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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
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: 18, 41(b), 4, 63(b), and 66
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “33” has been used to designate both a housing plate and a trigger plate.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “62” has been used to designate both an open bay and an open space.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “34” has been used to designate both a housing plate and a rotational pack.
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. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 of the following informalities:
Page 6 states that reference numbers 18 and 19 are n/a, however they are both included in the figures and referenced on Pg. 9.
Page 9, Ln. references “7lifting”, which the Examiner believes is a typo and should just be “lifting”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 5 reference a “stainless steel” ball. The Examiner believes the Applicant intended to claim a “stainless-steel” ball, as it is written in other claims.
Claim 3 currently references “a left rotator pack and a right rotator pack, each constructed of six metal plates wielded flush together”. The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “a left rotator pack and a right rotator pack, each constructed of six metal plates [[wielded]] welded flush together”
Claim 3 further currently states: “…upon the refuse container being lifted from the flat surface and its front wall tilted forward, the force of gravity causes the stainless-steel ball of in left rotator pack to roll…” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “… upon the refuse container being lifted from the flat surface and its front wall tilted forward, the force of gravity causes the stainless-steel ball [[of]] in the left rotator pack to roll...”
Claim 5 currently states “…each cantilever beam pivotably coupled attached at its lower end to a respective left rotator pack and right rotator pack…” The Examiner believes the claim is intended to state “…each cantilever beam pivotably coupled [[attached]] at its lower end to a respective left rotator pack and right rotator pack…”
Claim 5 further currently references a “…top lie.” at the end of the claim. The Examiner believes the claim is intended to reference “…top [[lie]] lid.”
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.
Claims 1-6 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 1 reference the left and right assemblages being affixed to “the front wall of a refuse container”. It’s unclear if the Applicant intended to state “the front wall of [[a]] the refuse container” in reference to the refuse container discussed in the preamble, or if they intended to state “[[the]] a front wall of a refuse container” referencing a different refuse container. Further clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "its upper end" in part (c). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "its lower end" in part (c). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "its static ground position" in part (d). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the shackle" in part (b). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "its lower end" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "its respective upper end" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "its upper end" in part (a). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "its lower end" in part (a). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the front wall" in part (b). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the catch" in part (d). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the left arc" in part (e). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the distal end" twice in part (e). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second channel" in part (e). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first channel" in part (e). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the horizontal restraining bar" in part (e). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 references “a first metal plate” having “a pivotable trigger” and “a second, adjacent metal plate”. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 which references the left rotator pack having “a left bracket plate having a left flange, a locking plate, a trigger plate and trigger, a housing plate having an interior wall, a guide plate, and a cover plate”. It is unclear which plates are the “first” and “second, adjacent” plates. Further, it is unclear if the “pivotable trigger” from claim 6 is intended to be the same as the trigger from claim 5 or not. For purposes of further examination, the claim is being interpreted as the “first metal plate” being the “trigger plate” with the “pivotable trigger” being the “trigger”, and the “second, adjacent metal plate” being the “locking plate”. Further clarification and/or correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reeb et al. (US 12139327) (hereinafter Reeb) in view of Serio, Sr. (US 5094358).
Regarding Claim 1
Reeb teaches a gravity actuated rotatable device for restraining, locking, or releasing the top- mounted lid of a refuse container having a front wall, rear wall, and two side walls (Fig. 1 and 5, below), the device comprising: (a) an assemblage (10) of six metal plates (102r, 400, 402a, 404a, 404b, and 402b/102l), each metal plate further having internally contoured openings, with the assemblage being permanently affixed to the front wall (3a) of the refuse container; (b) a stainless-steel ball (300) located in a confined manner within the contoured openings of the adjacent metal plates of at least one of the assemblages; (c) a left and a right upright cantilever beam (8), each beam attached at an upper end to a linear restraining bar (6) positioned horizontally, directly above the lid of the refuse container, and the cantilever beam pivotably attached at a lower end to the assemblage of metal plates; wherein (d) upon lifting and tipping the refuse container forward from a static ground position, gravity causes the stainless-steel ball to roll within the at least one assemblage of metal plates, thereby allowing its cantilever beam to pivot within the assemblage, forcing both cantilever beams to pull the restraining bar away from its position above the lid, permitting opening of the refuse container lid (Col. 3, Ln. 37 – Col. 7, Ln. 37).
PNG
media_image1.png
292
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
270
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Reeb does not teach separate left and right assemblages; with each assemblage being spaced apart, and the left and right cantilever beams pivotably attached at their lower end to one of the respective assemblages of metal plates.
Serio, Sr. teaches a gravity actuated rotatable device for restraining, locking, or releasing the top- mounted lid of a refuse container having a front wall, rear wall, and two side walls (below – Fig. 6), the device comprising: (a) separate left and right assemblages (3/17), with each assemblage being spaced apart and permanently affixed to the front wall of the refuse container (6); (b) a stainless-steel ball (7) located in a confined manner within the assemblages; (c) a left and a right upright cantilever beam (5), each beam attached at an upper end to a linear restraining bar (13) positioned horizontally, directly above the lid of the refuse container, and each cantilever beam pivotably attached at a lower end to one of the respective assemblages; wherein (d) upon lifting and tipping the refuse container forward from a static ground position, gravity causes the stainless-steel ball to roll within the at least one assemblage, thereby allowing its respective cantilever beam to pivot within the assemblage, forcing both cantilever beams to pull the restraining bar away from its position above the lid, permitting opening of the refuse container lid (Col. 3, Ln. 13-64).
PNG
media_image3.png
268
450
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Reeb and Serio, Sr. are analogous inventions in the field of gravity actuated rotatable devices (GARDs). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the GARD of Reeb with the teachings of two separate spaced apart assemblages, each being attached to a respective cantilever beam, in order to allow the GARD device of Reeb to better apply the restraining bar across its entire length, rather than the effort being concentrated in the center.
Regarding Claim 3
Reeb teaches a gravity actuated rotatable device for restraining, locking, or releasing the top-mounted lid of a refuse container having a front wall, rear wall, and two side walls (Fig. 1 and 5), the device comprising: rotator pack constructed of six metal (102r, 400, 402a, 404a, 404b, and 402b/102l) welded flush together, in planar abutment, with four adjacent plates (402a, 404a, 404b, and 402b/102l) further having uniquely contoured interior channels; the rotator pack being permanently affixed to the front wall of the refuse container; a stainless-steel ball (300) located within the confines of certain of the interior channels of the rotator pack; an L-shaped left cantilever beam (8) vertically attached at a lower end to the rotator pack and an L-shaped right cantilever beam (8) vertically attached at a lower end to the rotator pack, and further, each cantilever beam attached, at a respective upper end, to an elongated horizontal restraining bar (6), such that with the refuse container at rest upon a flat surface, the restraining bar is positioned directly above the lid of the refuse container, blocking opening of the lid; and upon the refuse container being lifted from the flat surface and its front wall tilted forward, the force of gravity causes the stainless-steel ball in the rotator pack to roll, within the internal channels, freeing the cantilever beams to pivot downward and pull the restraining bar away from its position above the lid, thus allowing the lid to freely swing open (Col. 3, Ln. 37 – Col. 7, Ln. 37).
Reeb does not teach a left rotator pack and a right rotator pack, the left and right rotator packs being spaced apart, and L-shaped cantilever beams attached to a respective rotator pack,
Serio, Sr. teaches a gravity actuated rotatable device for restraining, locking, or releasing the top-mounted lid of a refuse container having a front wall, rear wall, and two side walls (Fig. 6), the device comprising: a left rotator pack (3) and a right rotator pack (17); the left and right rotator packs being spaced apart and permanently affixed to the front wall of the refuse container; an L-shaped left cantilever beam (5) vertically attached at a lower end to the left rotator pack and an L-shaped right cantilever beam (5) vertically attached at a lower end to the right rotator pack, and further, each cantilever beam attached, at a respective upper end, to an elongated horizontal restraining bar (13), such that with the refuse container at rest upon a flat surface, the restraining bar is positioned directly above the lid of the refuse container, blocking opening of the lid; and upon the refuse container being lifted from the flat surface and its front wall tilted forward, the force of gravity causes the left rotator pack to free the left cantilever beam to pivot downward and pull the restraining bar away from its position above the lid, thus allowing the lid to freely swing open (Col. 3, Ln. 13-64).
Reeb and Serio, Sr. are analogous inventions in the field of gravity actuated rotatable devices (GARDs). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to modify the GARD of Reeb with the teachings of left and right, spaced apart rotator packs, each being attached to a respective cantilever beam, in order to allow the GARD device of Reeb to better apply the restraining bar across its entire length, rather than the effort being concentrated in the center.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 2 and 4: Closest prior art – (Reeb in view of Serio, Sr.) – teaches a majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention.
However, the closest prior art does not teach: (a) a first metal plate having a pivotable trigger with a rounded orifice and (b) a second, adjacent metal plate having, at its bottom edge, a protruding padlock entry tab with a padlock opening, whereupon by aligning the rounded orifice and padlock opening coaxially and inserting a shackle of a padlock through both, the stainless-steel ball is restrained from rolling, immobilizing its respective cantilever beam, preventing opening of the lid (claim 2); or the left rotator pack has a locking mechanism comprising (a) a first metal plate having a pivotable trigger with a padlock opening and (b) a second, adjacent metal plate having integral to the bottom of the second metal plate a padlock entry tab with a padlock opening, whereupon positioning both padlock openings coaxially and inserting a shackle of a padlock through 2 both padlock openings restricts the trigger, blocks the stainless-steel ball from rolling, and prevents pivoting of the cantilever beam, effectively preventing opening of the lid (claim 4).
Regarding claim 5: Reeb in view of Serio, Sr. teaches a gravity actuated rotatable device for restraining, locking, or releasing the top-mounted lid of a refuse container so equipped, comprising: (a) left and right upright cantilever beams, each beam attached at its upper end to a linear restraining bar positioned horizontally, directly above the lid of the refuse container, and each cantilever beam pivotably coupled at its lower end to a respective left rotator pack and right rotator pack, each rotator pack being an assemblage of metal plates stacked planarly and welded together along their edges; wherein (b) the metal plates of the left rotator pack comprise a left bracket plate having a left flange, a locking plate, a trigger plate and trigger, a housing plate having an interior wall, a guide plate, and a cover plate, further, each metal plate containing an axle orifice which accommodates the length of a left axle, the left rotator pack being affixed to the front wall of the refuse container by means of permanent attachment at the left flange; (c) the metal plates of the right rotator pack comprise a right bracket plate having a right flange, a locking plate, a trigger plate and trigger, a housing plate, a guide plate, and a cover plate, further, each metal plate contains an axle orifice, which accommodates the length of a right axle, the right rotator pack being affixed to the front wall of the refuse container by means of permanent attachment through the right flange; whereby, (d) with the refuse container at static rest atop a flat surface.
However, Reeb in view of Serio, Sr. does not teach: the left axle further extending through an axle orifice within a left footing of the left cantilever beam and the axle culminating in a weld to the outermost cover plate, said right axle further extending through an axle orifice within the right footing of the right cantilever beam, with a right axle culminating in a weld at the outermost cover plate, a stainless-steel ball rests atop the catch of the left cantilever beam, abuts the rear interior wall of the housing plate, is restrained on one side by the locking plate and on its opposite side by the cover plate; whereupon, lifting and forward tilting of the refuse container allows gravity to roll the stainless-steel ball downward along the left arc of the left cantilever beam, roll to the distal end of the second channel of the adjacent guide plate and the distal end of the first channel of the locking plate, thereby freeing the left cantilever beam to pivot and fully pull the horizontal restraining bar away from its position above the top lid.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further pertinent prior art includes but is not limited to that which is listed in the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5279. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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 Jenness can be reached at (571) 270-5055. 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.
/JENNIFER CASTRIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/DON M ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733