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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3 the claim states “at least one at least one”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the processor", “the processor-executable instructions”, “the image”, “the user”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by McCarthy (US 4,867,328).
Regarding claim 1, McCarthy (hereafter “D1”) discloses a system for collecting objects (trash receptacle – title – embodiment of figures 7-8), the system comprising: a bin (container 70) defining a space therewithin; and a bin splitter assembly (partitions 81/83/85/87, hinge 75, shaft 77) positioned within the bin, the bin splitter assembly comprising: a support stem (77) oriented vertically; and a plurality of bin splitters (81/83/85/87), each of the plurality of bin splitters configured to be pivotably coupled with the support stem (hinge at 75), each of the plurality of bin splitters defining a wall (figure 8) extending radially away from the support stem and configured to split the space defined by the bin and create a pair of cabins with the bin across the wall, wherein the support stem is configured to rotate the plurality of bin splitters thereabout to reposition the plurality of bin splitters within the space defined by the bin to create different configurations of cabins within the bin (col. 8, lines 32-60).
Regarding claim 11, D1 discloses wherein the support stem (77) is positioned at the center of the bin (figure 8), the bin configured in a circular shape, and wherein the support stem is configured to rotate the plurality of bin splitters along the circular-periphery associated with the circular shape of the bin, around the support stem (col. 8, lines 32-60).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy (US 4,867,328) in view of Bach (US 5,127,538).
Regarding claim 2, D1 discloses wherein the bin splitters (81/83/85/87) are configured to travel around the edge of the circumference of the bin and rest in detents (73). D1 does not disclose use of rollers for this purpose.
Bach (hereafter “D2”) discloses a waste container (70) having splitters (legs 40) with end rollers (41) (figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the splitters of D1 to add rollers to the ends of the splitters as suggested by D2 to provide ease of travel of the splitters about the bin.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy (US 4,867,328) in view of Al-Ateeq (US 10,406,564).
Regarding claim 12, D1 teaches varying shapes and sizes for the partitioned trash containers (figures 1-21) but does not teach wherein the support stem is positioned at an edge of the bin, the bin configured in a circle sector shape, and wherein the support stem is configured to rotate the plurality of bin splitters along an arc-periphery associated with circle sector shape of the bin, the around the support stem.
Al-Ateeq (hereafter “D3”) discloses a sorting waste receptacle (title) comprising a bin configured in a circle sector shape (figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the bin of D1 to be a circle sector shape as taught by D3 as D1 already motivates the use of varying shaped bins.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest any combination meeting the limitations of the independent claim(s). Specifically, D1 (in view of D2/D3) does not teach at least the claimed actuator, processor, and memory with processor executable instructions programmed to trigger a target configuration and trigger the actuator to move bin splitters, and the prior art documents of record do not suggest a modification to meet these limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See notice of references cited form PTO-892. References not applied but cited are relevant as disclosing or suggesting at least one feature in the claims or disclosure of the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK D HAWN whose telephone number is (571)270-5320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/PATRICK D HAWN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights