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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 18, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the RCE filed on March 18, 2026.
Claims 13 and 20 are currently amended. Claims 5-6 have been canceled.
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-5, filed March 18, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-4 and 7-20 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference. Examiner notes that new prior art is being brought in to teach the limitation regarding a kiosk housing and user interface. Applicant argues on pages 2-3 that Kumar doesn’t teach “along a defined transport path.” Applicant is correct. Klemmack teaches the limitation as seen in last office action mailed on December 18, 2025 (page 4) and below (see bolded). Examiner notes since there is no formal definition of defined transport path, Examiner interprets this to mean transporting product from point A to point B which Klemmack teaches in paragraph 28 as seen below.
Claim 1. Klemmack teaches: A recycling kiosk system, comprising:
a controller (see paragraphs 48-49);
a communications interface (see paragraph 53);
a user interface device configured to receive, from a user interacting with the user interface, user identification information associated with the user (see paragraph 36);
a kiosk housing including the user interface device and having a first aperture for receiving recyclable material, to identify an ID tag on a primary containment unit containing recyclable material and the controller associates the ID tag with the user account (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 29 and 36);
a conveyor system provided in the kiosk housing configured to transport the recyclable material from the first aperture along a defined transport path (see paragraph 28);
wherein the controller retrieves a user account via the communications interface based on the user identification information (see paragraph 36);
wherein the controller assigns a value to identified recyclable material and associates the ID tag with the user account (see paragraph 36); and
wherein the controller associates the value with the user account (see paragraph 36).
Klemmack does not explicitly teach an inclined conveyor system. Kumar teaches an inclined conveyor system (see paragraphs 117 and 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack and Kumar to utilize an inclined conveyor system as it can assist in the sorting process of different metal alloys as taught by Kumar (see paragraphs 117 and 118).
Paragraph 28 of Klemmack:
The conveyor system 102 can include one or more motors or actuators configured to move the belt 112 and bins 106 from a first end 114 of the conveyor system 102 to a second end 116 of the conveyor system 102, and vice versa. In the illustrated example of FIGS. 1-3 , during operation, the side rails 108 of the conveyor system 102 can be stationary, while the cleats 110 move with the belt 112 and relative to the side rails 108. As such, each bin 106 can be moved along the conveyor system 102 in a sequential manner, from one end to the other. Movement of the conveyor system 102 can be automated and/or user operated. For instance, the conveyor system 102 can be configured to move upon one or more events occurring, such as once a unique code has been scanned and/or an image of the conveyor system has been captured. In such instances, the conveyor system 102 can be configured to index the bins 106 by a predetermined distance (e.g., by a single bin) and/or include a sensor (not shown) that indicates a next bin is in a desired position. An operator, in some instances, can index the bins 106 via a control panel 120 or other suitable method.
Applicant argues on page 4 that Whittier does not disclose “vision system configured to identify, from at least one image, one or more types of the recyclable material, the vision system comprising one or more cameras configured to capture the at least one image of the recyclable material.” Applicant is correct. Klemmack teaches the limitation as seen in last office action mailed on December 18, 2025 (page 12) and below (see bolded).
Claim 13. Whittier teaches: A recycling kiosk system, comprising:
a kiosk housing (see, e.g., Figure 2 and ¶s 10 and 29-39 teaching an apparatus for processing recyclable containers as well as ¶ 114 teaching that the invention can utilize graphical user interfaces for users to interface with the unit, though Examiner notes that this is further addressed below);
a hopper for receiving recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 2 feature 210 and ¶s 28, 29, and 32 teaching input platform 210 that receives the recyclable material; see alternatively ¶ 21 teaching a hopper for storage);
one or more containment units corresponding to the one or more types of the recyclable material (see, e.g., ¶s 21, 70, and 80-89 teaching ultimate placement of the materials in bins);
a sorting system configured to place an item of recyclable material in one or more of the containment units corresponding to an identified type of the item of recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 1 features 120, 150, 160, and 180 teaching determining the type of recyclable material, i.e., the “defining characteristic,” and directing the container to the appropriate device and bin; see also, e.g., Figure 2 feature 250 teaching a processor that, as taught in ¶s 43, 47, and 50-62 takes the obtained information regarding the identity of the material and controls the apparatus to route the material along a length of the conveyor belt to a specific gate and bin); and
an illumination system configured to illuminate the recyclable material (see, e.g., ¶s 35-37 teaching illuminating the recyclable material with a path of light; see further ¶s 44-45 further teaching light reflection and mirrors to scan the materials);
an inclined conveyor system configured to transport the recyclable material from the hopper to the sorting system (see, e.g., ¶s 34, 59, and 71 teaching that the conveyor path 220 may be slightly inclined to use gravity to force the container against a pusher); and
wherein the hopper, the vision system, the sorting system, and the inclined conveyor system are provided in the kiosk housing and wherein the vision system and illumination system are provided perpendicular to the inclined conveyor system (see, e.g., Figure 2 teaching that the hopper 210, conveyor belt 220A/230, the sorting into bins 265A-C, and the vision and illumination system 235A-B (i.e., light emitting and receiving devices) are all enclosed within the kiosk/apparatus; see further ¶s 51-62 teaching gates 265A-265D into which the appropriate materials are pushed as determine by the processor 250, ¶s 35-37 that features 235A and B are light emitting and receiving devices, respectively, ¶s 32-34 that path 220 with pushers 230 and drive means 231 and 232 may be toothed belts, i.e., a conveyor system, that propels the materials up an incline; Examiner notes that the illumination and vision system are perpendicular to the inclined conveyor system as shown in Figure 2).
Whittier does not explicitly teach a vision system configured to identify, from at least one image, one or more types of the recyclable material, the vision system comprising one or more cameras configured to capture the at least one image of the recyclable material and wherein a field of view of the one or more cameras includes a width and a length of the inclined conveyor system. Klemmack teaches a vision system configured to identify, from at least one image, one or more types of the recyclable material, the vision system comprising one or more cameras configured to capture the at least one image of the recyclable material and wherein a field of view of the one or more cameras includes a width and a length of the inclined conveyor system (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 29-30 and 40-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Whittier and Klemmack to utilize a vision system configured to identify, from at least one image, one or more types of the recyclable material, the vision system comprising one or more cameras configured to capture the at least one image of the recyclable material and wherein a field of view of the one or more cameras includes a width and a length of the inclined conveyor system because the vision system can identify objects seen in an image as being recyclable and non- recyclable as taught by Klemmack (see paragraph 41).
Applicant argues on page 5, “The Examiner suggests that Whittier in view of Klemmack renders claims 13 and 20 obvious. However, as explicitly set forth at least in Whittier para [0025], [0035]-[0037], the use of a size detector 235 is critical to the operation of the Whittier device. Substituting the size detector with another type of sensor system used for an entirely different purpose would render Whittier inoperable for its explicitly disclosed purpose.” Examiner disagrees. Whittier explicitly cites in paragraphs 39-40 scanning devices may be used for identifying different types of recyclable materials.
[0039] In the system of FIG. 2, scanning station 240 includes scanning device 241. In one embodiment, scanning device 241 includes a component which is configured for visually detecting bar code or other identifying indicia on the surface of the container, such as indicia which may be printed on a label adhered to the container. Scanning device 241 may be capable of detecting indicia which is located on the top, side or bottom of a container. Further, FIG. 2 depicts scanning device 241 as being positioned above path 220, scanning device 241 may be disposed in any suitable location, such as along one or more sides of path 220.
[0040] It should be appreciated that any suitable device may be employed for determining the identifying characteristic(s) of a container, and that any number and type of characteristics may be determined. For example, scanning device 241 may include a component which is capable of determining the structure and properties of a material or compound from which a container is made. For example, scanning device 241 may include one or more components configured for determining the characteristic(s) of a container via mass spectrometry, resonance imaging, optical recognition, resonance ionization mass spectrometry (RIMS), and/or other techniques. The invention is not limited to any particular device or technique for identifying the characteristic(s) of a container, or the speed at which identification is performed.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klemmack (US 2023/0031937, hereinafter “Klemmack”) in view of Curtis et al. (US 2018/0341929, hereinafter “Curtis”) and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0229133, hereinafter “Kumar”).
As per claim 1, Klemmack teaches: A recycling kiosk system, comprising:
a controller (see paragraphs 48-49);
a communications interface (see paragraph 53);
a user interface device configured to receive, from a user interacting with the user interface, user identification information associated with the user (see paragraph 36);
a housing including the user interface device and having a first aperture for receiving recyclable material (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 29 and 36);
an identification system provided in the housing configured to identify the recyclable material, to identify an ID tag on a primary containment unit containing recyclable material and the controller associates the ID tag with the user account (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 29 and 36);
an conveyor system provided in the housing configured to transport the recyclable material from the first aperture along a defined transport path (see paragraph 28);
wherein the controller retrieves a user account via the communications interface based on the user identification information (see paragraph 36);
wherein the controller assigns a value to identified recyclable material and associates the ID tag with the user account (see paragraph 36); and
wherein the controller associates the value with the user account (see paragraph 36).
Klemmack does not explicitly teach a kiosk housing including a user interface. Curtis teaches a kiosk housing including a user interface (see paragraph 27 and Figure 1, items 102, 104 and 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack and Curtis to have a kiosk housing with a user interface as it allows for recycling at a retail location as taught by Curtis (see paragraphs 4, 5, 25 and 44).
Klemmack does not explicitly teach an inclined conveyor system. Kumar teaches an inclined conveyor system (see paragraphs 117 and 118).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack and Kumar to utilize an inclined conveyor system as it can assist in the sorting process of different metal alloys as taught by Kumar (see paragraphs 117 and 118).
As per claim 2, Klemmack, Curtis and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. Klemmack further teaches wherein the value is a monetary value and the controller associates the monetary value with the user account (see paragraph 36).
As per claim 3, Klemmack, Curtis and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. Curtis teaches a printer configured to generate a receipt with the value assigned to the identified recyclable material (see paragraph 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack and Curtis to have a kiosk housing with printer so a payment or reimbursement can be made directly to user at kiosk as taught by Curtis (see paragraph 47).
As per claim 4, Klemmack, Curtis and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. Klemmack further teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the identification system is an Al vision system configured to identify one or more of a material and a type of the recyclable material (see paragraphs 33-34).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klemmack (US 2023/0031937) in view of Curtis et al. (US 2018/0341929) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0229133) and further in view of Zeng et al. (US 2021/0178432, hereinafter “Zeng”).
As per claim 7, Klemmack, Curtis and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. Zeng further teaches: comprising a second aperture configured to receive a primary containment unit and wherein the first aperture is configured to receive individual items of recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 3B teaching that the first aperture, feature 120, is configured to receive individual items of recyclable material, and a second aperture, 121, that is the primary containment unit for non-recyclable materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack, Curtis and Kumar with Zeng to have a first aperture configured for recyclable materials and a second aperture configured to receive a primary containment unit because it allows for the sorting and recycling of trash as taught by Zeng (see paragraph 40).
As per claim 8, Klemmack, Curtis, Kumar and Zeng teach the limitations of claim 7. Zeng further teaches: comprising a containment unit having a first area for storing one or more primary containment units and a second area for storing one or more individual items of recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 3B teaching that the first aperture, feature 120, is configured to receive individual items of recyclable material, and a second aperture, 121, that is the primary containment unit for non-recyclable materials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack, Curtis, Kumar with Zeng to have a first area for storing one or more primary containment units and a second area for storing one or more individual items of recyclable material because it allows for the sorting and recycling of trash as taught by Zeng (see paragraph 40).
As per claim 9, Klemmack, Curtis, Kumar and Zeng teach the limitations of claim 7 Zeng further teaches: wherein the identification system comprises a sorting system configured to transport one or more individual items of recyclable material to a first storage unit and one or more primary containment units to a second storage unit (see, e.g., Figure 3B teaching that the first aperture, feature 120, is configured to receive individual items of recyclable material, and a second aperture, 121, that is the primary containment unit for non-recyclable materials; see further paragraphs 126-128 teaching a baffle 131 that is controlled by motor 130 and operates in response to a control signal based on the recognition of whether the material is a recyclable material, which would go to the first storage unit 120, or non-recyclable material, which would go to the second storage unit 121).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack, Curtis, Kumar with Zeng to have a sorting system configured to transport one or more individual items of recyclable material to a first storage unit and one or more primary containment units to a second storage unit because it allows for the sorting and recycling of trash as taught by Zeng (see paragraph 40).
As per claim 10, Klemmack, Curtis and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. Zeng further teaches: wherein the controller monitors an amount of processed recyclable material and communicates the amount of processed material to a web-based server via the communications interface (see, e.g., paragraphs 97-101 teaching using a counting program to count the amount of recyclable trash items placed into the machine, and if a threshold is exceeded, a control signal is sent to a cloud server that the recyclables need to be taken away).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Klemmack, Curtis and Kumar with Zeng wherein the controller monitors an amount of processed recyclable material and communicates the amount of processed material to a web-based server via the communications interface because it allows for the sorting and recycling of trash as taught by t (see paragraph 40).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Klemmack (US 2023/0031937) in view of Curtis et al. (US 2018/0341929) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0229133) and further in view of Fick (US 2009/0243369, hereinafter “Fick”).
As per claim 11, Klemmack, Curtis and Kumar teach the limitations of claim 1. Fick teaches: wherein the housing is configured to be moved from a first location to a second location via a transportation vehicle (see, e.g., Figure 1 and paragraphs 19 and 23-24 teaching a mobile recycling system that is a tow trailer that can be moved from one place to another by tow hitch 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Klemmack, Curtis and Kumar in view of Fick to make it transportable, such as via a tow trailer, because this would allow “for the collection of recyclable material and refuse in any location a tow trailer can be placed” (see Fick paragraph 4).
As per claim 12, Klemmack, Curtis, Kumar and Fick teach the limitations of claim 11. Fick further teaches: wherein the housing is disposed within a trailer, the trailer including a hitch for coupling the trailer to the transportation vehicle (see, e.g., Figure 1 and paragraphs 19 and 23-24 teaching a mobile recycling system that is a tow trailer that can be moved from one place to another by tow hitch 2). The rationale for altering Klemmack, Curtis, Kumar in view of Fick is provided in claim 11 above.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Whittier (US 2006/0167580, hereinafter “Whittier”) in view of Curtis et al. (US 2018/0341929) and further in view of Klemmack (US 2023/0031937).
As per claim 13, Whittier teaches: A recycling system, comprising:
a housing (see, e.g., Figure 2 and paragraphs 10 and 29-39 teaching an apparatus for processing recyclable containers as well as paragraph 114 teaching that the invention can utilize graphical user interfaces for users to interface with the unit, though Examiner notes that this is further addressed below);
a hopper for receiving recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 2 feature 210 and paragraphs 28, 29, and 32 teaching input platform 210 that receives the recyclable material; see alternatively paragraph 21 teaching a hopper for storage);
one or more containment units corresponding to the one or more types of the recyclable material (see, e.g., paragraphs 21, 70, and 80-89 teaching ultimate placement of the materials in bins);
a sorting system configured to place an item of recyclable material in one or more of the containment units corresponding to an identified type of the item of recyclable material (see, e.g., Figure 1 features 120, 150, 160, and 180 teaching determining the type of recyclable material, i.e., the “defining characteristic,” and directing the container to the appropriate device and bin; see also, e.g., Figure 2 feature 250 teaching a processor that, as taught in paragraphs 43, 47, and 50-62 takes the obtained information regarding the identity of the material and controls the apparatus to route the material along a length of the conveyor belt to a specific gate and bin); and
an illumination system configured to illuminate the recyclable material (see, e.g., paragraphs 35-37 teaching illuminating the recyclable material with a path of light; see further paragraphs 44-45 further teaching light reflection and mirrors to scan the materials);
an inclined conveyor system configured to transport the recyclable material from the hopper to the sorting system (see, e.g., paragraphs 34, 59, and 71 teaching that the conveyor path 220 may be slightly inclined to use gravity to force the container against a pusher); and
wherein the hopper, the vision system, the sorting system, and the inclined conveyor system are provided in the housing and wherein the vision system and illumination system are provided perpendicular to the inclined conveyor system (see, e.g., Figure 2 teaching that the hopper 210, conveyor belt 220A/230, the sorting into bins 265A-C, and the vision and illumination system 235A-B (i.e., light emitting and receiving devices) are all enclosed within the kiosk/apparatus; see further paragraphs 51-62 teaching gates 265A-265D into which the appropriate materials are pushed as determine by the processor 250, paragraphs 35-37 that features 235A and B are light emitting and receiving devices, respectively, paragraphs 32-34 that path 220 with pushers 230 and drive means 231 and 232 may be toothed belts, i.e., a conveyor system, that propels the materials up an incline; Examiner notes that the illumination and vision system are perpendicular to the inclined conveyor system as shown in Figure 2).
Whittier does not explicitly teach a kiosk housing, a user interface device coupled to the kiosk housing and configured to receive user identification information from a user and a vision system configured to identify, from at least one image, one or more types of the recyclable material, the vision system comprising one or more cameras configured to capture the at least one image of the recyclable material and wherein a field of view of the one or more cameras includes a width and a length of the inclined conveyor system.
Curtis teaches a kiosk housing and a user interface device coupled to the kiosk housing and configured to receive user identification information from a user (see paragraphs 27, 37, 39 and Figure 1, items 102, 104 and 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Whittier and Curtis to have a kiosk housing with a user interface as it allows for recycling at a retail location as taught by Curtis (see paragraphs 4, 5, 25 and 44).
Klemmack teaches a vision system configured to identify, from at least one image, one or more types of the recyclable material, the vision system comprising one or more cameras configured to capture the at least one image of the recyclable material and wherein a field of view of the one or more cameras includes a width and a length of the inclined conveyor system (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 29-30 and 40-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Whittier and Klemmack to utilize a vision system configured to identify, from at least one image, one or more types of the recyclable material, the vision system comprising one or more cameras configured to capture the at least one image of the recyclable material and wherein a field of view of the one or more cameras includes a width and a length of the inclined conveyor system because the vision system can identify objects seen in an image as being recyclable and non- recyclable as taught by Klemmack (see paragraph 41).
As per claim 14, Whittier, Curtis and Klemmack teach the limitations of claim 13. Whittier further teaches comprising a return conveyor system for transporting unidentified recyclable material from the sorting system to the hopper for further processing (see, e.g., paragraphs 49 and 66 and Figure 1 features 120, 130, and 140 teaching returning rejected containers, i.e., those not found to have the appropriate defining characteristics, to the user/operator).
As per claim 15, Whittier, Curtis and Klemmack teach the limitations of claim 13. Whittier further teaches wherein the sorting system comprises one or more robotic sorting devices (see, e.g., Figure 2 feature 250 teaching a processor that, as taught in paragraphs 43, 47, and 50-62 takes the obtained information regarding the identity of the material and controls the apparatus to route the material to a specific gate and bin).
As per claim 16, Whittier, Curtis and Klemmack teach the limitations of claim 13. Whittier further teaches wherein the sorting system comprises one or more stationary sorting devices disposed along a length of the conveyor configured to remove the recyclable material from the conveyor system (see, e.g., Figure 2 feature 250 teaching a processor that, as taught in paragraphs 43, 47, and 50-62 takes the obtained information regarding the identity of the material and controls the apparatus to route the material along a length of the conveyor belt to a specific gate and bin).
As per claim 17, Whittier, Curtis and Klemmack teach the limitations of claim 16. Whittier further teaches comprising a guide configured to divert the recyclable material into one or more single profile conveyors of the conveyor system (see, e.g., Figure 2 feature 250 teaching a processor that, as taught in paragraphs 43, 47, and 50-62 takes the obtained information regarding the identity of the material and controls the apparatus to route the material along a length of the conveyor belt to a specific gate and bin).
Claim 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Curtis et al. (US 2018/0341929) in view of Klemmack (US 2023/0031937) in view of and further in view of Whittier (US 2006/0167580).
As per claim 20, Curtis teaches a method for recycling, comprising the steps of:
receiving user identification information from a user interface device associated with a kiosk housing, wherein the user identification information is associated with a user interacting with the user interface device (see paragraphs 37 and 39);
receiving, in the kiosk housing of a recycling system housing, recyclable material (see paragraphs 30-31);
illuminating, with an illumination system in the recycling system housing, the recyclable material (see paragraphs 29, 33 and 34);
processing the recyclable material with a vision system provided in the recycling system housing, wherein the vision system comprises one or more cameras configured to capture at least one image of the recyclable material (see paragraphs 32-34);
identifying, based on the at least one image, a type of the recyclable material (see paragraphs 29 and 32);
assigning a monetary value to the recyclable material based on the identified type of the recyclable material (see paragraph 37);
transmitting the user identification information and the monetary value of the recyclable material to a web-based server via a communications interface (see paragraph 37);
identifying a user account associated with user identification information (see paragraph 37); and
associating the monetary value of the recyclable material with the user account (see paragraphs 37 and 47).
Klemmack teaches, wherein a viewing axis of the one or more cameras is substantially orthogonal to a transport path direction of an inclined conveyor system for conveying the recyclable material along a transport path direction (see Figure 1 and paragraphs 29-30 and 40-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Curtis and Klemmack to utilize a vision system configured wherein a viewing axis of the one or more cameras is substantially orthogonal to a transport path direction of an inclined conveyor system for conveying the recyclable material along a transport path direction because the vision system can identify objects seen in an image as being recyclable and non- recyclable and provide financial incentive to user for recycling objects as taught by Klemmack (see paragraphs 36 and 41).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Whittier (US 2006/0167580) in view of Curtis et al. (US 2018/0341929) and further in view of Klemmack (US 2023/0031937) and further in view of Krishnamurthy et al. (US 2018/0016096, hereinafter “Krishnamurthy”).
As per claim 18, Whittier, Curtis and Klemmack teach the limitations of claim 17. Krishnamurthy teaches a vision system configured to identify contaminated items of the recyclable material (see, e.g., at least Krishnamurthy paragraphs 53, 66-68, 72 teaching using cameras or other techniques such as a load sensor or a millimeter wave sensor to determine if an object that ordinarily would be recyclable is too contaminated, e.g., by the presence of liquids or food or grease, to recycle according to local regulations). Krishnamurthy is analogous to Whittier, Curtis and Klemmack, and the instant application because it relates to automatically sorting recyclable waste to an appropriate bin by image analysis (see Krishnamurthy Figures 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 teaching the apparatus; see further, e.g., paragraph 2 regarding automatic sorting and paragraphs 7-13 regarding the sensors and analysis of the type of waste).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of using the vision detection to further detect contamination (as disclosed by Krishnamurthy) to the known kiosk that receives recyclable materials and identifies and properly sorts them (as disclosed by Whittier, Curtis and Klemmack). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using the vision detection to further detect contamination because proper segregation of actually recyclable items from non-recyclable items would save time and expense in the recycling process and decrease contamination of the commingled, otherwise recyclable items (see Krishnamurthy paragraph 4) as well as would aid in compliance with local regulations (see, e.g., Krishnamurthy paragraphs 66-68).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of using the vision detection to further detect contamination (as disclosed by Krishnamurthy) to the known kiosk that receives recyclable materials and identifies and properly sorts them (as disclosed by Whittier, Curtis and Klemmack), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by including an additional capability of recyclable item identification, i.e., whether it is contaminated and thus not appropriate for recycling, in a kiosk that identifies and sorts recyclables). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
As per claim 19, Whittier, Curtis, Klemmack and Krishnamurthy teach the limitations of claim 18. Krishnamurthy further teaches comprising a sorting system configured to place a contaminated item of recyclable material in one or more containment units corresponding to contaminated material (see Krishnamurthy paragraphs 53, 66-68, and 72 teaching that if an object that might otherwise be recyclable is determined by the detection system, such as the use of cameras, to be “contaminated” and therefore unrecyclable then the material is placed with other contaminated items in a landfill bin). The rationale for altering Whittier, Curtis, Klemmack in view of Krishnamurthy is provided in claim 18 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHID R MERCHANT whose telephone number is (571)270-1360. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights