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 27 November 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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, 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 12, 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-15 of copending Application No. 18/523,830 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are merely obvious variations and broader versions of the copending claims.
Below is a comparison between present claim 1 and copending claims 7 and 9:
Present claim 1
Copending claims 7 and 9
A waste management apparatus to be mounted on a waste collection vehicle equipped with at least one optical sensor configured to acquire images of waste entering the waste collection vehicle, the waste management apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor configured to:
A waste management apparatus to be mounted on a waste collection vehicle equipped with at least one optical sensor configured to acquire images of waste entering the waste collection vehicle, the waste management apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor configured to process at least part of the acquired images to:
- process at least part of the acquired images through a machine learning module to detect one or more objects, and for each object detected in a given image, provide at least a class in a classification of objects, and a position of the object in the given image,
- detect one or more objects,
- for each object detected in a given image, provide at least a class in a classification of objects,
wherein the acquired images are processed through a machine learning module, the machine learning module detecting objects in a given image, and providing for each detected object, at least the class of the detected object and an object identifier that uniquely identifies the detected object, an object being determined as a new object when the object identifier is different from the identifiers of the objects detected in previous images.
- determine, amongst the detected objects, new objects entering the waste collection vehicle, and
- determine from the acquired images a type of entrance into the waste collection vehicle, wherein the type of entrance is one of: manual entrance, entrance from a bin lifted by the waste collection vehicle, entrance from a bin lifted manually, or entrance from a container discharged into the waste collection vehicle, wherein the container is a street container or a container at a drop off point
- send to a remote server information about the new objects, the information comprising at least the class of [[the]] a new object, a time and a location of the waste collection vehicle when the new object entered the waste collection vehicle, wherein the type of entrance is included in the information sent to the remote server.
- determine, amongst the detected objects, new objects entering the waste collection vehicle, by comparing each object detected in the given image with a history of objects detected in a plurality of previous images, based on a function of a plurality of distances comprising at least a distance between the class and a distance between the position of the objects being compared.
wherein the at least one memory and at least one processor are further configured to provide, to for each object detected in a given image, a position in said given image, and determining new objects entering the waste collection vehicle comprises:
- storing, in a memory, records corresponding to objects detected in previous images, a given record comprising at least the position of the given object in the given previous image and information descriptive of the given object,
- for each detected object in the current image:
- comparing the position and the descriptive information of the detected object with the records in the memory,
- when no match is found determine that the detected object is a new object,
- storing in the memory a new record corresponding to the detected object in the current image.
As shown above, the main difference between the claims, besides wording, is that copending claims 7 and 9 recite the limitations “determine, amongst the detected objects, new objects entering the waste collection vehicle”, “determine from the acquired images a type of entrance into the waste collection vehicle, wherein the type of entrance is one of: manual entrance, entrance from a bin lifted by the waste collection vehicle, entrance from a bin lifted manually, or entrance from a container discharged into the waste collection vehicle, wherein the container is a street container or a container at a drop off point”, “send to a remote server information about the new objects, the information comprising at least the class of a new object, a time and a location of the waste collection vehicle when the new object entered the waste collection vehicle, wherein the type of entrance is included in the information sent to the remote server” whereas present claim 1 fails to recite these features. Otherwise, the limitations presented in present claim 1 are merely broader versions of the limitations of copending claims 7 and 9. Thus, the only difference is that the limitations in copending claims 7 and 9 are not claimed together in the same claim. However, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim the specific limitations of claims 7 and 9 together in the same claim since they are a part of the same claimed invention in the independent claim 1, and merely define more limiting features that are already claimed in the independent claim.
Claim 3 is similarly rejected over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 5 is similarly rejected over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 6 is similarly rejected over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 8 is similarly rejected over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 10 is similarly rejected over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected similarly as claim 1 above.
Claim 14 is similarly rejected over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 15 is similarly rejected over claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 17 is similarly rejected over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 19 is similarly rejected over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 20 is similarly rejected over claim 15 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented, however, it is noted that a Notice of Allowance has been mailed in the copending application.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/963,102 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are merely obvious variations and broader versions of the copending claims.
Below is a comparison between present claim 1 and copending claim 7:
Present claim 1
Copending claim 7
A waste management apparatus to be mounted on a waste collection vehicle equipped with at least one optical sensor configured to acquire images of waste entering the waste collection vehicle, the waste management apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor configured to:
A waste management apparatus to be mounted on a waste collection vehicle equipped with at least one optical sensor configured to acquire images of waste entering the waste collection vehicle, the waste management apparatus comprising at least one memory and at least one processor configured to process at least part of the acquired images to:
- process at least part of the acquired images through a machine learning module to detect one or more objects, and for each object detected in a given image, provide at least a class in a classification of objects, and a position of the object in the given image,
- detect one or more objects,
- for each object detected in a given image, provide at least a class in a classification of objects, wherein the classification of objects relates to sorting rules so that a type of waste collection tour can be determined from a class of objects,
wherein the at least part of the acquired images is processed through a machine learning module to detect the one or more objects and provide, for each object detected in a given image, at least the class in a classification of objects and a position of the object in the given image,
- determine, amongst the detected objects, new objects entering the waste collection vehicle, by comparing each object detected in the given image with a history of objects detected in a plurality of previous images, based on a function of a plurality of distances comprising at least a distance between the class and a distance between the position of the objects being compared.
- determine, amongst the detected objects, new objects entering the waste collection vehicle,
and the new objects entering the waste collection vehicle are determined by comparing each object detected in the given image with a history of objects detected in a plurality of previous images, based on a function of a plurality of distances comprising at least a distance between the class and a distance between the position of the objects being compared
- determine an actual type of the given waste collection tour from a distribution or a weighted distribution of the classes of at least a certain number of the new objects.
As shown above, the main difference between the claims, besides wording, is that copending claim 7 recites “wherein the classification of objects relates to sorting rules so that a type of waste collection tour can be determined from a class of objects” and “determine an actual type of the given waste collection tour from a distribution or a weighted distribution of the classes of at least a certain number of the new objects” whereas present claim 1 fails to recite these features. Therefore, present claim 1 is merely a broader version of copending claim 7, and thus is anticipated by copending claim 7.
Claim 2 is similarly rejected over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 3 is similarly rejected over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 4 is similarly rejected over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 5 is similarly rejected over claim 6 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 6 is similarly rejected over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 7 is similarly rejected over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 8 is similarly rejected over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 9 is similarly rejected over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 10 is similarly rejected over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 11 is similarly rejected over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected is similarly rejected similarly as claim 1 above.
Claim 13 is similarly rejected is similarly rejected similarly as claim 2 above.
Claim 14 is similarly rejected over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 15 is similarly rejected over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claim 16 is similarly rejected over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
Claims 17-20 are similarly rejected over claims 17-20 of copending Application No. 18/963,102.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 6-9, 14-16 and 19-20 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.
Claims 6-7, 14 and 16 each similarly recite “wherein the object classification relates to sorting rules so that a type of waste collection tour can be determined from a class of objects, the method comprising at least determining an actual type of the given waste collection tour from a distribution or a weighted distribution of the classes of at least a certain number of the new objects that entered the waste collection vehicle during the given waste collection tour.”
The claim first recites that a type of the tour is determined from a class of objects, but then says an “actual” type is then determined. It is unclear if this means that “the type” determined from the class of objects is wrong or inaccurate, and it is unclear why the type is even determined according to the sorting rules and classes as claimed since the “actual type” is then determined based on a distribution or a weighted distribution of the classes, which the specification describes in paragraphs [00101]-[00104]. Since the claimed “actual” type described in the specification could also be determined to be wrong, and “actual” means “real, true, or existing in fact”, a mere weighted distribution for the determination does not mean that the determination is the “actual” type of the tour.
Claims 8-9 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 6.
Claim 15 is rejected due to its dependency from claim 14.
Claim 19 is rejected due to its dependency from claim 14.
Claim 20 is rejected due to its dependency from claim 15.
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.
Claims 1, 10, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romano et al. (US 2020/0034785) in view of Dietrich (US 2022/0180330).
Regarding claim 1, Romano et al. disclose a waste management apparatus to be mounted on a waste collection vehicle (Figure 1A, vehicle 102 and Figures 9A-9B) equipped with at least one optical sensor (Figure 9B) configured to acquire images of waste entering the waste collection vehicle, the waste management apparatus comprising at least one memory (Figure 1A, 116) and at least one processor (Figure 1A, 114) configured to:
- process at least part of the acquired images through a machine learning module to detect one or more objects (Figures 18 and 20 and paragraph [0206], objects that are contaminants are detected. See paragraph [0007]), for each object detected in a given image, provide at least a class in a classification of objects (Figure 20, “Styrofoam” is detected for the contaminated objects.),
- determine, amongst the detected objects, new objects entering the waste collection vehicle (Since the objects are detected as they are added, they are all “new objects” entering the waste collection vehicle.).
Romano et al. fail to specifically teach of detecting a position of the object in the given image, and also of determining the new objects entering the waste collection vehicle, by comparing each object detected in the given image with a history of objects detected in a plurality of previous images, based on a function of a plurality of distances comprising at least a distance between the class and a distance between the position of the objects being compared.
Dietrich discloses of providing for each object detected in a given image, a position in said given image (Dietrich: Paragraph [0074], “…track the position of the objects within the waste receiving area 28…”), and determining new objects entering the waste collection vehicle comprises:
comparing each object detected in the given image with a history of objects detected in a plurality of previous images, based on a function of a plurality of distances comprising at least a distance between the class and a distance between the position of the objects being compared (Dietrich: Paragraphs [0087]-[0088]: “…the data may remain stored on the service vehicle…” and “…track the movement of the identified object within the waste receiving area of the vehicle…Any new objects identified within the waste images are further analyzed for comparison to known objects…”).
Hence the prior art includes each element claimed although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. In combination Romano et al. performs the same function as it does separately of classifying new objects entering a waste collection vehicle, and Dietrich performs the same function as it does separately of comparing new items to a history of items.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performed the same function as it does separately. The results of the combination would have been predictable and resulted in determining the new objects by comparing to a history of objects in a plurality of previous images.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Romano et al. and Dietrich disclose the waste collection vehicle comprising a waste management apparatus of claim 1 (Romano et al.: Figure 1A and Figures 9A-9B).
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Romano et al. and Dietrich disclose a non-transitory storage medium for storing a computer program product comprising instructions which when executed by an apparatus cause the apparatus to perform at least the steps of the method of claims 12 (Romano et al.: Figure 1A, 116 [memory of claim 1 is a non-transitory storage medium].).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Romano et al. (US 2020/0034785) in view of Dietrich (US 2022/0180330) and further in view of Oliva-Perez et al. (US 2019/0295292).
Regarding claim 5, Romano et al. and Dietrich disclose the waste management apparatus of claim 1.
Romano et al. and Dietrich fail to teach wherein the at least one memory and at least one processor are further configured to determine if the waste collection vehicle is in motion and disregard new objects identified from images acquired while the waste collection vehicle is in motion.
Oliva-Perez et al. disclose determining if a vehicle is in motion and disregard new objects identified from images acquired while the waste collection vehicle is in motion (Paragraph [0047], “…the system re-evaluates whether the vehicle is in motion. In the case where it is found that the vehicle is in motion, the image A is deleted…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to “one of ordinary skill” in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the image deletion teachings of Oliva-Perez et al. in the waste management apparatus as taught by the combination of Romano et al. and Dietrich. The motivation to combine would have been in order to alert distracted drivers/operators in non-moving vehicles, to reduce their time of response to unnoticed external environment color changes (See the abstract of Oliva-Perez et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 11, 13 and 18 would be allowable if a Terminal Disclaimer(s) is filed or if rewritten to overcome the Double Patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-9, 14-16 and 19-20 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 2 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein the machine learning module provides a probability distribution of the classes for each object detected in the given image, and the position of the object in a given image is defined by a bounding box around the object, the bounding box having a width, a height, and an area, and wherein said plurality of distances further comprises a distance between the probability distribution of the classes of the objects being compared, a distance between a ratio of the width and the height of the bounding boxes around the objects being compared, and a distance between the area of the bounding boxes around the objects being compared” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
In the closest prior art, Birchfield et al. (US 2022/0277472) disclose in paragraph [0103] of a bounding box having a width, a height, and an area, however, even in a combination, there is no teaching or suggestion of the plurality of distances further comprising a distance between the probability distribution of the classes of the objects being compared, a distance between a ratio of the width and the height of the bounding boxes around the objects being compared, and a distance between the area of the bounding boxes around the objects being compared as specifically claimed.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 3 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein the at least one memory and at least one processor are further configured to determine from the acquired images a type of entrance into the waste collection vehicle amongst at least the following: manual entrance, thrown from a bin lifted by the waste collection vehicle, thrown from a bin lifted manually or dumped from a container of a sorting terminal” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 4 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein the at least one memory and at least one processor are further configured to determine, from the acquired images, a stream of waste associated with the new objects, amongst at least two streams of waste corresponding to at least two types of waste collection tours run in parallel by the waste collection vehicle” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
The primary reason for indicating allowable subject matter in claim 6 is the inclusion of the limitations reciting “wherein the object classification relates to sorting rules so that a type of waste collection tour can be determined from a class of objects, and the at least one memory and at least one processor are further configured to determine an actual type of the given waste collection tour from a distribution or a weighted distribution of the classes of at least a certain number of the new objects that entered the waste collection vehicle during the given waste collection tour” which, in combination with the other recited features, is not taught and/or suggested either singularly or in combination within the prior art.
Claim 7 is objected to due to its dependency from claim 2.
Claim 8 is objected to due to its dependency from claim 6.
Claim 9 is objected to due to its dependency from claim 7.
Claim 11 is objected to due to its dependency from claim 2.
Claim 13 is objected to for the same reasons as claim 2 above.
Claim 14 is objected to for the same reasons as claim 6 above.
Claim 18 is objected to due to its dependency from claim 13.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Maruca et al. (US 2009/0169348) disclose systems and methods for identifying and collecting banned waste.
Gates et al. (US 2014/0379588) disclose a system and method for waste management.
Armstrong et al. (US 2021/0158308) disclose a method and system for contamination assessment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN G SHERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 4pm ET.
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, AMR AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/STEPHEN G SHERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
10 August 2026
Prosecution Insights