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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al. 2011/0153063 and in view of Rodoni 9,829,892.
In Re Claim 1, Wurman et al. teach a depot for a plurality of autonomous land-based refuse drones, the depot comprising: a chassis (300) anchored to a ground surface; a container (310) defining a storage volume for refuse; a collection implement (302) coupled with the chassis, the collection implement configured to selectively couple with at least one of (i) refuse within a drone storage volume (40) of one of the plurality of autonomous land-based refuse drones (20) at the depot or (ii) a portion of the one of the plurality of autonomous land-based refuse drones at the depot that defines the drone storage volume; and of refuse actuator (304) operably coupled with the collection implement, the refuse actuator configured to drive the collection implement to perform an unloading operation including selectively coupling, moving, and de-coupling from at least one of the refuse within the drone storage volume or the portion of the autonomous land-based refuse drone that defines the drone storage volume, (Fig. 3A-3B) the refuse actuator configured to drive the collection implement to perform the unloading operation in order to unload the refuse from the drone storage volume into the storage volume of the container. (Fig. 3A-3B)
Wurman et al. is silent concerning more than one refuse actuator.
However, Rodoni teaches a plurality of refuse actuators coupled with a collection implement. (Column 2, Lines 38-43)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a plurality of actuators in the depot of Wurman et al. as taught by Rodoni with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a wider range of movement.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al./Rodoni and in view of Huang et al. 2017/0011580.
In Re Claim 2, Wurman et al./Rodoni teaches the depot of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al./Rodoni is silent concerning wherein the depot further comprises a plurality of charging interfaces, the plurality of charging interfaces connected to a power source and configured to couple wirelessly or wiredly with the plurality of autonomous land-based refuse drones to charge a battery of the autonomous land-based refuse drones.
However, Huang et al. teach wherein the depot further comprises a plurality of charging interfaces (Connections to 40, Fig. 16), the plurality of charging interfaces connected to a power source (36, Fig. 16) and configured to couple wirelessly or wiredly with the plurality of autonomous land-based refuse drones to charge a battery of the autonomous land-based refuse drones. (Paragraph 154)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a plurality of charging interfaces to the depot of Wurman et al./Rodoni as taught by Huang et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce dwell time of drones.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al./Rodoni and in view of Arrez 2018/0029795.
In Re Claim 3, Wurman et al./Rodoni teaches the depot of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al./Rodoni is silent concerning wherein the container comprises a pair of channels sized and positioned to receive a corresponding pair of forks inserted therein, the container configured to be lifted and emptied into a refuse vehicle through engagement between the corresponding pair of forks and the container at the pair of channels.
However, Arrez teaches wherein the container (14) comprises a pair of channels (22) sized and positioned to receive a corresponding pair of forks (40) inserted therein, the container configured to be lifted and emptied into a refuse vehicle through engagement between the corresponding pair of forks and the container at the pair of channels. (Paragraph 24)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a Channels to the depot of Wurman et al./Rodoni as taught by Arrez with a reasonable expectation for success in order to transport the container.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al./Rodoni and in view of Gentry et al. 2017/0349373.
In Re Claim 4, Wurman et al./Rodoni teaches the depot of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al./Rodoni is silent concerning wherein the container comprises an interface configured to be engaged by a hook of a vehicle such that the container can be lifted onto a frame of the vehicle and removed from the depot once the container is filled with refuse.
However, Gentry et al. teach wherein the container comprises an interface (36) configured to be engaged by a hook (38) of a vehicle (10) such that the container can be lifted onto a frame of the vehicle and removed from the depot once the container is filled with refuse. (Fig. 9)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add an interface to the depot of Wurman et al./Rodoni as taught by Gentry et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to enable pivoting of the container for ease of loading.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al./Rodoni and in view of Herrera 7,398,789.
In Re Claim 6, Wurman et al./Rodoni teaches the depot of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al./Rodoni is silent concerning a washout system including: a fluid source configured to provide a cleaning fluid; a pump fluidly coupled with the fluid source and configured to pressurize the cleaning fluid; and a nozzle fluidly coupled with the pump and configured to discharge the cleaning fluid; wherein the washout system is configured to discharge the cleaning fluid into the drone storage volume to clean the drone storage volume after the drone storage volume has been emptied of refuse or before deployment of the autonomous land-based refuse drone when the drone storage volume is empty; wherein the fluid source includes cleaning fluid collected at a drain of the washout system and recirculated to the pump.
However, Herrera teaches a washout system including: a fluid source configured to provide a cleaning fluid (Fluid from fluid space 34); a pump (52) fluidly coupled with the fluid source and configured to pressurize the cleaning fluid; and a nozzle (48) fluidly coupled with the pump and configured to discharge the cleaning fluid; wherein the washout system is configured to discharge the cleaning fluid into the drone storage volume (12) to clean the drone storage volume after the drone storage volume has been emptied of refuse or before deployment of the autonomous land-based refuse drone when the drone storage volume is empty; wherein the fluid source includes cleaning fluid collected at a drain of the washout system and recirculated to the pump. (Column 5, Lines 20-23)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add washout system to the depot of Wurman et al./Rodoni as taught by Herrera with a reasonable expectation for success in order to conserve costs.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al./Rodoni and in view of Lackner 5,181,463.
In Re Claim 7, Wurman et al./Rodoni teaches the depot of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al./Rodoni is silent concerning a compactor, the compactor including a pack panel that partially defines the storage volume of the container and a packing actuator configured to drive the pack panel to translate, wherein the compactor is configured to compact refuse within the container.
However, Lackner teaches a compactor, the compactor including a pack panel (106, Fig. 12-14) that partially defines the storage volume of the container and a packing actuator (120) configured to drive the pack panel to translate, wherein the compactor is configured to compact refuse within the container. (Fig. 12-14)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a compactor to the depot of Wurman et al./Rodoni as taught by Lackner with a reasonable expectation for success in order to conserve space.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al./Rodoni and in view of Fenelon et al. 2004/0034538.
In Re Claim 8, Wurman et al./Rodoni teaches the depot of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al./Rodoni is silent concerning a gate coupled with the chassis, the gate transitionable between a closed position to limit access to the container and an open position to allow access to the container, wherein the chassis further comprises a plurality of housing member configured to define an enclosure within which the container is positioned.
However, Fenelon et al. teach a gate (22) coupled with the chassis (Enclosure, Fig. 1), the gate transitionable between a closed position to limit access to the container (10) and an open position to allow access to the container, wherein the chassis further comprises a plurality of housing member (Wall Panel 20, Fig. 1) configured to define an enclosure within which the container is positioned.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a compactor to the depot of Wurman et al./Rodoni as taught by Fenelon et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent unwanted materials.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al./Rodoni and in view of Rodoni 2017/0243363, hereinafter referred to as Rodoni ‘363.
In Re Claim 9, Wurman et al./Rodoni teaches the depot of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al./Rodoni is silent concerning a weight sensor, the weight sensor configured to measure a weight of refuse within the container before and after each of a plurality of performances of the unloading operation to determine an amount of refuse unloaded from each of the plurality of autonomous land-based refuse drones into the container.
However, Rodoni ‘363 teaches a weight sensor (43), the weight sensor configured to measure a weight of refuse within the container (12) before and after each of a plurality of performances of the unloading operation to determine an amount of refuse unloaded from each of the plurality of autonomous land-based refuse drones (14) into the container. (Paragraph 35)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a compactor to the depot of Wurman et al./Rodoni as taught by Rodoni ‘363 with a reasonable expectation for success in order to verify minimal remaining contents.
Claims 11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al. 2011/0153063 and in view of Arrez 2018/0029795.
In Re Claims 11, 12 and 14, Wurman et al. teach a depot for a plurality of refuse collection robots, the depot comprising: a chassis (300) anchored to a ground surface; a container (310) defining a storage volume for refuse; a collection implement (302) and a refuse actuator (304) configured to perform an unloading operation to empty refuse from the plurality of refuse collection robots (20) into the storage volume of the container; (Fig. 3a-3b) and collection implement (302) coupled with the chassis, the collection implement configured to selectively couple with at least one of (i) refuse within a drone storage volume (40) of one of the plurality of refuse collection robots (20) at the depot or (ii) a portion of the one of the plurality of refuse collection robots at the depot that defines the drone storage volume; the refuse actuator configured to drive the collection implement to perform an unloading operation including selectively coupling, moving, and de-coupling from at least one of the refuse within the drone storage volume or the portion of the refuse collection robots that defines the drone storage volume, (Fig. 3A-3B) the refuse actuator configured to drive the collection implement to perform the unloading operation in order to unload the refuse from the drone storage volume into the storage volume of the container. (Fig. 3A-3B)
Wurman et al. is silent concerning more than one refuse actuator.
However, Arrez teaches a plurality of refuse actuators (54, 60) coupled with a collection implement (42); and wherein the container (10) is configured to be emptied into or lifted onto a refuse vehicle (12) (Paragraph 24); and wherein the container (14) comprises a pair of channels (22) sized and positioned to receive a corresponding pair of forks (40) inserted therein, the container configured to be lifted and emptied into a refuse vehicle through engagement between the corresponding pair of forks and the container at the pair of channels. (Paragraph 24)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to use a plurality of actuators in the depot of Wurman et al. as taught by Arrez with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a wider range of movement.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al./Arrez and in view of Huang et al. 2017/0011580.
In Re Claim 13, Wurman et al./Arrez teaches the depot of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al./Arrez is silent concerning wherein the depot further comprises a plurality of charging interfaces, the plurality of charging interfaces connected to a power source and configured to couple wirelessly or wiredly with the plurality of refuse collection robots to charge a battery of the refuse collection robots.
However, Huang et al. teach wherein the depot further comprises a plurality of charging interfaces (Connections to 40, Fig. 16), the plurality of charging interfaces connected to a power source (36, Fig. 16) and configured to couple wirelessly or wiredly with the plurality of refuse collection robots to charge a battery of the refuse collection robots. (Paragraph 154)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a plurality of charging interfaces to the depot of Wurman et al./Arrez as taught by Huang et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce dwell time of drones.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al./Arrez and in view of Herrera 7,398,789.
In Re Claim 16, Wurman et al./Arrez teaches the depot of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al./Arrez is silent concerning a washout system including: a fluid source configured to provide a cleaning fluid; a pump fluidly coupled with the fluid source and configured to pressurize the cleaning fluid; and a nozzle fluidly coupled with the pump and configured to discharge the cleaning fluid; wherein the washout system is configured to discharge the cleaning fluid into the drone storage volume to clean the drone storage volume after the drone storage volume has been emptied of refuse or before deployment of the refuse collection robots when the drone storage volume is empty; wherein the fluid source includes cleaning fluid collected at a drain of the washout system and recirculated to the pump.
However, Herrera teaches a washout system including: a fluid source configured to provide a cleaning fluid (Fluid from fluid space 34); a pump (52) fluidly coupled with the fluid source and configured to pressurize the cleaning fluid; and a nozzle (48) fluidly coupled with the pump and configured to discharge the cleaning fluid; wherein the washout system is configured to discharge the cleaning fluid into the drone storage volume (12) to clean the drone storage volume after the drone storage volume has been emptied of refuse or before deployment of the refuse collection robots when the drone storage volume is empty; wherein the fluid source includes cleaning fluid collected at a drain of the washout system and recirculated to the pump. (Column 5, Lines 20-23)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add washout system to the depot of Wurman et al./Arrez as taught by Herrera with a reasonable expectation for success in order to conserve costs.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al./Arrez and in view of Lackner 5,181,463.
In Re Claim 17, Wurman et al./Arrez teaches the depot of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al./Arrez is silent concerning a compactor, the compactor including a pack panel that partially defines the storage volume of the container and a packing actuator configured to drive the pack panel to translate, wherein the compactor is configured to compact refuse within the container.
However, Lackner teaches a compactor, the compactor including a pack panel (106, Fig. 12-14) that partially defines the storage volume of the container and a packing actuator (120) configured to drive the pack panel to translate, wherein the compactor is configured to compact refuse within the container; (Fig. 12-14) and a gate (78) coupled with the chassis (50), the gate transitionable between a closed position to limit access to the container (78) and an open position to allow access to the container, wherein the chassis further comprises a plurality of housing member (Walls of 50, Fig. 6 and 7) configured to define an enclosure within which the container (52) is positioned.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a compactor to the depot of Wurman et al./Arrez as taught by Lackner with a reasonable expectation for success in order to conserve space.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al./Arrez and in view of Rodoni 2017/0243363, hereinafter referred to as Rodoni ‘363.
In Re Claim 18, Wurman et al./Arrez teaches the depot of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al./Arrez is silent concerning a weight sensor, the weight sensor configured to measure a weight of refuse within the container before and after each of a plurality of performances of the unloading operation to determine an amount of refuse unloaded from each of the plurality of refuse collection robots into the container.
However, Rodoni ‘363 teaches a weight sensor (43), the weight sensor configured to measure a weight of refuse within the container (12) before and after each of a plurality of performances of the unloading operation to determine an amount of refuse unloaded from each of the plurality of refuse collection robots (14) into the container. (Paragraph 35)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a compactor to the depot of Wurman et al./Arrez as taught by Rodoni ‘363 with a reasonable expectation for success in order to verify minimal remaining contents.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Claims 5, 10, 15 and 19 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: Collins teaches a computer controlled refuse container. Yang teaches a refuse depot with an automated dumpster. Anderson et al. teaches an autonomous refuse drone.
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