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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the security system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, claim 5 will be interpreted as being dependent upon claim 4, which introduces “security system”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the internal camera" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Thus, claim 14 will be interpreted as being dependent upon claim 13, which introduces “internal camera”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-2 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (PG Pub U.S 2019/0323189) and further in view of Lappeman (PG Pub U.S 2018/0155122).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia teaches a utility vehicle (1) (figs 1-2) to remove a matter from a surface (8) (abstract and para 0022), comprising: an articulated collector (2) attached to a front section of the utility vehicle (para 0023), wherein the articulated collector is movable (para 0023), and wherein the articulated collector is configured to remove the matter from the surface (para 0022-0024); a matter container (6) coupled to the utility vehicle (para 0026); the articulated collector is connected to the matter container (para 0026), and wherein the matter container is configured to receive and hold the matter (para 0026-0027); and an articulated depositor (7) coupled to the matter container (para 0028), wherein the articulated depositor is configured to deposit the matter to a disposal site (para 0028).
Garcia fails to teach wherein the matter container includes a slanted floor that slopes down bilaterally from a center line extending lengthwise along an interior of the matter container to a drainage area. However, Lappeman also teaches a waste matter collection container (abstract; fig 3) wherein the matter container includes a slanted floor (20) that slopes down bilaterally from a center line extending lengthwise along an interior of the matter container to a drainage area (30/32/40) (fig 3; para 0022) in order to separate the waste matter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garcia such that the matter container includes a slanted floor that slopes down bilaterally from a center line extending lengthwise along an interior of the matter container to a drainage area as taught by Lappeman in order to in order to separate the waste matter.
Regarding claim 2, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman teaches wherein the drainage area comprises a drainage trench (40) covered by a grate (30) (fig 3 and para 0022 of Lappeman).
Regarding claim 6, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman teaches wherein the matter container is a tank or a trailer (para 0026 of Garcia).
Regarding claim 7, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman teaches teaches wherein the matter includes a road debris (para 0022 of Garcia).
Regarding claim 8, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman teaches wherein the articulated collector includes a receiving aperture (para 0023 and 0025 of Garcia).
Regarding claim 9, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman teaches wherein matter is removed from the surface by suctioning the matter through the receiving aperture (para 0023 and 0026 of Garcia).
Regarding claim 10, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman teaches, wherein the articulated collector is automatically movable by a matter detection mechanism (para 0023, 0025, 0034-0035, and claim 11 of Garcia) to position the receiving aperture on top of the matter for removal of the matter from the surface (para 0023, 0025, 0034-0035, and claim 11 of Garcia).
Regarding claim 11, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman teaches wherein the articulated collector includes a filter (para 0024 and 0027 of Garcia).
Regarding claim 12, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman teaches wherein the matter container includes a door to provide access to the matter held within the container (para 0033 of Garcia).
Regarding claim 13, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman teaches wherein the articulated collector includes an internal camera (para 0025, 0035-0036, and claim 14 of Garcia).
Regarding claim 14, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman teaches wherein the internal camera is configured to provide a video of the matter as the matter is collected from the surface and is routed through the articulated collector (para 0036 and claim 15 of Garcia).
Regarding claim 15, Garcia teaches a utility vehicle (1) (figs 1-2) to remove road debris from a road (8) (abstract and para 0022), comprising: an articulated collector (2) attached to a front section of the utility vehicle (para 0023), wherein the articulated collector is movable (para 0023), and wherein the articulated collector is configured to remove the road debris from the road (para 0022-0024); a trailer (6) coupled to the utility vehicle (para 0026) and the articulated collector (para 0026), wherein the trailer is configured to receive and hold the road debris (para 0026-0027); and an articulated depositor (7) coupled to the trailer (para 0028), wherein the articulated depositor is configured to deposit the road debris to a disposal site (para 0028).
Garcia fails to teach wherein the trailer includes a slanted floor that slopes down bilaterally from a center line extending lengthwise along an interior of the trailer to a drainage area. However, Lappeman also teaches a waste matter collection container (abstract; fig 3) wherein the matter container includes a slanted floor (20) that slopes down bilaterally from a center line extending lengthwise along an interior of the matter container to a drainage area (30/32/40) (fig 3; para 0022) in order to separate the waste matter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garcia such that the trailer includes a slanted floor that slopes down bilaterally from a center line extending lengthwise along an interior of the trailer to a drainage area as taught by Lappeman in order to in order to separate the waste matter.
Regarding claim 16, Garcia teaches a method of removing road debris from a road (abstract and para 0022), comprising: positioning an articulated collector attached to a trailer of a utility truck over the road debris on the road (para 0022-0025), wherein the articulated collector is attached to a front section of the utility truck (para 0023); starting a suction mechanism to remove the road debris from the road (para 0023 and 0026); routing the road debris to the trailer (para 0026-0027); and depositing the road debris into the trailer (para 0026-0027).
Garcia fails to teach wherein the trailer includes a slanted floor that slopes down bilaterally from a center line extending lengthwise along an interior of the trailer to a drainage area. However, Lappeman also teaches a waste matter collection container (abstract; fig 3) wherein the matter container includes a slanted floor (20) that slopes down bilaterally from a center line extending lengthwise along an interior of the matter container to a drainage area (30/32/40) (fig 3; para 0022) in order to separate the waste matter. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Garcia such that the trailer includes a slanted floor that slopes down bilaterally from a center line extending lengthwise along an interior of the trailer to a drainage area as taught by Lappeman in order to in order to separate the waste matter.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (PG Pub U.S 2019/0323189), Lappeman (PG Pub U.S 2018/0155122) and further in view of Golden (PG Pub U.S 2011/0178655).
Regarding claim 3, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman fails to teach, wherein the matter container includes one or more sensors configured to detect a person inside the matter container. However, Golden teaches vehicles for storage containers/trailers (para 0056) wherein it is known to include one or more sensors configured to detect a person inside the matter container (claim 10 and claim 14) in order to prevent and capture unauthorized individuals from causing harm (para 0074-0075 and claim 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Garcia and Lappeman such that the matter container includes one or more sensors configured to detect a person inside the matter container as taught by Golden in order to in order to prevent and capture unauthorized individuals from causing harm.
Regarding claim 4, the present combination of Garcia and Lappeman fails to teach wherein the utility vehicle includes a security system that locks down the matter container when a dangerous condition is detected inside the matter container. However, Golden teaches vehicles for storage containers/trailers (para 0056) wherein it is known to include a security system that locks down the matter container when a dangerous condition is detected inside the matter container (para 0074-0075 and claim 14) in order to prevent and capture unauthorized individuals from causing harm (para 0074-0075 and claim 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Garcia and Lappeman such that it includes a security system that locks down the matter container when a dangerous condition is detected inside the matter container as taught by Golden in order to prevent and capture unauthorized individuals from causing harm.
Regarding claim 5, the present combination of Garcia, Lappeman, and Golden teaches wherein the security system activates lights on the outside of the matter container when a person is detected inside the matter container (para 0021 and 0056 of Golden).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRADHUMAN PARIHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-1633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached on 571-272-1344. 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.
/P.P/Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714