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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2: “to” is missing before “a rechargeable battery”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 15-19 is/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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "collections station" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “Collections” should most likely be singular.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "bag support frames" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear whether or not it refers to the singular “bag support frame” previously introduced.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "interior of the housing" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "long side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17-19 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadden (US Pat. 11,263,598 B2) in view of Sridhar (US Pat. 11,524,842 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Wadden discloses a collection station for post-consumer recyclable materials (Abstract, lines 1-2: “A system for depositing of recyclable articles includes an internally-compartmented structure”), comprising:
a housing fabricated from an intermodal freight container (Col. 3, line 66 – col. 4, line 2: “Structure 102 has four sidewalls 110a through 110d, a flat roof and a floor. For example, structure 102 may be a re-purposed shipping container or a purpose-built structure”), the housing including opposing long sides and a service door at an end of the housing to allow human access to an interior of the housing (Claim 1: “the structure comprising a door at one side to allow an operator to enter the structure to retrieve the recyclable articles”);
multiple access doors each covering openings in a long side of the housing (Fig. 2, hatches 104), each of the access doors including a latch to retain the access door in its closed position (Col. 1, lines 50-53: “The hatches are independently closed by covers. The covers are actuated by actuators that are configured to independently close, lock and unlock the covers by remote actuation”);
multiple collection receptacles, each collection receptacle positioned within the interior of the housing under one of the access doors (Col. 4, lines 60-63: “When closed, a portion of plate 113 forms a downwardly-angled chute that allows bags 20 to slide by gravity into a corresponding bin 82 that is aligned with the selected hatch 104”);
and an access control unit including a code reader for reading an access code when presented by a user, the access control unit operably connected to the latch of each of the doors and configured to unlock one or more of the latches in response to the user positioning a code-carrying device carrying the access code near the code reader (Col. 7, lines 8-11: “Optionally, kiosk 106 includes an information reader that detects and reads data from an information carrier such as a “smart card” that is unique to each user and which may be used by the user to activate the system”).
However, Wadden fails to disclose as taught by Sidhar, the access doors being designated by signage on an exterior of the collection station to indicate different types of post-consumer recyclable materials for which the access doors and their corresponding collection receptacle are designated, wherein each of the access doors is designated by the signage for a different type of post-consumer recyclable material from others of the access doors to thereby facilitate segregation of collected recyclable materials by type (Fig. 5, individual doors have a sign above them that indicates the material to be recycled).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collection station of Wadden to include the signage of Sridhar to signify to the user proper segregation of recyclable materials.
Regarding claim 2, Wadden in view of Sridhar discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Wadden, a photovoltaic solar panel on top of the housing that delivers electrical power a rechargeable battery within the interior of the housing that powers the access control unit (Col. 7, lines 12-20: “Solar panels 108 are mounted on the roof of structure 102 and are oriented to generate solar power to energize the repository 100. Surplus electricity is stored in conventional deep cycle batteries. If the stored power in the batteries drops below a pre-set level, an automatic transfer switch will switch the power source mode to grid-tie mode. Meanwhile, solar panels 108 may continue to charge the batteries. Once the batteries are charged to a pre-set level, the power source will be switched to the solar supply mode”).
Regarding claim 3, Wadden in view of Sridhar discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Wadden, wherein the code reader is an optical code reader, QR code reader, or barcode reader (Col. 8, lines 26-31: “Kiosk 106 then generates and dispenses one or more unique, machine-readable labels 523 for each bag 20. For example, the labels may comprise a bar-code printed onto adhesive-backed paper, which the user can apply onto each bag 20. The empty bags themselves may be available at kiosk 106, either dispensed individually in response to the user's input or available from a dispenser in an uncontrolled fashion”).
Regarding claim 4, Wadden in view of Sridhar discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Sridhar, wherein the code-carrying device is a smartphone (Col. 20, lines 6-17: “In one embodiment, a scanner or camera and/or a weight scale may identify and count the materials or objects by computerized object recognition, by reading a bar code, Quick Response (QR) code, or similar code, by performing Optical Character Recognition (OCR) on the text located on the object, by calculating the weight of the object, and optionally in the case of multiple objects, determining whether the objects are similar and/or the individual weights of the objects, or a combination thereof. Additional data may be received via an attached input device, a card reader, and/or via computing devices such as a tablet, a smart phone, a laptop, or a desktop”).
Regarding claim 5, Wadden in view of Sridhar discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Wadden, wherein the access code is unique to the user of the code-carrying device (Col. 7, lines 8-11: “Optionally, kiosk 106 includes an information reader that detects and reads data from an information carrier such as a “smart card” that is unique to each user and which may be used by the user to activate the system”).
Regarding claim 6, Wadden in view of Sridhar discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Wadden, wherein the access code is generated in response to the user scanning an optical code visible on the exterior of the collection station, wherein each access code so generated is unique to an access session and the user (Col. 7, lines 8-11: “Optionally, kiosk 106 includes an information reader that detects and reads data from an information carrier such as a “smart card” that is unique to each user and which may be used by the user to activate the system”).
Regarding claim 7, Wadden in view of Sridhar discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Wadden, wherein the access control unit collects usage statistics on each user's usage of the collections station (Col. 2, lines 62 – col. 3, line 3: “We further disclose a method of collecting articles at an unmanned repository comprising a structure having multiple internal compartments each of which is independently accessible by a corresponding openable hatch. The method comprises the steps of: identifying a user; receiving information indicating the number of article-filled bundles that the user proposes to deposit; generating at least one label for each of the bags to be deposited, wherein the label uniquely identifies the user and the bundles”).
Regarding claim 8, Wadden in view of Sridhar discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Wadden, wherein the access control unit is configured to report usage statistics and/or error messages to a remote central station (Col. 3, lines 49-52: “In one example, multiple repositories 100 are provided over a geographically widespread area and are all in communication with central processor 50 over a network such an Internet link”).
Regarding claim 9, Wadden in view of Sridhar discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Wadden, wherein the latches are operable to unlock the access doors in response to the access control unit applying an activation energy to the latches (Col. 6, lines 39-45: “The second function performed by processor 50 is to actuate unlocking of the flap(s) 112 associated with the selected compartment(s). For this purpose, processor 115 transmits a signal over the circuitry to a specific one or ones of locks 105, to actuate unlocking of one or more selected flaps 112 so that a user may open that flap or flaps to deposit his bag(s)”).
Regarding claim 13, Wadden in view of Sridhar discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Wadden, wherein each of the access doors is biased toward the closed position by a pneumatic cylinder or a spring mechanism (Col. 4, lines 45-49: “Actuator 111 comprises a chain drive that pays out chain 119 to allow flap 112 to open in response to retraction by the user, and which then retracts chain 119 to close flap 112 after a selected duration. Actuator 111 may be motor driven or spring-loaded”).
Regarding claim 14, Wadden in view of Sridhar discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Wadden, wherein each of the access doors includes a pivoting tray assembly pivotably mounted to the housing for rotation about a horizontal axis (Fig. 6, flap 112 pivots about a horizontal axis).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadden (US Pat. 11,263,598 B2) in view of Sridhar (US Pat. 11,524,842 B2), and further in view of Zima (US pat, 7,883,062).
Regarding claim 10, Wadden in view of Sridhar discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Zima, wherein each of the receptacles includes a bag support frame mounted inside of the housing beneath its corresponding access door, the bag support frame being retractable (Fig. 1, rings 42, 62).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collection station of Wadden in view of Sridhar to instead comprise a bag support frame as taught by Zima to allow for the receptacle to abut the wall of the container.
Regarding claim 11, Wadden in view of Sridhar and Bolich discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Zima, wherein the bag support frame is pivotably mounted to an inside of the long side of the housing for pivoting movement upwardly to a retracted position (Fig. 1-2, rings are pivotably mounted to base 10).
Regarding claim 12, Wadden in view of Sridhar and Bolich discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Bolich, a retainer mounted on the inside of the long side for releasably retaining the bag support frame in the retracted position (Col. 2, lines 1-6: “The bag holder can also be retracted, as desired, in such a way as to fit flush with a wall or other surface. Further, in this retracted position, the contents are secured and kept protected from wasps, bees, or other insects. In addition, the apparatus is easier to transport in the retracted position. When desired, the holder can be restored to its operational position”).
Claim(s) 15-16, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadden (US Pat. 11,263,598 B2) in view of Zima (US pat, 7,883,062).
Regarding claim 15, Wadden discloses collection station for materials, comprising:
a housing (Col. 3, line 66 – col. 4, line 2: “Structure 102 has four sidewalls 110a through 110d, a flat roof and a floor. For example, structure 102 may be a re-purposed shipping container or a purpose-built structure”);
multiple openings in a side wall of the housing (Fig. 2, hatches 104);
multiple collection receptacles, each collection receptacle positioned within the interior of the housing (Col. 4, lines 60-63: “When closed, a portion of plate 113 forms a downwardly-angled chute that allows bags 20 to slide by gravity into a corresponding bin 82 that is aligned with the selected hatch 104”).
However, Wadden fails to disclose as taught by Zima, each of the collection receptacles includes a bag support frame pivotably mounted to an inside of the side wall beneath the opening corresponding to the collection receptacle for supporting a collection bag under the opening to receive materials deposited through the opening (Fig. 1, rings 42, 62 support a bag and are pivotably mounted to base 10), the bag support frames each being pivotable upwardly to a retracted position adjacent the side wall (Col. 2, lines 1-6: “The bag holder can also be retracted, as desired, in such a way as to fit flush with a wall or other surface. Further, in this retracted position, the contents are secured and kept protected from wasps, bees, or other insects. In addition, the apparatus is easier to transport in the retracted position. When desired, the holder can be restored to its operational position”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collection station of Wadden to instead comprise a bag support frame as taught by Zima to allow for the receptacle to abut the wall of the container.
Regarding claim 16, Wadden in view of Zima discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Zima, a retainer mounted on the inside of the long side for releasably retaining the bag support frame in the retracted position (Col. 2, lines 1-6: “The bag holder can also be retracted, as desired, in such a way as to fit flush with a wall or other surface. Further, in this retracted position, the contents are secured and kept protected from wasps, bees, or other insects. In addition, the apparatus is easier to transport in the retracted position. When desired, the holder can be restored to its operational position”).
Regarding claim 18, Wadden in view of Zima discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the bag support frames comprise a first row of bag support frames and the housing includes a second side wall opposite the side wall, and further comprising: multiple openings in the second side wall; a second row of collection receptacles each positioned adjacent to the second side wall under one of the openings in the second side wall, each of the collection receptacles of the second row including a second bag support frame pivotably mounted to an inside of the second side wall beneath the opening corresponding to said collection receptacle, the second bag support frames each being pivotable upwardly to a retracted position adjacent the second side wall. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a bag support frame at each opening of Wadden as each is used for disposing of recycled material, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 19, Wadden in view of Zima discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Wadden, wherein, the bag support frames of the first row are adjacent to the second bag support frames of the second row, leaving no aisle between the first and second rows when none of the bag support frames and second bag support frames are in the retracted position, thereby increasing the capacity of the collection station (Fig. 2, the hatches 104 of Wadden are in close proximity to one-another).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wadden (US Pat. 11,263,598 B2) in view of Zima (US pat, 7,883,062), and further in view of Parker (US Pat. 3,790,197).
Regarding claim 17, Wadden in view of Zima discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Parker, wherein the retainer is a permanent magnet (Col. 1, lines 3-13: “Magnetic latches have been used on hinged members such as kitchen cabinets and refrigerators for many years. In a typical structure a permanent magnet is positioned on the door and a plate is positioned on the body of the refrigerator or cabinet where it will make contact with the magnet when the door is closed. The magnetic attraction of the magnet for the plate then maintains the door in closed position. In the alternative, the magnet may be positioned on the body of the hinged member and the plate on the movable portion or door”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collection station of Wadden in view of Zima to use the permanent magnet retainer means of Parker for an easier release of the bag support frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
