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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 and 16-20, in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 20, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0122813 to El-Taher.
As to claim 1, El-Taher discloses a sanitization device for a garbage can comprising: a housing and a container removably held within the housing and containing a cleaning solution (see El-Taher Abstract, paragraphs [0026] disclosing housing 13 and canister 10 where the housing releasably receives the container; see claim 4 disclosing that the agent can comprise a sanitizing composition); and a sprayer contained within the housing configured to dispense the cleaning solution into the garbage can (see El-Taher paragraph [0026] disclosing nozzle 8 and spray opening 12).
As to claims 8-10, El-Taher discloses that the solution can include insecticides, sanitizing agent and odor masking agents (read as configured to kill bacteria, prevent exposure to microorganisms and to minimize odors) as well as insecticides and repellants (see El-Taher paragraphs [0017]-[0020] and claim 4).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0122813 to El-Taher as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0289679 to Johnson et al.
El-Taher is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claims 2 and 3, El-Taher discloses that the size and shape of the spray nozzle can be used to control the spread angle of the spray (see El-Taher paragraph [0031]). Adjustable nozzles are known in the spraying art and does not provide patentable significance. For example, Johnson discloses an adjustable nozzle to produce different spray patterns, spray volume and throw distance (see Johnson paragraphs [0077]-[0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an adjustable nozzle to control the spread angle of the spray as desired by El-Taher in order to optimize the spray pattern for the desired cleaning. The combination of El-Taher and Johnson discloses multiple spray patterns including a wide and narrow spray pattern (see Johnson paragraphs [0077]-[0081]).
As to claim 4, the combination of El-Taher and Johnson discloses that the adjustable nozzle can comprise channels (see, e.g., Johnson Fig. 2, ref.#50 and 70 disclosing various channels leading from the container to the nozzle; see also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) where duplication of parts is prima facie obvious).
As to claim 19, El-Taher discloses a sanitization device for a garbage can comprising: a container containing a cleaning solution (see El-Taher Abstract, paragraphs [0026] disclosing canister 10; see claim 4 disclosing that the agent can comprise a sanitizing composition); a sprayer with a nozzle connected to the container (see El-Taher paragraph [0026] disclosing nozzle 8 and spray opening 12); a housing configured to releasably receive the container and the nozzle (see El-Taher Fig. 7, ref.#11; paragraph [0026]); a power supply and electronic board configured to enable and disable the sprayer (see, e.g., El-Taher paragraph [0025]) wherein the nozzle is configured to dispense the cleaning solution into the garbage can (see El-Taher paragraph [0026] disclosing nozzle 8 and spray opening 12).
El-Taher discloses that the size and shape of the spray nozzle can be used to control the spread angle of the spray (see El-Taher paragraph [0031]). Adjustable nozzles are known in the spraying art and does not provide patentable significance. For example, Johnson discloses an adjustable nozzle to produce different spray patterns, spray volume and throw distance (see Johnson paragraphs [0077]-[0081]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use an adjustable nozzle to control the spread angle of the spray as desired by El-Taher in order to optimize the spray pattern for the desired cleaning. The combination of El-Taher and Johnson discloses multiple spray patterns including a wide and narrow spray pattern (see Johnson paragraphs [0077]-[0081]; see also MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) where duplication of parts is prima facie obvious).
As to claims 17 and 18, El-Taher discloses that the solution can include insecticides, sanitizing agent and odor masking agents (read as configured to kill bacteria, prevent exposure to microorganisms and to minimize odors) as well as insecticides and repellants (see El-Taher paragraphs [0017]-[0020] and claim 4).
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.
Claims 1-5, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,371,255 to Boye et al. (“Boye ‘255”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as follows:
With regards to claims 1 and 2, Boye ‘255 claim 1 discloses a sanitation device comprising a housing, a container removably held within the housing and containing a solution and a sprayer containing a solution and a sprayer contained within the housing configured to dispense the solution into the garbage can and wherein the sprayer further comprises an adjustable nozzle configured to have at least two different spray patterns.
Regarding claims 3-5, Boye ‘255 claims 3, 4, 12 and 13 disclose a wide and a narrow spray pattern as well as passageways for said patterns.
Regarding claims 16, 19 and 20, Boye ‘255 claim 1, 3, 4, 12, 13 and 19 discloses the sanitation device comprising a container containing a solution, an adjustable nozzle comprising at least two spray patterns connected to the container, a housing configured to releasably receive the container and the adjustable nozzle, and a power supply and electronic board configured to enable and disable the at least one sprayer wherein the adjustable nozzle is configured to dispense the solution into the garbage can as well as two channels with orifices to deliver a wide and narrow spray pattern.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714