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 .
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 12, and 16 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.
Regarding claim 12, Applicant recites “the handle.” There is no antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, Applicant recites “the front sliding system.” There is no antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
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, 3, 7, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0132671 to Lee et al.
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses:
a remote-controlled personal cart system for transporting items, the remote-controlled personal cart system (At least remotely operated motorized cart that transports garbage receptacles 155) comprising;
a cart comprising a base (platform, 101) comprising at least four wheels (At least shown in [Fig. 2-4]) comprising at least two driving wheels on the front and at least two back wheels (At least drive wheels, 121; idler wheels, 122)
a battery (106),
at least one motor (drive motors, 103), and
a basket detachably placed on the base, the basket comprising an empty space configured to accommodate the items (At least garbage receptacles 155); and
a remote-control device (At least remote-control terminal 152).
However, Thompson does not expressly discuss the limitations related to the receiver, sensor system, and remote-control specifics.
Nevertheless, DiGiacomcantonio teaches:
a receiver (wireless receiver),
at least one sensor system operable to detect obstacles (At least the onboard computer/ transponder/ receiver for the luggage having the ability to be aware of obstacles and avoid collisions and change course with incoming objects/projectiles);
a remote-control device for controlling a movement and a speed (v1) of the cart (At least Par. [0017-0027, 0032]; remote, remote and sensor, or mart phone/remote control and sensors; via the remote’s ability to set up a threshold maintaining the luggage at a particular speed of propulsion),
the remote-control device comprising a transmitter and at least one sensor element configured to measure a distance (L) between the remote-control device and the cart (At least Par. [0032, 0037]; via the remote’s ability to set up a threshold maintaining the luggage at a particular distance from the remote; the follow-me mode wherein the luggage follows the remote using sensor signals transmitted and received between the remote and the transceiver in the luggage propelling system; Fig. 11 and 12), and
wherein the remote-control device is configured to control the speed of the cart to keep the distance (L) within a range from 1 meter up to 3 meters during the movement of the cart (At least via the remote’s ability to set up a threshold maintaining the luggage in a particular proximity to the remote; See at least Fig. 11 and 12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson to have the receiver, sensors, and remote-control system for maintaining the cart of Thompson at a specified distance from a remote controller, as taught by DiGiacomcantonio, in order to provide a means for controlling the cart to maintain it within the distance of a user for increasing safety/ loss prevention utility.
Further, Lee teaches a back sliding system between the at least two back wheels, the sliding system being configured to support the cart, when driving on an uneven ground (At least the system including auxiliary wheels, 120; Fig. 2-5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson to have a back sliding system, as taught by Lee, in order to allow for the system to be transported across uneven terrain to increase the mobility, and thus usability, of the cart.
Regarding claim 3, the primary reference, Thompson, discloses a charging station operable to charge the battery (At least charging port, 151/charging system, 150 that allows the battery, 106 to be charged).
Regarding claim 7, the the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/ Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the speeds.
Nevertheless, DiGiacomcantonio discloses that the speed (v1) is controlled according to a speed (v2) of a user holding the remote-control device (At least via “follow-me” mode; via the remote’s ability to set up a threshold maintaining the luggage in a particular proximity to the remote; See at least Fig. 11 and 12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson to have the receiver, sensors, and remote-control system for maintaining the cart of Thompson at a specified distance from a remote controller, as taught by DiGiacomcantonio, in order to provide a means for controlling the cart to maintain it within the distance of a user for increasing safety/ loss prevention utility.
Regarding claim 12, the the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/ DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the handle.
Nevertheless, DiGiacomcantonio discloses that the handle is a retractable handle (extendable handle).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson to have a retractable handle, as taught by DiGiacomcantonio, in order to provide a means for manually controlling the cart in the event of power loss.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the wheel sizes of the back sliding system.
Nevertheless, Lee teaches that at least one of the back sliding system and the front sliding system comprises a sliding wheel, which is smaller than the at least four wheels (At least at Fig. 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson to have a back sliding system, as taught by Lee, in order to allow for the system to be transported across uneven terrain to increase the mobility, and thus usability, of the cart.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0132671 to Lee et al and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2009/0126473 to Porat et al.
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for a detector attached to the basket.
Nevertheless, Porat discloses a detector attached to the basket, the detector being configured to detect the objects inside the basket (At least the disclosed content sensors located inside of the garbage can, 100).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have sensors inside the bin, as taught by Porat, in order to allow for remote detection of whether a bin has items that need to be discarded without requiring a person to physically check the bin for more convenient use.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0132671 to Lee et al and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2018/0066978 to Millhouse.
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the handle.
Nevertheless, Millhouse discloses a handle and a screen configured to display an information about the detected objects. (At least the display screen 158 secured to handles 160 wherein the display screen renders weight information about the contents detected by the weight sensing system).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have a handle with a screen displaying information about the contents, as taught by Millhouse, in order to allow for determination of whether a bin has items that need to be discarded without requiring a person to physically check the bin for more convenient use.
Claims 5, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0132671 to Lee et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 9,731,779 to Lamb.
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed material composition.
Nevertheless, Lamb discloses the use of aluminum in a personal cart system wherein a material of the base, the basket (framed body, 102 made of plastic or aluminum so that it is durable and waterproof) and the remote control device comprises at least one of selected from aluminium, vegetable fibres (At least where Lamb discloses that the framed body, 102 is made of plastic or aluminum so that it is durable and waterproof).
Since Lamb discloses that the cart is made of aluminum or plastic for waterproofing, it also would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified both the cart base/basket and the remote control of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have used aluminum/plastic, as taught by Lamb, in order to provide waterproofing for protection of componentry and extending the life of the system.
Further, it has been held that the mere selection of materials based on their intended use has been held to be obvious by those having ordinary skill in the art. Aluminum, plastic, and vegetable fibre are all used in outdoor applications due to their weather tolerance and in carts due to their weight for easier maneuverability of carts.
Regarding claim 14, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the exchangeable wheels.
Nevertheless, Lamb discloses exchangeable wheels (At least where the wheels are disclosed as interchangeable).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have exchangeable wheels, as taught by Lamb, in order to provide a convenient means for replacing and swapping parts during maintenance.
Further, it is noted that though silent, it is likely that Thompson uses exchangeable wheels since the Figures of Thompson depict similarly sized, shaped, and arranged wheels.
Regarding claim 21, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the components being waterproof.
Nevertheless, Lamb discloses constructing its cart’s framed body, 102 from aluminum or plastic for the express purpose of providing a waterproof, durable, and lightweight cart body. The modification of Thompson’s/DiGiacomantonio’s/Lees’ bodies (which house each claimed component) would necessarily result in the waterproofing of the battery, the receiver, the at least one motor, and the at least one sensor system (At least Lamb’s disclosure that the framed body, 102 is made of plastic or aluminum so that it is durable and waterproof).
Since Lamb discloses that the cart is made of aluminum or plastic for waterproofing, it also would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified both the cart base/basket and the remote control of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have used aluminum/plastic, as taught by Lamb, in order to provide waterproofing for protection of componentry and extending the life of the system.
Further, it has been held that the mere selection of materials based on their intended use has been held to be obvious by those having ordinary skill in the art. Aluminum, plastic, and vegetable fibre are all used in outdoor applications due to their weather tolerance and in carts due to their weight for easier maneuverability of carts. Further still, waterproofing of electrical componentry intended for outdoor use is a matter of material choice based on intended use which has been held to be obvious to a PHOSITA and within the routine skill of an ordinary artisan to select materials based on their intended use.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0132671 to Lee et al .and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0284221 to Perez et al.
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for solar panels.
Nevertheless, Perez discloses a motorized cart having solar panels (At least Par. [0044]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have solar panels, as taught by Perez, in order to allow for recharging in the field for improved reliability.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0132671 to Lee et al .and in further view of GB 2435455 to Yates.
Regarding claim 8, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the speed control limitations.
Nevertheless, Yates discloses a remote-control device is selected from at least one of: a tilt control device, a joystick for controlling the movement and the speed (v1) of the cart (At least where Yates discloses a joystick for controlling speed/direction).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have a manual speed controlled remote, as taught by Yates, in order to prevent the need to use one’s phone as a means for controlling for improved reliability and saving phone battery power.
Regarding claim 19, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the control limitations.
Nevertheless, Yates discloses a remote-control device is operable to switch a driving direction between forward driving direction and a backwards driving direction of the cart on a click (At least where Yates discloses the use of switches for forwards/backwards movement).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have a manual direction controlled remote, as taught by Yates, in order to prevent the need to use one’s phone as a means for controlling for improved reliability and saving phone battery power.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0132671 to Lee et al .and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2007/0209846 to Wilson.
Regarding claim 9, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the remote controlled lid.
Nevertheless, Wilson discloses a lid and wherein the lid can be opened and closed via the remote-control device (At least Par. [0042-0045]; remote controlled lid).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have a remote controlled lid, as taught by Wilson, in order to provide a sanitary means for opening and closing the trash can lid and provide a means for opening the lid when a user’s hands are full.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0132671 to Lee et al .and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0208589 to Qi.
Regarding claim 10, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the sensor type.
Nevertheless, Qi discloses at least one sensor system comprises at least one of selected from ToF (Time of Flight) sensor, RGB sensor, at least one lidar (LiDAR sensor).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have a LiDAR sensor, as taught by Qi, in order to provide a means for detecting obstacles for obstacle avoidance that is accurate.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0132671 to Lee et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 5,056,679 to Lonczak.
Regarding claim 11, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the collapsible basket.
Nevertheless, Lonczak discloses basket is a collapsible basket (At least Fig. 1-4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have a collapsible basket, as taught by Lonczak, in order to provide a basket which is easier to clean and store.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0132671 to Lee et al .and in further view of U.S. Pat. 5,871,218 to Lepage et al.
Regarding claim 20, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses the claimed invention except for a suspension.
Nevertheless, Lepage discloses that the at least four wheels comprise a suspension system (At least Fig. 7 and 10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have a suspension system, as taught by Lepage, in order to provide a shock reducing means for ensuring the stability of the cart and its contents.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2011/0132671 to Lee et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 9,994,198 to Emanuelli.
Regarding claim 22, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee discloses that the at least four wheels are at least partially located inside wheel wells comprised in the base (At least Thompson Fig. 1-4), but does not expressly discuss brushes.
Nevertheless, Emmanuelli discloses wheel wells that comprise one or more brushes configured to clean the at least four wheels during the movement of the cart (At least Fig. 1, 3, and 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/Lee to have brushes in the wheel wells, as taught by Emanuaelli, in order to allow for cleaning of the wheels during use to keep debris free from accumulating in the wheel wells for reduced cleaning/maintenance of the cart.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 12, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 7,475,745 to DeRoos.
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses:
a remote-controlled personal cart system for transporting items, the remote-controlled personal cart system (At least remotely operated motorized cart that transports garbage receptacles 155) comprising;
a cart comprising a base (platform, 101) comprising at least four wheels (At least shown in [Fig. 2-4]) comprising at least two driving wheels on the front and at least two back wheels (At least drive wheels, 121; idler wheels, 122)
a battery (106),
at least one motor (drive motors, 103), and
a basket detachably placed on the base, the basket comprising an empty space configured to accommodate the items (At least garbage receptacles 155); and
a remote-control device (At least remote-control terminal 152).
However, Thompson does not expressly discuss the limitations related to the receiver, sensor system, and remote-control specifics.
Nevertheless, DiGiacomcantonio teaches:
a receiver (wireless receiver),
at least one sensor system operable to detect obstacles (At least the onboard computer/ transponder/ receiver for the luggage having the ability to be aware of obstacles and avoid collisions and change course with incoming objects/projectiles);
a remote-control device for controlling a movement and a speed (v1) of the cart (At least Par. [0017-0027, 0032]; remote, remote and sensor, or mart phone/remote control and sensors; via the remote’s ability to set up a threshold maintaining the luggage at a particular speed of propulsion),
the remote-control device comprising a transmitter and at least one sensor element configured to measure a distance (L) between the remote-control device and the cart (At least Par. [0032, 0037]; via the remote’s ability to set up a threshold maintaining the luggage at a particular distance from the remote; the follow-me mode wherein the luggage follows the remote using sensor signals transmitted and received between the remote and the transceiver in the luggage propelling system; Fig. 11 and 12), and
wherein the remote-control device is configured to control the speed of the cart to keep the distance (L) within a range from 1 meter up to 3 meters during the movement of the cart (At least via the remote’s ability to set up a threshold maintaining the luggage in a particular proximity to the remote; See at least Fig. 11 and 12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson to have the receiver, sensors, and remote-control system for maintaining the cart of Thompson at a specified distance from a remote controller, as taught by DiGiacomcantonio, in order to provide a means for controlling the cart to maintain it within the distance of a user for increasing safety/ loss prevention utility.
Further, DeRoos teaches a back sliding system between the at least two back wheels, the sliding system being configured to support the cart, when driving on an uneven ground (At least the system shown in Fig. 1-10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson to have a back sliding system, as taught by DeRoos, in order to allow for the system to be transported up and down steps to increase the mobility, and thus usability, of the cart.
Regarding claim 3, the primary reference, Thompson, discloses a charging station operable to charge the battery (At least charging port, 151/charging system, 150 that allows the battery, 106 to be charged).
Regarding claim 7, the the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/ DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the speeds.
Nevertheless, DiGiacomcantonio discloses that the speed (v1) is controlled according to a speed (v2) of a user holding the remote-control device (At least via “follow-me” mode; via the remote’s ability to set up a threshold maintaining the luggage in a particular proximity to the remote; See at least Fig. 11 and 12).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson to have the receiver, sensors, and remote-control system for maintaining the cart of Thompson at a specified distance from a remote controller, as taught by DiGiacomcantonio, in order to provide a means for controlling the cart to maintain it within the distance of a user for increasing safety/ loss prevention utility.
Regarding claim 12, the the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/ DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the handle.
Nevertheless, DiGiacomcantonio discloses that the handle is a retractable handle (extendable handle).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson to have a retractable handle, as taught by DiGiacomcantonio, in order to provide a means for manually controlling the cart in the event of power loss.
Regarding claim 15, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/ DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for a front sliding system.
Nevertheless, DeRoos teaches a front sliding system between the at least two driving wheels, the front sliding system being configured to support the cart, when driving on an uneven ground (At least shown in Fig. 1-10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have a back and front sliding system, as taught by DeRoos, in order to allow for the system to be transported up and down steps to increase the mobility, and thus usability, of the cart.
Regarding claim 17, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the back and front sliding system being configured to retract.
Nevertheless, DeRoos teaches that at least one of the back sliding system and the front sliding system is configured to retract while the cart is climbing up from a lower surface to an higher surface to (At least shown in Fig. 1, 3, 4, 6, and 8; wherein the arms/trackless wheels retract towards the body to raise the chassis for moving to a higher ground position).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have a back and front sliding system configured to retract while climbing, as taught by DeRoos, in order to allow for the system to be transported up and down steps to increase the mobility, and thus usability, of the cart.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of in view of Applicant-cited U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 7,475,745 to DeRoos and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2009/0126473 to Porat et al.
Regarding claim 2, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for a detector attached to the basket.
Nevertheless, Porat discloses a detector attached to the basket, the detector being configured to detect the objects inside the basket (At least the disclosed content sensors located inside of the garbage can, 100).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have sensors inside the bin, as taught by Porat, in order to allow for remote detection of whether a bin has items that need to be discarded without requiring a person to physically check the bin for more convenient use.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of in view of Applicant-cited U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 7,475,745 to DeRoos and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2018/0066978 to Millhouse.
Regarding claim 4, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the handle.
Nevertheless, Millhouse discloses a handle and a screen configured to display an information about the detected objects. (At least the display screen 158 secured to handles 160 wherein the display screen renders weight information about the contents detected by the weight sensing system).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have a handle with a screen displaying information about the contents, as taught by Millhouse, in order to allow for determination of whether a bin has items that need to be discarded without requiring a person to physically check the bin for more convenient use.
Claims 5, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of in view of Applicant-cited U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 7,475,745 to DeRoos and in further view of U.S. Pat. 9,731,779 to Lamb.
Regarding claim 5, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed material composition.
Nevertheless, Lamb discloses the use of aluminum in a personal cart system wherein a material of the base, the basket (framed body, 102 made of plastic or aluminum so that it is durable and waterproof) and the remote control device comprises at least one of selected from aluminium, vegetable fibres (At least where Lamb discloses that the framed body, 102 is made of plastic or aluminum so that it is durable and waterproof).
Since Lamb discloses that the cart is made of aluminum or plastic for waterproofing, it also would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified both the cart base/basket and the remote control of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have used aluminum/plastic, as taught by Lamb, in order to provide waterproofing for protection of componentry and extending the life of the system.
Further, it has been held that the mere selection of materials based on their intended use has been held to be obvious by those having ordinary skill in the art. Aluminum, plastic, and vegetable fibre are all used in outdoor applications due to their weather tolerance and in carts due to their weight for easier maneuverability of carts.
Regarding claim 14, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the exchangeable wheels.
Nevertheless, Lamb discloses exchangeable wheels (At least where the wheels are disclosed as interchangeable).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have exchangeable wheels, as taught by Lamb, in order to provide a convenient means for replacing and swapping parts during maintenance.
Further, it is noted that though silent, it is likely that Thompson uses exchangeable wheels since the Figures of Thompson depict similarly sized, shaped, and arranged wheels.
Regarding claim 21, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the components being waterproof.
Nevertheless, Lamb discloses constructing its cart’s framed body, 102 from aluminum or plastic for the express purpose of providing a waterproof, durable, and lightweight cart body. The modification of Thompson’s/DiGiacomantonio’s/DeRoos’ bodies (which house each claimed component) would necessarily result in the waterproofing of the battery, the receiver, the at least one motor, and the at least one sensor system (At least Lamb’s disclosure that the framed body, 102 is made of plastic or aluminum so that it is durable and waterproof).
Since Lamb discloses that the cart is made of aluminum or plastic for waterproofing, it also would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified both the cart base/basket and the remote control of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have used aluminum/plastic, as taught by Lamb, in order to provide waterproofing for protection of componentry and extending the life of the system.
Further, it has been held that the mere selection of materials based on their intended use has been held to be obvious by those having ordinary skill in the art. Aluminum, plastic, and vegetable fibre are all used in outdoor applications due to their weather tolerance and in carts due to their weight for easier maneuverability of carts. Further still, waterproofing of electrical componentry intended for outdoor use is a matter of material choice based on intended use which has been held to be obvious to a PHOSITA and within the routine skill of an ordinary artisan to select materials based on their intended use.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of in view of Applicant-cited U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 7,475,745 to DeRoos and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0284221 to Perez et al.
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for solar panels.
Nevertheless, Perez discloses a motorized cart having solar panels (At least Par. [0044]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have solar panels, as taught by Perez, in order to allow for recharging in the field for improved reliability.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 7,475,745 to DeRoos and in further view of GB 2435455 to Yates.
Regarding claim 8, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the speed control limitations.
Nevertheless, Yates discloses a remote-control device is selected from at least one of: a tilt control device, a joystick for controlling the movement and the speed (v1) of the cart (At least where Yates discloses a joystick for controlling speed/direction).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have a manual speed controlled remote, as taught by Yates, in order to prevent the need to use one’s phone as a means for controlling for improved reliability and saving phone battery power.
Regarding claim 19, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the control limitations.
Nevertheless, Yates discloses a remote-control device is operable to switch a driving direction between forward driving direction and a backwards driving direction of the cart on a click (At least where Yates discloses the use of switches for forwards/backwards movement).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have a manual direction controlled remote, as taught by Yates, in order to prevent the need to use one’s phone as a means for controlling for improved reliability and saving phone battery power.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of in view of Applicant-cited U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 7,475,745 to DeRoos and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2007/0209846 to Wilson.
Regarding claim 9, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the remote controlled lid.
Nevertheless, Wilson discloses a lid and wherein the lid can be opened and closed via the remote-control device (At least Par. [0042-0045]; remote controlled lid).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have a remote controlled lid, as taught by Wilson, in order to provide a sanitary means for opening and closing the trash can lid and provide a means for opening the lid when a user’s hands are full.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of in view of Applicant-cited U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 7,475,745 to DeRoos and in further view of U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0208589 to Qi.
Regarding claim 10, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the sensor type.
Nevertheless, Qi discloses at least one sensor system comprises at least one of selected from ToF (Time of Flight) sensor, RGB sensor, at least one lidar (LiDAR sensor).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have a LiDAR sensor, as taught by Qi, in order to provide a means for detecting obstacles for obstacle avoidance that is accurate.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of in view of Applicant-cited U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 7,475,745 to DeRoos and in further view of U.S. Pat. 5,056,679 to Lonczak.
Regarding claim 11, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for the collapsible basket.
Nevertheless, Lonczak discloses basket is a collapsible basket (At least Fig. 1-4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have a collapsible basket, as taught by Lonczak, in order to provide a basket which is easier to clean and store.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of in view of Applicant-cited U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 7,475,745 to DeRoos and in further view of U.S. Pat. 5,871,218 to Lepage et al.
Regarding claim 20, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses the claimed invention except for a suspension.
Nevertheless, Lepage discloses that the at least four wheels comprise a suspension system (At least Fig. 7 and 10).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have a suspension system, as taught by Lepage, in order to provide a shock reducing means for ensuring the stability of the cart and its contents.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. 9,908,695 to Thompson in view of in view of U.S. PG Pub. 2014/0107868 to DiGiacomantonio et al. and in further view of U.S. Pat. 7,475,745 to DeRoos and in further view of U.S. Pat. 9,994,198 to Emanuelli.
Regarding claim 22, the previous combination of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos discloses that the at least four wheels are at least partially located inside wheel wells comprised in the base (At least Thompson Fig. 1-4), but does not expressly discuss brushes.
Nevertheless, Emmanuelli discloses wheel wells that comprise one or more brushes configured to clean the at least four wheels during the movement of the cart (At least Fig. 1, 3, and 5).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing to have modified the system of Thompson/ DiGiacomcantonio/DeRoos to have brushes in the wheel wells, as taught by Emanuaelli, in order to allow for cleaning of the wheels during use to keep debris free from accumulating in the wheel wells for reduced cleaning/maintenance of the cart.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brodie Follman whose telephone number is (571)270-1169. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm EST M-F.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571)270-7429. 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.
/BRODIE J FOLLMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights