DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This office action is submitted in response to the application filed on 3/21/25.
Examiner notes that this application is a national stage entry of PCT/NO2023/060053 with an international filing date of 9/22/23.
Examiner further notes that the aforementioned PCT claims foreign priority to 20221006 (Norway).
Examiner further notes Applicant’s foreign priority date of 9/22/22.
Examiner further notes that a preliminary amendment was also filed on 3/21/25.
Examiner further notes that claims 1-21 were amended in the aforementioned preliminary amendment.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word "means," but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function, and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a tracking and triggering module (claims 1, 8-9, 12-13, 18, and 21), an object recognition module (claims 1, 8, 10, 12-13, 19, 21), a reward initiation module (claims 1 and 11), an authorization module (claim 7), and an inventory module (claim 12). Since a "module" can be a generic substitute means for accomplishing a recited function, the term "module" is a generic placeholder having no specific structural meaning. Each recited placeholder is coupled with functional language (e.g., configured to receive images from the image sensor and analyze image sequences to determine whether an item has been introduced into the reverse vending machine) without reciting sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions. With respect to method claims 13-21, the recitations of using a tracking and triggering module and using an object recognition module likewise invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as the claimed steps are performed by the module placeholders coupled with functional language rather than by recited structure or specific acts. Thus, Applicant appears to have effectively invoked 112(f).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices Inc., 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999). A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the claim limitations: a controller comprising a general-purpose computer with a central processing unit executing instructions stored in memory (Paragraphs 0054, 0073).
For a computer-implemented claim limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the corresponding structure must further include the algorithm needed to transform the general-purpose computer into the special purpose computer programmed to perform the claimed function. See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2011). For generic computer functions such as receiving or storing data, disclosure of a general-purpose computer suffices and no algorithm need be disclosed. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The specification discloses the following algorithms corresponding to the respective claim limitations: for the tracking and triggering module, a computer vision algorithm that tracks an object from frame to frame and determines that an item has properly passed through the observation zone when the item has entered the observation zone at the end closest to the opening, has left the observation zone from the end opposite to the opening, and has been tracked continuously through the observation zone (Paragraphs 0012, 0078-0081; Figure 7); for the object recognition module, a computer vision algorithm selected from image processing, image analysis and neural networks, including a convolutional neural network trained to recognize items associated with a reward (Paragraphs 0013, 0082); for the reward initiation module, instructions for transmitting an identification of the user together with an identification of the returned item or a representation of a reward value to a cloud-based service, or adding a reward value to a locally stored record associated with the identified user (Paragraphs 0014, 0083); for the authorization module, instructions for evaluating user identification data and deactivating the locking mechanism upon successful authorization of the identified user (Paragraphs 0010, 0050, 0076-0077); and for the inventory module, instructions for maintaining a record of items that have been properly returned and recognized (Paragraphs 0015, 0084).
Therefore, because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the claims are construed to cover the corresponding structure identified above, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these claim limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 13, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 13 recites a method of receiving an item in a reverse vending machine and providing a reward, which constitutes a process. Claims 17 and 19-21 depend from claim 13 and thus likewise fall within the process category. Accordingly, claims 13, 17, and 19-21 fall within the statutory categories of invention. See MPEP § 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claim 13, in part, describes an invention comprising: receiving an identification of a user; providing access for one or more items to be deposited in response to the user identification; analyzing image sequences to determine whether an item has properly passed through an observation zone; if it is determined that an item has passed through the observation zone, selecting at least one image from a sequence of images of that item; determining if an object in a selected image can be recognized as a representation of an item associated with a reward; and, upon a determination that an item associated with a reward is represented in a selected image, initiating provision of the reward associated with the recognized item to the identified user. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of receiving items from a user, analyzing images associated with said items, and determining whether or not they warrant a reward, which, pursuant to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (managing a commercial interaction in which users are provided rewards for returning items). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: storing or transmitting information that provides or can be used to provide the reward associated with the recognized item, and transmitting to a cloud-based service an identification of a user and an identification of a returned item or a representation of a reward value, or adding a reward value to a locally stored record (claim 20). The Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extra-solution activity. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.").
The aforementioned claims also recite additional elements including: at least one "image sensor" used to observe an item that is moved through the observation zone, and the "reverse vending machine" within which the method is performed. The image sensor is recited at a high level of generality and merely gathers the images operated upon by the abstract idea, and the reverse vending machine is recited in these claims only as the environment in which the steps are carried out. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic components do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014), 110 USPQ2d 1977, 1983 (2014).
The aforementioned claims further recite a "tracking and triggering module" and an "object recognition module," which, as set forth in the Claim Interpretation above, are construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to cover a general-purpose central processing unit executing the disclosed algorithms. The use of these modules to analyze the image sequences, select images, and recognize items amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, i.e., an "apply it" limitation. The computer vision algorithms and neural networks recited in claim 19 are likewise simply tools used to carry out the abstract data analysis and do not add anything beyond the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05(f); Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Looking at the elements individually and in combination, claims 13, 17, and 19-21 as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field; apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease; apply the judicial exception with a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Unlike the claims indicated as eligible below, claims 13, 17, and 19-21 recite no machine structure and instead recite steps performed within a reverse vending machine identified only as the environment in which the abstract idea is carried out, which amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment rather than applying it with a particular machine. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), 2106.05(h). Rather, these claims merely use generic components as tools to perform the abstract idea, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, claims 13, 17, and 19-21 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic computer implementation.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified above, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Transmitting data over a network, e.g., transmitting information that provides or can be used to provide the reward, including transmitting to a cloud-based service an identification of a user and an identification of a returned item or a representation of a reward value (claim 20). Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Storing and retrieving information in memory, e.g., storing information that provides or can be used to provide the reward and adding a reward value to a locally stored record. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception, and claims 13, 17, and 19-21 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Next, claims 17 and 19-21 depend from claim 13 and include all limitations contained therein. These claims do not recite any additional elements sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Specifically:
Claim 17 recites evaluating the user identification information to determine if the identified user is authorized and only providing access if the user is determined to be authorized. Verifying that a user is authorized before permitting a transaction further defines the commercial interaction between the user and the machine operator, further expounding the abstract idea.
Claim 19 recites that the recognition uses a computer vision algorithm selected from the group consisting of image processing, image analysis and neural networks. These limitations identify the computational tools used to carry out the abstract data analysis, amounting to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Claim 20 recites transmitting the user and item or reward-value identifications to a cloud-based service or adding a reward value to a locally stored record, and claim 21 recites maintaining a record of properly returned and recognized items. These limitations recite the extra-solution transmission, storage, and recordkeeping activity addressed above and at Step 2B.
Therefore, claims 13, 17, and 19-21 are not drawn to eligible subject matter, as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-12, 14-16, and 18 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Even assuming the analysis recited in these claims constitutes a judicial exception, the claims integrate any such exception into a practical application by applying it with a particular machine. See MPEP § 2106.05(b). Claims 1-12 are directed to the reverse vending machine itself, which satisfies each of the considerations of MPEP § 2106.05(b): the machine, including its opening, image sensor, and observation zone, implements the recited analysis; the machine plays a significant part in performing the claimed invention rather than serving as a mere field of use; and the claimed invention cannot practically be performed without or outside of the machine. Claims 14-16 and 18 recite method steps tied to the structure of that particular machine, including the ramp over which an inserted item tilts, the mirror through which the item is simultaneously viewed from a second angle, and the tracking of the item's physical entry into, continuous passage through, and exit from the observation zone, such that the recited method is integrated with the particular machine rather than merely performed within it. Accordingly, no rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is made as to claims 1-12, 14-16, and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 9-11, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kavli et al. (US 2014/0147005 A1) in view of Nordbryhn et al. (US 2004/0179725 A1).
Claim 1: Kavli discloses a reverse vending machine comprising:
a user interface configured to receive user input representing an identification of a user (Paragraph 0044; FIG. 1. Kavli's machine includes a display and an input device combined in the form of a touch screen 14, and the electronic receipt may be sent in the form of electronic payment to the customer's account, the customer's account identifying the user to whom value is credited.);
an opening through which items can be inserted into the machine (Paragraph 0044; FIG. 1. Returnable items are entered by the customer through an opening 12 in the front of the machine.);
at least one image sensor configured to capture images of items as they are inserted into and moves through an observation zone in the reverse vending machine (Paragraph 0047; Paragraph 0057; FIG. 2. A returned container is observed by one or more cameras 24 while it is transported through the chamber 20, and one or more images of the returned item are obtained as the returned item is moving through the opening 12, is present in the chamber 20, is moving through the chamber 20, or is moving out of the chamber 20, the chamber 20 constituting the observation zone.);
a tracking and triggering module configured to receive images from the image sensor and analyze image sequences to determine whether an item has been introduced into the reverse vending machine and has properly passed through the observation zone (Paragraph 0059; Paragraph 0060; Paragraph 0062; Paragraph 0118. A first feature extraction algorithm is applied to a subset of the images and a second feature extraction algorithm is applied to a second subset of images obtained at different points in time; the results are combined or compared to determine if there are any inconsistencies identifying a position or a motion of one feature relative to another which is inconsistent with a normal return of a regular returnable item, such that consistency with a normal return constitutes a determination that the item has properly passed through the chamber; and the feature extraction unit 48 is implemented as software executed by the processing unit 40, constituting the corresponding structure for the recited module under the interpretation set forth above.);
an object recognition module configured to determine if an object in an image can be recognized as a representation of an item associated with a reward (Paragraph 0046; Paragraph 0117. When a customer enters a returnable item, the item must be recognized, its authenticity verified and the appropriate value determined, and a comparison module 44 compares an image detected by the shape camera 24 to recognize a contour image of a particular returned item and communicates such recognition back to the processing unit 40.); and
a reward initiation module configured to, upon determination by the object recognition module that an item associated with a reward is represented in an image, performing at least one of storing or transmitting information that provides or can be used to provide the reward associated with the recognized item to a user identified by the user input (Paragraph 0044. The electronic receipt may be sent directly to a checkout counter, or in the form of electronic payment to the customer's account, the transmission of payment to the identified customer's account constituting transmitting information that provides the reward to the user.).
Kavli does not appear to explicitly disclose selecting at least one image from the sequence of images conditioned on a determination that the item "has properly passed through the observation zone."
Nordbryhn, however, discloses if it is determined that an item has properly passed through the observation zone, selecting at least one image from a sequence of images of that item in the observation zone (Paragraph 0030; Paragraph 0031; Paragraph 0041. The insertion analyzer analyses the video image whilst the container is conveyed past the video camera; the most ideal video image is selected by a circuit 136 for further analysis with a view to recognition and identification of the container; and in the FIG. 4 flow the direction of movement is determined at block 140, block 151 asks whether the container has passed the detection area, and analysis and classification of the selected image at block 149, acceptance at block 150, and accumulation of the return deposit value at block 152 follow only upon the affirmative determinations.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reverse vending machine of Kavli such that at least one image is selected from the sequence of images for object recognition only upon a determination that the item has properly passed through the observation zone, as taught by Nordbryhn. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure that recognition and rewarding are performed only for items that have actually been returned, preventing a user from obtaining a reward for an item that was inserted and withdrawn and avoiding recognition processing on image sequences that will not result in a valid return.
Claim 9: The Kavli/Nordbryhn combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Kavli further discloses a reverse vending machine wherein the tracking and triggering module is configured to use a computer vision algorithm to track an object in a sequence of images (Paragraph 0054. Two or more images are obtained, at least one of which is an image of a returned item, and the images are subjected to feature extraction algorithms in order to extract at least two features, a determination being made based on any inconsistency in the position or motion of one of the features with respect to the other.).
Nordbryhn further discloses to determine that an item has properly passed through the observation zone only if tracking the object in the sequence of images indicates that: a) the item has entered the observation zone at the end closest to the opening, b) the item has subsequently left the observation zone from the end opposite to the opening, and c) the item has been tracked continuously through the observation zone (Paragraph 0030; Paragraph 0041. The insertion analyzer analyses the video image whilst the container is conveyed past the video camera such that the container is tracked continuously throughout its passage; the direction of movement of the container is determined at block 140, an alarm being triggered where movement is in the wrong direction; and block 151 asks whether the container has passed the detection area, an affirmative answer indicating the container has exited at the end opposite the insertion opening.).
The rationale for combining Nordbryhn with Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 10: The Kavli/Nordbryhn combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Kavli further discloses a reverse vending machine wherein the object recognition module is configured to use a computer vision algorithm selected from the group consisting of: image processing, image analysis and neural networks (Paragraph 0054; Paragraph 0117. The images are subjected to feature extraction algorithms, constituting image processing, and the comparison module 44 compares an image detected by the shape camera to recognize a contour image of a particular returned item, contour comparison constituting image analysis.).
Claim 11: The Kavli/Nordbryhn combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Kavli further discloses a reverse vending machine wherein the reward initiation module is configured to perform at least one of: b) transmitting to a cloud-based service, an identification of a user and a representation of a reward value (Paragraph 0044. The electronic receipt may be transmitted over a wireless or wired network in the form of electronic payment to the customer's account, satisfying alternative b.).
Nordbryhn further discloses c) adding a reward value to a locally stored record associated with the identified user (Paragraph 0041. At block 152 the return deposit value is accumulated in the motherboard 124, the accumulation of the deposit value in the machine's own motherboard constituting adding a reward value to a locally stored record, satisfying alternative c.).
The rationale for combining Nordbryhn with Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 13: Kavli discloses a method of receiving an item in a reverse vending machine and providing a reward, the method comprising:
receiving user input representing an identification of a user (Paragraph 0044. The input device receives customer input, and payment is directed to the customer's account.);
providing access to the interior of the reverse vending machine (Paragraph 0057. A returned item is received through an opening 12 in the reverse vending machine, the opening providing access to the interior.);
using an image sensor to observe an item that is moved through an observation zone (Paragraph 0057. One or more images of the returned item are obtained as the returned item is moving through the opening 12, is present in the chamber 20, is moving through the chamber 20, or is moving out of the chamber 20.);
using a tracking and triggering module to analyze a sequence of images from the image sensor to determine whether an item has properly passed through the observation zone (Paragraph 0059; Paragraph 0060; Paragraph 0062. First and second feature extraction algorithms are applied to subsets of the obtained images, and the results are compared to determine whether a position or motion is inconsistent with a normal return of a regular returnable item.);
using an object recognition module to determine if an object in the at least one selected image is a representation of an item associated with a reward (Paragraph 0046; Paragraph 0117. The item must be recognized, its authenticity verified and the appropriate value determined, and the comparison module 44 recognizes a contour image of a particular returned item.); and
if an object in the at least one image is recognized as a representation of an item associated with a reward, storing or transmitting information that provides or can be used to provide the reward associated with the recognized item to a user identified by the user input (Paragraph 0044. Electronic payment is transmitted to the customer's account.).
Kavli does not appear to explicitly disclose selecting at least one image from the sequence of images conditioned on a determination that the item "has passed through the observation zone."
Nordbryhn, however, discloses if it is determined that an item has passed through the observation zone, selecting at least one image from the sequence of images (Paragraph 0031; Paragraph 0041. The most ideal video image is selected for further analysis with a view to recognition and identification, and selection and classification proceed within a flow conditioned on the direction determination at block 140 and the passage determination at block 151.).
The rationale for combining Nordbryhn with Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 18: Kavli teaches using a computer vision algorithm to track an object in a sequence of images (Paragraph 0054), but fails to explicitly describe the recited entry, exit, and continuous-tracking conditions.
Nordbryhn, however, discloses to determine that an item has properly passed through the observation zone only if tracking the object in the sequence of images indicates that: a) the item has entered the observation zone at the end closest to the opening, b) the item has subsequently left the observation zone from the end opposite to the opening, and c) the item has been tracked continuously through the observation zone (Paragraph 0030; Paragraph 0041. The direction of movement is determined at block 140, block 151 confirms the container has passed the detection area, and the insertion analyzer analyses the video image continuously whilst the container is conveyed past the video camera.).
The rationale for combining Nordbryhn with Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 19: Kavli teaches wherein the use of an object recognition module to determine if an object in the at least one selected image is a representation of an item associated with a reward includes using a computer vision algorithm selected from the group consisting of: image processing, image analysis and neural networks (Paragraph 0054; Paragraph 0117. The images are subjected to feature extraction algorithms, constituting image processing, and the comparison module 44 recognizes a contour image of a particular returned item, contour comparison constituting image analysis.).
Claim 20: Kavli teaches b) transmitting to a cloud-based service, an identification of a user and a representation of a reward value (Paragraph 0044. The electronic receipt may be transmitted over a wireless or wired network in the form of electronic payment to the customer's account, satisfying alternative b.).
Nordbryhn further teaches c) adding a reward value to a locally stored record associated with the identified user (Paragraph 0041. At block 152 the return deposit value is accumulated in the motherboard 124, satisfying alternative c.).
The rationale for combining Nordbryhn with Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 2-3, 6, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kavli/Nordbryhn in view of Forutanpour et al. (US 2022/0051507 A1).
Claim 2: The Kavli/Nordbryhn combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a ramp provided adjacent to the opening comprising a flat surface with an edge or a curved surface causing an inserted item to tilt so that the image sensor observes the item from different sides.
Forutanpour, however, discloses a ramp provided adjacent to the opening and comprising at least one of a flat surface with an edge and a curved surface such that when an item is introduced into the interior of the machine through the opening it will tilt when passing over the top or off the edge of the ramp allowing the image sensor to observe the item from different sides (Paragraph 0029; Paragraph 0036; Paragraph 0048. Forutanpour's ramp member 324 having a curved surface 327 and a pusher member 322 having an angled surface 380 cooperate to flip an item placed in the inspection area over from one side to the other; an angled surface portion 690, also referred to as a ramp feature 690, causes the item to slide up and pass an over-center position and fall, tilting as it moves across the ramp surfaces; and this enables visual inspection of both sides of the item using the same imaging systems that inspected the first side, eliminating the need to place the item on a transparent surface with cameras below.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reverse vending machine of Kavli in view of Nordbryhn to include a ramp adjacent to the opening having a surface configuration that causes an inserted item to tilt as it passes over the ramp, allowing the image sensor to observe the item from different sides, as taught by Forutanpour. One would have been motivated to do this in order to enable a single image sensor to capture multiple sides of a returned item, eliminating the need for additional cameras positioned around or beneath the item and thereby reducing the size and cost of the machine.
Claim 3: The Kavli/Nordbryhn/Forutanpour combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Forutanpour further discloses where the ramp is a flat surface comprising one of: a) a single flat surface with an edge facing away from the opening, and b) two differently inclined planes, where the first plane is adjacent to the opening and sloping upwards and the second is following the first plane and sloping downwards, and the edge is defined by the meeting of the two planes (Paragraph 0036; Paragraph 0048. The angled surface portion 690 slopes upwardly and terminates at an edge past which the item moves to an over-center position and falls, the angled surface with its terminal edge facing away from the point of item introduction satisfying alternative a), and the surface 327 and portions thereof can be flat such that the cooperating inclined surfaces over which the item tilts comprise differently inclined planes meeting at an edge, satisfying alternative b).).
The rationale for combining Forutanpour with Nordbryhn and Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 6: The Kavli/Nordbryhn/Forutanpour combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Forutanpour further discloses at least one mirror provided in the observation zone and with a position and orientation which allows the at least one image sensor to simultaneously view an item in the observation zone directly from a first angle and in the at least one mirror from a second angle (Paragraph 0034; Paragraph 0036; Paragraph 0044. A camera 325 is mounted above and directed downwardly toward the inspection tray 212, viewing the item directly from above; a lower portion of the ramp member 324 includes a mirror 326 that enables the camera 325 to capture an image of the adjacent side of the item positioned on the inspection tray; and a mirror 362 positioned toward a lower portion of the pusher member enables the camera 325 to obtain an image of the second side surface while the camera views the item directly from above.).
The rationale for combining Forutanpour with Nordbryhn and Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 14: Kavli teaches using an image sensor to observe an item that is moved through an observation zone (Paragraph 0057), but fails to explicitly describe a ramp in the observation zone.
Forutanpour, however, discloses wherein the observation zone includes a ramp with at least one of a flat surface with an edge and a curved surface such that when an item is introduced into the interior of the machine through the opening it will tilt while moving across the surface of the ramp allowing the image sensor to observe the item from different sides (Paragraph 0029; Paragraph 0036; Paragraph 0048. The ramp member 324, angled ramp feature 690 and pusher surfaces tilt the item over an over-center position so that the same overhead camera inspects the item from different sides.).
The rationale for combining Forutanpour with Nordbryhn and Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 15: The Kavli/Nordbryhn/Forutanpour combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Forutanpour further discloses where the ramp is a flat surface comprising one of: a) a single flat surface with an edge facing away from the opening, and b) two differently inclined planes, where the first plane is adjacent to the opening and sloping upwards and the second is following the first plane and sloping downwards, and the edge is defined by the meeting of the two planes (Paragraph 0036; Paragraph 0048. The angled surface portion 690 slopes upwardly and terminates at an edge past which the item tips over-center, satisfying alternative a), and the cooperating inclined surfaces, which can be flat, meet at an edge, satisfying alternative b).).
The rationale for combining Forutanpour with Nordbryhn and Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 16: Kavli teaches observing the item in the observation zone with the image sensor (Paragraph 0057), but fails to explicitly describe a mirror in the observation zone.
Forutanpour, however, discloses wherein the observation zone further includes at least one mirror provided in the observation zone and the method further comprises simultaneously viewing an item in the observation zone directly from a first angle and in the at least one mirror from a second angle (Paragraph 0034; Paragraph 0036; Paragraph 0044. A camera 325 directed downwardly views the item directly from above while the mirror 326 and the mirror 362 positioned proximate the inspection tray enable the same camera to obtain images of the side surfaces of the item.).
The rationale for combining Forutanpour with Nordbryhn and Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kavli/Nordbryhn in view of Milton (US 11,300,662 B2).
The Kavli/Nordbryhn combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the at least one image sensor is a "LIDAR."
Milton, however, discloses where the at least one image sensor is a LIDAR (col. 3, lines 46-50; col. 7, lines 44-53. Milton's LIDAR device determines angles or distances to objects being deposited into or removed from the inventory area along with surface features, contours, textures or other aspects of such objects, and where the transmission rate or frequency is sufficiently high the angles and ranges of reflections of light reflected from external surfaces of objects are used to determine surface features, contours, textures or other aspects of items within detection fields and to distinguish items from one another, an item having an outer surface in the shape of a cylinder reflecting beams differently than items having outer surfaces in the shapes of cones or rectangular solids.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reverse vending machine of Kavli in view of Nordbryhn to implement the at least one image sensor as a LIDAR device that captures the surface features, contours and shapes of items as they are deposited, as taught by Milton. One would have been motivated to do this because Milton teaches that camera-based item detection requires substantial processing and may fail to capture visual data when an item has colors that are common or similar to those of its surroundings (col. 2, lines 6-11 and 17-24), whereas a LIDAR sensor distinguishes deposited items from one another by their reflected surface geometry regardless of item color or ambient lighting, improving the reliability of item detection in the observation zone.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kavli/Nordbryhn/Forutanpour in view of Amerson et al. (US 6,379,022 B1).
The Kavli/Nordbryhn/Foruntanpour combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Kavli further discloses a reverse vending machine where the at least one image sensor is a camera or a multispectral camera, and the reverse vending machine further comprises a light source (Paragraph 0047; Paragraph 0048; Paragraph 0049. A returned container is observed by one or more cameras 24; light sources 28, for example light emitting diodes, lasers or lamps, are arranged with the cameras; and cameras 26 employ light sensors such as photodiodes, charge-coupled devices or CMOS.).
Forutanpour further discloses a light source configured to emit soft light (Paragraph 0035; Paragraph 0072. Lights 366a and 366b project light upwardly through the inspection tray during visual inspection, enhancing the contrast and silhouette of the item as depicted in images captured by the camera, and the upper surface can be etched, frosted, and/or patterned to reduce glare from the lights and to uniformly illuminate an object positioned on the surface, glare-reduced uniform illumination constituting soft light.).
The rationale for combining Forutanpour with Nordbryhn and Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
The Kavli/Nordbryhn/Forutanpour combination does not appear to explicitly disclose that the emitted light has "a spectrum consistent with the spectral sensitivity of the camera."
Amerson, however, discloses a light source with a spectrum consistent with the spectral sensitivity of the camera (col. 4, lines 47-53; col. 4, lines 54-63. For a match as seen by the camera the color matching functions are replaced with the camera specific spectral sensitivity functions; using the camera spectral sensitivity functions results in the correct power ratios for the light emitting diodes to match the color that the camera detects; and power ratios created using the camera specific spectral sensitivity functions work best with the camera they were designed for, as distinguished from a generic configuration.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to configure the light source of Kavli in view of Nordbryhn and Forutanpour such that its emission spectrum is determined using the spectral sensitivity of the camera, as taught by Amerson. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure that the illumination produces the correct color response as actually detected by the camera, improving the accuracy of the camera-based recognition of returned items.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kavli/Nordbryhn in view of Armando et al. (US 12,479,655 B2).
Claim 7: The Kavli/Nordbryhn combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a door covering the opening provided with a locking mechanism, and an authorization module that deactivates the locking mechanism only upon successful authorization of the identified user.
Armando, however, discloses a door covering the opening and provided with a locking mechanism, and an authorization module, and wherein the authorization module is configured to deactivate the locking mechanism to provide access to the interior only upon successful authorization of a user identified by user input received by the user interface (col. 6, lines 52-60; claim 10. Armando's container comprises locking means adapted to hold the door 40 firmly locked with respect to the containment body 10 in the closed operating condition, the locking means comprising a lock, preferably of the mechatronic type, associated with a control unit to allow unlocking the door 40 upon recognition, by the control unit, of an identification code of a user authorized to deliver waste into the container.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reverse vending machine of Kavli in view of Nordbryhn to include a door covering the opening with a locking mechanism that is deactivated by an authorization module only upon successful authorization of the user identified through the user interface, as taught by Armando. One would have been motivated to do this in order to restrict deposit access to authorized users, preventing the insertion of unwanted or non-qualifying items by unauthorized persons and ensuring that each return is attributable to a registered user to whom the reward can be credited.
Claim 17: Kavli teaches receiving user input representing an identification of a user (Paragraph 0044), but fails to explicitly describe authorization-gated access.
Armando, however, discloses evaluating the information representing an identification of a user to determine if the identified user is authorized to use the reverse vending machine and only providing access to the interior of the reverse vending machine if it is determined that the user is authorized (col. 6, lines 52-60. The control unit unlocks the door only upon recognition of an identification code of a user authorized to deliver waste into the container, the door remaining locked absent that recognition.).
The rationale for combining Armando with Nordbryhn and Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claims 8, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kavli/Nordbryhn in view of Carlson (US 2006/0016737 A1).
Claim 8: The Kavli/Nordbryhn combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a door at the end of the observation zone provided with an opening mechanism that is activated only upon positive determination that the object can be recognized as an item associated with a reward.
Carlson, however, discloses a door provided at the end of the observation zone and provided with an opening mechanism, the opening mechanism activated only upon positive determination that the received object qualifies (Paragraph 0009; Paragraph 0010; Paragraph 0047. A blocking member is provided through which the object is transported once the association of the object has been positively ascertained; if no association of the object with the deposit or lending system can be found, the transporting means is not even activated; and when the object is identified as return-authorized, a conveyor belt 3 starts and a door 4 opens in order for the object to be conveyed past the door 4.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reverse vending machine of Kavli in view of Nordbryhn to provide a door at the end of the observation zone with an opening mechanism that is activated only upon a positive recognition determination for the item, as taught by Carlson, with the positive determination in the combination being supplied by the object recognition module of Kavli in view of Nordbryhn. One would have been motivated to do this in order to physically retain only items that have been positively recognized as reward-qualifying, preventing unrecognized or non-qualifying items from reaching the collection area and commingling with validated returns.
Claim 12: The Kavli/Nordbryhn/Carlson combination discloses those limitations cited above.
Carlson further discloses an inventory module configured to maintain a record of items that have been returned and accepted at the station (Paragraph 0023; Paragraph 0089. A data base is provided at the arrangement or acceptance station, periodically downloading information from an external data base regarding all objects in the system or, alternatively, all objects lent or released, such that in off-line mode access can be had to the locally stored data base in the acceptance station, the locally maintained record covering, in the combination, items determined by the tracking and triggering module to have been properly returned and recognized by the object recognition module as reward-associated.).
The rationale for combining Carlson with Nordbryhn and Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Claim 21: Kavli teaches determining that items have been properly returned and recognizing returned items as set forth above (Paragraph 0046; Paragraph 0062), but fails to explicitly describe maintaining a record of such items.
Carlson, however, discloses maintaining a record of items that have been properly returned and recognized (Paragraph 0023; Paragraph 0089. A data base provided at the acceptance station locally stores records regarding all objects in the system or, alternatively, all objects lent or released, enabling operation in off-line mode.).
The rationale for combining Carlson with Nordbryhn and Kavli is articulated above and reincorporated herein by reference.
Other Relevant Prior Art
Though not relied upon in the aforementioned rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures:
Kirkerud et al. (20140210967), directed to a system and method for reading features in reverse vending machines.
Baitz et al. (20160182861), directed to a reverse vending machine.
Guntveit et al. (7180026), directed to a device for a reverse vending machine for bottles and cans.
Nordbryhn et al. (20140218510), directed to a reverse vending machine and method of detecting dirt in a reverse vending machine.
Coyne et al. (20010052445), directed to a reverse vending machine.
Dowdell et al. (11952209), directed to a 3 in 1 reverse vending machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
