DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 45-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 45, 57 and 59 include “is vertically seen higher than the first elevation.” This renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what it means to be “seen higher.” It has been interpreted to mean is positioned or located above the first elevation but clarification is necessary.
Claim 58 recites the limitation "the devalued waste object" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 57 refers to waste objects, but does not mention devaluing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 45-47, 49, 51, 53-55, 54-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE10340244 to Windelbandt. Paragraph citations below to machine translation which has been provided.
Regarding claim 45 Windelbandt discloses a system for collecting waste objects for recycling, said waste objects being deposit-return objects (para 0008), comprising: a container return system, having an inlet (9), recognition means (25/26), and an outlet for a waste object (see figure 1); and a carrier arrangement (4) adapted to receive the waste object from the container return system at a first location having a first elevation (adjacent 2), and adapted to transport and deliver the waste object to a second location for storage or further transport (adjacent 3), the second location having a second elevation which is vertically seen higher than the first elevation (see figure 1), wherein the system further comprises a buffer arrangement (2) adapted to receive the waste object from the container return system, and to deliver the waste object to the carrier arrangement at the first location (see figure 1 and para 0061), and the carrier arrangement comprises at least one carrier (45) adapted to move repeatedly between the first location and the second location.
Regarding claim 46 Windelbandt discloses the carrier arrangement is a closed loop path carrier arrangement configured in such a way that the at least one carrier is adapted to move repeatedly between the first location (adjacent 2) and the second location (adjacent 3) along a closed loop path (see figure 1), a displacement of the at least one carrier from the first location to the second location occurring on a different portion of the path than a displacement of the at least one carrier from the second location to the first location (see figure 1), wherein said displacement of the at least one carrier between the first location and the second location is substantially vertical (see figure), and wherein the at least one carrier is a paddle (45) having a generally flat surface adapted to push said waste object in a tubular structure of the carrier arrangement (see enclosure around 4).
Regarding claim 47 Windelbandt discloses the container return system is adapted to receive waste objects of different materials and/or different sizes, and the waste objects of different materials and/or different sizes are mixed together (para 0008).
Regarding claim 49 Windelbandt discloses the buffer arrangement is adapted to receive the waste object from the container return system at a third location (see figure adjacent inlet 9) and wherein the buffer arrangement comprises sliding means adapted to transport the waste object from said third location to the first location (see figure 1 and location/manner of transport between 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 51 Windelbandt discloses the buffer arrangement is adapted to receive the waste object from the container return system irrespective of a location of the at least one carrier (see figure 1, 2 holds and reads container before transfer to 4).
Regarding claim 53 Windelbandt discloses the carrier arrangement is a closed loop path carrier arrangement and comprises a plurality of carriers (45) adapted to move repeatedly between the first location and the second location along said closed loop path (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 54 Windelbandt discloses the at least one carrier is adapted to transport and deliver at least 2 waste objects concurrently during a displacement between the first location and the second location. The vertical conveyor is capable of this and thus reads on the claim. See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 55 Windelbandt discloses the container return system is a reverse vending machine, RVM (para 0002).
Regarding claim 57 Windelbandt discloses a process of transporting and collecting waste objects by a system for collecting waste objects for recycling, said waste objects being deposit-return objects (para 0008), the system comprising a container return system (see figure 1), a buffer arrangement (2) and a carrier arrangement (4), which carrier arrangement comprises at least one carrier (45) adapted to move repeatedly between a first location having a first elevation and a second location having a second elevation which is vertically seen higher than the first elevation and higher than said outlet of the container return system (see figure 1 and discussion above), wherein the process comprises the steps of: - receiving, by the buffer arrangement, a waste object from the container return system (object going into 2); - buffering the waste object by the buffer arrangement until the carrier arrangement is positioned to receive the waste object (holding object in 2), - delivering the waste object from the buffer arrangement to the carrier arrangement at the first location (rotating 2 to transfer object to 4); and - transporting and delivering the waste object by the carrier arrangement to the second location (transporting object via 4 to 3).
Regarding claim 58 Windelbandt discloses the step of transporting and delivering the devaluated waste object by the carrier arrangement to the second location comprises transporting the devaluated waste object by the at least one carrier in a substantially vertical displacement between the first location and the second location (see figure 1).
Regarding claim 59 Windelbandt discloses a system for collecting waste objects for recycling, said waste objects being deposit-return objects, comprising: a carrier arrangement located to receive a devaluated waste object from an RVM at a first location having a first elevation (4 receiving object from 2), and adapted to transport and deliver the devaluated waste object to a second location for storage or further transport (transport via 4 to 3), the second location having a second elevation which is vertically seen higher than the first elevation (see figure 1), wherein the system further comprises a buffer arrangement (2) located to receive the devaluated waste object directly from an outlet of the RVM at a third location having a third elevation different from the first and second elevations (see figure 1), and to deliver the devaluated waste object to the carrier arrangement at the first location, the carrier arrangement comprises at least one carrier (45) adapted to move repeatedly between the first location and the second location, the second elevation is higher than said outlet of the RVM (see figure 1).
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.
Claim(s) 48, 50 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windelbandt.
Regarding claim 48 Windelbandt discloses that the paddle (45) is smaller than some of the containers handled (see figure 1) but does not specifically disclose said system is configured for only accepting a certain range of objects, and the flat surface of said paddle is at least 30% shorter than the maximum length of the waste object that the system for collecting waste objects is configured to accept.
That said it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have included said system is configured for only accepting a certain range of objects, and the flat surface of said paddle is at least 30% shorter than the maximum length of the waste object that the system for collecting waste objects is configured to accept, because changes of size or proportion do not patentably distinguish a claim from the prior art where they do not function differently. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Windelbandt can accommodate a bottle that is significantly longer that the paddle 45 is wide. It is further noted that the article being handled does not generally limit the apparatus. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 50 Windelbandt discloses that the distance between the distance between the top of the inlet and the ground is 1.5 m (see para 0067) but is silent regarding a vertical distance between the first location and the second location is within the range of 50 cm to 400 cm.
That said it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have included a vertical distance between the first location and the second location is within the range of 50 cm to 400 cm because such a range is consistent with the dimensions shown in Windelbandt and because changes of size or proportion do not patentably distinguish a claim from the prior art where they do not function differently. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Regarding claim 56 Windelbandt discloses that the distance between the distance between the top of the inlet and the ground is 1.5 m (see para 0067) but is silent regarding a horizontal distance between said inlet of the RVM and the second location is within the range of 50cm to 200cm and/or a vertical distance between said inlet of the RVM and the second location is within the range of 50 cm to 300 cm and/or a vertical distance between the first location and the second location is within the range of 50cm to 300cm and/or a vertical distance between the first location and the third location is within the range of 20 cm to 150 cm.
That said it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have included a horizontal distance between said inlet of the RVM and the second location is within the range of 50cm to 200cm and/or a vertical distance between said inlet of the RVM and the second location is within the range of 50 cm to 300 cm and/or a vertical distance between the first location and the second location is within the range of 50cm to 300cm and/or a vertical distance between the first location and the third location is within the range of 20 cm to 150 cm because such a dimensions are consistent with the dimensions shown in Windelbandt and because changes of size or proportion do not patentably distinguish a claim from the prior art where they do not function differently. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windelbandt in view of US 11,952,209 to Dowdell.
Regarding claim 52 Windelbandt discloses wherein at least one of the buffer arrangement and the carrier arrangement are adapted to collect, carry and deliver liquids concurrently with the waste object (see figure 1 and discussion of 2/4) but does not disclose at least one liquid nozzle adapted to deliver a cleaning liquid into at least one component of the system chosen from the group of the buffer arrangement and the carrier arrangement, for cleaning of the system and/or of the waste object.
Dowdell teaches a similar RVM system including at least one liquid nozzle (26) adapted to deliver a cleaning liquid into at least one component of the system chosen from the group of the buffer arrangement and the carrier arrangement, for cleaning of the system and/or of the waste object (col. 3 lines 35-40) in order to clean the machine while it is processing items (col. 3 lines 35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims to have modified Windelbandt to include at least one liquid nozzle adapted to deliver a cleaning liquid into at least one component of the system chosen from the group of the buffer arrangement and the carrier arrangement, for cleaning of the system and/or of the waste object, as taught by Dowdell, in order to clean the machine while it is processing items.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional cited references show other RVMs and transportation systems affiliated with RVM similar to those claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK C HAGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:15-4:45 (PST).
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, Saul Rodriguez can be reached at 571-272-7097. 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.
/MARK C HAGEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3652