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 § 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wurman et al. 2011/0153063.
In Re Claim 1, Wurman et al. teach a refuse collection system (Fig. 21-26) comprising: one or more memory devices (15) storing instructions thereon, that, when executed by one or more processors (Paragraph 14), cause the one or more processors to: control a refuse collection robot (20) containing a volume of refuse (42) to navigate to a refuse depot (52); (Fig. 4) control the refuse depot to remove the volume of refuse from the refuse collection robot; (470, Fig. 4) receive a request (orders, Paragraph 20) from a customer for delivery of a package; identify, based on the request, a location of a pickup zone (50) associated with the customer; (Paragraph 20) control the refuse collection robot to receive the package; (Retrieve inventory holders, Paragraph 20) and control the refuse collection robot to transport the package to the pickup zone.
In Re Claim 2, Wurman et al. teach wherein the request is a first request, and wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: receive a second request for refuse collection from the customer; and control the refuse collection robot to navigate to the pickup zone and receive the volume of refuse from the customer. (Paragraph 71)
In Re Claim 3, Wurman et al. teach wherein the request is a first request, the pickup zone is a first pickup zone, and the customer is a first customer, and wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: receive a second request (Paragraph 71) for refuse collection from a second customer; identify, based on the second request, a location of a second pickup zone (second pick up zone 50, Fig. 1a) associated with the second customer (operator at 2nd workstation, Fig. 1a); and control the refuse collection robot to navigate to the second pickup zone and receive the volume of refuse from the second customer. (Fig. 1a, Paragraph 71)
In Re Claim 4, Wurman et al. teach wherein the refuse collection robot includes: a chassis (body of 20, Fig. 1B); a tractive element (wheels for 20, Fig. 1B) coupled to the chassis; a motor coupled to the chassis and the tractive element and configured to drive the tractive element to propel the refuse collection robot; (Paragraph 15) and a refuse container (40) coupled to the chassis, the refuse container defining a storage volume that receives the volume of refuse (42).
In Re Claim 5, Wurman et al. teach wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to control the refuse collection robot to receive the package within the storage volume. (Paragraph 13)
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Atchley et al. 2017/0010610, provided by Applicant.
In Re Claim 16, Atchley et al. teach a refuse collection system (Fig. 21-26) comprising: a refuse collection robot (2100) comprising: a chassis (chassis of 2100, Fig. 21); a snow removal element (2800) coupled to the chassis; a tractive element (wheels, Fig. 21) coupled to the chassis; a motor (Paragraph 26, Motorized transport unit) coupled to the chassis and the tractive element and configured to drive the tractive element to propel the refuse collection robot; (Paragraph 293) and a refuse container (2108) coupled to the chassis; (Fig. 23) and one or more memory devices (500) storing instructions thereon, that, when executed by one or more processors, (Fig. 5) can cause the one or more processors to: control the refuse collection robot to navigate to a refuse depot while the refuse container contains a volume of refuse; (Fig. 21-26) control the refuse depot to remove the volume of refuse from the refuse container; (Fig. 26) receive a request from a customer for snow removal from an area associated with the customer; (Paragraph 314) generate, based on the request, a route for the refuse collection robot that passes through the area; and control the refuse collection robot to travel along the route and remove snow from the area associated with the customer. (Paragraph 317)
In Re Claim 17, Atchley et al. teach wherein the snow removal element includes at least one of a plow or snowblower. (Fig. 28a)
In Re Claim 18, Atchley et al. teach wherein the snow removal element is removably coupled to the chassis, and wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to control the refuse collection robot to couple the snow removal element to the chassis. (Paragraph 315 and 316)
In Re Claim 19, Atchley et al. teach wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to generate the route such that the snow removal element passes over the entire area associated with the customer. (Paragraph 316 and 317)
In Re Claim 20, Atchley et al. teach a method comprising: receiving a first request for refuse collection from a first customer; (Paragraph 272) controlling the refuse collection robot to autonomously navigate to a first pickup zone associated with the first customer ("first motorized transport unit 2100 approaching an exemplary trash can receptacle 2104 that is to be serviced (e.g., the first trash can 2108 within the trash can receptacle is scheduled to be and/or needs to be emptied)" §273); receiving a second request for delivery of a package from a second customer ("the central computer system 106 can instead direct the motorized transport unit 102 to take the abandoned mobile Item container to a cart processing area such as a customer service area 1204 of the retail shopping facility 101" §162); controlling the refuse collection robot to retrieve the package from a package storage area ("however, the mobile item container contains one or more Items (such as un-purchased Items that were removed from their respective displays and into the mobile Item container by a customer and/ or personal items that might belong to a customer that has now left the premises) the central computer system 106 can instead direct the motorized transport unit 102 to take the abandoned mobile item container to a cart processing area such as a customer service area 1204 of the retail shopping facility 101. FIG. 12 illustrates such an action by the arrow denoted by reference numeral 1203 which represents that the motorized transport unit 102 Is taking the mobile item container D to the aforementioned customer service area 1204" $162); controlling the refuse collection robot to autonomously transport the package to a second pickup zone associated with the second customer ("however, the mobile item container contains one or more items (such as un-purchased items that were removed from their respective displays and into the mobile Item container by a customer and/or personal Items that might belong to a customer that has now left the premises) the central computer system 106 can instead direct the motorized transport unit 102 to take the abandoned mobile item container to a cart processing area such as a customer service area 1204 of the retail shopping facility 101. FIG. 12 illustrates such an action by the arrow denoted by reference numeral 1203 which represents that the motorized transport unit 102 is taking the mobile Item container D to the aforementioned customer service area 1204" §162); receiving a third request for snow removal from third customer ("the central computer system can direct one or more of these ground treatment system equipped motorized transport units to areas of the shopping facility that are exposed to weather conditions to cooperatively and in concert address ground level conditions (e.g., weather induced conditions). For example, the one or more motorized transport units cooperated with a snow plow system can be directed to one or more areas of a parking lot and/or walkways to plow snow in attempts to clear at least portions of the parking lot and/or walkway. Similarly, one or more motorized transport units can each be cooperated with a snow plow system and directed to one or more areas of a parking lot and/or walkways to plow snow in attempts to clear at least portions of the parking lot and/or walkway" §314); generating, based on the request, a route for the refuse collection robot that passes through an area specified in the third request ("one or more motorized transport units are configured to removably attached and cooperate with ground and/or weather related treatment systems (generally referred to below as ground treatment systems)" §317); and control the refuse collection robot to autonomously navigate along the route and remove snow from the area specified in the third request ("one or more motorized transport units are configured to removably attached and cooperate with ground and/or weather related treatment systems (generally referred to below as ground treatment systems)" §317).
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 Wurman et al. and in view of Brady et al. 10,310,500.
In Re Claim 6, Wurman et al. teach the system of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Wurman et al. do not teach wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to control a washout system of the refuse depot to apply a cleaning fluid to the storage volume of the refuse container before the storage volume receives the package.
However, Brady et al. teach wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors (232, 234, 236) to control a washout system of the refuse depot to apply a cleaning fluid to the storage volume of the refuse container before the storage volume receives the package. (Column 39, Line 63-66)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to apply a cleaning fluid to the storage volume in the system of Wurman et al. as taught by Brady et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce odors and pests.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al. and in view of Bussetti et al. 2019/0121368.
In Re Claim 7, Wurman et al. teach the system of Claim 5 as discussed above.
Wurman et al. do not teach wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to control a washout system of the refuse depot to apply a cleaning fluid to the storage volume of the refuse container after the refuse depot removes the volume from the package.
However, Bussetti et al. teach wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors (Fig. 4) to control a washout system of the refuse depot to apply a cleaning fluid to the storage volume of the refuse container after the refuse depot removes the volume from the package. (Paragraph 60)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to apply a cleaning fluid to the storage volume in the system of Wurman et al. as taught by Bussetti et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to reduce odors and pests.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al. and in view of Koga et al. 2021/0325911.
In Re Claim 8, Wurman et al. teach the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al. do not teach wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to provide a notification to a user device associated with the customer, the notification prompting the customer to request collection of refuse associated with the package.
However, Koga et al. teach wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to provide a notification to a user device associated with the customer, the notification prompting the customer to request collection of refuse associated with the package. (Paragraph 104)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a notification in the system of Wurman et al. as taught by Koga et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to ensure refuse is ready.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al. and in view of Giacobbe 12,122,595.
In Re Claim 9-12, Wurman et al. teach the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al. do not teach wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to engage a lock of the refuse collection robot to prevent removal of the package from the refuse collection robot.
However, Giacobbe teaches wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors (Fig. 7) to engage a lock (48) of the refuse collection robot to prevent removal of the package from the refuse collection robot (Fig. 4); (See Fig. 7) and wherein the lock selectively limits movement of a cover (44) of the refuse collection robot, the cover being configured to prevent access to a storage volume of the refuse collection robot containing the package when the cover is in a closed position; (Fig. 4) and wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to disengage the lock in response to receiving an unlock signal from a user device (66) associated with the customer; and wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to disengage the lock in response to an indication that the refuse collection robot has entered the pickup zone. (Column 3, Lines 13-38)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a lock to the system of Wurman et al. as taught by Giacobbe with a reasonable expectation for success in order to prevent children from getting locked in.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wurman et al. and in view of Brady et al 10,310,500.
In Re Claim 13-15, Wurman et al. teach the system of Claim 1 as discussed above.
Wurman et al. do not teach wherein, prior to being received by the refuse collection robot, the package is located within a package storage area of the refuse depot.
However, Brady et al. wherein, prior to being received by the refuse collection robot (250), the package is located within a package storage area (233) of the refuse depot (230); and wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to control a package interface of the refuse depot to transfer the package from the package storage area to the refuse collection robot; (Column 12, Lines 43-66) and wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors (Fig. 2B) to receive image data of the package storage area from a camera (262) of the refuse depot; extract, from the image data, package identifier information including an intended recipient of the package; (Column 17, Lines 35-46) and providing a notification to a user device associated with the customer in response to a determination that the customer is the intended recipient. (Column 15, Lines 52-64)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the application was filed to add a package storage area to the system of Wurman et al. as taught by Brady et al. with a reasonable expectation for success in order to provide a single location for item pick up.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ulrich et al., Mutua and Gil teach collection robots for customer collection or delivery.
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