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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: Wording in Paragraph 0045, Lines 13-14. Replacing “knurling” with “splines”, in each of two occurrences, is suggested.
Appropriate correction is 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 5 is 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “knurling” in Claim 5, Line 3, is used by the claim to mean “splines” while the accepted meaning is “a lathe machining process that creates a diamond-shaped pattern on a workpiece surface.” (See https://www.theengineerspost.com/knurling-operation/; accessed July 14, 2026). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. It should be noted that Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (See “Allowable Subject Matter” below.)
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Presnell et al. (US 5704625 A) (hereinafter “Presnell”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Presnell teaches a multi-stream trash receptacle (100) [Presnell Figs. 1 and 7; Presnell Abstract: “The subject invention relates generally to a refuse container carrier or dolly having ramp means disposed between upwardly extending side walls, and more specifically to an interlocking and latching mechanism which allows several like carriers or dollies to be easily secured together and moved as one cohesive unit.”] comprising: a receptacle (10) for receiving and holding trash, the receptacle including a bottom wall (12) for supporting the receptacle in an upright position when in contact with a ground surface, a sidewall (14) integrally formed to and extending completely around a perimeter of the bottom wall (12), the sidewall (14) including a height suitable for receiving and holding trash [Presnell Fig. 1, Reference Character 25], a dolly platform (20) sized to accept the bottom wall (12) and a portion of the sidewall (14) of the receptacle (10), the dolly platform (20) having a perimeter wall (22) extending around a portion of an upper surface (24) of the dolly platform (20), the perimeter wall (22) cooperating with the sidewall (14) to position the receptacle (10) with respect to the dolly platform (20) [Presnell Figs. 1 and 2; Presnell Paragraph 2: “the subject refuse container carrier assembly designated generally by the reference numeral 10 comprises a platform body 12 consisting of a generally flat base 16 and three upstanding walls, namely a first side wall 18, second side wall 20, and a rear wall 22.”], and at least one tie bar (30) constructed and arranged to engage a portion of the dolly platform (20) and a portion of a second dolly platform (20) to position the dolly platform with respect to the second dolly platform [Presnell Figs. 4-7, Reference Character 26; Paragraph 8: “The arm member 26 may be a one piece member or alternatively two or more separate members secured or integrally molded together. In the preferred embodiment, as illustrated in Figs. 4 and 5, the arm member 26 is a one-piece member having a rear portion 46 and a front portion 28. The front portion 28 is slideably secured to the underside of the carrier 10 via a projection 47 which is secured to the underside of the carrier and is retained within a slot 51 within the arm member front portion 28. This securing means allows the arm member front portion 28 to slideably move between positions, thereby allowing the arm member 26 the ability to release or secure a like carrier 10a.”], the perimeter wall (22) including a tie bar aperture (16) sized and shaped to cooperate with the tie bar (30) to locate and prevent rotation of the tie bar (30) with respect to the dolly platform (20), while also allowing a bottom surface (26) of the dolly platform (20) to sit on a ground surface [Presnell Fig. 7, Reference Character 29; Presnell Paragraph 3: “The carrier 10 includes a unique locking assembly which allows first and second like carriers 1 Oa to be easily attached and detached from the subject carrier 10. The locking assembly consists of various locking means disposed adjacent the first 18 and second 20 carrier side walls. Specifically, first locking means are disposed adjacent a front portion of the first side wall 18. The first locking means is comprised of an arm member M extending in a generally outwardly direction from the first side wall 18. As clearly illustrated in Figs. 5-6, the front portion 28 of the arm member 26 is generally L shaped and resembles a hook. A generally L shaped recess 29 is disposed adjacent a front portion of the second side wall 20, and is considered the second locking means. A projection 31 is located adjacent to the recess 29 and assists in securing together the carrier and a like carrier. In addition, the recess 29 is sized to receive the arm member front portion 28 of a like carrier 10a, as illustrated in Fig. 7”].
Regarding Claim 3, Presnell teaches the multi-stream trash receptacle (100) of Claim 1 wherein the perimeter wall (22) includes an outwardly extending key (28) for engaging a recess (18) positioned in the sidewall (14) of the receptacle (10) to further secure the receptacle (10) to the dolly platform (20) [Presnell Fig. 2, Reference Character 27; Presnell Paragraph 2: “the bottom portion 27 of each of the first 18 and second 20 side walls is tapered inwardly, towards the center of the platform body 12, thereby allowing refuse containers 25 of various sizes to be securely retained within the carrier 10. Thus, the shape of the front wall 24, and the side walls 18 and 20 prevents the refuse container 25 from being inadvertently removed from the carrier 10.”].
Regarding Claim 4, Presnell teaches the multi-stream trash receptacle (100) of Claim 1 wherein the bottom surface (26) of the dolly platform (20) includes four blind apertures (50), the blind apertures ( 50) sized and shaped to receive either a tie bar post (52) or a caster post (54), the caster post (54) and the tie bar post (52) each having a caster aperture (32) sized and shaped to accept a caster stem (60) in a manner that allows a caster wheel (62) to rotate freely around the caster stem (60) [Presnell Fig. 4, Reference Character 42 (caster; typ), to be received by unnumbered blind apertures; Presnell Paragraph 7: “stem type casters could be used, whereby the stem portion of the casters could be retained in apertures in the underside of the platform body 12”].
Regarding Claim 9, Presnell teaches the multi-stream trash receptacle (100) of Claim 4 including four caster assemblies (58), each caster assembly including a caster stem ( 60), a caster wheel ( 62) and a caster swivel (66), a caster stem (60) of each respective caster assembly (58) inserted into a respective caster aperture (32) of a tie bar post (52) or caster post (54) for providing easy movement to the multi-stream trash receptacle [Presnell Fig. 4, Reference Character 42 (typ); Presnell Paragraph 7: “stem type casters could be used, whereby the stem portion of the casters could be retained in apertures in the underside of the platform body 12. Each of the four casters 42 swivel a full 360 degrees, thereby providing the carriers 10 and 10a with full mobility.”].
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.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Presnell et al. (US 5704625 A) (hereinafter “Presnell”) in view of Gammons et al. (US 5503287 A) (hereinafter “Gammons”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 2, Presnell teaches a multi-stream trash receptacle but does not teach a back splash. Gammons teaches the multi-stream trash receptacle (100) of Claim 1 wherein the receptacle (10) includes a lid member (40), the lid member (40) including a back splash wall (42) and a shaped central opening (44), the opening shape corresponding to the stream of trash the receptacle is intended to receive, the back splash (42) sloping toward the central opening (44) to direct trash to the opening [Gammons Figs. 2 and 12, Reference Characters 17, 19, 31, and 39, plus unnumbered back splash comprising slats 13]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the multi-stream trash receptacle of Presnell to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a back splash in view of Gammons. It should be noted that while Gammons does not explicitly provide a motivation for the inclusion of a back splash, black splashes on the lids of trash receptacles are common in the art. Back splashes on the lids of trash receptacles prevent the falling of trash on top of the lid to a space behind the trash receptacle, and further provide a rebound surface to direct carelessly thrown trash toward the center of the lid, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that the use of a known technique to improve similar devices, methods, or products in the same way is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Regarding Claim 11, Presnell teaches a multi-stream trash receptacle but does not teach a back splash. Gammons teaches the multi-stream trash receptacle (100) of Claim 2 wherein the back splash wall (42) of each lid member (40) is sized to include a label regarding the waste stream of trash the receptacle is intended to receive [Gammons Figs. 2 and 12, Reference Characters 17, 19, 31, and 39, plus unnumbered back splash comprising slats 13]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the multi-stream trash receptacle of Presnell to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a back splash sized to include a label in view of Gammons. It should be noted that while Gammons does not explicitly provide a motivation for the inclusion of a back splash sized to include a label, labels on or near the lids of trash receptacles are common in the art. Labels on the lids of trash receptacles indicate proper and improper trash types, and indicate special instructions for recyclable materials, as would be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art. It should be further noted that applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. (See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007); see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Presnell et al. (US 5704625 A) (hereinafter “Presnell”) in view of Delmerico et al. (US 5074572 A) (hereinafter “Delmerico”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 12, Presnell teaches a multi-stream trash receptacle but does not teach polymer construction. Delmerico teaches the multi-stream trash receptacle of Claim 1 wherein the receptacle (10) and the dolly platform (20) are constructed from polymer [Delmerico Paragraph 10: “the dolly and the waste container can be molded of conventional plastics material”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the multi-stream trash receptacle, comprising a dolly platform, of Presnell to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, polymer construction in view of Delmerico. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Presnell and Delmerico because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling integral manufacture of features and obviating the need for additional hardware, as recognized by Delmerico [Delmerico Paragraph 10: “the vertical flanges 34 of the dolly and the registration ribs 18 of the container can be integrally molded therewith. Thus, co-alignment of the dolly and container is accomplished without the need for additional hardware.”].
Regarding Claim 13, Presnell teaches a multi-stream trash receptacle but does not teach plastic resin. Delmerico teaches the multi-stream trash receptacle of Claim 12 wherein the polymer is plastic resin [Delmerico Paragraph 10: “the dolly and the waste container can be molded of conventional plastics material”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the multi-stream trash receptacle, comprising a dolly platform, of Presnell to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, polymer construction in view of Delmerico. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Presnell and Delmerico because this would have achieved the desirable result of enabling integral manufacture of features and obviating the need for additional hardware, as recognized by Delmerico [Delmerico Paragraph 10: “the vertical flanges 34 of the dolly and the registration ribs 18 of the container can be integrally molded therewith. Thus, co-alignment of the dolly and container is accomplished without the need for additional hardware.”].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if (a) Claim 5 is rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112”, above), and if (b) Claim 5 is rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 5, Presnell teaches a multi-stream trash receptacle comprising a tie bar but does not teach knurling. The prior art does not teach or suggest the multi-stream trash receptacle (100) of Claim 4 wherein an outer surface of the tie bar post (52) and the caster post (54) include knurling (64). The closest reference, Presnell teaches a smooth, unknurled, tie bar surface.
Claims 6-8 and 10 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. [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 6, Presnell teaches a multi-stream trash receptacle comprising a tie bar but does not teach a tie bar post being positioned in a blind aperture. The prior art does not teach or suggest the multi-stream trash receptacle (100) of Claim 4 wherein a first tie bar post (52) is positioned in a blind aperture (50) of a first dolly platform (20) and a second tie bar post (52) from the same tie bar (30) is positioned in a blind aperture (50) of a second dolly platform (20), wherein the two dolly platforms are positioned adjacently with respect to each other and two receptacles (10) are positioned on the two dolly platforms (20). The closest reference, Presnell, teaches that a tie bar couples two dolly platforms by means of a hook shape on the tie bar of the first dolly platform and a corresponding hook shape integral to the structure of the second dolly platform.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm 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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613
Prosecution Insights