tubing being used…”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the waste container". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by US Patent No. 6,065,272 (Lecomte hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1-9, Lecomte discloses: A system for disposing waste products in sealed packages made from a flexible tubing (3), the system comprising: a channel for passing a waste product inside a flexible tubing (3) being drawn from a supply compartment (2) over a circumferential edge formed around an entrance to the channel; a detection sensor configured to detect the waste product being passed into the channel (column 4, lines 19-33); a pulling device (4) configured to pull a portion of the flexible tubing into the channel from the surrounding supply compartment based on the detecting (column 4, lines 19-33); and a sealing device (5) configured to seal a portion of the flexible tubing that has been pulled into the channel to form a sealed package with the waste product inside (column 4, lines 19-33).
[AltContent: textbox (Edge)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Channel)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image1.png
620
415
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
605
423
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the pulling device comprises at least one pair of counterrotating wheels (4) configured to grab at least one folded edge of the flexible tubing, and pull the flexible tubing, by the at least one folded edge, into the channel (note tubing will be flattened, such that two folded edges are present between the rollers 4).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein each of the wheels have a toroidal outer edge formed of a resilient material configured to grab and hold the flexible tubing there between (column 2, lines 50-56).
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the pulling device is arranged inside the channel between the channel entrance and the sealing device (See Fig. 1).
In re claim 6, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein at least two pulling devices (wheels at 16) arranged on opposite walls inside the channel and configured to grab onto opposing folded edges of the flexible tubing for pulling the flexible tubing into the channel (As in re claim 2 above).
In re claim 7, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the detection sensor is configured to generate a detection signal upon detecting a presence of the waste product above the entrance to the channel, before entering the channel, the system comprising a controller (“timing device”) configured to automatically initiate disposal of the waste product upon receiving the detection signal from the detection sensor by first activating the pulling device to pull a portion of the flexible tubing into the channel and then activating the sealing device to seal the flexible tubing to form the sealed package with the waste product inside (column 4, lines 19-33).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein a top part (1) configured to be mounted on a bottom part (6) forming a waste container configured to receive sealed packages from the top part, wherein the top part comprises at least the supply compartment, the detection sensor, the pulling device, and the sealing device (See Fig. 1), the system further comprising an energy storage device mounted in the top part, or in a backplate, separate from the bottom part (spring 11 stores energy, electromagnet 7 can also store energy).
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.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Lecomte as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2017/0071422 (Costa et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. discloses the claimed invention except wherein the controller is configured to determine an indication an amount of the flexible tubing used and/or remaining in a supply package provided in the supply compartment, and to provide a signal when the used amount of the flexible tubing passes a threshold amount and/or the remaining amount of the flexible tubing drops below a threshold amount.
However, Costa et al. discloses a device wherein a controller is configured to determine an indication an amount of the flexible tubing used and/or remaining in a supply package provided in the supply compartment, and to provide a signal when the used amount of the flexible tubing passes a threshold amount and/or the remaining amount of the flexible tubing drops below a threshold amount (see paragraphs 0093 and 0106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Lecomte to have included a system for detecting low/empty tubing levels as taught by Costa et al. For the purposes of predictably facilitating convenience of the container by informing a user of the state of functionality/readiness of the container to perform its function.
In re claim 9, Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. and Costa et al. disclose the claimed invention including a sensor configured to detect exchange of a supply package in the supply compartment and/or removal of waste products from a bottom part containing the scaled packages, wherein the controller is configured to reset an amount of the flexible tubing remaining in the supply package upon detecting the exchange and/or reset an amount of the flexible tubing counted towards reaching a threshold capacity of the supply compartment (sensor of paragraph 0093 detects presence of tubing, and can thereby detect presence of replaced tubing therein and measures tubing to prevent overdrawing of tubing).
In re claim 10, Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. and Costa et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the controller is configured to disable the pulling device based on detecting that the supply compartment and/or waste container is open or removed during exchange of a supply package and/or emptying of the waste container (paragraphs 0093 and 0106, as in re claims 8 and 9 above).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Lecomte as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2003/0213804 (Chomik et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the circumferential edge is formed by a circumferential rim surrounding the entrance to the channel, wherein the supply compartment (2) is arranged circumferentially around and adjacent the channel, wherein the supply compartment comprises a circumferential slot around the circumferential rim for feeding the flexible tubing from the surrounding supply compartment up through the circumferential slot and down over the circumferential rim into the channel (see Fig. 1 above)
Lecomte fails to disclose wherein the supply compartment comprises a removable cover for exchanging and/or refilling the supply of flexible tubing, wherein the circumferential slot is formed between the removable cover and the circumferential rim.
However, With reference to Fig. 2, Chomik et al. discloses a removable cover (14) for exchanging/refilling a supply of flexible tubing, wherein a slot is formed between the cover and a rim (see fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
609
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Lecomte to have included a removable cover to protect/retain the dispenser from damage while still permitting removal/replacement of the tubing/dispenser as taught by Chomik et al.
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lecomte in view of Chomik et al. disclose the claimed invention including wherein the circumferential rim has a rounded and smooth top profile (see Fig. 1 above) that extends a distance above the surrounding removable cover (14 of Chomik et al.), wherein the circumferential rim is arranged in a path of the flexible tubing between the supply compartment and the pulling device (shown in both Lecomte and Chomik et al.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lecomte as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US PG Pub No. 2002/0038535 (Jensen et al. hereinafter).
In re claim 14, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. discloses the claimed invention including wherein the sealing device comprises a mechanical press with a pair of pressing bars configured to press a part of the flexible tubing together, pressing the part of the flexible tubing against a heating device disposed in one or both of the pressing bars.
Lecomte in view of Richardson et al. fails to disclose wherein the pressing bars are actuated via a pair of counter-rotating rings configured to rotate around a circumference of the channel.
However, with reference to Figs. 2A-3, Jensen et al. discloses a similar pressing bar/heat seal device wherein the pressing bars (76/78) are brought together/actuated by a pair of counter-rotating rings (96 rotates relative to equally spaced springs 26/68, which form an interrupted ring-shape, and are held by ring shaped portion of container at 14, see paragraph 0027).
PNG
media_image4.png
643
474
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the pressing bars of Lecomte to be actuated by counter-rotating rings as taught by Jensen et al. because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e. pressing together of the pressing bars for heat sealing of the tubing).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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 at 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights