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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 7/21/2025. Claims 1-17, 19-23, and 45 are pending in this application. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 7/21/2025 has been considered by the Examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/21/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 9, 23, and 45 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 18, 24-44, and 46-57 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Based on Applicant’s amendments and response the previous claim objection has been withdrawn.
On Remarks pages 9-10, Applicant argues the 101 rejection.
The Examiner first notes that the claims are still rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, however the Examiner has updated the 101 rejection in view of applicant’s amendments as well as reflect most recent USPTO 101 guidance.
Here applicant argues the claims do not recite a mental process as the claims recite physical elements like a receptable and a scale sensor. It is noted as detailed in the updated 101 rejection the Examiner has provided reasoning as to why these additional elements do not integrate into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further it is noted that a mental process or certain method of organizing human activities (which the claims recite, as detailed in the 101 rejection), can require physical elements, like a computer, and still be an abstract idea.
See MPEP 2106.04(a), cited herein:
Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
…..
An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.
….
An example of a claim reciting social activities is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 126 USPQ2d 1498 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The social activity at issue in Voter Verified was voting. The patentee claimed "[a] method for voting providing for self-verification of a ballot comprising the steps of" presenting an election ballot for voting, accepting input of the votes, storing the votes, printing out the votes, comparing the printed votes to votes stored in the computer, and determining whether the printed ballot is acceptable. 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1503-04. The Federal Circuit found that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of "voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation", which is a "fundamental activity that forms the basis of our democracy" and has been performed by humans for hundreds of years. 887 F.3d at 1385-86, 126 USPQ2d at 1504-05.
….
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This concept is explained further below with respect to point D.
The following discussion is meant to guide examiners and provide more information on how to determine whether a claim recites a mental process. Examiners should keep in mind the following points A, B, C, and D when performing this evaluation.
….
C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
D. Both Product and Process Claims May Recite a Mental Process
Examiners should keep in mind that both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes. For example, in Mortgage Grader, the patentee claimed a computer-implemented system and a method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The Federal Circuit determined that both the computer-implemented system and method claims were directed to "anonymous loan shopping", which was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. See also FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294 (identifying both system and process claims for detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information in a health-care system computer environment as directed to abstract idea of detecting fraud); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (system and method claims of inputting information from a hard copy document into a computer program). Accordingly, the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim.
Examples of product claims reciting mental processes include:
• An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356;
• A computer-implemented system for enabling anonymous loan shopping – Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695;
• A computer readable medium containing program instructions for detecting fraud – CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1368 n. 1, 99 USPQ2d at 1692 n.1;
• A post office for receiving and redistributing email messages on a computer network – Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1316, 120 USPQ2d at 1359;
• A self-verifying voting system – Voter Verified, 887 F.3d at 1384-85, 126 USPQ2d at 1504;
• A wide-area real-time performance monitoring system for monitoring and assessing dynamic stability of an electric power grid – Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1351 and n.1, 119 USPQ2d at 1740 and n.1; and
• Computer readable storage media comprising computer instructions to implement a method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization – Versata, 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 115 USPQ2d at 1685.
Examples of process claims reciting mental process-type abstract ideas are discussed in the preceding subsections (A) through (C). See, for example, the discussion of Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 198 USPQ 193; Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673; Berkheimer, 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649; Synopsys, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473; and Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 113 USPQ2d 1241, supra.
Therefore in view of the above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks page 10, Applicant argues that the claims recite a practical application. Specifically here Applicant argues that the claims recite as amended “recommendation comprising a layout improvement of the location [that the waste receptacles are deployed]”. Here , Applicant recites limitations a human could perform as broadly recited in the claim, and therefore this is part of the abstract idea. Specifically a human could make a determination based on collected data to determine where to reallocate or redistribute resources like trash cans or collectors to, as broadly recited in the claims.
Improvements to the abstract idea are not improvements to the functioning of the computer or technical field as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), cited herein:
Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.
On Remarks pages 11-12, Applicant argues the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known conventional pieces. Applicant argues Bascom and the amended “the data aggregation record comprising accumulated waste flow per day per location, diversion rate, and diversion for each location.” However these are mere data aggregation of collected data. These are limitations a human or humans could reasonably and practically perform given the recitation at such a broad level of abstraction. Therefore this is part of the abstract idea. Therefore these limitations are found in the abstract idea and not additional elements (see MPEP 2106.05).
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks pages 14-16, Applicant argues the prior art of record in view of Applicant’s amendments. Specifically Applicant argues that Sridhar does not teach “recommendation comprising a layout improvement of the plurality of locations” where “the layout improvement comprises a plurality of recommended locations to deploy the plurality of waste receptacles.” The Examiner agrees however, the secondary reference of Balachandran et al. (US 2019/0339112) clearly teaches this in at least the cited paragraphs of 0074, 0076, and 0081 as detailed in the updated rejection below.
Applicant’s request for an interview on remarks page 16, is acknowledged. Applicant can contact the Examiner for an interview regarding this office action if desired. Contact information for the Examiner is provided at the end of each office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17, 19-23, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-17 and 19-22 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with a processor and a medium executing instructions along with a sensor. Claims 23 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claim 45 recites a process as the claims recite a method.
The claim(s) recite(s) collecting waste information, analyzing it and displaying results of the collection and analysis which includes aggregated waste information and incentivizing a user to recycle or reduce waste.
Collecting waste information, analyzing it and displaying results of the collection and analysis which includes aggregated waste information and incentivizing a user to recycle or reduce waste are recited at such a high level of abstraction, that the claims recite observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that could reasonably and practically be performed in the human mind or with aid of pen and paper.
Further the idea of collecting waste information, analyzing it and displaying results of the collection and analysis which includes aggregated waste information and incentivizing a user to recycle or reduce waste is a fundamental economic practice which is a certain method of organizing human activities.
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), And (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite limitations a human could reasonably and practically perform specifically a human could estimate an amount of trash by for example looking it (as it related to quantity, quality or other characteristic), further a human could aggregate the data over time for example by using records, and display aggregated data relating to a goal to a user. Further a user could provide recommendations with respect to where to place bins based on collected data and manage the competitive challenge and provide live ranking of the waste collection.
The additional elements of these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead recited as being performed by software running on a computer (“ a processor and communication port coupled with the one or more scale sensor and communicatively coupled with a network; and a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions embodied therewith, the instructions causing the processor to perform steps including:), instead of the user looking at the product this is being performed by a scale sensor, information instead being displayed on a billboard or paper is being displayed on an electronic dashboard, information is being processed or displayed in real time, and the trash is stored in a receptacle merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here Applicant provides a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. For example Applicant recites no improvement as to how the computer makes determinations with respect to quantity, a quality, or other characteristics rather applicant is merely using the sensor to make the determination which is equivalent to the words apply it. The same analysis is found with respect to real time, computers, receptables, and electronic displays, in that applicant is merely using the additional element to apply the abstract idea as recited in the claims rather than an improvement thereto.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite them being performed by the above additional elements merely result in generally linking to the field of computers.
Further this can additionally or alternatively be considered mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
As per claim 2, Applicant merely describes different types of waste receptacles. Users can gather information from any of the listed type of receptacles, therefore there are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above like receptacles.
As per claim 3, Applicant merely describes the scale range. A human could estimate weight by their eyes or by picking waste up. The additional elements here that this is done by a scale sensor merely results in apply it. Here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here Applicant provides a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. For example Applicant recites no improvement as to how the scale sensor makes weight determinations rather applicant is merely using the scale sensor to make the determination which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite them being performed “scale sensor” merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 4, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a user can sample information at different configurable rates. The additional element that this is done “automatically” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite them being performed “automatically” merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 5, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could communicate with other users, e.g. a network of users to perform the functions described herein. The additional elements this is done by via a wireless network merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here Applicant provides a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. For example Applicant recites no improvement to wireless communication rather applicant is merely using the additional element of wireless network to make the determinations which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite them being performed by the above additional elements merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
Further this can additionally or alternatively be considered mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
As per claim 6, the claims recite the additional element that the system is battery powered. This results in merely apply it. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here Applicant provides a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. For example Applicant recites no improvement to battery powering rather applicant is merely using the additional element of battery powered to power the system, rather than it being powered or performed by humans or users which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite them being performed by being battery powered merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
Further this can be considered mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea.
As per claim 7, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or human could remotely manage and control a system, e.g. one user or supervisor telling other employees at another location what to do. There is no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 8, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or human provide real time weight data (by for example measuring with eyes or hands) and generate display with this information (for example writing it down on paper). The additional elements that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead performed by a processor, a scale sensor, are done in real time, and the dashboard is electronic merely results in the same analysis as found in claim 1 above.
As per claim 9, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or humans could generate reports based on weight data received. The additional elements that these limitations that a human or humans could perform are instead being recited as being performed by a processor, the data is real time, and the weighting is a scale sensor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 10, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could collect waste information from places where trash is stored at different locations. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above, like receptacles.
As per claim 11, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could collect waste information from places where trash is stored at different locations within a facility. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 12, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could collect waste information from places were trash is stored at different locations within multiple facilities. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 13, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could collect waste information from places were trash is stored at multiple locations and in multiple organizations. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 14, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or humans could perform a competitive challenge with another location. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 15, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or humans could aggregate competition challenge comprising collection and waste storing over a period of time. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 16, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or humans could aggregate competition challenge comprising comparison of collection and sorting of waste from different time periods. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 17, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or human could write a display with information including games, trivia, tips, relevant news, and educational materials as broadly claimed. The additional elements that the dashboard or display is “electronic” merely results in apply it or generally linking to the field of computers as previously discussed above.
As per claim 19, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could display a dashboard in proximity to a plurality of waste receptables. The additional element the dashboard or display is “electronic” and trash is stored in receptacles merely results in apply it or generally linking to the field of computers as previously discussed above.
As per claim 20 the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or human could display a dashboard to another user, by for example pen and paper or a billboard etc. The additional elements that this dashboard or display is “electronic” merely results in apply it or generally linking to the field of computers as previously discussed above.
Further the additional element that the display is on a personal electronic device merely results in apply it. Specifically here invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans merely and instead recite as being performed on a personal electronic device merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 21, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or human could receive contamination evaluation from one or more of an input (from for example a user who dropped the waste) or from a sensing it (for example a user smelling it). The additional elements that these limitations that could be performed by a human are instead being performed by a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed above.
Further the additional element that the contamination that could be received by a user sensing it is instead received from a sensor merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here Applicant provides a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. For example Applicant recites no improvement as to how the sensor makes determinations with respect to contamination rather applicant is merely using the sensor to make the determination which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite them being performed by the above additional elements merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
Further while the Examiner has mapped in the efforts of compact prosecution only one of input or sensor is actually required by the claims.
As per claim 22, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or human could receive contamination evaluation from one or more of an input (from for example a user who dropped the waste) or from a sensing it (for example a user smelling it). The additional elements that these limitations that could be performed by a human are instead being performed by a sensor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as discussed above.
Further the additional element that the contamination that could be received by a user sensing it is instead received by a personal electronic merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here Applicant provides a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. For example Applicant recites no improvement as to how the personal electronic makes determinations with respect to contamination rather applicant is merely using the personal electronic to make the determination which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite them being performed by the above additional elements merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 23, the claims recite limitations a human could reasonably and practically perform specifically a human could estimate an amount of trash by for example looking it (as it related to quantity, quality or other characteristic), further a human could aggregate the data over time for example by using records, and display aggregated data relating to goal to a user. Further a user could provide recommendations with respect to where to place bins based on collected data and manage the competitive challenge and provide live ranking of the waste collection.
The additional elements of instead of the user looking at the product this is being performed by a scale sensor, information instead being displayed on a billboard or paper is being displayed on an electronic dashboard, information is being processed or displayed in real time, and trash is stored in a receptacle, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here Applicant provides a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. For example Applicant recites no improvement as to how the sensor makes determinations with respect to quantity, a quality, or other characteristics rather applicant is merely using the sensor to make the determination which is equivalent to the words apply it. The same analysis is found with respect to real time, receptables, and electronic displays, in that applicant is merely using the additional element to apply the abstract idea as recited in the claims rather than an improvement thereto.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite them being performed by the above additional elements merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
As per claim 45, the claims recite limitations a human could reasonably and practically perform specifically a human could estimate an amount of trash by for example looking it (as it related to quantity, quality or other characteristic), further a human could aggregate the data over time for example by using records, and display aggregated data relating to goal to a user. Further a user could provide recommendations with respect to where to place bins based on collected data and manage the competitive challenge and provide live ranking of the waste collection.
The additional elements of instead of the user looking at the product this is being performed by a scale sensor, information instead being displayed on a billboard or paper is being displayed on an electronic dashboard, information is being processed or displayed in real time, and trash is stored in receptacles, merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Specifically here Applicant provides a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. For example Applicant recites no improvement as to how the sensor makes determinations with respect to quantity, a quality, or other characteristics rather applicant is merely using the sensor to make the determination which is equivalent to the words apply it. The same analysis is found with respect to real time, receptables, and electronic displays, in that applicant is merely using the additional element to apply the abstract idea as recited in the claims rather than an improvement thereto.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that instead recite them being performed by the above additional elements merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), And (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed in the practical application step above.
Further with respect to (2) above, the claims merely recite (1) Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo). Specifically as recited in the claims:
(a) Receiving or transmitting data over a network (see claim 1 and 5)(see MPEP2106.05(d), cited herein: e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
(b) a computer system using battery power (See claim 6)
-Merrit et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2001/0035787) paragraph 0003" System designs are routinely constrained by a limited
number of readily available power supply voltages. For example, a consider a portable
computer system powered by a conventional battery having a limited power supply
voltage. For proper operation, different components of the system, such as display,
processor, and memory components employ diverse technologies which require power
to be supplied at various operating voltages. Components often require operating
voltages of a greater magnitude than the power supply voltage and, in other cases, a
voltage of reverse polarity. The design of a system, therefore, includes power
conversion circuitry to efficiently develop the required operating voltages. One such
power conversion circuit is known as a charge pump. Charge pumps have been used
as on-chip voltage generators capable of providing a voltage more positive than the
most positive external supply or more negative than the most negative external supply.
The demand for highly efficient and reliable charge pump circuits has increased with the
increasing number of applications utilizing battery powered systems, such as notebook
computers, portable telephones, security devices, battery-backed data storage devices
remote controls, instrumentation, and patient monitors, to name a few."
-Schiltz et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2002/0188411) paragraph 0026 " The construction of battery powered portable
computer 110 is well-known to those skilled in the art. Battery operated portable
computers typically include a microprocessor, associated random access memory
(RAM), nonvolatile data storage such as a hard disk drive, a battery power source and
expansion slots designed to accommodate circuit boards electrically coupling the
computer components to external devices such as keyboards, pens, mouses,
transducers and displays. These expansion slots typically accommodate standard form
factor circuit cards, such as the industry-standard PCMCIA form factor cards used in
notebook and laptop computers. For field uses, such as monitoring of machinery for
predictive maintenance purposes, battery operated portable computer 110 may be
mounted in a lightweight, rugged hand-held case 101, and user input means 140 may
include a magnetic pen designed to operate with a magnetically sensitive screen matrix.
An example of a typical battery operated portable computer designed especially for field
use is the Fujitsu Stylistic 500, as described in Fujitsu brochure 58-0349-00B, the
disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference. This computer is referred to for
purposes of explanation only, and it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the
present invention may be used with other portable computers."
- Chuang (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2004/0095713) paragraph 0005 "As shown in FIG. 1, a conventional portable electronic
apparatus 8, such as a portable computer, is usually powered by an internal battery (not
shown) or by an external power supply module 9. Since the capacity of the internal
battery only permits operation of the electronic apparatus 8 for a few hours, which is
insufficient for long durations of use, the external power supply module 9 has thus
become an essential component of the electronic apparatus 8. However, since the
external power supply module 9 of the conventional electronic apparatus 8 is a separate
accessory, inconveniences arise when a user brings the electronic apparatus 8 when going on a trip. Particularly, the separate external power supply module 9 increases the
bulk of the electronic apparatus 8, and can be easily misplaced."
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.
13. Claim(s) 1-17, 19-23 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sridhar (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0189844) further in view of Balachandran et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0339112).
As per claim 1, Sridhar teaches A system for interacting with users in collection and sorting of waste the system comprising: (see abstract, Examiner's note: a network of connected trash collection devices that are configured to generate recycling analytics and provide incentives to users and facilitate planning of downstream operations).
a plurality of waste receptacles, each waste receptacle disposed in one of a plurality of locations in one of a plurality of facilities; (see paragraphs 0079-0080, 0104, 0137-0138, and 0112, Examiner's note: teaches one or multiple units at a location (see paragraphs 0070 0080 and 0112) where these trash receptables are at a commercial or residential location (see paragraph 0107). Further teaches aggregating this collected trash information across receptacles for competitions (see paragraphs 0137-0138)).
for each waste receptacle, a scale sensor associated with that waste receptacle, the scale sensor connected to that waste receptacle, the scale sensor configured to measure a characteristic of contents of that waste receptacle, the scale sensor outputting real-time data of the characteristic, the characteristic including a quantity, a quality, or other characteristic; ( see paragraphs 0016, 0044, 0094, 0102, 0104, and 0116, Examiner's note: teaches a fill sensor (see paragraph 0016), a laser sensor and counter (see paragraph 0094 and 0102), electronic sensor (see paragraph 0104), a scanner or camera or weight scale (see paragraph 0116) to identify and count objects. Further paragraph 0044 teaches processing information in real time).
a processor and communication port coupled with the one or more scale sensor and communicatively coupled with a computer network; (see paragraphs 0015, 0018, and 0066, Examiner's note: teaches a processor receiving receptacle information from the cloud regarding various receptacle information and providing information based on that received information)
and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions embodied therewith, the instructions causing the processor to perform steps including: (see
paragraphs 0050, 0052, and 0054, Examiner's note: teaches software running on a
computer performing the functions of Sridhar).
receiving the real-time data of the characteristic for each waste receptacle; combining the characteristics of each waste receptacle to a real-time data aggregation record, the real-time data aggregation record comprising accumulated waste flow per day per location, diversion rate, and diversion for each location; identifying a waste reduction goal for the plurality of waste receptacles based on the real-time data aggregation record; generating, based on the quantity or the quality of the characteristic of the contents and the waste reduction goal, a waste reduction recommendation for the plurality of waste receptacles; (see paragraphs 0121, 0133-0134, 0137-0138, 0143, 0146, 0148-0150, 0152- 0153, Examiner's note: teaches information may be aggregated across location and connected users (see paragraphs 0121 and 0146), where the information may be displayed on various displays relating to points and posts including at the receptable or other devices (see paragraph 0133-0134, 0143, and 0148). Paragraphs 0137-0138, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153 teach the system providing different information to a user or users by way of a device based on comparison of user information recycled to a goal or threshold, this is a "waste reduction recommendation" as the system is recommending a user based on their waste reduction recycle history on for example a social network or to other users, it is also "waste reduction recommendation" in the sense that the a user is being recommended to be provided a coupon based on their recycle history waste reduction for example).
displaying, on an electronic dashboard: a real time representation of quantity and/or quality of contents in the plurality of waste receptacles based on the real-time data aggregation record, (See paragraphs 0014, 0133-0134, 0143, 0148, and Figures 10-12, Examiner's note: teaches multiple different displays for displaying totals related to recycled content).
a status of a competitive challenge based on the quantity of the contents, (see
paragraphs 0136-0138, 0146, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153, Examiner's note: Crediting the users who are part of a recycling team (e.g. a competitive challenge) with number of products of a specific item at a specific place (see paragraph 0146). Alternatively or additionally providing the environmental impact for placing the item in the box (see paragraph 0136), this is a competitive challenge as it incentivizes users to provide more items as there environmental impact is known and can change based on the number of items. This could alternatively read on the various information collected and provided based on the user's recycling and meeting some goal in paragraphs 0137-0138, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153).
and the waste reduction recommendation, and managing a competitive challenge associated with users collecting and sorting waste based on the characteristics of the contents in the plurality of waste receptacles relative to the waste reduction goal, the competitive challenge comprising a live ranking of waste collection at each of the plurality of facilities. (see paragraphs 0121, 0133-0134, 0137-0138, 0143, 0146, 0148-0150, 0152- 0153, Examiner's note: teaches information may be aggregated across location and connected users (see paragraphs 0121 and 0146), where the information may be displayed on various displays relating to points and posts including at the receptable or other devices (see paragraph 0133-0134, 0143, and 0148). Paragraphs 0137-0138, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153 teach the system providing different information to a user or users by way of a device based on comparison of user information recycled to a goal or threshold, this is a "waste reduction recommendation" as the system is recommending a user based on their waste reduction recycle history on for example a social network or to other users, it is also "waste reduction recommendation" in the sense that the a user is being recommended to be provided a coupon based on their recycle history waste reduction for example).
Sridhar does not expressly teach (1) the scale sensor mounted underneath that waste receptable and (2) the waste reduction recommendation comprising a layout improvement of the plurality of locations, the layout improvement comprising a plurality of recommended locations to deploy the plurality of waste receptacles.
However, Balachandran which is in the art of aggregating measurements and collections from data collected from bins over time to generate reports and trends over time and then provide them to the user (see abstract) teaches (1) the scale sensor mounted underneath that waste receptable (see Figures 2-3B and paragraph 0011-0012 and 0040- 0041, Examiner's note: teaches a platform under the waste receptable that measures weight).
and (2) the waste reduction recommendation comprising a layout improvement of the plurality of locations, the layout improvement comprising a plurality of recommended locations to deploy the plurality of waste receptacles (see paragraphs 0074, 0075 and 0081, Examiner’s note: teaches measuring and calculating waste distribution among waste types to computer optimal bin sizes to be calculate for each waste type (see paragraph 0074) and further teaches using comparisons to reallocate waste measurement devices to optimize their distribution within the facility (see paragraph 0076). Further teaches this information may be displayed, see paragraph 0081)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sridhar with the aforementioned teachings from Balachandran with the motivation of providing the commonly known feature or knowledge that to weigh something it can be placed on top of a sensor or device in order to be weighed (see Balachandran Figures 2-3B and paragraph 0011-0012 and 0040-0041) as well as a commonly known feature of redistributing or reallocating information according to user use (see Balachandran paragraphs 0074, 0075 and 0081), when Sridhar clearly teaches weighting information for use in the system of Sridhar it just does not expressly teach where the weight sensor is located in the recycling unit (see Sridhar paragraphs 0011, 0016, 0116, and 0157) and reallocating or redistributing information according to user use is known (see Sridhar paragraph 0104).
As per claim 2, Sridhar teaches
wherein the plurality of waste receptacles comprises at least one of: a trash receptacle, a recycling receptacle, a compost receptacle. (see paragraphs 0149, 0155, and Figure 10, Examiner's note: teaches a trash and recycling receptacle, only one is required by the claims).
As per claim 3, Sridhar teaches
wherein the scale sensor measures weight (see paragraphs 0116 and 0153,
Examiner's note: teaches measuring the weight recycled (see paragraph 0116) and providing a reward based on for example 100 pounds recycled).
Sridhar does not expressly teach the sensor measures weight between 0 and 200 pounds plus or minus 0.2 pounds.
However, Balachandran et al. which is additionally in the art of waste collection
(see abstract) teaches the sensor measures weight between 0 and 200 pounds plus or minus 0.2 pounds (see paragraphs 0043-0045, Examiner's note: bins of varying sizes and can measure weights with the range from less than two hundred pounds).
Examiner’s note: MPEP 2131.03 Anticipation of Ranges [R-10.2019](cited herein: A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IN THE PRIOR ART WHICH IS WITHIN A CLAIMED RANGE ANTICIPATES THE RANGE "[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated’ if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (emphasis in original) (Claims to titanium (Ti) alloy with 0.6-0.9% nickel (Ni) and 0.2-0.4% molybdenum (Mo) were held anticipated by a graph in a Russian article on Ti-Mo-Ni alloys because the graph contained an actual data point corresponding to a Ti alloy containing 0.25% Mo and 0.75% Ni and this composition was within the claimed range of compositions.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sridhar in view of Balachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Balachandran et al. with the motivation of providing a weight limit on the amount of trash or recycle material that be weighted at one time (See Balachandran et al. paragraphs 0043-0045), when Sridhar practically discloses as much by teaching weighing recycling over time and providing an incentive when the user reaches for example 100 pounds is known (see Sridhar paragraph 0100).
As per claim 4, Sridhar teaches
wherein the system automatically collects data at a configurable sampling rate. (see paragraphs 0044, 0133, 0137, 0152-0153, Examiner’s note: each of these different paragraphs provide recitations for the above limitation from real time collection based on different factors (see paragraph 0044) , to predefined and configurable settings to when different information displayed (see paragraph 0133 ,0137 and 0152-0153)).
As per claim 5, Sridhar teaches
wherein the system is in communication with a wireless network. (see paragraphs 0113 and 0056, Examiner’s note: information may be communicated wirelessly)
As per claim 6, Sridhar teaches
wherein the system is battery powered. (see paragraph 0154, Examiner’s note: battery for powering the sensor and the processor).
As per claim 7, Sridhar teaches
wherein the system is remotely managed and controlled. (see paragraphs 0155 and 0068, Examiner’s note: box (receptacle) communicates with remote computer (see paragraph 0155). Further teaches the tasks may be performed through local and remote computer systems in a distributed computing network (see paragraph 0068)).
As per claim 8, Sridhar teaches
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform steps including receiving real-time weight data from the scale sensor and generating a display for the electronic dashboard. (see paragraphs 0056, 0068, and 0156, Examiner’s note: teaches another computer for providing content like that in Figure 9 to users. Distributed computing environment to perform tasks on different computer systems (see paragraph 0068). Further teaches back end components for realizing the system (see paragraph 0056)).
As per claim 9, Sridhar teaches
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform steps including generating reports based on the real- time weight data received from scale sensor. (see paragraphs 0137, and 0152-0153, Examiner’s note: generates notifications based on weight received).
As per claim 10, Sridhar teaches
wherein the plurality of waste receptacles are disposed at multiple locations. (see paragraph 0079-0080, 0104, and 0112, Examiner’s note: a plurality of smart boxes placed at either a single location or a plurality of locations (see paragraphs 0079-0080 and 0112). Further teaches this may be done in the commercial or residential setting (see paragraph 0104)).
As per claim 11, Sridhar teaches
wherein the multiple locations are within a facility. (see paragraph 0079-0080, 0104, and 0112, Examiner’s note: a plurality of smart boxes placed at either a single location or a plurality of locations (see paragraphs 0079-0080 and 0112). Further teaches this may be done in the commercial or residential setting (see paragraph 0104)).
As per claim 12, Sridhar teaches
wherein the multiple locations are in multiple facilities. (see paragraph 0079-0080, 0104, and 0112, Examiner’s note: a plurality of smart boxes placed at either a single location or a plurality of locations (see paragraphs 0079-0080 and 0112). Further teaches this may be done in the commercial or residential setting (see paragraph 0104)).
As per claim 13, Sridhar teaches
wherein multiple locations are in multiple organizations. (see paragraph 0079-0080, 0104, and 0112, Examiner’s note: a plurality of smart boxes placed at either a single location or a plurality of locations (see paragraphs 0079-0080 and 0112). Further teaches this may be done in the commercial or residential setting (see paragraph 0104)).
As per claim 14, Sridhar teaches
wherein the one or more competitive challenges comprises competition against one or more other locations. (see paragraph 0138, Examiner’s note: smart box may be configured to display data about the competitive neighboring collection units to encourage more collection from the center either on a local display or a smartphone).
As per claim 15, Sridhar teaches
wherein status of a competitive challenge comprises collection and sorting of waste over a time period. (see paragraphs 0137, 0149, and 0152-0153, Examiner’s note: teaches aggregating information over time to provide incentives in that the user does not have to provide all the trash waste at one time).
As per claim 16, Sridhar teaches
wherein status of competitive challenge comprises comparison of collection and sorting of waste from different time periods. (see paragraphs 0137, 0149, and 0152-0153, Examiner’s note: teaches aggregating information over time to provide incentives in that the user does not have to provide all the trash waste at one time).
As per claim 17, Sridhar teaches
wherein the electronic dashboard further displays at least one of games, trivia, sorting tips, relevant news, and educational materials. (see paragraphs 0137-0138, 0149, 0152-0153, and Figures 10-12, Examiner’s note: teaches aggregating information over time to provide incentives. The aggregated trash information provided to the user in the above citations read on at least the broad limitations of games, relevant news, and educational materials).
As per claim 19, Sridhar teaches
wherein the electronic dashboard is displayed on a display provided in proximity to a location of the plurality of waste receptacles (see paragraphs 0044, 0132-0134, 0137-0138, and 0142-0143, Examiner’s note: this claim reads on a display attached to the device (see paragraph 0132-0134) or updating a user’s social profile where this is displayed on a user device (see paragraph 0137-0138 and 0142-0143) it is noted that this is done in real time (see paragraph 0044) so the user could be in proximity to the device still).
As per claim 20, Sridhar teaches
wherein the electronic dashboard is displayed on a display of a personal electronic device. (see paragraphs 0013, 0137-0138, and 0142-0143, Examiner’s note: updating a user’s social profile where this is displayed on a user device through a mobile app).
As per claim 21, Sridhar teaches
wherein the instructions further cause the processor to perform steps including receiving a contamination evaluation from one or more of an input and a sensor. (see paragraph 0013, 0111, 0116, 0143-0143 and Figure 12, Examiner’s note: teaches both receiving waste information from a user phone and providing waste information to a user phone, it is noted that the claim limitation is broad enough to read on both).
As per claim 22, Sridhar teaches
wherein the one or more sensors or inputs comprise a personal electronic configured to receive a contamination evaluation. (see paragraph 0013, 0111, 0116, 0143-0143 and Figure 12, Examiner’s note: teaches both receiving waste information from a user phone and providing waste information to a user phone, it is noted that the claim limitation is broad enough to read on both).
As per claim 23, Sridhar teaches A method of interacting with users in collection and sorting of waste, the method comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: a network of connected trash collection devices that are configured to generate recycling analytics and provide incentives to users and facilitate planning of downstream operations. Further teaches that this can be a method).
providing a plurality of waste receptacles, each waste receptacle disposed in one of a plurality of locations in one of a plurality of facilities; (see paragraphs 0079-0080, 0104, 0137-0138, and 0112, Examiner's note: teaches one or multiple units at a location (see paragraphs 0070 0080 and 0112) where these trash receptables are at a commercial or residential location (see paragraph 0107). Further teaches aggregating this collected trash information across receptacles for competitions (see paragraphs 0137-0138)).
providing, for each waste receptacle, a scale sensor associated with that waste receptacle, the scale sensor connected to that waste receptacle, the scale sensor measuring a characteristic of contents of that waste receptacle, the scale sensor outputting real-time data, the characteristic being a quantity, a quality, or other characteristic of the contents; ( see paragraphs 0016, 0044, 0094, 0102, 0104, and 0116, Examiner's note: teaches a fill sensor (see paragraph 0016), a laser sensor and counter (see paragraph 0094 and 0102), electronic sensor (see paragraph 0104), a scanner or camera or weight scale (see paragraph 0116) to identify and count objects. Further paragraph 0044 teaches processing information in real time).
receiving the real-time data of the characteristic for each waste receptacle; combining the characteristics of each waste receptacle to a real-time data aggregation record, the real-time data aggregation record comprising accumulated waste flow per day per location, diversion rate, and diversion for each location; identifying a waste reduction goal for the plurality of waste receptacles; generating, based on the quantity or the quality of the characteristic of the contents and the waste reduction goal, a waste reduction recommendation for the plurality of waste receptacles; (see paragraphs 0121, 0133-0134, 0137-0138, 0143, 0146, 0148-0150, 0152- 0153, Examiner's note: teaches information may be aggregated across location and connected users (see paragraphs 0121 and 0146), where the information may be displayed on various displays relating to points and posts including at the receptable or other devices (see paragraph 0133-0134, 0143, and 0148). Paragraphs 0137-0138, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153 teach the system providing different information to a user or users by way of a device based on comparison of user information recycled to a goal or threshold, this is a "waste reduction recommendation" as the system is recommending a user based on their waste reduction recycle history on for example a social network or to other users, it is also "waste reduction recommendation" in the sense that the a user is being recommended to be provided a coupon based on their recycle history waste reduction for example).
displaying, on an electronic dashboard: a real-time representation of quantity and/or quality of contents in the one or more receptacle based on the real-time data aggregation record, (See paragraphs 0014, 0143, 0148, and Figures 10-12, Examiner’s note: teaches multiple different displays for displaying totals related to recycled content).
a status of a competitive challenge based on the quantity of the contents, (see paragraphs 0136-0138, 0146, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153, Examiner’s note: Crediting the users who are part of a recycling team (e.g. a competitive challenge) with number of products of a specific item at a specific place (see paragraph 0146). Alternatively or additionally providing the environmental impact for placing the item in the box (see paragraph 0136), this is a competitive challenge as it incentivizes users to provide more items as there environmental impact is known and can change based on the number of items. This could alternatively read on the various information collected and provided based on the user’s recycling and meeting some goal in paragraphs 0137-0138, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153).
and the waste reduction recommendation, and managing the competitive challenge, the competitive challenge associated with users collecting and sorting waste based on the characteristics of contents in the one or more receptacle relative to the waste reduction goal, the competitive challenge comprising a live ranking of waste collection at each of the plurality of facilities. (see paragraphs 0121, 0133-0134, 0137-0138, 0143, 0146, 0148-0150, 0152- 0153, Examiner's note: teaches information may be aggregated across location and connected users (see paragraphs 0121 and 0146), where the information may be displayed on various displays relating to points and posts including at the receptable or other devices (see paragraph 0133-0134, 0143, and 0148). Paragraphs 0137-0138, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153 teach the system providing different information to a user or users by way of a device based on comparison of user information recycled to a goal or threshold, this is a "waste reduction recommendation" as the system is recommending a user based on their waste reduction recycle history on for example a social network or to other users, it is also "waste reduction recommendation" in the sense that the a user is being recommended to be provided a coupon based on their recycle history waste reduction for example).
Sridhar does not expressly teach (1) the scale sensor mounted underneath that waste receptable and (2) the waste reduction recommendation comprising a layout improvement of the one or more locations, the layout improvement comprising a plurality of recommended locations to deploy the plurality of waste receptacles
However, Balachandran which is in the art of aggregating measurements and collections from data collected from bins over time to generate reports and trends over time and then provide them to the user (see abstract) teaches (1) the scale sensor mounted underneath that waste receptable (see Figures 2-3B and paragraph 0011-0012 and 0040- 0041, Examiner's note: teaches a platform under the waste receptable that measures weight).
and (2) the waste reduction recommendation comprising a layout improvement of the one or more locations, the layout improvement comprising a plurality of recommended locations to deploy the plurality of waste receptacles (see paragraphs 0074, 0075 and 0081, Examiner’s note: teaches measuring and calculating waste distribution among waste types to computer optimal bin sizes to be calculate for each waste type (see paragraph 0074) and further teaches using comparisons to reallocate waste measurement devices to optimize their distribution within the facility (see paragraph 0076). Further teaches this information may be displayed, see paragraph 0081)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sridhar with the aforementioned teachings from Balachandran with the motivation of providing the commonly known feature or knowledge that to weigh something it can be placed on top of a sensor or device in order to be weighed (see Balachandran Figures 2-3B and paragraph 0011-0012 and 0040-0041) as well as a commonly known feature of redistributing or reallocating information according to user use (see Balachandran paragraphs 0074, 0075 and 0081), when Sridhar clearly teaches weighting information for use in the system of Sridhar it just does not expressly teach where the weight sensor is located in the recycling unit (see Sridhar paragraphs 0011, 0016, 0116, and 0157) and reallocating or redistributing information according to user use is known (see Sridhar paragraph 0104).
As per claim 45, Sridhar teaches A method of interacting with users in collection and sorting of waste, the method comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: a network of connected trash collection devices that are configured to generate recycling analytics and provide incentives to users and facilitate planning of downstream operations. Further teaches that this can be a method).
tracking, in real-time, waste collected at a plurality of waste receptacles deployed at one or more locations in one of a plurality of facilities, (see paragraphs 0044, 0079-0080, 0104, and 0137-0138, Examiner’s note: teaches one or multiple units at a location (see paragraphs 0070-0080) where these trash receptables are at a commercial or residential location (see paragraph 0107). Further teaches aggregating this collected trash information across receptacles for competitions (see paragraphs 0137-0138). Further paragraph 0044 teaches providing or processing information in real time).
the tracking resulting in, for each waste receptacle, a characteristic of contents of that waste receptacle, the characteristic being a quantity, a quality, or other characteristic of the contents; ( see paragraphs 0016, 0044, 0094, 0102, 0104, and 0116, Examiner's note: teaches a fill sensor (see paragraph 0016), a laser sensor and counter (see paragraph 0094 and 0102), electronic sensor (see paragraph 0104), a scanner or camera or weight scale (see paragraph 0116) to identify and count objects. Further paragraph 0044 teaches processing information in real time).
and combining the characteristics of each waste receptacle to a real-time data aggregation record, the real-time data aggregation record comprising accumulated waste flow per day per location, diversion rate, and diversion for each location; identifying a waste reduction goal the plurality of waste receptacles; generating, based on the quantity or the quality of the characteristic of the contents and the waste reduction goal, a waste reduction recommendation for the plurality of waste receptacles, (see paragraphs 0121, 0133-0134, 0137-0138, 0143, 0146, 0148-0150, 0152- 0153, Examiner's note: teaches information may be aggregated across location and connected users (see paragraphs 0121 and 0146), where the information may be displayed on various displays relating to points and posts including at the receptable or other devices (see paragraph 0133-0134, 0143, and 0148). Paragraphs 0137-0138, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153 teach the system providing different information to a user or users by way of a device based on comparison of user information recycled to a goal or threshold, this is a "waste reduction recommendation" as the system is recommending a user based on their waste reduction recycle history on for example a social network or to other users, it is also "waste reduction recommendation" in the sense that the a user is being recommended to be provided a coupon based on their recycle history waste reduction for example).
and providing an electronic dashboard, the electronic dashboard displaying: a real-time representation of quantity of contents in the plurality of waste receptacles based on the real-time data aggregation record; (See paragraphs 0014, 0143, 0148, and Figures 10-12, Examiner’s note: teaches multiple different displays for displaying totals related to recycled content).
a status of a competitive challenge based on the quantity of the contents, (see paragraphs 0136-0138, 0146, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153, Examiner’s note: Crediting the users who are part of a recycling team (e.g. a competitive challenge) with number of products of a specific item at a specific place (see paragraph 0146). Alternatively or additionally providing the environmental impact for placing the item in the box (see paragraph 0136), this is a competitive challenge as it incentivizes users to provide more items as there environmental impact is known and can change based on the number of items. This could alternatively read on the various information collected and provided based on the user’s recycling and meeting some goal in paragraphs 0137-0138, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153).
and the waste reduction goal (see paragraphs 0121, 0137-0138, 0146, 0148-0150, 0152-0153, Examiner’s note: teaches information may be aggregated across location and connected users (see paragraphs 0121 and 0146), where the information may be displayed on various displays relating to points and posts including at the receptable or other devices (see paragraph 0148). Paragraphs 0137-0138, 0149-0150, and 0152-0153 teach the system providing different information to a user or users by way of a device based on comparison of user information recycled to a goal or threshold, this is a “waste reduction recommendation” as the system is recommending a user based on their waste reduction recycle history on for example a social network or to other users, it is also “waste reduction recommendation” in the sense that the a user is being recommended to be provided a coupon based on their recycle history waste reduction for example).
Sridhar does not expressly teach the waste reduction recommendation comprising a layout improvement of the one or more locations, the layout improvement comprising a plurality of recommended locations to deploy the plurality of waste receptacles
However, Balachandran which is in the art of aggregating measurements and collections from data collected from bins over time to generate reports and trends over time and then provide them to the user (see abstract) teaches the waste reduction recommendation comprising a layout improvement of the one or more locations, the layout improvement comprising a plurality of recommended locations to deploy the plurality of waste receptacles (see paragraphs 0074, 0075 and 0081, Examiner’s note: teaches measuring and calculating waste distribution among waste types to computer optimal bin sizes to be calculate for each waste type (see paragraph 0074) and further teaches using comparisons to reallocate waste measurement devices to optimize their distribution within the facility (see paragraph 0076). Further teaches this information may be displayed, see paragraph 0081)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sridhar with the aforementioned teachings from Balachandran with the motivation of providing a commonly known feature of redistributing or reallocating information according to user use (see Balachandran paragraphs 0074, 0075 and 0081), when Sridhar teaches reallocating or redistributing information according to user use is known (see Sridhar paragraph 0104).
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Gonen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0082355) teaches an incentive reduction system that measures waste and reconfigured truck routes to save resources. Further teaches determining diversion information (see abstract and paragraph 0122)
-Kurani (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2020/0082354) teaches a smart waste management system where bins are monitored for fill and population and garbage collection routes are optimized and incentives are provided to residents (see abstract)
- Casella et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2007/0219862) teaches a system and method for encouraging a user to continue to recycle to receive based on rewards based on information captured from a recycling container (See abstract)
- Gonen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2008/0296374) teaches a recycling kiosk and method for providing an incentive related to recycling and the weight is below the receptacle (see Figures 2 and 3 reference characters 210 and 310 and abstract)
- Gonen et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2009/0014363) teaches a drop off recycling system and method for providing a reward (see abstract)
-Yang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0025589) teaches a waste compression device and providing a reward to a user based on the reward scheme (see abstract)
-Shuster-Arechiga et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2014/0214505) teaches a box for recycling and providing financial rewards (see abstract and Figure 1)
-Frybarger (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2015/0144012) teaches an interactive waste receptacle including in a display additional information like advertisements, games, and pertinent information (see abstract)
- Whitman et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0011363) teaches a system for tracking and managing waste or recycle materials (see abstract) and providing recommendations to a user (see Figure 5)
-Rodoni (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2017/0243363) teaches a system for waste management (See abstract) which provides recommendations based on the audit, such as how to reduce the waste, how to reduce a cost of the waste, and where to transport the waste (see paragraph 0028)
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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 Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights