Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/998,879

RECREATIONAL VEHICLE WASTE RECEPTACLE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jan 27, 2025
Examiner
THEIS, MATTHEW T
Art Unit
3734
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
41%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
64%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 41% of resolved cases
41%
Career Allow Rate
248 granted / 605 resolved
-29.0% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
637
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
52.8%
+12.8% vs TC avg
§102
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
§112
24.3%
-15.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 605 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod et al. (US 11,771,049 B2)(Axelrod) in view of Webb (US 5,304,158 A). Regarding claim 1, Axelrod discloses a waste receptacle capable of being used with or in an RV, including a top layer (50/52/54/56/58 comprising the absorbent layer), said top layer being formed of flexible, absorbent material and having first planar dimensions; a middle layer (60), said middle layer being formed of flexible, impermeable material (Cols. 3-4; Ll. 64-2) and having said first planar dimensions and being affixed to said top layer at front, side and rear edges of said top layer (along the border region 12), a bag (18), said bag being formed of impermeable material and having an open mouth, sealed side seams and a sealed bottom seam; said bottom seam being joined to a rear edge of said middle layer (Col. 3; Ll. 2-21). Axelrod does not specifically disclose a bottom layer, said bottom layer being formed of flexible material and being joined to said middle layer at side and front edges of said middle layer and forming an open pocket between said bottom layer and said middle layer for said bag at a rear edge of said bottom layer. Webb demonstrates a waste disposing device including an absorbent layer (34) a middle layer (20) and a bottom layer (31), the bottom layer being formed of flexible material and being joined to said middle layer (Fig. 3) at side and front edges of said middle layer (Fig. 2) and forming an open pocket (Fig. 2) between said bottom layer and said middle layer for containing a disposal aid therein. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the device of Axelrod and use the teaching of Webb and include a bottom layer attached to the middle layer and attached at front and side edges of the middle layer to contain the disposal bag. This would help to ensure that the bag remains intact and prevent it from being damaged by the outside environment until it is ready to use. Regarding claim 2, Axelrod discloses a pull tab (noting handle portions 24 are tab shaped), said pull tab being attached to said open mouth of said bag. Regarding claim 3, Axelrod discloses a closure mechanism (noting handles 24 are disclosed to help tie the bag closed, Col, 4; Ll. 40-47). Regarding claim 5, Axelrod discloses said top layer includes a portion formed of material having greater absorbency than said regions of said top layer disposed outside of said portion, said portion being disposed adjacent said rear edge of said top layer and extending centrally toward said front edge of said top layer. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod et al. (US 11,771,049 B2)(Axelrod) in view of Webb (US 5,304,158 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Williams (US 2005/0256487 A1). Regarding claim 4, modified Axelrod discloses tying handle portions together to close the bag, but to the degree that this does not specifically include twist ties, drawstrings and sliding closures. Williams teaches a similar device including a deployable bag having a closure including a draw string, adhesive strip, or other closure feature (Paragraph 0059). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the bag of the modified device of Axelrod and include a drawstring or other closure because such a change would further ensure that the bag is sealed and the waste is contained securely therein. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod et al. (US 11,771,049 B2)(Axelrod) in view of Webb (US 5,304,158 A) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Yananton (US 4,756,273 A). Regarding claim 6, modified Axelrod discloses said portion formed of material having greater absorbency than said regions of said top layer disposed outside of said portion includes material of an absorbent polymer, but Axelrod does not specifically disclose absorbent polymer powder, starch, kaolin and fuller’s earth. Yananton teaches the ability to have an absorbent material made of pulp starch, polymers, paper (Col. 3; Ll. 55-61). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Axelrod and have the absorbent material made of starch or other known material because such a change would have required a mere choice of a known suitable material. 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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod et al. (US 11,771,049 B2)(Axelrod) in view of Webb (US 5,304,158 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murray (US 4,959,881 A). Regarding claim 7, modified Axelrod does not specifically disclose a cover sheet, said cover sheet being disposed over said top layer. Murray teaches the ability to have a device including an absorbent portion (18) as well as a cover portion to protect the absorbent portion until it is ready to use (20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Axelrod and include a protective cover over the absorbent material because such a change would help to protect the absorbent material as suggested by Murray. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Axelrod et al. (US 11,771,049 B2)(Axelrod) in view of Webb (US 5,304,158 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barr (US 2022/0039619 A1). Regarding claim 8, modified Axelrod does not specifically disclose said top layer, said middle layer, said bottom layer and said bag are formed of compostable materials. Barr teaches the ability to have a waste collecting device including portions made of compostable materials (Paragraph 0035). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take the modified device of Axelrod and use the teaching of Barr and make the top layer, middle layer, and bottom layer out of compostable materials because such a change would have required a mere choice of a known suitable material and would have yielded predictable results. 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T THEIS whose telephone number is 571-270-5700. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday - Thursday. 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 Newhouse can be reached at 571-272-4544. 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. /M.T.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3734 /NATHAN J NEWHOUSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 27, 2025
Application Filed
Oct 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 11, 2025
Interview Requested
Nov 19, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 19, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Nov 20, 2025
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593908
CELL PHONE ARMBAND WITH POLYPROPYLENE OR LOW FRICTION PANELS INSIDE POCKET
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588716
ARM-MOUNTED BREASTFEEDING COVER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582217
ADJUSTABLE BACKPACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575660
BACKPACK WITH CLIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12550999
TACTICAL MANAGEMENT BACKPACK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
41%
Grant Probability
64%
With Interview (+23.3%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 605 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month