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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "178" and "144" have both been used to designate releasable hooks.
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84 (p)(3) because numbers, letters, and reference characters should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. See MPEP 608.02 V. See at least line 14 of figure 11, line 27 of figure 26, 166 of figure 38, and 172 of figure 39.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(h) because views must not contain center lines. MPEP 608.02 V. See at least fig. 24 and 31.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with C.F.R 1.84(h)(3) because hatching must be used to indicate section portions of an object, and must be made by regularly spaced oblique parallel lines spaced sufficiently apart to enable the lines to be distinguished without difficulty. MPEP 608.02 V.
The drawings are objected to because 152 of figure 7 is not directed to the top edge as disclosed.
The drawings are objected to because 198 of figure 19 is not directed to a channel as disclosed.
The drawings are objected to because 220 of figure 37 is not directed to a gate as disclosed.
The drawings are objected to because 166 of figure 39 is not directed to hooks as disclosed.
The drawings are objected to because 172 of figure 39 is not directed to a hooking end 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. 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: figure 1B is not listed in the brief description of the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the disclosure includes figure 1 which is not present in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to because of the following informalities: acronyms exist without being defined at their first instance. Appropriate correction is required. See at least EPDM.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: coupling member in claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, and 18 and push member in claims 8 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The push member for controllably pushing the protrusion of claims 8 and 20 is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the combination of an abutting end, opening, and side lip, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “rotatably mount” of line 9 should be corrected to “rotatably mounted”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “had” of line 1 should be corrected to “has”. 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 1-10 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.
The limitation of claim 1, line 11-12, of “a lid-closed position in which the internal access to the internal shell is blocked by the lid” is led to be indefinite. From previous limitations of claim 1 the gate blocks the internal access to the room and the lid opens an external access to the internal shell. It is unclear the internal access to the internal shell is a newly recited structure, refers back to the internal access to the room, or refers back to the external access to the internal shell. In order to apply art the limitation will be interpreted as the latter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations of claims 2 and 13 that the coupling member has an arched shape does not further limit the claims upon which they depend in light of the 112f interpretation of the coupling member. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Scheidegger (DE 943513).
Claim 11: Scheidegger discloses a waste container, comprising: a holding member providing a room therein for waste material, the holding member comprising i) an internal opening that is closeable and divides the room between a first room section and a second room section when closed, and ii) a external opening that is closeable; an insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) mounted to the holding member, the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) being movable between a gate-opened position wherein the first room section and the second room section are unpartitioned, and a gate-closed position where the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) partitions the room thereby preventing travel between the first room section and the second room section; a hinged lid 3 (lid) mounted to the holding member, the hinged lid 3 (lid) being movable between a lid-opened position providing access to the first room section, and a lid-closed position in which the hinged lid 3 (lid) closes the external opening; and stop arms 17 (coupling member), having an arched-shape body, a lid-coupling end, and stops 17a (gate-coupling end), coupling the hinged lid 3 (lid) to the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate), wherein moving the hinged lid 3 (lid) from a lid-closed position to the lid-opened position exerts the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) into the gate-closed position (see annotated fig. 6 below and fig. 5 & 7).
The coupling member for coupling the lid to the gate is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the combination of an arched-shape body, a lid-coupling end, and a gate-coupling end, and equivalents thereof.
PNG
media_image1.png
459
566
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 12: Scheidegger discloses wherein the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) is rotatably mounted to the holding member (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 13: Scheidegger discloses wherein the stop arms 17 (coupling member) has an arched shape (see fig. 7).
Claim 14: Scheidegger discloses wherein the holding member comprises a base 2 and a container shell 1 (intermediary part) realeasably mounted to the base 2 (see fig. 5).
Claim 15: Scheidegger discloses wherein the holding member comprises a base 2 (floor section) and an internal shell, formed by the inner surface of the container shell 1, extending from the external opening to the internal opening distant to the base 2 (floor section) (see annotated fig. 6 above and fig. 5).
Claim 16: Scheidegger discloses wherein the holding member comprises a base 2 (resting part) adapted to be laid over ground, wherein the internal opening is adapted to extend slanted relative to the resting part base 2 (resting part) (see angled position of insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) in annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 17: Scheidegger discloses wherein the lid-closed position and the gate-closed position are sloped relative to one another (see angled position of insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) in annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 18: Scheidegger discloses wherein the stop arms 17 (coupling member) extend across a section of the holding member as they exist within the holding member (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 19: Scheidegger discloses wherein the holding member comprises a stop cam 18 (protrusion) extending across the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) (see annotated fig. 6 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) 1-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheidegger (DE 943513) further in view of Morand (US 20150021334).
Claim 1: Scheidegger discloses a waste container, comprising: a container shell 1 providing a room therein for waste material; an internal shell, formed by the inner surface of the container shell 1, providing an internal access to the room an insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) rotatably mounted to the container shell 1, the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) being movable between a gate-opened position wherein the internal access to the room is open, and a gate-closed position where the internal access to the room is blocked by the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate); a hinged lid 3 (lid) rotatably mount to the container shell 1, the hinged lid 3 (lid) being movable between a lid-opened position in which an external access to the internal shell in open, and a lid-closed position in which the external access to the internal shell is blocked by the hinged lid 3 (lid); and stop arms 17 (coupling member), having an arched-shape body, a lid-coupling end, and stops 17a (gate-coupling end), coupling the hinged lid 3 (lid) to the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate), wherein moving the hinged lid 3 (lid) from a lid-closed position to the lid-opened position exerts the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) into the gate-closed position (see annotated fig. 6 below and fig. 5 & 7).
Scheidegger does not disclose a base providing a room therein for waste material; an intermediary part to be mounted to the base, the intermediary part comprising an internal shell providing an internal access to the room; the gate being rotatably mounted to the intermediary part; or the lid being rotatably mounted to the intermediary part.
Morand teaches a waste-disposal device 10 having a bin 11 (base) providing an inner cavity therein for waste material; a funnel 13 (intermediary part) releasably secured to the bin 11 (base), the funnel 13 (intermediary part) providing access to the inner cavity; a door 60 rotatably mounted to the funnel 13 (intermediary part); and a lid 12 rotatably mounted to the funnel 13 (intermediary part) (see fig. 5 and 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the container shell 1 such that the portion that the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) and hinged lid 3 (lid) were rotatably mounted to was in the form of an intermediary part which was releasably secured to the remainder (base) of the container shell 1, as taught by Morand, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
The coupling member for coupling the lid to the gate is/are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as the combination of an arched-shape body, a lid-coupling end, and a gate-coupling end, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 2: The combination discloses wherein the stop arms 17 (coupling member) has an arched shape (see fig. 7).
Claim 3: The combination discloses wherein the remainer (base) of the container shell 1 comprises a base 2 (resting part) adapted to be laid over ground, wherein the intermediary part comprises an edge defining a circumference providing an internal opening, wherein the internal opening is adapted to extend slanted relative to the resting part base 2 (resting part) (see angled position of insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) in annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 4: The combination discloses wherein the lid-closed position and the gate-closed position are sloped relative to one another (see angled position of insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) in annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 5: The combination discloses wherein the stop arms 17 (coupling member) extends across a section of the intermediary part (see fig. 6).
Claim 6: The combination discloses wherein the stop arms 17 (coupling member) is slidingly movable relative to the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) (see fig. 6-7).
Claim 7: The combination discloses wherein the intermediary part comprises a stop cam 18 (protrusion) extending across the insulating cover 4, 4’ (gate) (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Claim 9: The combination discloses wherein the internal shell has a funnel shape having a first opening area about the remainer (base) of the container shell 1 and a second opening area about the hinged lid 3 (lid), wherein the first opening area is smaller than the second opening area (see annotated fig. 6 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is 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.
Claims 8 and 10 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20240375859, US 4387847, US 4715498, US 4890733, US 7007598, US 5105968, US 7516844, US 8397933 are considered pertinent to receptacles that have a secondary closure which closes when the primary closure is opened, DE 4439503, DE 9421756, GB 2492964, and KR 1020150117420 are considered pertinent to linked primary and secondary closures which are nonunitary, US 20150021334 and US 5385259 are considered pertinent to secondary closures which are spring biased closed.
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
Prosecution Insights