DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejections.
Applicant Argues:
Likewise, it should be noted that the use of RFID in the present invention allows for a greater range of wave emission and reflection, an effect that cannot be provided by NFC technology, which is based on contact. Furthermore, the metallic portion defined as a metallic ring in the present invention enables 360 degree transmission.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the metallic portion defined as a metallic ring in the present invention enables 360 degree transmission) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner notes that the specification describes “including a metallic portion makes it possible to easily recover same in automatic sorting”. Examiner finds no support for the language of 360 degree transmission, and it is not understood what is meant by such in the arguments.
Examiner further notes that the specification does not describe “it should be noted that the use of RFID in the present invention allows for a greater range of wave emission and reflection, an effect that cannot be provided by NFC technology, which is based on contact”. The specification describes “a reader which is RFID or NFC reader/writer (18)”.
Applicant Argues:
Zhou discloses a flat metallic body incorporating NFC technology and therefore cannot generate 360° transmission. Consequently, a person skilled in the art consulting Zhou would not be able to modify the disclosure in Virella to achieve the technical configuration required by the present invention, which enables a machine for dispensing metallic tracers.
Further, Forster does not disclose the specific metallic ring shape, nor does it provide 360° transmission or prevent the formation of Faraday cages, aspects that are indeed achieved by the configuration of the present invention.
Contreras also fails to disclose an identification device having a metallic portion and which uses RFID technology. Nothing in Contreras discloses an arrangement which permits 360° transmission.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (360 degree transmission) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant Argues:
It should also be noted that the system of the present invention does not include products inside the capsules.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (the system of the invention does not include products inside the capsules) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant Argues:
None of the references even combined with each other teach or suggest a metallic portion in the form of ring disposed in a spherical body as an identification device that uses RFID technology for identification.
Examiner’s Response:In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (a metallic portion in the form of ring disposed in a spherical body) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner notes that claim 1 recites “the identification device (1) is provided with a metallic portion in the form of a ring”.
For the reasons stated above, the claims stand rejected as presented.
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) 1, 5, 6, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eddie Oquendo Virella (US 2013/0228623 A1 – hereinafter Virella) in view of Ian J. Forster (US 2023/0054777 A1 – hereinafter Forster) Gonzalo Garcia Contreras (EP 1,903,539 A1 – hereinafter Contreras), Weisshaupt et al. (US 2014/0131454 A1 – hereinafter Weisshaupt) and Shen et al. (US 11,013,361 B1 – hereinafter Shen).
Re Claims 1, 5, 6, 13, and 14:
Virella discloses a waste identification system comprising: at least one reusable identification device (105) comprising a body that houses an identification chip (119, 120, 121) therein, and a dispenser (100) comprising:- a container (101) configured for storing the at least one reusable identification device (105), a hopper (106) configured for receiving a released reusable identification device (105) from the container (101), an external screen (108 – also includes push buttons 109) forming an interface which is located on an outside of the dispenser (100) to allow interaction with a user- a release mechanism (107 – see paragraph [0017]) configured for enabling exit of the reusable identification device (105) from the hopper, and- an RFID reader/writer (see paragraphs [0019, 0021, 0029 and 0034]) (see Figs. 1-8, “NFC information (e.g., an embedded RFID tag of a credit card”, :The unique identifier, is stored as machine readable code, such as barcode 119, QR code 120, and/or RFID tag 121), but fails to teach comprising a spherical body that houses an identification chip therein, and wherein the identification device is provided with a metallic portion in the form of a ring that enables recovery of the identification device by magnets or electromagnets.
Forster teaches wherein an identification device (20, 22) is provided with a metallic portion that enables recovery of the identification device by magnets or electromagnets (see paragraph [0051]) (see Figs. 1-8C). Re Claim 5: Forster teaches wherein the metallic portion (see 701, see 706, see Figs. 8A-8B) is part of a spherical body itself (see Figs. 1-8C). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Virella with that of Forster to allow for recovering during return or recycling type operations.
Contreras teaches a spherical body that houses an identification chip therein (see paragraph [0016]) (see Figs. 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Virella with that of Forster and Contreras, to allow for dispensing of a particular type or shape of product, for a given purpose, as known within the art.
Weisshaupt teaches wherein an identification device (22) is provided with a metallic portion in a form of a ring (26) (see Figs. 1a-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Virella with that of Forster, Contreras, and Weisshaupt to provide a supporting means for an RFID tag to a housing. Examiner notes the combination would further be capable of providing enabling recovery of the identification device by magnets or electromagnets, for Foster teaches such and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that metal would allow for such as well.
Shen teaches a spherical body (for oil) (see col. 4 lines 59-66). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Virella with that of Forster, Contreras, Weisshaupt, and Shen, to use a container of a desired shape to meet a particular need as required by the user, as suggested by Shen, and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further Re Claim 15:
Virella discloses wherein the dispenser (100) is integrated in a waste collection container (at 106) (see Figs. 1-8).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virella in view of Forster, Contreras, Weisshaupt, and Shen and further in view of Ariel Haroush (US 2022/0396426 A1 – hereinafter Haroush).
Re Claim 2:
Virella in view of Forster, Contreras, Weisshaupt, and Shen discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the spherical body is made up of two semi-sphere bodies which are configured to be coupled to one another using attachment means.
Haroush further in view teaches wherein a spherical body is made up of two semi-sphere bodies (25a, 25b) which are configured to be coupled to one another using attachment means (see Fig. 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Virella in view of Forster, Contreras, Weisshaupt, and Shen, with that of Haroush, to allow access to contents within a device, while also providing a particular shape as known within the art, and suggested by Contreras.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virella in view of Forster, Contreras, Weisshaupt, and Shen, and Haroush and further in view of van Pol et al. (US 2020/0209093 A1 – hereinafter Pol).
Re Claims 7-9:
Virella in view of Forster, Contreras, Weisshaupt, and Shen, and Haroush discloses the device of claim 2, but fails to teach wherein the attachment means are made up of perimetral channels arranged in proximity of the edges of the semi-sphere bodies.
Pol further in view teaches wherein attachment means are made up of perimetral channels (see Fig. 3A near 302) arranged in proximity of the edges of the semi-sphere bodies (2) (see Figs. 1-11). Re Claim 8: Pol further in view teaches wherein the attachment means are complemented with at least one projection (414) extending from an inside of the semi-sphere bodies, which is coupled in at least one cavity arranged in opposition in the other semi-sphere body (see Fig. 6). Re Claim 9: Pol further in view teaches wherein the spherical body has a through hole (226) (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Virella in view of Forster, Contreras, Weisshaupt, and Shen, and Haroush with that of Pol, to connect two parts together as commonly known within the art.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virella in view of Forster, Contreras, Weisshaupt, and Shen and further in view of Voorhees et al. (US 2,878,961 – hereinafter Vorhees).
Re Claims 11 and 12:
Virella in view of Forster, Contreras, Weisshaupt, and Shen discloses the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the release mechanism of the dispenser comprises a mechanical rotational mechanism linked to a lever, and wherein the release mechanism of the dispenser includes a locking element.
Vorhees further in view teaches wherein the release mechanism of the dispenser comprises a mechanical rotational mechanism (32) linked to a lever (see col. 13 lines 30-45) (see Figs. 1-18). Re Claim 12: Vorhees further in view teaches wherein the release mechanism of the dispenser includes a locking element (shaft locking mechanism) (see col. 13 lines 30-45) (see Figs. 1-18). Therefore, it would have been obvious, for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have been motivated to combine the teachings of Virella in view of Forster, Contreras, Weisshaupt, and Shen with that of Vorhees, to provide a particular alternative dispensing arrangement from a vending machine as known within the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELVIN L RANDALL, JR. whose telephone number is (571)270-5373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am-5 pm est.
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, Gene Crawford can be reached at 571-272-6911. 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.
/K.L.R/Examiner, Art Unit 3651
/GENE O CRAWFORD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3651
Prosecution Insights