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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations in claims 1-13 of the instant application are recited in claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses a method for producing a clinical waste container, the clinical waste container being associated, in an upright operating orientation of the clinical waste container, with an upwards axial direction, an outwards radial direction and an angular direction, the clinical waste container comprising:
a lower basket part having an upper basket opening;
and an upper lid part, arranged to be fastened to the lower basket part so as to cover the upper basket opening, the upper lid part comprising a first cylindrical part having an upper lid opening arranged to receive clinical waste through the upper lid opening into the lower basket part,
the method comprising:
providing a metal mold and a heated nozzle;
injecting a blended molten plastic material comprising at least 30% by volume wooden fibers via the heated nozzle into the metal mold;
allowing the molten plastic material to harden by cooling to form the upper lid part;
removing the upper lid part from the metal mold;
providing the lower basket part;
and actively and continuously cooling the metal mold, using a cooling fluid circulating in channels through the metal mold, during the hardening of the molten plastic material to a constant temperature of at least 300C.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
actively and continuously cooling the metal mold, using the cooling fluid circulating in channels through the metal mold, during the hardening of the molten plastic material to a constant temperature of at least 400C.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
actively and continuously cooling the metal mold, using the cooling fluid circulating in channels through the metal mold, during the hardening of the molten plastic material to a constant temperature of at least 500C.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cooling fluid is water.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the metal mold and the heated nozzle are made from a stainless-steel material comprising at least 12% chromium and is hardened to at least 50 HRC (Rockwell scale).
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the clinical waste container further comprises:
a lid cap part, arranged to be fastened to the upper lid part so as to cover the upper lid opening, the lid cap part comprising a second cylindrical part having a closed upper end and an inner dimension being larger than an outer dimension of the first cylindrical part, the second cylindrical part being arranged to be slid onto the first cylindrical part so that the lid cap part covers the upper lid opening.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the second cylindrical part comprises inner snap-lock means arranged to engage with outer snap-lock means arranged on the first cylindrical part so as to fasten the lid cap part on the lid part by a material of at least the lid cap part deforming elastically into a snap-fit lock.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the inner snap-lock means comprises several separated elongated protrusions running in the angular direction in relation to the lid cap part and together defining a broken circle, and wherein the method further comprises removing the lid cap part from the metal mold by ejection.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the molten plastic material is injected into the metal mold at two different injection points, and wherein the method comprises using one heated nozzle per each injection point.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 6, wherein:
the metal mold defines the shape of the upper lid part and the lid cap part as a connected body being connected by a connecting part, both the upper lid part and the lid cap part being formed by the injection of the molten plastic material into the metal mold; and the molten plastic material is injected into the metal mold at two different injection points, one on the upper lid part and another one on the lid cap part.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 10, wherein:
a contact plane between a first mold part and a second mold part, the first and second mold parts forming the metal mold in a mounted state, is flat and passes through the upper lid part, the connecting part and the lid cap part;
the contact plane is horizontal when the upper lid part is in the upright operating orientation;
and the upper lid part protrudes mainly on a first side of the contact plane, and the lid cap part protrudes mainly on a second side of the contact plane.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein most of the upper lid part has a uniform material thickness.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12447660 discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a general material thickness of the upper lid part is at most 2 mm.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnestad (US 20060219718 A1), in view of 3L Sharps Container B (NPL 1), Newman et al. (US 20150174803 A1; hereafter Newman) and Hosoi et al. (JP 2002003723 A; hereafter Hosoi; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Finnestad discloses a method for producing a clinical waste container ([0001]; providing a medical waste disposal receptacle with a molded cover), the clinical waste container being associated, in an upright operating orientation (Fig. 1; [0028]; medical waste disposal receptacle 2 is upright) of the clinical waste container, with an upwards axial direction (Fig. 1; [0028] central axis CA), an outwards radial direction (Fig. 1; an axis perpendicular to the central axis CA, extending outwards from the center of 2) and an angular direction (Fig. 1; an axis in an angular direction relative to the central axis CA), the clinical waste container comprising:
a lower basket part (Fig. 1; [0027]; medical waste disposal receptacle 2) having an upper basket opening (Fig. 3; [0027]; open end 7 opposite base 6); and an upper lid part (Fig. 1; [0029]; cover body portion 12), arranged to be fastened to said lower basket part so as to cover said upper basket opening (Fig. 1; [0029-0030]; cover body portion 12 covers and closes open end 7 by fitting about open end rim 8), the upper lid part comprising an upper lid opening (Fig. 1; [0031]; access opening 20) arranged to receive clinical waste through said upper lid opening into said lower basket part (Fig. 1; [0038]; medical waste travels through access opening 20 into the medical waste disposal receptacle 2),
wherein the method comprises:
providing a mold (Fig. 10; [0045]; injection mold assembly 300) and a heated nozzle (Fig. 10; [0047]; injection molding port 330); injecting molten plastic material via said heated nozzle into said mold (Fig. 10; [0047]; injection port 330 injects molten molding material into mold assembly); allowing the molten plastic material to harden by cooling to form said upper lid part ([0045]; in injection molding process the molten molding material is injected into cavities of the mold assembly 300 to form components of the cover. In an injection molding process the molding material necessarily cools to form the product); removing the upper lid part from the mold ([0053]; molded cover is removed from the mold); and providing said lower basket part (Fig. 1; [0027]; medical waste disposal receptacle 2 is provided).
Finnestad does not disclose the upper lid part comprises a first cylindrical part, the mold is a metal mold, the molten plastic material comprises at least 30% by volume wooden fibers, and actively and continuously cooling the metal mold, using a cooling fluid circulating in channels through the metal mold, during the hardening of the molten plastic material to a constant temperature of at least 30°C.
However, 3L Sharps Container B teaches a clinical waste container (Pg. 3; needle disposal container for hospital or clinic use) being associated, in an upright operating orientation (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; sharps container is upright) of the clinical waste container, with an upwards axial direction (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; axis A), an outwards radial direction (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; axis R) and an angular direction (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; axis V), the clinical waste container comprising: a lower basket part (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; lower basket part) having an upper basket opening (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; upper basket opening); and an upper lid part (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; upper lid part), arranged to be fastened to said lower basket part so as to cover said upper basket opening (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; upper lid part fastens onto rim of lower basket part at upper basket opening), the upper lid part comprising a first cylindrical part (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; first cylindrical part) having an upper lid opening (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; upper lid opening) arranged to receive clinical waste through said upper lid opening into said lower basket part (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; waste needles enter lower basket part via upper lid opening).
PNG
media_image1.png
858
1076
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, 3L Sharps Container B teaches the clinical waste container further comprises: a lid cap part (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 2; lid cap part), arranged to be fastened to said upper lid part so as to cover said upper lid opening (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 2; Pg. 6; extra lid design such that lid cap part covers upper lid opening in a secure lock), the lid cap part comprising a second cylindrical part (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 2; second cylindrical part) having a closed upper end (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 2; closed upper end) and an inner dimension being larger than an outer dimension of said first cylindrical part of the upper lid part (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 2; extra lid design such that lid cap part covers first cylindrical part, therefore an inner dimension of the second cylindrical part must be larger than an outer dimension of the first cylindrical part), the second cylindrical part of the lid cap part being arranged to be slid onto the first cylindrical part of the upper lid part so that the lid cap part as a result covers the upper lid opening (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 2; second cylindrical part covers the first cylindrical part when lid cap part covers upper lid part).
PNG
media_image2.png
834
1255
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 7, 3L Sharps Container B teaches the second cylindrical part of the lid cap part comprises inner snap-lock means (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 2; inner snap-lock means) arranged to engage with outer snap-lock means (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 2; outer snap-lock means) arranged on the first cylindrical part of the upper lid part so as to fasten the lid cap part on the upper lid part by a material of at least the lid cap part deforming elastically into a snap-fit lock (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 2; lid cap part fastens onto first cylindrical part via inner and outer snap-lock means as a result of elastic deformation).
As to claim 10, 3L Sharps Container B teaches the upper lid part and the lid cap part are connected by a connecting part (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 2; connecting part).
As to claim 12, 3L Sharps Container B teaches most of the upper lid part has a uniform material thickness (Sharps Container R3B Marked View 1; the thickness of the upper lid part is substantially uniform as evident in the figure).
Finnestad and 3L Sharps Container B are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of medical waste containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the injection molding method for forming a clinical waste container of Finnestad with the teachings of 3L Sharps Container B to provide the clinical waste container claimed. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would provide a leak proof and puncture resistant clinical waste container comprising a secure perimeter lock for safe usage and transportation (3L Sharps Container B Pg. 6).
Finnestad, in view of 3L Sharps Container B, does not disclose the mold is a metal mold, the molten plastic material comprises at least 30% by volume wooden fibers, and actively and continuously cooling the metal mold, using a cooling fluid circulating in channels through the metal mold, during the hardening of the molten plastic material to a constant temperature of at least 30°C.
However, Newman teaches a method of injection molding a container ([0015]) comprising: providing a metal mold ([0058-0059]; mold 28 can be formed from hardened steel) and a heated nozzle ([0057]; molten thermoplastic material is injected via nozzle 26); injecting molten plastic material ([0057]; molten thermoplastic material 24) comprising wooden fibers ([0120]; wood fiber additive) via said heated nozzle into said metal mold ([0057]; molten thermoplastic material 24 is injected into mold 28 via nozzle 26); allowing the molten plastic material to harden by cooling ([0055]; injected material is allowed to cool); actively and continuously cooling the metal mold ([0062]; mold 28 is actively and continuously cooled using cooling fluid flowing through a cooling circuit 29), using a cooling fluid ([0062] cooling fluid) circulating in channels ([0062]; cooling circuit 29) through the metal mold, during the hardening of the molten plastic material to a constant temperature of at least 30°C ([0077]; the mold is cooled such that the mold is maintained at a temperature greater than or equal to 90°C).
As to claim 2, Newman teaches actively and continuously cooling the metal mold, using the cooling fluid circulating in channels through the metal mold, during the hardening of the molten plastic material to a constant temperature of at least 40°C ([0077]; the mold is cooled such that the mold is maintained at a temperature greater than or equal to 90°C).
As to claim 3, Newman teaches actively and continuously cooling the metal mold, using the cooling fluid circulating in channels through the metal mold, during the hardening of the molten plastic material to a constant temperature of at least 50°C ([0077]; the mold is cooled such that the mold is maintained at a temperature greater than or equal to 90°C).
As to claim 4, Newman teaches the cooling fluid is water ([0078]; cooling fluid can be water).
Finnestad and Newman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection molding containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the injection molding method for forming a clinical waste container of modified Finnestad with the teachings of Newman to provide the claimed limitations. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would avoid condensation on or around the metal mold, thereby eliminating the need for dehumidification apparatuses (Newman [0077]).
Finnestad, in view of 3L Sharps Container B and Newman, does not explicitly disclose the plastic material comprises at least 30% by volume wooden fibers.
However, Hosoi teaches injection molding ([0107]; injection molding) a container ([0013]; photographic containers) using a blend of plastic material ([0013]; thermoplastic) and at least 30% by volume wooden fibers ([0013]; 50% or more wood fiber).
Finnestad and Hosoi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of injection molding containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the injection molding method for forming a clinical waste container of modified Finnestad with the teachings of Hosoi to provide the plastic material comprises at least 30% by volume wooden fibers. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Doing so would provide an odorless clinical waste container with excellent dimensional stability and disposal characteristics (Hosoi [0013]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Finnestad discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the molten plastic material is injected into the metal mold at two different injection points (Finnestad Marked Fig. 10; two different injection points at left nozzle 330 and right nozzle 330), and wherein the method comprises using one heated nozzle per each injection point (Finnestad Marked Fig. 10; left nozzle 330 at left injection point and right nozzle 330 at right injection point).
PNG
media_image3.png
800
737
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, modified Finnestad discloses the method of claim 6, wherein said metal mold defines the shape of the upper lid part (Finnestad [0051]; cavity portion 320 forms body portion 12) and said lid cap part (Finnestad [0051-0052]; cavity portion 326 forms lid portion 50) as a connected body (Finnestad [0005]; interconnected lid) being connected by a connecting part (Finnestad [0051]; hinge 54 formed in cavity portion 318), both the upper lid part and the lid cap part being formed by said injection of said molten plastic material into said metal mold (Finnestad [0051]; injecting into cavity portions to make the body portion 12 and lid portion 50), and wherein the molten plastic material is injected into the metal mold at two different injection points (Finnestad Marked Fig. 10; left injection point and right injection point), one on the upper lid part (Finnestad Marked Fig. 10; right injection point on cavity portion 320 that forms body portion 12) and another one on the lid cap part (Finnestad Marked Fig. 10; left injection point on cavity portion 326 that forms lid portion 50).
Regarding claim 11, modified Finnestad discloses the method of claim 10, wherein a contact plane (Finnestad Marked Fig. 10 v.2; contact plane) between a first mold part (Finnestad Fig. 10; [0045]; mold portion 302) and a second mold part (Finnestad Fig. 10; [0045]; mold portion 304), the first and second mold parts forming said metal mold in a mounted state (Finnestad Fig. 10; [0045]; mold portions 302, 304 in assembled state form mold assembly 300), is flat and passes through said upper lid part, said connecting part and said lid cap part (Finnestad Marked Fig. 10 v.2; contact plane passes through body portion 12, hinge 54 and lid portion 50), wherein said contact plane is horizontal (Finnestad Marked Fig. 10 v.2; contact plane is horizontal relative to upright direction) when the upper lid part is in said upright operating orientation, wherein said upper lid part protrudes mainly on a first side of the contact plane (Finnestad Marked Fig. 10 v.2; cover body portion 12 protrusion) and said lid cap part protrudes mainly on a second side of the contact plane (Finnestad Marked Fig. 10 v.2; lid portion 50 protrusion).
PNG
media_image4.png
800
737
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnestad (US 20060219718 A1), in view of 3L Sharps Container B (NPL 1), Newman et al. (US 20150174803 A1; hereafter Newman) and Hosoi et al. (JP 2002003723 A; hereafter Hosoi; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Tidesten et al. (US 20160355909 A1; hereafter Tidesten).
Regarding claim 5, modified Finnestad discloses the method of claim 1, wherein Newman further teaches said metal mold and said heated nozzle are made from a steel material ([0059]; hardened steels) and is hardened to at least 50 HRC (Rockwell scale) ([0059]; from about 5 RC to about 100 RC; In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP 2144.05).
Modified Finnestad does not explicitly disclose the steel material is a stainless steel material comprising at least 12% chromium.
However, Tidesten teaches a stainless steel material for a plastic mold ([0001]) comprising at least 12% chromium ([0018-0019]; chromium 12-16%) and a hardness of at least 50 HRC (Rockwell scale) ([0061]; 56-58 HRC).
Finnestad and Tidesten are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of plastic molding. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the injection molding method for forming a clinical waste container of modified Finnestad with the teachings of Tidesten to provide the steel material is a stainless steel material comprising at least 12% chromium. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Doing so would ensure the metal mold has high hardness, good corrosion resistance and dimensional stability (Tidesten [0004]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnestad (US 20060219718 A1), in view of 3L Sharps Container B (NPL 1), Newman et al. (US 20150174803 A1; hereafter Newman) and Hosoi et al. (JP 2002003723 A; hereafter Hosoi; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (US 20230097812 A1; hereafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 8, modified Finnestad discloses the method of claim 7, wherein Newman further teaches removing a molded article from the metal mold by ejection ([0040]).
Modified Finnestad does not disclose the inner snap-lock means comprises several separated elongated protrusions running in the angular direction in relation to the lid cap part and together defining a broken circle.
However, Suzuki teaches a container lid (Fig. 1; [0045]; lid 12 for a container body) with an inner snap-lock means (Fig. 1; [0059]; multiple protrusions 34a in skirt portion 34 that snaps over container rim 21b) comprising several separated elongated protrusions (Fig. 1; [0059]; multiple protrusions 34a) running in the angular direction in relation to the container lid (Fig. 1; [0059]; multiple protrusions 34a run around circumference of lid 12) and together defining a broken circle (Fig. 1; [0059]; multiple protrusions 34a form broken circle in circumference of lid 12).
Finnestad and Suzuki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of container lids. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the injection molding method for forming a clinical waste container of modified Finnestad with the teachings of Suzuki to provide the inner snap-lock means comprises several separated elongated protrusions running in the angular direction in relation to the lid cap part and together defining a broken circle. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would provide a clinical waste container lid with excellent shape stability against attaching and detaching operations while reducing the material cost for making the inner snap-lock means (Suzuki [0109]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finnestad (US 20060219718 A1), in view of 3L Sharps Container B (NPL 1), Newman et al. (US 20150174803 A1; hereafter Newman) and Hosoi et al. (JP 2002003723 A; hereafter Hosoi; paragraph numbers correspond to attached English machine translation) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Reshamwala (WO 2007130402 A2).
Regarding claim 13, modified Finnestad discloses the method of claim 1.
Modified Finnestad does not explicitly disclose a general material thickness of the upper lid part is at most 2 mm.
However, Reshamwala teaches a lid for a medical sharps and waste disposal container (Pg. 4, Ln. 15-19; lid 17 for medical sharps and waste container) comprising a general thickness of at most 2mm (Pg. 4, Ln. 19-21; lid 17 has a thickness of approximately 0.060 inches to 0.065 inches).
Finnestad and Reshamwala are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of medical waste containers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the injection molding method for forming a clinical waste container of modified Finnestad with the teachings of Reshamwala to provide a general material thickness of the upper lid part is at the most 2 mm. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). Doing so would reduce the material cost of manufacturing the upper lid part while providing an impact strength sufficient to prevent escaping of medical sharps or waste (Reshamwala Pg. 9, Ln. 5-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/VIPUL MALIK/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights