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, 5-7, 9 and 11-20 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 5 and 13:
Present claim 1
Copending claims 5 and 13
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:
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
- detect one or more objects,
- 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,
- for each object detected in a given image, provide at least a class in a classification of objects,
wherein the object classification relates to sorting rules so that a type of waste collection tour can be determined from the classes of the objects collected during a given waste collection tour
- determine, amongst the detected objects, new objects entering the waste collection vehicle,
- 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 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.
- receiving from the waste management apparatus of claim 1, information about new objects entering a waste collection vehicle during a given waste collection tour, said information comprising at least, for each new object, an object class in a classification of objects, a time and a location of the waste collection vehicle when the new object entered the waste collection vehicle,
- mapping the class of the new objects with an expected type of waste collection tour based on sorting rules stored in a table,
- obtaining an actual type of the given waste collection tour,
- calculating a rate of waste contamination for a given location of the waste collection vehicle during the given waste collection tour as a function of the number of new objects identified at said given location which classes are mapped with an expected type of waste collection tour other than the actual type of the given waste collection tour,
- providing the rate of waste contamination.
- 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.
further comprising determining the actual type of a given waste collection tour from the distribution of the classes of the new objects entering a waste collection vehicle during the given waste collection tour.
As shown above, the main difference between the claims, besides wording, is that copending claims 5 and 13 recite “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”, “- receiving from the waste management apparatus of claim 1, information about new objects entering a waste collection vehicle during a given waste collection tour, said information comprising at least, for each new object, an object class in a classification of objects, a time and a location of the waste collection vehicle when the new object entered the waste collection vehicle, - mapping the class of the new objects with an expected type of waste collection tour based on sorting rules stored in a table, - obtaining an actual type of the given waste collection tour, - calculating a rate of waste contamination for a given location of the waste collection vehicle during the given waste collection tour as a function of the number of new objects identified at said given location which classes are mapped with an expected type of waste collection tour other than the actual type of the given waste collection tour, - providing the rate of waste contamination” 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 5 and 13. Thus, the only difference is that the limitations in copending claims 5 and 13 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 5 and 13 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 2 is similarly rejected over claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 3 is similarly rejected over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 5 is similarly rejected over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 6 is similarly rejected over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 7 is similarly rejected over claims 7 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 9 is similarly rejected over claims 7 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 11-12 is similarly rejected over claim 10 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 13 is similarly rejected as claim 1 above.
Claim 14 is similarly rejected as claim 2 above.
Claim 15 is similarly rejected similarly as claim 1 above and over claims 12 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/523,830.
Claim 16 is similarly rejected as claim 2 above.
Claims 17-20 are 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/963,071 (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 6:
Present claim 1
Copending claim 6
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:
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:
- detect one or more objects,
- 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, 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,
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,
wherein the object classification relates to sorting rules so that a type of waste collection tour can be determined from a class of objects,
- determine, amongst the detected objects, new objects entering the waste collection vehicle,
- 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 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.
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.
As shown above, the main difference between the claims, besides wording, is that copending claim 6 recites “process at least part of the acquired images through a machine learning module…” and “…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” whereas present claim 1 fails to recite these features. Therefore, present claim 1 is merely a broader version of copending claim 6, and thus is anticipated by copending claim 6.
Claim 2 is similarly rejected over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18/963,071.
Claim 4 is similarly rejected over claim 4 of copending Application No. 18/963,071.
Claim 5 is similarly rejected over claim 3 of copending Application No. 18/963,071.
Claim 6 is similarly rejected over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/963,071.
Claim 7 is similarly rejected over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/963,071.
Claim 8 is similarly rejected over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/963,071.
Claim 9 is similarly rejected over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/963,071.
Claim 10 is similarly rejected over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/963,071.
Claims 11-12 are similarly rejected over claims 10-11 of copending Application No. 18/963,071.
Claim 13 is similarly rejected as claim 1 above.
Claim 14 is similarly rejected as claim 2 above.
Claim 15 is similarly rejected as claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is similarly rejected as claim 2 above.
Claims 17-20 are similarly rejected over claims 17-20 of copending Application No. 18/963,071.
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 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.
Independent claims 1, 13 and 15 each similarly recite “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…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.”
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 2-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected due to their dependency from the independent claims, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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 if a Terminal Disclaimer is filed to overcome the Double Patenting rejections set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In the closest prior art:
Romano et al. (US 2020/0034785) 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.).
Dietrich (US 2022/0180330) 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…”).
Oliva-Perez et al. (US 2019/0295292) 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…”).
However, none of the closest prior art, even in combination, disclose “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” as specifically claimed in the independent claims.
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