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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 6/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction only discloses that the product can be made from injection molding. This is not found persuasive because the product claims are directed to the structural receptacle, whereas the withdrawn method claims are directed to a specific method of manufacturing the receptacle. The product claims are not limited to the cited manufacturing method and therefore can be made by another method, such as injection molding.
Additionally, Applicant argues that examiner did not prove the process as claimed (claims 17-20) can be used to make another product. This is not found persuasive because MPEP 806.05(f) discloses the invention is distinct of either or both the process as claimed can be used to make another materially different product or that the product as claimed can be used by another materially different process. Therefore, examiner did not need to prove that the process, as claimed can be used to make another product. Therefore, the product, as claimed can be used by another process, such as, injection molding or many other manufacturing processes.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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) 1-3, 5-7 and 9-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al (Yang) (US2002/0079315), in view of Yan et al (Yang) (2010/0237074).
Yang teaches a receptacle (Fig. 1 at 22) comprising: a first container (Fig. 1 at 22) configured to receive a first type of material (trash), a movable lid (Fig. 1 at 28) configured to selectively cover and uncover (Fig. 1) the first container, the lid having a weight (the lid is a weighted member); a base (52) supporting the first container (Fig. 1 at 22); a foot ped1.al (Fig 1 at 48); a linkage (Fig. 1 at 40) configured to transmit force between the foot pedal and the lid (Fig. 1); a damper (Fig. 2B at 60) configured to slow a transition of the lid from an uncovered position to a covered position (Fig. 1), the damper configured to provide a resistance force to the foot pedal (Fig. 2B at 48); a user assist (Fig. 3A at 63), the user assist configured to apply a motivating force to the foot pedal (Fig. 3A at 48), wherein the weight of the lid (Fig. 3A at 28), the resistance force of the damper (Fig. 3A at 28), and the motivating force of the user assist (Fig. 3A at 63) are selected to permit the lid to transition from the covered to the uncovered position (Fig. 3A) upon the application of a force (a user’s foot) by a user to the foot pedal.
Yang DIFFERS in that it does not disclose a second container configured to receive a second type of material, the movable lid configured to selectively cover and uncover the first container and the second container at the same time, the base supporting the first container and the second container; Attention, however, is directed to Yang (Fig. 1) that discloses a second container. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Yang, in view of Yang, in order to have a second container that can hold material.
Additionally Yang DIFFERS, in that it does not disclose the user assist is positioned between a top wall of the base and an upper surface of the foot pedal. It has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the user assist to be positioned between a top wall of the base and an upper surface of the foot pedal, it would have been obvious to do so based on a user’s desired opening and closing force requirements for the lid.
Additionally Yang DIFFERS, in that it does not disclose the motivating force of the user assist is between about 70 N and about 80 N. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to modify Yang by having the range force for opening the lid to be about 70N to about 80N, in order to cater to a user who wants the lid to open and close with an alternative force.
2. The receptacle of Claim 1, wherein the user assist is positioned adjacent a front wall of the receptacle (Fig. 3A).
3. The receptacle of Claim 1, Yang DIFFERS, in that it does not disclose wherein an exterior of the lid is metal. 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Yang, by employing the material of the lid to be metal, in order to have an alternative durable material for the lid.
5. The receptacle of Claim 1, wherein the damper is positioned adjacent a rear
wall of the receptacle (Fig. 3A).
6. The receptacle of Claim 1, configured such that, during movement of the lid to the covered position, the user assist (spring) is compressed by the foot pedal (Fig. 3A at 48).
7. The receptacle of Claim 1, configured such that, during movement of the lid to the covered position (Fig. 3B), the user assist (spring) is stretched.
9. Yang teaches a receptacle (Fig. 1 at 22) comprising: a container (Fig. 1 at 22), a movable lid (Fig. 1 at 28) configured to selectively cover and uncover (Fig. 1) the container; a base (Fig. 1 at 52) supporting the container; a foot pedal (Fig. 1 at 48); a linkage (Fig. 1 at 40) configured to transmit force between the foot pedal and the lid; a damper (Fig. 3A at 60) configured to slow a transition of the lid from an uncovered position (Fig. 3A) to a covered position (Fig. 3B), wherein the damper applies a resistive force to the foot pedal (the damper helps slow the closing of the lid) or linkage rod in response to movement of the lid from the covered position (Fig. 3B) to the uncovered position (Fig. 3A); a user assist (Fig. 3A at 63), the user assist configured to apply a motivating force to the foot pedal; wherein a weight (heaviness) of the lid, a resistive force (slowing force) of the damper, and the motivating force of the user assist are selected such that the lid transitions from the covered position (Fig. 3B) to the uncovered position upon (Fig. 3A) the application of a force (foot force) by a user.
Additionally Yang DIFFERS, in that it does not disclose the user assist is positioned between a top wall of the base and an upper surface of the foot pedal. It has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the user assist to be positioned between a top wall of the base and an upper surface of the foot pedal, it would have been obvious to do so based on a user’s desired opening and closing force requirements for the lid.
Additionally Yang DIFFERS, in that it does not disclose the motivating force of the user assist is approximately 75 N. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to modify Yang by having the force for opening the lid to be approximately 75 N, in order to cater to a user who wants the lid to open and close with an alternative force.
10. The receptacle of Claim 9, wherein the user assist (Fig. 3A at 63) is positioned adjacent a front wall of the receptacle (Fig. 3A).
11. The receptacle of Claim 9, Yang DIFFERS, in that it does not disclose wherein an exterior of the lid is metal. 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Yang, by employing the material of the lid to be metal, in order to have an alternative durable material for the lid.
12. The receptacle of Claim 9, Yang DIFFERS, in that it does not disclose wherein the lid is comprised of plastic. 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. Therefore, it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill within the art, at the time the invention was made, to modify Yang, by employing the material of the lid to be plastic, in order to have an alternative durable material for the lid.
13. The receptacle of Claim 9, wherein the user assist (spring) is configured to provide a force that aids in opening the lid (Fig. 3A).
14. The receptacle of Claim 9, wherein the damper (Fig. 3A at 60) is configured to dampen (slow) movement of the lid during movement from the uncovered position (Fig. 3A) to the covered position.
15. The receptacle of Claim 9, wherein the damper (Fig. 3A at 60) is configured to provide more resistance when the lid is moving from the uncovered position to the covered position than when the lid is moving from the covered position to the uncovered position (paragraph 0009).
16. The receptacle of Claim 9, wherein the damper (Fig. 3A at 60) is positioned adjacent a rear wall of the receptacle (Fig. 3A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 8 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAREEN KAY THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5611. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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.
/KAREEN K THOMAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights