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 .
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 5-7 and 20 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 5 recites the limitation "the refuse collection arm”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the refuse collection arm” is being interpreted as “a refuse collection arm”.
Claim 20 recites that both the first (line 21) and second (line 24) commands cause the controller to navigate the refuse collection robot to the pickup zone (claim 20 lines 21-25). In other words, the claim recites that the first and second commands are the same and would cause the robot to stay in place. The specification, however, establish that the after a refuse has been placed in the collection robot, the robot autonomously navigate to the refuse depot (see paragraph 14 of the specification). Therefore, the inconsistency renders the scope of the claims unascertainable as it is not clear what the second command is intended to achieve.
The remaining claims are rejected because they depend on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atchley et al. 2017/0010610.
In Re Claim 1, Atchley et al. teach a refuse collection system, comprising: a refuse collection robot comprising: a chassis (2100); a tractive element (Paragraph 379) coupled to the chassis; (Fig. 21) a motor coupled to the chassis and the tractive element and configured to drive the tractive element to propel the refuse collection robot; (Paragraph 273, 379) a refuse container (2108) coupled to the chassis and defining a first storage volume; and a controller operatively coupled to the motor; (Paragraph 273, 379, 380) a refuse depot including: a centralized storage (2610) defining a second storage volume; and a refuse actuator (2602) configured to transfer refuse from the first storage volume to the second storage volume, wherein the controller is configured to control the refuse collection robot to navigate to a pickup zone associated with a customer in response to a request for refuse collection from a user device associated with the customer. (Paragraph 293)
In Re Claim 2, Atchley et al. teach wherein the controller is configured to control the refuse collection robot to autonomously navigate the refuse collection robot to the pickup zone. (Paragraph 293)
In Re Claim 3, Atchley et al. teach wherein the controller is configured to control the refuse collection robot to return to the refuse depot in response to an indication that the refuse has been placed in the first storage volume. (Paragraph 300-302)
In Re Claim 4, Atchley et al. teach wherein the indication that the refuse has been placed in the first storage system volume at least one of a sensor onboard the refuse collection robot detecting the placement of the refuse in the first storage volume or a signal from the user device. (Paragraph 300)
In Re Claim 5, as best understood, Atchley et al. teach wherein the refuse depot includes a frame (2610) coupled to the refuse collection arm (arm of 2602, Fig. 26), and wherein the frame of the refuse depot is fixedly coupled to a ground surface. (Fig. 26)
In Re Claim 7, Atchley et al. teach wherein the refuse container is removably coupled to the chassis, and wherein the refuse actuator is configured to remove the refuse container from the chassis when transferring the refuse to the second storage volume. (See Fig. 26)
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al. and in view of Redoni 9,829,892.
In Re Claim 6, Atchley et al. teach the system of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Atchley et al. do not teach wherein the refuse actuator is configured to remove the refuse from the refuse container from the first storage volume while the refuse container is coupled to the chassis.
However, Redoni teaches wherein the refuse actuator (22, Fig. 2) is configured to remove the refuse from the refuse container (34) from the first storage volume while the refuse container is coupled to the chassis (32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to remove the refuse from the refuse container while the refuse container is coupled to the chassis in the system of Atchley et al. as taught by Redoni with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce wear and tear on the connection between container and chassis.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al. and in view of Collins et al. 2023/0264893.
In Re Claims 11 and 14, Atchley et al. teach the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Atchley et al. do not teach a refuse vehicle configured to remove the refuse from the centralized storage of the refuse depot.
However, Collins et al. teach a refuse vehicle (large front-loading compactor truck, Fig. 11) configured to remove the refuse from the centralized storage (1102) of the refuse depot; (Paragraph 19) and wherein the refuse vehicle includes an interface (forks, Fig. 11) configured to engage the centralized storage and an actuator (lift actuators, Fig. 11) configured to lift the interface and the centralized storage. (Paragraph 19, Fig. 11)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a refuse vehicle configured to remove the refuse from the centralized storage in the system of Atchley et al. as taught by Collins et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prepare the storage for further loading.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al./ Collins et al. and in view of Hicks et al. 2023/0076374.
In Re Claim 12, Atchley et al./Collins et al. teach the system of Claim 11 as discussed above.
Atchley et al./ Collins et al. do not teach a cloud controller in communication with the user device and the refuse collection robot, wherein the cloud controller is configured to receive the request from the user device and provide instructions to the controller of the refuse collection robot, the instructions including a location of the pickup zone.
However, Hicks et al. teach a cloud controller (Fig. 9) in communication with the user device (4) and the refuse collection robot (12), (Paragraph 80, 81) wherein the cloud controller is configured to receive the request from the user device and provide instructions to the controller of the refuse collection robot, the instructions including a location of the pickup zone. (Paragraph 125, 126)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a cloud controller in the system of Atchley et al./ Collins et al. as taught by Hicks et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce upfront capital and maintenance costs and simplify backup and recovery during power outages or equipment failure.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al. and in view of Fenlon et al. 2004/0034538.
In Re Claim 17, Atchley et al. teach the system of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Atchley et al. do not teach wherein the pickup zone is positioned within a building, and wherein the refuse depot is positioned outside of the building.
However, Fenlon et al. teach wherein the pickup zone (12, Paragraph 12)(Fig. 1) is positioned within a building (12), and wherein the refuse depot (20) is positioned outside of the building.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a pickup zone positioned within a building, and a refuse depot positioned outside of the building in the system of Atchley et al. as taught by Fenlon et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent unsecured trash from being placed outside and subjected to animals and environment.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al. and in view of Hicks et al. and in view of Parker et al. 2022/0410688.
In Re Claims 18 and 19, Atchley et al. teach a refuse collection method comprising: receiving from a customer a request for collection of refuse; (Paragraph 272) controlling, by a controller of a refuse collection robot (motorized transport unit), the refuse collection robot to autonomously navigate to the location of a pickup zone; (Paragraph 272) receiving, by the refuse collection robot, a volume of refuse from the customer at the pickup zone; (Paragraph 273, 274) controlling, by the controller of the refuse collection robot, the refuse collection robot to autonomously navigate to a refuse depot; transferring, by a refuse actuator of the refuse depot, the volume of refuse from the refuse collection robot (2600) to a centralized storage (2610) of the refuse depot; (paragraph 289, 290) and wherein the refuse collection robot is a first refuse collection robot and the volume of refuse is first volume of refuse, (Paragraph 272) further comprising: receiving, by a second refuse collection robot, a second volume of refuse; (two or more transport units, Paragraph 272)(Paragraph 289, 290) controlling, by a controller of the second refuse collection robot, the second refuse collection robot to autonomously navigate to the refuse depot; (Paragraph 272, 289, 290) transferring, by the refuse actuator of the refuse depot, the second volume of refuse from the second refuse collection robot to the centralized storage of the refuse depot; (Paragraph 272, 289, 290)
Atchley et al. do not teach determining, by a cloud device, a location of a pickup zone associated with the customer;
However, Hicks et al. teach determining , by a cloud device (Fig. 9), a location of a pickup zone associated with the customer; (Paragraph 125, 126)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a cloud device to determine location in the method of Atchley et al. as taught by Hicks et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce upfront capital and maintenance costs and simplify backup and recovery during power outages or equipment failure.
Atchley et al. do not teach emptying the volume of refuse from the centralized storage into a refuse vehicle; and transporting, by the refuse vehicle, the volume of refuse to a disposal site.
However, Parker et al. teach emptying the volume of refuse from the centralized storage (60) into a refuse vehicle (10’’); (Paragraph 65) and transporting, by the refuse vehicle, the volume of refuse to a disposal site (landfill); (Paragraph 3) and emptying the first volume of refuse and the second volume of refuse from the centralized storage into the refuse vehicle simultaneously. (Paragraph 65)(successive containers, Paragraph 74)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to empty the volume of refuse into a centralized storage in the method of Atchley et al. as taught by Parker et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prepare the storage for further loading.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 8-10, 13, 15 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Afrouzi, Dumitras and Wagner et al. teach refuse collection robots including a chassis wherein a container connects to a chassis and the container is emptied into a centralized storage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLENN F MYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-1160. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, 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.
GLENN F. MYERS
Examiner
Art Unit 3652
/GLENN F MYERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3652