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 § 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al. 2017/0010610 and in view of Huang 2021/0245648.
In Re Claim 1, Atchley et al. teach a refuse collection drone comprising: a chassis; (2100) a plurality of tractive elements (wheels, Fig. 21) rotatably coupled with and supporting the chassis; a propulsion system (102, Paragraph 27) comprising a battery (Paragraph 77) and an electric motor configured to consume electrical energy from the battery, the propulsion system configured to drive one or more of the plurality of tractive elements to transport the refuse collection drone to a customer location; (Paragraph 102, Paragraph 293) a bin (2108) removably coupled with the chassis, the bin defining a storage volume for refuse (paragraph 274)
Atchley et al. do not teach a cover, the cover configured to be driven by an actuator to transition between an open position to allow access to the storage volume and a closed position to limit access to the storage volume; and a lock operable between a locked state to limit transition of the cover out of the closed position and an unlocked state to allow transition of the cover out of the closed position and into the open position.
However, Huang teaches a cover (218), the cover configured to be driven by an actuator (302) to transition between an open position (Fig. 7) to allow access to the storage volume and a closed position (Fig. 6) to limit access to the storage volume; and a lock (300) operable between a locked state (Fig. 6) to limit transition of the cover out of the closed position and an unlocked state (Fig. 7) to allow transition of the cover out of the closed position and into the open position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a cover to the apparatus of Atchley et al. as taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent escape of materials being transported.
In Re Claim 2, Atchley et al. teach a charging interface (electrically conductive interface, Paragraph 77) configured to receive electrical energy to charge the battery (Paragraph 77), the charging interface including at least one of a wireless charging interface configured to wirelessly receive electrical energy from an external wireless charging source when the wireless charging interface is within a field of the external wireless charging source or a wired charging interface configured to be driven into electrical engagement with a contact of an external wired charging source. (See Paragraph 77)
Claims 3, 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al./ Huang and in view of Anderson et al. 2021/0022536.
In Re Claims 3, 4 and 9 Atchley et al./Huang teach the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Atchley et al./Huang do not teach a controller configured to operate the propulsion system to transport the refuse collection drone to the customer location, the controller further configured to operate the actuator and the lock to transition the cover into the open position, and responsive to placement of refuse in the storage volume, transition the cover into the closed position and transition the lock from the unlocked state into the locked state.
However, Anderson et al. teach a controller configured to operate the propulsion system to transport the refuse collection drone to the customer location, (Paragraph 102) the controller further configured to operate the actuator and the lock to transition the cover into the open position, and responsive to placement of refuse in the storage volume, transition the cover into the closed position and transition the lock from the unlocked state into the locked state; (See Paragraph 30 and 39) and a sensor configured to detect if the cover is in the open position or the closed position, the detection of the sensor usable by a controller to operate the lock to transition between the locked state and the unlocked state; (See Paragraph 55 and 56) and wherein the storage volume is configured to receive a package for delivery at the customer location, (Fig. 7) the refuse collection drone configured to transport to the customer location, (Paragraph 39) transition the lock into the unlocked state, and transition the cover into the open position to allow removal of the package from the storage volume, the refuse collection drone further configured to transition the cover into the closed position and transition the lock into the locked state; (Paragraph 52, 55 and 56)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add controller configured to operate the propulsions system to transport to a customer location in the apparatus of Atchley et al./Huang as taught by Anderson et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce delivery risks for operators trying to navigate unfamiliar properties.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al./ Huang and in view of Downing et al. 2019/0177098.
In Re Claim 5 Atchley et al./Huang teach the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Atchley et al./Huang do not teach wherein the bin further comprises a pair of passages disposed on opposite sides of the bin, the passages configured to receive forks of a loading device such that the bin can be removed from the chassis, the refuse emptied from the storage volume, and the bin returned to the chassis.
However, Downing et al. teach wherein the bin (12) further comprises a pair of passages (35) disposed on opposite sides of the bin, the passages configured to receive forks (34) of a loading device (18) such that the bin can be removed from the chassis (16), the refuse emptied from the storage volume, and the bin returned to the chassis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a controller configured to operate the propulsions system to transport to a customer location in the apparatus of Atchley et al./Huang as taught by Downing et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a well-known very secure structure for handling containers.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al./ Huang and in view of Moyne et al. 2023/0156158.
In Re Claims 6-8, Atchley et al./Huang teach the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Atchley et al./Huang do not teach a plurality of weight sensors configured to measure a weight of refuse loaded into the storage volume of the bin at a plurality of locations; a camera configured to obtain image data of the storage volume of the bin; wherein a controller is configured to receive the measured weight of refuse loaded into the storage volume of the bin and at least one of (i) report the measured weight to a cloud computing system, or (ii) adjust an operation of the refuse collection drone using the measured weight; and wherein the controller is configured to use at least one of the weights measured by the plurality of weight sensors or the image data obtained by the camera to identify an instability condition as a result of improper loading of refuse into the bin, wherein the controller is further configured to limit transportation of the refuse collection drone until the instability condition is no longer present.
However, Moyne et al. teach a plurality of weight a plurality of weight sensors (weighing scales, Paragraph 63) configured to measure a weight of refuse loaded into the storage volume (206, 228) of the bin at a plurality of locations; (See Paragraph 63) a camera (280) configured to obtain image data of the storage volume of the bin; wherein a controller is configured to receive the measured weight of refuse loaded into the storage volume of the bin and at least one of (i) report the measured weight to a cloud computing system, or (ii) adjust an operation of the refuse collection drone using the measured weight; (See Paragraph 63, Fig. 3a, 3b) and wherein the controller is configured to use at least one of the weights measured by the plurality of weight sensors or the image data obtained by the camera to identify an instability condition as a result of improper loading of refuse into the bin, (Fig. 3A) wherein the controller is further configured to limit transportation (Fig. 3b, step 320) of the refuse collection drone until the instability condition is no longer present; and a camera (380), the camera configured to obtain image data of the storage volume indicating a type of refuse loaded into the storage volume, (Fig. 3a) wherein transportation of the refuse collection drone is restricted by a controller of the refuse collection drone responsive to detecting a particular type of refuse, (Fig. 3b) wherein the controller is configured to transmit a notification to an authority that the specific type of refuse has been loaded into the storage volume responsive to detecting the particular type of refuse in the storage volume; (Fig. 3b) and a display screen (211) positioned externally on the refuse collection drone, the display screen operable to provide instructions to a user or to provide an advertisement to the user, the instructions to the user comprising at least one of a notification to remove a particular item from the refuse collection drone or an image of the particular item obtained by a camera of the refuse collection drone. (Paragraph 67)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add weight sensors the apparatus of Atchley et al./Huang as taught by Moyne et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent equipment overload failure.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atchley et al./ Huang and in view of Duivenvoorde 2014/0286743.
In Re Claim 10, Atchley et al./Huang teach the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Atchley et al./Huang do not teach wherein the bin further comprises a compaction apparatus positioned within the storage volume, the compaction apparatus configured to compact refuse that is located in the storage volume.
However, Duivenvoorde teach wherein the bin (14) further comprises a compaction apparatus positioned within the storage volume, the compaction apparatus configured to compact refuse that is located in the storage volume. (Paragraph 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a compaction apparatus in the apparatus of Atchley et al./Huang as taught by Duivenvoorde with a reasonable expectation for success in order to increase capacity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodoni 9,829,892 and in view of Larson 3,845,968.
In Re Claim 11, Rodini teach a refuse collection drone comprising: a chassis (32) and a plurality of tractive elements (36) coupled with the chassis; and a bin (16) defining a storage volume, the bin and the storage volume sized to receive a single garbage bag of refuse; wherein the refuse collection drone is configured to autonomously transport to a customer location, receive the single garbage bag of refuse, and autonomously transport to a central location (Fig. 3).
Rodini does not teach the storage volume sized to receive a single garbage bag of refuse having a capacity of 12 to 16 gallons or a capacity of 20 to 30 gallons;
However, Larson teaches a storage volume sized to receive a single garbage bag of refuse having a capacity of 12 to 16 gallons or a capacity of 20 to 30 gallons (Column 4, Lines 59-65);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a cover to the apparatus of Rodini as taught by Larson with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce the stresses of heavier trash bags on the equipment.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodoni/Larson and in view of Atchley et al.
In Re Claim 12, Rodoni/Larson teach the apparatus of Claim 11 as discussed above and a propulsion system comprising a battery (38) and an electric motor (38) configured to consume electrical energy from the battery, the propulsion system configured to drive one or more of the plurality of tractive elements to transport the refuse collection drone to the customer location; (Fig. 3).
Rodoni/Larson does not teach a charging interface configured to receive electrical energy to charge the battery, the charging interface including at least one of a wireless charging interface configured to wirelessly receive electrical energy from an external wireless charging source when the wireless charging interface is within a field of the external wireless charging source or a wired charging interface configured to be driven into electrical engagement with a contact of an external wired charging source; and a controller configured to operate the propulsion system to transport the refuse collection drone to the customer location.
However, Atchley et al. teach a charging interface (electrically conductive interface, Paragraph 77) configured to receive electrical energy to charge the battery (Paragraph 77), the charging interface including at least one of a wireless charging interface configured to wirelessly receive electrical energy from an external wireless charging source when the wireless charging interface is within a field of the external wireless charging source or a wired charging interface configured to be driven into electrical engagement with a contact of an external wired charging source; (See Paragraph 77) and a controller configured to operate the propulsion system to transport the refuse collection drone to the customer location. (Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a charging interface to the apparatus of Rodoni/Larson as taught by Atchley et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to recharge the battery of the drone when the drone is not needed.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodoni/Larson and in view of Huang and in view of Anderson et al.
In Re Claims 13 and 14, Rodoni/Larson teach the apparatus of Claim 11.
Rodoni/Larson does not teach a cover, the cover configured to be driven by an actuator to transition between an open position to allow access to the storage volume and a closed position to limit access to the storage volume; and a lock operable between a locked state to limit transition of the cover out of the closed position and an unlocked state to allow transition of the cover out of the closed position and into the open position.
Huang teaches a cover (218), the cover configured to be driven by an actuator (302) to transition between an open position (Fig. 7) to allow access to the storage volume and a closed position (Fig. 6) to limit access to the storage volume; and a lock (300) operable between a locked state (Fig. 6) to limit transition of the cover out of the closed position and an unlocked state (Fig. 7) to allow transition of the cover out of the closed position and into the open position.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a cover and actuator to the apparatus of Rodoni/Larson as taught by Huang with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent escape of materials being transported.
Rodoni/Larson does not teach a sensor configured to detect if the cover is in the open position or the closed position.
However, Anderson et al. teach a sensor configured to detect if the cover is in the open position or the closed position, (See Paragraph 55 and 56) the detection of the sensor usable by a controller to operate the lock to transition between the locked state and the unlocked state; (See Paragraph 55 and 56); and wherein the storage volume is configured to receive a package for delivery at the customer location, (Fig. 7) the refuse collection drone configured to transport to the customer location, (Paragraph 39) transition the lock into the unlocked state, and transition the cover into the open position to allow removal of the package from the storage volume, the refuse collection drone further configured to transition the cover into the closed position and transition the lock into the locked state. (Paragraph 52, 55 and 56)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a sensor to if the cover is open or closed in the apparatus of Rodoni/Larson as taught by Anderson et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce the risk of pests getting into the bin.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodoni/Larson and in view of Downing et al. 2019/0177098.
In Re Claim 15 Rodoni/Larson teach the apparatus of Claim 11 as discussed above.
Rodoni/Larson do not teach wherein the bin further comprises a pair of passages disposed on opposite sides of the bin, the passages configured to receive forks of a loading device such that the bin can be removed from the chassis, the refuse emptied from the storage volume, and the bin returned to the chassis.
However, Downing et al. teach wherein the bin (12) further comprises a pair of passages (35) disposed on opposite sides of the bin, the passages configured to receive forks (34) of a loading device (18) such that the bin can be removed from the chassis (16), the refuse emptied from the storage volume, and the bin returned to the chassis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a controller configured to operate the propulsions system to transport to a customer location in the apparatus of Rodoni/Larson as taught by Downing et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a well-known very secure structure for handling containers.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodoni/Larson and in view of Moyne et al. 2023/0156158.
In Re Claims 16-18, Rodoni/Larson teach the apparatus of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Rodoni/Larson do not teach a plurality of weight sensors configured to measure a weight of refuse loaded into the storage volume of the bin at a plurality of locations; a camera configured to obtain image data of the storage volume of the bin; wherein a controller is configured to receive the measured weight of refuse loaded into the storage volume of the bin and at least one of (i) report the measured weight to a cloud computing system, or (ii) adjust an operation of the refuse collection drone using the measured weight; and wherein the controller is configured to use at least one of the weights measured by the plurality of weight sensors or the image data obtained by the camera to identify an instability condition as a result of improper loading of refuse into the bin, wherein the controller is further configured to limit transportation of the refuse collection drone until the instability condition is no longer present.
However, Moyne et al. teach a plurality of weight a plurality of weight sensors (weighing scales, Paragraph 63) configured to measure a weight of refuse loaded into the storage volume (206, 228) of the bin at a plurality of locations; (See Paragraph 63) a camera (280) configured to obtain image data of the storage volume of the bin; wherein a controller is configured to receive the measured weight of refuse loaded into the storage volume of the bin and at least one of (i) report the measured weight to a cloud computing system, or (ii) adjust an operation of the refuse collection drone using the measured weight; (See Paragraph 63, Fig. 3a, 3b) and wherein the controller is configured to use at least one of the weights measured by the plurality of weight sensors or the image data obtained by the camera to identify an instability condition as a result of improper loading of refuse into the bin, (Fig. 3A) wherein the controller is further configured to limit transportation (Fig. 3b, step 320) of the refuse collection drone until the instability condition is no longer present; and a camera (380), the camera configured to obtain image data of the storage volume indicating a type of refuse loaded into the storage volume, (Fig. 3a) wherein transportation of the refuse collection drone is restricted by a controller of the refuse collection drone responsive to detecting a particular type of refuse, (Fig. 3b) wherein the controller is configured to transmit a notification to an authority that the specific type of refuse has been loaded into the storage volume responsive to detecting the particular type of refuse in the storage volume; (Fig. 3b) and a display screen (211) positioned externally on the refuse collection drone, the display screen operable to provide instructions to a user or to provide an advertisement to the user, the instructions to the user comprising at least one of a notification to remove a particular item from the refuse collection drone or an image of the particular item obtained by a camera of the refuse collection drone. (Paragraph 67)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add weight sensors the apparatus of Rodoni/Larson as taught by Moyne et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent equipment overload failure.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodoni/Larson and in view of Duivenvoorde 2014/0286743.
In Re Claim 19, Rodoni/Larson teach the apparatus of Claim 11 as discussed above.
Rodoni/Larson do not teach wherein the bin further comprises a compaction apparatus positioned within the storage volume, the compaction apparatus configured to compact refuse that is located in the storage volume.
However, Duivenvoorde teach wherein the bin (14) further comprises a compaction apparatus positioned within the storage volume, the compaction apparatus configured to compact refuse that is located in the storage volume. (Paragraph 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a compaction apparatus in the apparatus of Rodoni/Larson as taught by Duivenvoorde with a reasonable expectation for success in order to increase capacity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Giacobbe, Mallady, Bussetti and Wagner teach refuse collection drones comprising a bin and a propulsion system.
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