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 .
Status of the Application
This is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the claims as submitted on 5/13/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recite the terms “waste container” and “container” interchangeably. The Applicant is advised to keep consistency among the terminology in order to avoid indefiniteness. 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 1-2, 4-5, 6-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as can see from the table below, the claims of the instant application are taught by the claims un US 11,983,681. Claim 1 in the instant application is shown in relation to claim 1 of US11983681 overlap, it is noted claim 1 of the instant application is broader than claim 1 of US 11, 983,681.
Regarding claim 1, US 11, 983,681, discloses
Claim 1, A method, comprising:
by a sensor node device having an optical sensor disposed on an side or corner of a waste container with a viewing angle towards an opposite inner side or corner of the waste container, with the optical sensor being operable to capture an image,
receiving, by the sensor node device, from the optical sensor, an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container to enable the sensor node to estimate a used or available capacity of the waste container based on that image.
1. (Currently amended) A method performed by a first network node that is operable to monitor a characteristic of a waste container operation via a sensor node co-located with a waste container, comprising:
receiving, by the first network node, from the sensor node, an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the container, the first network node being operable to estimate an available capacity of the container to hold waste based on that image so that
a second network node is operable to schedule a task associated with the available capacity of the container, with the image being obtained by an optical sensor operationally coupled to the sensor node,
the sensor being disposed on one end of an extendable arm of the sensor node, with the sensor node being operable to control the extendable arm so that the sensor can be extended by the extendable arm to obtain an overhead perspective view of the interior of the container with a downwards viewing angle towards an opposite side or corner of the container on a side or corner of the container with a viewing angle towards an opposite side or corner of the container.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: estimating the used or available capacity of the container based on the image.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: estimating the available capacity of the container based on the image.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein said processing the image is responsive to determining that the viewing angle of the optical sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is unblocked by any waste disposed in the container.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein said processing the image is responsive to determining whether all or a portion of the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending, by the sensor node device, to a network node device over a network, an indication that includes the used or available capacity of the waste container.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the task includes sending an indication that the container is full of waste.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: sending, by the sensor node device, to a network node device over a network, an indication that the container is full of waste.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the task includes sending an indication that the container is full of waste.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the optical sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container.
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: sending, by the sensor node device, to the network node device over the network, an indication that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the optical sensor towards the opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container.
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: sending, by the first network node, to the second network node, an indication that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the optical sensor is disposed on one end of an extendable arm of the sensor node device, with the sensor node device being operable to control the extendable arm so that the optical sensor can be extended by the extendable arm to obtain an overhead perspective view of the interior of the container with a downwards viewing angle towards an opposite side or corner of the container.
1. A method performed by a first network node that is operable to monitor a characteristic of a waste container operation via a sensor node co-located with a waste container, comprising: receiving, by the first network node, from the sensor node, an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the container, the first network node being operable to estimate an available capacity of the container to hold waste based on that image so that a second network node is operable to schedule a task associated with the available capacity of the container, with the image being obtained by an optical sensor operationally coupled to the sensor node, the sensor being disposed on one end of an extendable arm of the sensor node, with the sensor node being operable to control the extendable arm so that the sensor can be extended by the extendable arm to obtain an overhead perspective view of the interior of the container with a downwards viewing angle towards an opposite side or corner of the container.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the sensor node device is operable to extend the extendable arm responsive to determining that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the optical sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the sensor node is operable to extend the extendable arm responsive to determining that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container.
Claims 3, 5, 11-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 5, 7-8, 10-11, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 in view of Armstrong (US Patent Publication 2020/0013024).
Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 discloses
wherein said estimating includes: processing, by an artificial intelligence circuit of the sensor node device, the image to determine an estimate of used or available capacity of the container, wherein the artificial intelligence circuit is trained by a plurality of interior waste container images having different predetermined used or available capacities of waste (3. The method of claim 2, wherein said estimating the available capacity includes: processing, by a neural network of the first network node, the image to determine an estimate of the available capacity of the container, wherein the neural network is trained by a plurality of interior waste container images having different predetermined available capacities of waste.).
Claim 3 of US Patent 11,983,681 does not explicitly disclose:
determine a confidence level of that estimate.
However Armstrong teaches:
determine an estimate of used or available capacity of the container and a confidence level of that estimate ([0036] The method can optionally include classifying the image (or set thereof) as “unknown.” Images can be classified as “unknown” when: the classification confidence level falls below a predetermined threshold, when the images cannot be classified as “clean” (“uncontaminated”) or “contaminated”, and/or otherwise classified as “unknown.” In one variation, images classified as “unknown” are sent for manual review (e.g., by a user), wherein the user reviews and labels the image with a “contaminated” or “clean” label (e.g., preferably identifying each contaminant item in the image, such as by selecting the image region corresponding to the contaminant item, labeling the contaminant item based on the contaminant type, and/or providing a contaminant count associated with the image). In a second variation, the “unknown” images can be sent to auxiliary detectors (e.g., with lower classification errors, different kappa coefficients, higher precision, higher recall, etc.), wherein the auxiliary detectors label the “unknown” images with the contamination status (e.g., “contaminated,” “clean”), contamination assessment (e.g., contaminant count), and/or the contaminant type(s). The labeled images can subsequently be used as training data to update the contamination detection system (e.g., train or update the neural network).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to determine a confidence level of the estimate since such determination allows for determining a the precision of determining the available capacity, thereby allowing the system to asses the images taken as disclosed by Armstrong [036].)
Regarding claim 11, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 discloses
A sensor node device, comprising: with the sensor node device having an optical sensor on a waste container with a viewing angle towards an opposite inner side or corner of the waste container, with the optical sensor being operable to capture an image, processing circuitry and memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuitry whereby the sensor node device is configured to: receive, from the optical sensor, an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container to enable the sensor node device to estimate a used or available capacity of the waste container based on that image (13. A sensor node, co-located with a waste container, that is operable to monitor a characteristic of a waste container operation, comprising: processing circuitry and memory, the memory containing instructions executable by the processing circuitry whereby the first network node is configured to: send, to a first network node, an image captured by an optical sensor operationally coupled to the sensor node and representing a perspective view of an interior of a waste container, the sensor being disposed on one end of an extendable arm of the sensor node, with the sensor node being operable to control the extendable arm so that the sensor can be extended by the extendable arm to obtain an overhead perspective view of the interior of the container with a downwards viewing angle towards an opposite side or corner of the container, the first network node being operable to estimate an available capacity of the waste container to hold waste based on the image.)
Claim 13 of US Patent 11,983,681 does not explicitly disclose:
the sensor disposed on a side or corner of the container.
However Armstrong teaches:
a sensor disposed on a side or corner of the container.
(See Figures 3A-3C and [0016] The content sensor is preferably configured to sense (e.g., image) the interior of the container that it is associated with (e.g., image and/or otherwise sense the contents of the container), more preferably configured to sense substantially all of the interior but alternatively configured to image any suitable portion thereof. The content sensor preferably has a fixed position and/or orientation relative to the container (e.g., is mechanically coupled to the container, preferably by a fixed coupling) but can alternatively have any other suitable spatial relationship with respect to the container (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 3A-3C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to determine place the sensor on a side or corner of the container as disclosed by the images in Armstrong since such design allows for sense substantially all of the interior of the container as disclosed by Armstrong [016].)
Regarding claim 12, claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 discloses
estimate the used or available capacity of the container based on the image (claim 11, estimate an available capacity of the container to hold).
Regarding claim 13, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 discloses
process, by an artificial intelligence circuit of the device, the image to determine an estimate of the used or available capacity of the container, wherein the neural network is trained by a plurality of interior waste container images having different predetermined available capacities of waste (claim 3processing, by a neural network of the first network node, the image to determine an estimate of the available capacity of the container, wherein the neural network is trained by a plurality of interior waste container images having different predetermined available capacities of waste. ).
Claim 3 of US Patent 11,983,681 does not explicitly disclose:
determine a confidence level of that estimate.
However Armstrong teaches:
determine an estimate of used or available capacity of the container and a confidence level of that estimate ([0036] The method can optionally include classifying the image (or set thereof) as “unknown.” Images can be classified as “unknown” when: the classification confidence level falls below a predetermined threshold, when the images cannot be classified as “clean” (“uncontaminated”) or “contaminated”, and/or otherwise classified as “unknown.” In one variation, images classified as “unknown” are sent for manual review (e.g., by a user), wherein the user reviews and labels the image with a “contaminated” or “clean” label (e.g., preferably identifying each contaminant item in the image, such as by selecting the image region corresponding to the contaminant item, labeling the contaminant item based on the contaminant type, and/or providing a contaminant count associated with the image). In a second variation, the “unknown” images can be sent to auxiliary detectors (e.g., with lower classification errors, different kappa coefficients, higher precision, higher recall, etc.), wherein the auxiliary detectors label the “unknown” images with the contamination status (e.g., “contaminated,” “clean”), contamination assessment (e.g., contaminant count), and/or the contaminant type(s). The labeled images can subsequently be used as training data to update the contamination detection system (e.g., train or update the neural network).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to determine a confidence level of the estimate since such determination allows for determining a the precision of determining the available capacity, thereby allowing the system to assess the images taken as disclosed by Armstrong [036].)
Regarding claim 14, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 discloses
process, by an artificial intelligence circuit of the device, the image to determine an estimate of the used or available capacity of the container responsive to determining that the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is unblocked by waste disposed in the container, wherein the neural network is trained by a plurality of interior waste container images having different predetermined available capacities of waste. (claim 3 processing, by a neural network of the first network node, the image to determine an estimate of the available capacity of the container, wherein the neural network is trained by a plurality of interior waste container images having different predetermined available capacities of waste. ).
Claim 3 of US Patent 11,983,681 does not explicitly disclose:
determine a confidence level of that estimate.
However Armstrong teaches:
determine an estimate of used or available capacity of the container and a confidence level of that estimate ([0036] The method can optionally include classifying the image (or set thereof) as “unknown.” Images can be classified as “unknown” when: the classification confidence level falls below a predetermined threshold, when the images cannot be classified as “clean” (“uncontaminated”) or “contaminated”, and/or otherwise classified as “unknown.” In one variation, images classified as “unknown” are sent for manual review (e.g., by a user), wherein the user reviews and labels the image with a “contaminated” or “clean” label (e.g., preferably identifying each contaminant item in the image, such as by selecting the image region corresponding to the contaminant item, labeling the contaminant item based on the contaminant type, and/or providing a contaminant count associated with the image). In a second variation, the “unknown” images can be sent to auxiliary detectors (e.g., with lower classification errors, different kappa coefficients, higher precision, higher recall, etc.), wherein the auxiliary detectors label the “unknown” images with the contamination status (e.g., “contaminated,” “clean”), contamination assessment (e.g., contaminant count), and/or the contaminant type(s). The labeled images can subsequently be used as training data to update the contamination detection system (e.g., train or update the neural network).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to determine a confidence level of the estimate since such determination allows for determining a the precision of determining the available capacity, thereby allowing the system to assess the images taken as disclosed by Armstrong [036].)
Regarding claim 15, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 discloses
send, to a network node device over a network, an indication that includes the current available capacity of the waste container (wherein the task includes sending an indication that the container is full of waste.).
Regarding claim 16, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 discloses
send, to a network node device over a network, an indication that the container is full of waste (wherein the task includes sending an indication that the container is full of waste.).
Regarding claim 17, claims 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 discloses
in response to determining that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container, send, to a network node device over a network, an indication that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the optical sensor towards the opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container (7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container. 8. The method of claim 7, further comprising: sending, by the first network node, to the second network node, an indication that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container. ).
Regarding claim 18, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 discloses
wherein the optical sensor is disposed on one end of an extendable arm of the sensor node, with the sensor node being operable to control the extendable arm so that the sensor can be extended by the extendable arm to obtain an overhead perspective view of the interior of the container with a downwards viewing angle towards an opposite side or corner of the container (the sensor being disposed on one end of an extendable arm of the sensor node, with the sensor node being operable to control the extendable arm so that the sensor can be extended by the extendable arm to obtain an overhead perspective view of the interior of the container with a downwards viewing angle towards an opposite side or corner of the container.).
Regarding claim 19, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 discloses
extend the extendable arm responsive to determining that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container (wherein the sensor node is operable to extend the extendable arm responsive to determining that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container.).
Claims 20 is are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 3, 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 in view of Armstrong (US Patent Publication 2020/0013024).
Regarding claim 20, claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,983,681 discloses
A system, comprising:
a waste container configured to hold waste (claim 1, the waste container to hold waste);
a sensor node device disposed on the container (claim 1, a sensor node co-located with a waste container,) and having an artificial intelligence circuit trained by a plurality of interior waste container images having different predetermined available capacities of waste (3. The method of claim 2, wherein said estimating the available capacity includes: processing, by a neural network of the first network node, the image to determine an estimate of the available capacity of the container, wherein the neural network is trained by a plurality of interior waste container images having different predetermined available capacities of waste.) and an optical sensor of the waste container (a sensor node co-located with a waste container) with a viewing angle towards an opposite inner side or corner of the waste container ( view of the interior of the container with a downwards viewing angle towards an opposite side or corner of the container), with the optical sensor being operable to capture an image (receiving, by the first network node, from the sensor node, an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the container); and wherein the sensor node device is operable to:
receive, from the optical sensor, an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container ( receiving, by the first network node, from the sensor node, an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the container);
determine that the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is by waste disposed in the container based on the image (7. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that all or a portion of the viewing angle of the sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is blocked by waste disposed in the container.);
process, by the artificial intelligence circuit, the image to determine an estimate of used or available capacity of the container (3. The method of claim 2, wherein said estimating the available capacity includes: processing, by a neural network of the first network node, the image to determine an estimate of the available capacity of the container, wherein the neural network is trained by a plurality of interior waste container images having different predetermined available capacities of waste.); and
send, to a network node device over a network, an indication that includes the used or available capacity of the waste container (5. The method of claim 1, wherein the task includes sending an indication that the container is full of waste.).
Claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 of US Patent 11,983,681 does not explicitly disclose:
the sensor disposed on a side or corner;
determining the view is unblocked; and
a confidence level of the estimate.
However Armstrong teaches:
a sensor disposed on a side or corner of the container.
(See Figures 3A-3C and [0016] The content sensor is preferably configured to sense (e.g., image) the interior of the container that it is associated with (e.g., image and/or otherwise sense the contents of the container), more preferably configured to sense substantially all of the interior but alternatively configured to image any suitable portion thereof. The content sensor preferably has a fixed position and/or orientation relative to the container (e.g., is mechanically coupled to the container, preferably by a fixed coupling) but can alternatively have any other suitable spatial relationship with respect to the container (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 3A-3C).
determine an estimate of used or available capacity of the container and a confidence level of that estimate ([0036] The method can optionally include classifying the image (or set thereof) as “unknown.” Images can be classified as “unknown” when: the classification confidence level falls below a predetermined threshold, when the images cannot be classified as “clean” (“uncontaminated”) or “contaminated”, and/or otherwise classified as “unknown.” In one variation, images classified as “unknown” are sent for manual review (e.g., by a user), wherein the user reviews and labels the image with a “contaminated” or “clean” label (e.g., preferably identifying each contaminant item in the image, such as by selecting the image region corresponding to the contaminant item, labeling the contaminant item based on the contaminant type, and/or providing a contaminant count associated with the image). In a second variation, the “unknown” images can be sent to auxiliary detectors (e.g., with lower classification errors, different kappa coefficients, higher precision, higher recall, etc.), wherein the auxiliary detectors label the “unknown” images with the contamination status (e.g., “contaminated,” “clean”), contamination assessment (e.g., contaminant count), and/or the contaminant type(s). The labeled images can subsequently be used as training data to update the contamination detection system (e.g., train or update the neural network).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled to determine place the sensor on a side or corner of the container and determining a confidence level of the estimate since such modifications allows for determining a the precision of determining the available capacity, thereby allowing the system to assess the images taken and since such design allows for sense substantially all of the interior of the container as disclosed by Armstrong [016] and [036].)
US Patent 11,983,681 and Armstrong does not explicitly disclose that such processing is based on a determination that the view of the sensor is unblocked.
Healey which relates to a method and system for monitoring the waste in a waste receptacle further teaches:
determining that the viewing angle of the optical sensor towards an opposite side or corner of the container is unblocked by any waste disposed in the container ([012]-[013] discloses determining if waste is blocking the camera.).
Therefore it would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filling date, to incorporate the concept of determining if a sensor is blocked, as presented by Healey, since such improvement is merely a modification of well-known prior art elements in the art that yield to predictable results such as allowing the system to determining if the sensor is gathering all data related to the content of the waste container as disclosed by Healey [012-013].
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 1-20 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 1 recites the limitation “that image” in line 7. However, it is unclear if the term is related to “an image” as introduced in line 4 or the term “an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” as introduced in line 5. It is unclear if all the terms are related or if the system is taking into consideration two distinct images. For examination purposes the term “that image” in line 7 is interpreted as being the same as the “image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” which is the image received by the system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 discloses the term “the image” in line 2. However, it is unclear if the term is related to “an image” as introduced in line 4 or the term “an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” as introduced in line 5 o independent claim 1 from which claim 2 depends. It is unclear if all the terms are related or if the system is taking into consideration two distinct images. For examination purposes the term is interpreted as being the same as the “image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” which is the image received by the system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 discloses the term “the image” in line 2. However, it is unclear if the term is related to “an image” as introduced in line 4 or the term “an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” as introduced in line 5 o independent claim 1 from which claim 3 depends. It is unclear if all the terms are related or if the system is taking into consideration two distinct images. For examination purposes the term is interpreted as being the same as the “image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” which is the image received by the system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “that image” in line 9. However, it is unclear if the term is related to “an image” as introduced in line 4 or the term “an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” as introduced in line 7. It is unclear if all the terms are related or if the system is taking into consideration two distinct images. For examination purposes the term “that image” in line 9 is interpreted as being the same as the “image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” which is the image received by the system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 discloses the term “the image” in line 3. However, it is unclear if the term is related to “an image” as introduced in line 4 or the term “an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” as introduced in line 7 o independent claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. It is unclear if all the terms are related or if the system is taking into consideration two distinct images. For examination purposes the term is interpreted as being the same as the “image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” which is the image received by the system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 discloses the term “the image” in line 3. However, it is unclear if the term is related to “an image” as introduced in line 4 or the term “an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” as introduced in line 7 o independent claim 11 from which claim 12 depends. It is unclear if all the terms are related or if the system is taking into consideration two distinct images. For examination purposes the term is interpreted as being the same as the “image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” which is the image received by the system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the neural network" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis in the claim makes the claim indefinite since it is unclear the relationship between the neural network claimed with the device of claim 11. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 13 discloses the term “the image” in line 3. However, it is unclear if the term is related to “an image” as introduced in line 4 or the term “an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” as introduced in line 7 o independent claim 11 from which claim 13 depends. It is unclear if all the terms are related or if the system is taking into consideration two distinct images. For examination purposes the term is interpreted as being the same as the “image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” which is the image received by the system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the neural network" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis in the claim makes the claim indefinite since it is unclear the relationship between the neural network claimed with the device of claim 11. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the extendable arm" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The lack of antecedent basis in the claim makes the claim indefinite since it is unclear the relationship between the extendable arm claimed with the device of claim 11. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the image” in lines 14 and 15. However, it is unclear if these terms are related to the term “an image” as introduced in line 8 or the term “an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” as introduced in line 10. It is unclear if all the terms are related or if the system is taking into consideration two distinct images. For examination purposes the terms “the image” in lines 14 and 15 are interpreted as being the same as the “image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container” which is the image received by the system. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 11-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the claims are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claims 1 and 11 and 20 recites the abstract idea of monitoring a characteristic of a container operation so that the container is collected without waste overflow or underutilization [004].
For claims 1, and 11 this idea is described by the following claim steps:
receiving an image representing a perspective view of an interior of the waste container to estimate a used or available capacity of the waste container based on that image;
This idea falls within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Estimating the used or available capacity of a waste container based on an image received (i.e. observation) is something that a person is capable of in their mind without the use of technology.
With respect to independent claim 20, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
receive, an image representing a perspective view on an interior of the waste container;
determine that the viewing angle is unblocked by waste disposed in the container;
determine an estimate of used or available capacity of the container and a confidence level of that estimate;
send an indication that includes the used or available capacity of the waste container and the confidence level.
As noted above, this idea falls within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Estimating and alerting about the used or available capacity of a waste container based on an image received (i.e. observation) is something that a person is capable of in their mind without the use of technology.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Mental Processes abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Mental Processes abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
a sensor node device having an optical sensor disposed on an side or corner of a waste container with a viewing angle towards an opposite inner side or corner of the waste container, with the optical sensor being operable to capture an image;
processing circuitry and memory;
a waste container configured to hold waste;
a sensor node device disposed on the container and having an artificial intelligence circuit trained by a plurality of interior waste container images having different predetermined available capacities of waste and an optical sensor disposed on a side or corner of the waste container with a viewing angle towards an opposite inner side or corner of the waste container, with the optical sensor being operable to capture an image;
a network node.
However, using a computer environment such as a sensor node having an optical sensor, and a processing circuitry amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Determining an estimate of used or available capacity of a waste container can reasonably be performed mentally until limited to a computerized environment by requiring a sensor to gather the image and a processor and a memory to perform the steps.
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-17 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
The dependent claims 2, 4-8, 12, and 15-17 are merely reciting further embellishments of the abstract idea and do not amount to anything that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or with regard to technical field or provide any meaningful limitations that, in an ordered combination provide “significantly more” or providing any integration into a practical application. Rather, the dependent claims are merely further reciting features that are just as abstract as independent Claims 1 and 11.
With regard to claims 3 and 13-14, which recites the additional element of an artificial intelligence circuit, the claim is merely reciting instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (i.e., using an artificial intelligence circuit to perform the abstract mental processes), which is insufficient to provide a practical application of the claims and provide subject matter eligibility. The examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
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