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 .
Introduction
The indicated allowability of claims 1-10 is withdrawn in view of the newly applied reference(s) to Dukes (US Pat. Pub. 2008/0197136) and Pho (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0166656). Rejections based on the newly applied reference follow.
In view of the new grounds of rejection below, the finality of the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dukes (U.S. 2008/0197136).
Regarding claim 6, Dukes discloses a receptacle 10 comprising a side wall 18, a bottom wall 20 coupled to the side wall forming a receiving space at 22, a rim 13 extends around a perimeter of the side wall (figure 1), a handle at 416 (as it is capable of being gripped by the user) positioned on the side wall (paragraph [0018]; figure 1), the handle having a cinch 428 (figure 4) with a locking mechanism (space formed between 438 and 425) on a perimeter of the cinch (on the perimeter of 428 around the circular edge), the cinch includes a single curved projection member (425; paragraph [0026]; 425 having an arcuate shape) extending from the perimeter of the cinch towards a central portion of a passageway of the cinch (figure 4; 425 extends substantially parallel to 424 and 426), the projection and locking region jointly defining an inwardly constricted passageway (space formed between 425 and 438, that is constricted) configured to receive and secure a liner (capable of such intended use).
Regarding claim 7, the locking mechanism (space formed between 438 and 425) is positioned at one end of the cinch 428 (figure 4) forming a wave shape formation within the cinch (figure 4).
Regarding claim 8, the handle 416 is positioned under the rim 413 (figure 4a).
Regarding claim 9, the handle further includes a grip (outer portion of 416 can be considered a grip to the degree set forth in the claim).
Regarding claim 10, the cinch 428 includes a locking position (with liner received in 428) and an unlocking position by rotation (pivotal movement of 425 to engage the liner).
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Pho (U.S. 2014/0166656) in view of Dukes (U.S. 2008/0197136).
Regarding claim 1, Pho discloses a receptacle 10 comprising a side wall 16a, a bottom wall 18 coupled to the side wall forming a receiving space 14, a rim 37 extending around a perimeter of the side wall (see fig. 1), and a handle 40 positioned on opposing sides of the side wall (see fig. 4; and paragraph [0026]), the handle having a cinch 52.
Further regarding claim 1, Pho fails to explicitly disclose that the cinch has a locking mechanism on a perimeter of the cinch, the locking mechanism formed between the perimeter of the cinch and a single curved projection member extending towards a central portion of a passageway of the cinch, the projection member intruding inwardly into the passageway such that the locking mechanism is defined by a constricted region between the curved projection and the cinch perimeter.
Dukes teaches a cinch (428; figure 4) having a locking mechanism (space formed between 438 and 425) on a perimeter of the cinch (noting placement on the perimeter of 428 around the circular edge), the locking mechanism (space formed between 438 and 425) formed between the perimeter of the cinch and a single curved projection member (425; paragraph [0026] describing 425 as having an arcuate shape) extending towards a central portion of a passageway of the cinch (figure 4; 425 extending towards the center of 428 in a configuration where 425 extends substantially parallel to 424 and 426), the projection member intruding inwardly into the passageway such that the locking mechanism is defined by a constricted region (space formed between 425 and 438, that is constricted) between the curved projection and the cinch perimeter.
It would have been obvious to substitute the cinch configuration of Pho with the cinch configuration of Dukes, as this would have been a mere substitution of prior art elements, where both Pho’s taught cinch configuration, and the cinch configuration of Dukes, were both known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As recognized in Dukes, a cinch configuration of this design, helps to mitigate against movement of an ear of a liner and mitigate against the liner falling into the receptable (paragraph [0027] of Dukes). Accordingly, it would’ve been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cinch configuration of Pho with the cinch configuration of Dukes because the predictable result of better movement mitigation of the liner would have followed.
Regarding claim 2, the locking mechanism (space formed between 438 and 425 of Dukes), as modified by Dukes above, is positioned at one end of the cinch forming a wave shape formation within the cinch (figure 4 of Dukes).
Regarding claim 3, the handle is positioned under and within the rim (figure 1 of Pho).
Regarding claim 4, the handle further includes a grip 38 of Pho (figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, the cinch, as modified by Dukes above, includes a locking position and an unlocking position by rotation (pivotal movement of 425 of Dukes to engage the liner).
Regarding claim 16, the cinch provides an unlocking position by exiting the liner from the locking mechanism and removing the liner from the cinch (figure 8 of Wynn et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The embodiment in figure 4 Dukes (U.S. 2008/0197136) teaches the cinch as described in claims 1-10.
Conclusion
In view of the new grounds of rejection, THIS ACTION IS MADE NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights