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 Species 1 in the reply filed on 15 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 6, 8, 10, 11, and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 15 December 2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(t) because the drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "115i" and "115e" have both been used to designate exterior surface.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "150i”, “105i", and "105e" have both been used to designate exterior surface.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "120i" and "1202" have both been used to designate exterior surface.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "520i" and "520e" have both been used to designate exterior surface.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1232" and "1332" have both been used to designate housing portion.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “115i” has been used to designate both interior surface and exterior surface.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1105” has been used to designate both depositing face and face of housing portion.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “325i” has been used to designate both interior surface and exterior surface.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “425” has been used to designate both bottom wall and depositing wall.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "430", “405” and "425" have both been used to designate depositing wall.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "325" and "335" have both been used to designate depositing opening.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "305" and "105" have both been used to designate depositing wall in fig. 3B.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "137" and "257" have both been used to designate edge in figure 2D.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with 140 of figure 1D is not directed to the ridge as disclosed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with 535 of figure 8 is not directed to the opening as disclosed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to because reference character 1243 is not directed to a detachable lid as disclosed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to because no single reference character may be used for a given part and a modification of such part. MPEP 608.02(e). See at least figures 17 and 18 which use the same reference characters for different embodiments.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 525i, 640, 601.
The drawings are objected to because the lead line associated with 437 and 405e of figure 4B are not directed to any structure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 150i, 200-1800, 100-1800, 620, 620i, 605, 637, 635, 505, 537, 520, 520e, 815, 815i, 926, 1115, 1335, 1305i, 1305, 1505, 1630, 1632, 1840, 200, 240, 230, 210, 220, 235, 215, 205, 225, 225i, 230i, 225e, 210i, 257, 205i, 300, 305, 315, 315i, 330, 340, 310, 310i, 320, 325i, 325, 335, 305, 305i, 337, 315e, 325e, 310e, 400, 405, 415, 425, 425i, 430, 437, 440, 405e, 420e, 410e, 415e, 425e. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “925” has been used to designate traction feature and bottom side.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “1245” has been used to designate top face and dispensing opening.
The disclosure is objected to because reference character “1330” has been used to designate housing portion, receptacle portion, and receiving portion.
The disclosure is objected to because reference characters "1332" and "1330" have all been used to designate housing portion.
The disclosure is objected to because reference characters "1343" and "1243" have all been used to designate detachable lid.
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 2-3 and 9 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-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 2 is drawn to the sub-combination of an attachable trash receptacle only, for use with some container, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of an attachable trash receptacle and a container. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 2 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 1-2, requiring the container be a tissue box). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the container is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the container are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 2 is required.
Claim 3 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 2 is drawn to the sub-combination of an attachable trash receptacle only, for use with some tissue box, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of an attachable trash receptacle and a tissue box. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 3 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 1-2, requiring the tissue box be of a standard size and shape). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the container is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the tissue box are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 3 is required.
Claim 9 and its dependents are indefinite because it is not clear whether claim 2 is drawn to the sub-combination of an attachable trash receptacle only, for use with some container, or whether the claim is drawn to the combination of an attachable trash receptacle and a container. This is because while some portion of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the sub-combination (note claim 2 line 1, for example), other portions of the claim indicate that what is claimed is the combination (note the structural limitation on lines 1-2, requiring the container be of a standard size and shape). It is noted further in connection with this limitation that it is by now well settled that features not claimed may not be relied upon in support of patentability. In this office action, the container is presumed not to be claimed in order for the examiner to give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, all references in the claim to the container are considered to be merely functional. On the other hand, clarification of the scope of claim 9 is required.
Claim 3 is led to be indefinite as the metes and bounds of “standard size and shape” are led to be indefinite. While the original disclosure provides that “the tissue box 1 is of a standard “cubed” tissue box size, i.e. approximately 4.43 inches x 4.36 inches x 5.06 inches” and “the tissue box is of a standard “rectangular” tissue box size, i.e. approximately 11.44 inches x 4.38 inches x 2.79 inches” it is unclear if the claim is limited to functioning only with these dimensions or if other industry standards are covered.
Claim 9 is led to be indefinite as the metes and bounds of “standard size and shape” are led to be indefinite. While the original disclosure provides that “the tissue box 1 is of a standard “cubed” tissue box size, i.e. approximately 4.43 inches x 4.36 inches x 5.06 inches” and “the tissue box is of a standard “rectangular” tissue box size, i.e. approximately 11.44 inches x 4.38 inches x 2.79 inches” it is unclear if the claim is limited to functioning only with these dimensions or if other industry standards are covered.
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, 2, 5, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Konzorr (DE 20002226).
Claim 1: Konzorr discloses an attachable trash receptacle for supporting a container comprising: a depositing wall connected to one or more additional walls; wherein the depositing wall and the one or more additional walls have interior surfaces and exterior surfaces; wherein the interior surfaces define a receptacle for receiving an object; wherein the depositing wall comprises an edge defining a depositing opening contiguous with the receptacle; and wherein the interior surfaces comprise a ridge configured to support at least a portion of the container (see annotated figures below).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
670
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Konzorr discloses wherein the attachable trash receptacle is capable of supporting a container in the form of a tissue box and the ridge is capable of supporting at least a portion of a container in the form of a tissue box (see annotated figures above).
Claim 5: Konzorr discloses wherein the attachable trash receptacle is at least partially additively manufactured as multiple components, including the ridge and additional wall, are depicted attached together (see annotated figures above). Examiner notes that this limitation is a product-by-process limitation.
“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
Claim 7: Konzorr discloses wherein the depositing opening is completely surrounded by the edge (see annotated figures above).
Claim 12: Konzorr discloses a bottom wall connected to the depositing wall and the additional side walls (see annotated figures above).
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konzorr (DE 20002226) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masino (US 20220395147).
Claim 4: Konzorr discloses the claimed invention except wherein the attachable trash receptacle comprises one or more of cardboard or plastic.
Masino teaches a dispenser 1 including a wipe chamber component 2 and a discard receptacle component 3 made of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) plastic (see fig. 1A and P. 0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the attachable trash receptacle out of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS) plastic, as taught by Masino, in order to provide excellent impact resistance at a low cost and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konzorr (DE 20002226).
Claim 3: Konzorr discloses the claimed invention except for the ridge being configured to support at least a portion of a tissue box that is of a standard size and shape.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have to have sized the attachable trash receptacle and ridge to be capable of supporting at least a portion of a tissue box that is of a standard size and shape in order to permit economic refillability and since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 9: Konzorr discloses the claimed invention except for the ridge being configured to support at least a portion of a container that is of a standard size and shape.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have to have sized the attachable trash receptacle and ridge to be capable of supporting at least a portion of a container that is of a standard size and shape in order to permit economic refillability and since it has been held that changing the size or range of an article is not ordinarily a matter of invention. Appropriate selection of size, weight, ratios, etc. is considered routine, and is typically a matter of design choice. See In re Rose 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and also MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20130062237 and US 20100276428 are considered pertinent to ridges and the remaining references cited on the PTO-892 are considered pertinent to tissue and trash receptacles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLAN D STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12-8 ET.
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. Aviles 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.
/ALLAN D STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736