DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: reference characters 1, 12, 13, 17, 18,19, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 102, and 103.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
On page 1, the subheading “Although There” is a misplaced phrase. It appears the phrase is intended to be the part of the beginning of the third paragraph under the subheading “Technical Field.”
On page 2, line 6, the term “sanification section.”
On page 2, line 19, the term “sanified” and its presence throughout the specification.
On page 4, last paragraph, the term “Termocanner.”
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because they include reference characters which are not enclosed within parentheses.
Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 3-11 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claims are rejected for the following reasons.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The claims are not all in one sentence form. Each claim must be in one sentence form only.
Claim 1 is directed to a fully automated system (1) for sanitizing shopping trolleys, consisting of 4 parts, identified as Zone A, Zone B, Zone C, Zone D with sequential operation corresponding to 4 Phases. However, the claim does not clearly and positively specify the structural components which make up Zone A, Zone B, Zone C, and Zone D.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said Zone A (100) also contains a general electrical panel (19) with inverter serving the off-grid photovoltaic system (24), system placed on the cover of said sanitizing apparatus.” However, claim 1, does not positively specify what Zone A (100) initially contains. It is also unclear what the term “system” is intended to refer to in the recitation “system placed on the cover of said sanitizing apparatus.” It is unclear whether the claim is referring to “the off-grid photovoltaic system (24)” recited in the claim or another undefined structure.
In addition, the recitations "the off-grid photovoltaic system (24)”, “the cover,” and “said sanitizing apparatus” in claim 1 lack sufficient antecedent bases.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “n. 4 dispensing nozzles (6), or more, designed to atomize the sanitizing solution, by means of 2 or more direction cannulas fed by a special pump” which is confusing and unclear. It is unclear what the term “n. 4” is intended to denote. It is also unclear as to which components are designed to atomize the sanitizing solution. It is unclear whether it is the dispensing nozzles (6) which are designed to atomize the sanitizing solution, or the 2 or more direction cannulas fed by a special pump which are designed to atomize the sanitizing solution.
In claim 1, the phrase “a special pump” also renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what particular structure is intended to be denoted by the term “special.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first (100)" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second (101)" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the ceiling" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 1, the phrase “a special rail” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what particular structure is intended to be denoted by the term “special.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the free storage lane (Z)" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the software system" in lines 20-21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “trolleys that are further disinfected titled by n. 2 UV lamps (15) for each lane (Z), placed before door 16,” in lines 21-22, which is confusing and unclear. It is unclear what the term “n. 2” is intended to denote. It is also unclear which particular door is intended to be referred to by the term “door 16.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the third (102)" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 1, the phrase “a special totem” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what particular structure is intended to be denoted by the term “special.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said totem (30)" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are two occurrences of the term “totem” in claim 1, and the recitation “said totem” create confusion as to which, among the two, is being referred to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said totem (30) is also equipped with a Termoscanner with temperature detector and the presence of a mask,” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what particular structure is intended to be denoted by the term “Termoscanner.” The particular functions intended to be performed by the “Termoscanner” are also unclear.
Claim 2 begins with the recitation “Totally automated system (1) for sanitizing shopping trolleys according to claim 1.” For clarity and consistency of claim terms, claim 2 should begin with “The Fully automated system (1) for sanitizing shopping trolleys according to claim 1.”
Claim 2 recites the limitation “said Zone A (100) consists of a storage compartment for used shopping trolleys, closed by automated door "3" (3) in entrance and automated door "5" (5) for accessing the trolleys to the distinct Zone B (101), which opens when the aforementioned entrance door (3) is closed.” However, the transitional phrase "consisting of" excludes any element not specified in the claim following the phrase “consisting of.” Thus, the claim is inconsistent with the limitation further recited in claim 2 which specifies that Zone A (100) “includes a conveyor belt (4) equipped with its own motor, and the limitation recited in claim 1 which specified that “Zone A (100) also contains a general electrical panel (19) with inverter serving the off-grid photovoltaic system (24).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The reference Kiter (US 2008/0178412) teaches a fully automated system (100) for sanitizing shopping trolleys (10) (see Abstract; para. [0045]; Fig. 1). The fully automated system (100) includes a prewash station (104), a wash station (106), a rinse station (108), a drying station (110), a physical disinfecting station (112), a conveyor (104), a recovery tank (116), a frame (102), and a control system (128) (see paras. [0013]-[0014]).The reference Kiter further teaches that frame (102) comprises: an elongated, rigid structure assembled to surround and support the prewash station (104), the wash station (106), the rinse station (108), the drying station (110), the physical disinfecting station (112), the conveyor (114), and the recovery tank 116) (see para. [0015]; Fig. 1). The reference Kiter further teaches that frame includes a frame entrance ramp (130) at a first end (132) and a frame exit ramp (134) at a second end (136) (see para. [0015]; Fig. 1).
The reference Gardiner et al. (US 2020/0306395) also teaches a fully automated system (100) for sanitizing shopping trolleys (110) (see Abstract; paras. [0016]; [0029]; Fig. 1). The fully automated system (100) includes 4 parts which can be identified as Zone A, Zone B, Zone C, and Zone D, which are arranged in sequence for carrying out a sequential operation corresponding to 4 phases (see para. [0029]; Fig. 1). Zone A (102) comprises a sanitization structure (102) which is fixed to a surface and coupled to a reservoir (116) that contains a sanitizing agent, the sanitization structure (102) including a plurality of nozzles (120) that are configured to apply the sanitizing agent to the shopping trolleys (110). Zone B (104) comprises a drying structure (104) which is axially aligned with the sanitization structure (102), the drying structure including a plurality of air ducts (132) that are configured to apply a gas current to the shopping trolleys. Zone C (106) comprises an ultraviolet (UV) light structure (106) which is axially aligned with the sanitization structure (102), the UV light structure including a plurality of UV lamps that are configured to apply UV light to the shopping trolleys. Zone D (108) comprises a UV curtain structure (108) which is axially aligned with the sanitization structure (102), the UV curtain structure (108) including a plurality of UV curtains that are configured to block a portion of the UV light (see para. [0029]; Fig. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lessanework T Seifu whose telephone number is (571)270-3153. The examiner can normally be reached M-T 9:00 am - 6:30 pm; F 9:00 am - 1:00 pm.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/LESSANEWORK SEIFU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774