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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 23 December 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “...as claimed in any of claim 7...” which is misleading as only one claim is listed. The claim limitation should be amended to recite “…as claimed in claim 7…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/963,102 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are anticipated by the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Below is a comparison between present claim 1 and copending claim 3:
Present claim 1
Copending claim 3
A waste management apparatus to be mounted on a waste collection vehicle equipped with at least one optical sensor configured to acquire images of waste entering the waste collection vehicle, the waste management apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor configured to process at least part of the acquired images to:
A waste management apparatus to be mounted on a waste collection vehicle equipped with at least one optical sensor configured to acquire images of waste entering the waste collection vehicle, the waste management apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor configured to process at least part of the acquired images to:
- detect one or more objects,
- detect one or more objects,
- for each object detected in a given image, provide at least a class in a classification of objects,
- for each object detected in a given image, provide at least a class in a classification of objects, wherein the classification of objects relates to sorting rules so that a type of waste collection tour can be determined from a class of objects,
- determine, amongst the detected objects, new objects entering the waste collection vehicle, and
- determine, amongst the detected objects, new objects entering the waste - collection vehicle,
-determine an actual type of the given waste collection tour from a distribution - or a weighted distribution of the classes of at least a certain number of the new objects.
- send to a remote server information about the new objects, comprising at least the class of the new object, a time and a location of the waste collection vehicle when the new object entered the waste collection vehicle.
wherein the at least one memory and at least one processor are further configured to send to a remote server, via a wireless interface, information about the new objects, comprising for a given new object at least the class of the given new object, a time and a location of the waste collection vehicle when the given new object entered the waste collection vehicle
As shown above, besides wording, the main difference between the claims is that the present claims are broader than the copending claims. Thus, the present claims are anticipated by the copending claims.
Claims 2-11 are similarly rejected as above over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/963,102 (reference application).
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.
Claims 1, 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romano et al. (US 2020/0034785) in view of Dietrich (US 2022/0180330).
Regarding claim 1, Romano et al. disclose a waste management apparatus to be mounted on a waste collection vehicle (Figure 1A, vehicle 102 and Figures 9A-9B) equipped with at least one optical sensor (Figure 9B) configured to acquire images of waste entering the waste collection vehicle, the waste management apparatus comprising at least one memory (Figure 1A, 116) and at least one processor (Figure 1A, 114) configured to process at least part of the acquired images to:
- detect one or more objects (Figures 18 and 20 and paragraph [0206], objects that are contaminants are detected.),
- for each object detected in a given image, provide at least a class in a classification of objects (Figure 20, “Styrofoam” is detected for the contaminated objects.),
- determine, amongst the detected objects, new objects entering the waste collection vehicle (Since the objects are detected as they are added, they are all “new objects” entering the waste collection vehicle.), and
- send information about the new objects, comprising at least the class of the new object, a time and a location of the waste collection vehicle when the new object entered the waste collection vehicle (Figures 1A and 12B, and paragraphs [0068], [0072] and [0106], information is sent to remote device(s)/cloud, the information includes classification, time and location.).
Romano et al. fail to specifically teach that the information about the new objects is sent to a remote server.
Dietrich discloses a waste management apparatus to be mounted on a waste collection vehicle (Figure 1, waste collection service vehicle 12.) equipped with at least one optical sensor (Figure 1, optical sensors 35.), wherein information about the new objects, comprising at least the class of the new object, a time and a location of the waste collection vehicle when the new object entered the waste collection vehicle are sent to a remote server (Figure 1 and paragraph [0062], “a central computing device 24 defining a remote central server in communication with the onboard device 22 over the wireless network 20.” See also paragraph [0074]: “…the controller may instead analyse the image data associated with the receiving area 28 in each waste image…” and paragraph [0086]: “All of this data is stored on the service vehicle or on the server to permit subsequent recall by an administrator in communication over the network with one or both of the onboard controller or the server controller.”).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Romano et al. performs the same function as it does separately of classifying new objects entering a waste collection vehicle, and Dietrich performs the same function as it does separately of sending information about new objects to a remote server.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in sending information about the new objects, comprising at least the class of the new object, a time and a location of the waste collection vehicle when the new object entered the waste collection vehicle.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Romano et al. and Dietrich disclose a waste management apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one memory and at least one processor are further configured to provide, to for each object detected in a given image, a position in said given image (Dietrich: Paragraph [0074], “…track the position of the objects within the waste receiving area 28…”), and determining new objects entering the waste collection vehicle comprises:
- storing, in a memory, records corresponding to objects detected in previous images, a given record comprising at least the position of the given object in the given previous image and information descriptive of the given object (Dietrich: Paragraph [0087], “…the data may remain stored on the service vehicle…”),
- for each detected object in the current image:
- comparing the position and the descriptive information of the detected object with the records in the memory (Dietrich: Paragraph [0088], “…track the movement of the identified object within the waste receiving area of the vehicle…Any new objects identified within the waste images are further analysed for comparison to known objects…”),
- when no match is found determine that the detected object is a new object (Dietrich: Paragraph [0088], “…Any objects that are identified as being associated with the previous service event are removed from the current audit and remain associated with the previous service event and previously identified client associated with the previous service event. Any new objects…” Clearly, if no match is found it’s a “new object”),
- storing in the memory a new record corresponding to the detected object in the current image (Dietrich: Paragraph [0087, “…the data may remain stored on the service vehicle…” and thus for each new location, a “new record” is stored.]).
Regarding claim 8, Romano et al. and Dietrich disclose a waste management apparatus as claimed in any of claim 7, wherein the comparison of the position and the descriptive information of the detected object with the records in the memory takes into account an estimation of movement of the detected object (Dietrich: Paragraph [0088], “…track the movement...”).
Regarding claim 10, Romano et al. and Dietrich disclose a waste collection vehicle comprising a waste management apparatus as claimed in claim 1 (Romano et al.: Figure 1A and Figures 9A-9B).
Regarding claim 11, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romano et al. (US 2020/0034785) in view of Dietrich (US 2022/0180330) and further in view of Podgorny (US 2020/0175556).
Regarding claim 2, Romano et al. and Dietrich disclose a waste management apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Romano et al. and Dietrich fail to teach wherein at least one memory and at least one processor are configured to control the at least one optical sensor to acquire images continuously while the waste collection vehicle is in service.
Podgorny discloses wherein at least one memory and at least one processor are configured to control at least one optical sensor to acquire images continuously while the waste collection vehicle is in service (Paragraph [0041], “…waste detector 28 continuously captures image data anytime vehicle 10 is operational…”).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Romano et al. and Dietrich performs the same function as it does separately of at least one optical sensor to acquire images, and Podgorny performs the same function as it does separately of at least one optical sensor to acquire images continuously.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the at least one optical sensor acquiring images continuously while the waste collection vehicle is in service.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romano et al. (US 2020/0034785) in view of Dietrich (US 2022/0180330) and further in view of Oliva-Perez et al. (US 2019/0295292).
Regarding claim 3, Romano et al. and Dietrich disclose a waste management apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Romano et al. and Dietrich disclose wherein the at least one memory and at least one processor are further configured to determine if the waste collection vehicle is in motion and disregard new objects identified from images acquired while the waste collection vehicle is in motion.
Oliva-Perez et al. disclose determining if a vehicle is in motion and disregard new objects identified from images acquired while the waste collection vehicle is in motion (Paragraph [0047], “…the system re-evaluates whether the vehicle is in motion. In the case where it is found that the vehicle is in motion, the image A is deleted…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the image deletion teachings of Oliva-Perez et al. in the waste management apparatus as taught by the combination of Romano et al. and Dietrich. The motivation to combine would have been in order to alert distracted drivers/operators in non-moving vehicles, to reduce their time of response to unnoticed external environment color changes (See the abstract of Oliva-Perez et al.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romano et al. (US 2020/0034785) in view of Dietrich (US 2022/0180330) and further in view of Price et al. (US 2022/0177220).
Regarding claim 9, Romano et al. and Dietrich disclose a waste management apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the acquired images are processed through a machine learning module (Romano et al.: Paragraph [0007]).
Romano et al. and Dietrich fail to explicitly teach the machine learning module detecting objects in a given image, and providing for each detected object, at least the class of the detected object and an object identifier that uniquely identifies the detected object, an object being determined as a new object when the object identifier is different from the identifiers of the objects detected in previous images.
Price et al. disclose a machine learning module, the machine learning module detecting objects in a given image, and providing for each detected object, at least the class of the detected object and an object identifier that uniquely identifies the detected object, an object being determined as a new object when the object identifier is different from the identifiers of the objects detected in previous images (Paragraph [0046]).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination, the combination of Romano et al. and Dietrich fail performs the same function as it does separately of using a machine learning module, and Price et al. performs the same function as it does separately of the machine learning module detecting objects in a given image.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in the machine learning module detecting objects in a given image, and providing for each detected object, at least the class of the detected object and an object identifier that uniquely identifies the detected object, an object being determined as a new object when the object identifier is different from the identifiers of the objects detected in previous images.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 4 is the inclusion of the limitation reciting “wherein the object classification relates to sorting rules so that a type of waste collection tour can be determined from the classes of the objects collected during a given waste collection tour” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 5 is the inclusion of the limitation reciting “…to be mounted on a waste collection vehicle arranged to collect waste for at least two types of waste collection tours, wherein the at least one memory and at least one processor are further configured to determine, from the acquired images, the type of waste collection tour associated with the new objects, and to include an indication of the type of waste collection tour in the information sent to the remote server” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
The primary reasons for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 6 is the inclusion of the limitation reciting “wherein the at least one memory and at least one processor are further configured to determine from the acquired images a type of entrance into the waste collection vehicle amongst at least the following: manual entrance, thrown from a bin lifted by the waste collection vehicle, thrown from a bin lifted manually or dumped from a container of a sorting terminal, and to include said type of entrance in the information sent to the remote server” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maruca et al. (US 2009/0169348) disclose systems and methods for identifying and collecting banned waste.
Gates et al. (US 2014/0379588) disclose a system and method for waste management.
Armstrong et al. (US 2021/0158308) disclose a method and system for contamination assessment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
12 January 2026