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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment(s) filed 9/24/2024.
Claim Interpretation
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 8 the recitation “means suitable for carrying out the steps…” is interpreted as invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al (US 5,299,142 A).
Regarding claims 1 & 8-10 Brown et al teaches actuating at least one hydraulic press ram 18 26 acquiring at least two operating parameters (Interpreted as multiple pressure parameters & fullness) (Abstract)(Col. 6 lines 8-60)(Figs. 2-5) of the hydraulic press ram 18 26 during step a); c) evaluating the at least two operating parameters by comparing them with at least one previously known reference parameter (Abstract)(Col. 3 lines 54-64)(Fig. 9A); d) displaying a fill level of the press container 28 (Abstract) (Fig. 9B) depending on the evaluation in step (Inherent via Figs 2A-12).
Regarding claim 2 Brown et al teaches continuously acquiring the at least two operating parameters at least during a final time period (Abstract)(Col. 6 lines 8-60)(Col. 13. lines 25-65(Figs. 2-12).
Regarding claim 3 Brown et al teaches the at least two operating parameters include at least one of the following parameters: hydraulic pressure, pressing force, and ram travel. (Interpreted as multiple pressure parameters & fullness) (Abstract)(Col. 5 lines 56-68)(Col. 6 lines 8-60)(Figs. 2-5) .
Regarding claim 4 Brown et al teaches all steps b) to d) are carried out only once until at least one of the at least two operating parameters reaches a threshold value (Abstract)(Figs 3A-15).
Regarding claim 5 Brown et al teaches at least one of the at least two operating parameters is determined by way of sensors 50.
Regarding claim 6 Brown et al teaches allowing a selection of differently energy-consuming displays 28 depending on the evaluation in step c) (Figs. 5-12).
Regarding claim 7 Brown et al teaches includes further parameters and displays 28 adjusted information relating to the fill level of the press container (Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8794135 B1 System and method for controlling compactor systems
US 20100071572 A1 WASTE COMPACTOR AND CONTAINER MONITORING SYSTEM
US 7145450 B2 Compactor service and monitoring system
US 6123017 A System and method for evaluating the fill state of a waste container and predicting when the container will be full
US 5303642 A Multiple trash compactors monitoring system comprises modem for sending facsimile message to remotely located facsimile machine when fullness of container of one of trash compactors has been determined
US 5016197 A Automated trash management system
US 4643087 A Process for monitoring the fullness of a compactor
US 4621526 A Container having a device for the electric measurement of the level of a liquid contained within it
US 4603625 A Apparatus for monitoring the fullness of a compactor
US 3822638 A FULL LEVEL INDICATOR FOR REFUSE COMPACTOR
DE 102022203138 A1 Method for determining and displaying a fill level of a press container, press container, computer program and computer-readable medium
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2174. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-5PM.
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, Kristina M Deherrera can be reached at (303) 297-4237. 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.
/ANDRE J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights