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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim 9 has been cancelled, Claims 1, 12, and 14 are amended; Claims 4-5 and 7-8 are withdrawn from consideration as non-elected claims, Claims 16-21 are added as new claims; claims 1-3, 6, and 10-21 remain for examination, wherein claims 1, 12, and 14 are independent claims.
Allowance Subject matter
Claim 14 is allowed. The Applicant has rewritten the previous claim 14 in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since it is noted that the recorded prior art(s) does not specify the claimed process of “heavy weight materials are send directly from the first wind powder sorting to the second wind power sorting” as claimed in the instant claim.
Claims 15, 17 and 19 include allowable subject matter.
Claim 15 is still objected to as depending from rejected independent claim(s), but would be allowed if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since it is noted that the recorded prior art(s) does not specify the claimed process of “heavy weight materials are send directly from the first wind powder sorting to the second wind power sorting” as claimed in the instant claims.
Claims 17 and 19 are still objected to as depending from rejected independent claim(s), but would be allowed if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since it is noted that the recorded prior art(s) does not specify the claimed slit-shaped net in the sieving process as claimed in the instant claims.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Previous rejection of Claim(s) 1-3 and 10-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda Yutaka et al (JP 2017190529 A, with on-line translation, listed in IDS field on 7/31/202. Thereafter JP’529) in view of Fukuda Morinori et al (JP 2003112156 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’156) and Yabu Shigehiro et al (JP 2003001632 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’632) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/10/2025.
Previous rejection of Claims 6 and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’529 in view of JP’156 and further in view of Ueno et al (US 6,336,601 B1, listed in IDS field on 7/31/202, thereafter US’601) is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks with amendment” filed on 12/10/2025.
However, in view of the Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/26/2024, newly recorded reference(s), and reconsideration, a new ground rejection is listed as following.
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.
The amended Claims 1-3, 6, 10-11, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, independent claim 1 recites “component waste” comprising “metals”, “powder materials”, “film-shaped component waste”, “substrates”, and “synthetic resin”, however, 1) “metals” may be in powder form, film form, acted as substrate; 2) “synthetic resin” may be in powder form, film form, acted as substrate, therefore “metals” and/or “synthetic resin” is considered as the broad recitation, while “powder materials”, “film-shaped component waste”, and “substrates”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Actually, a “metal sensor” may also perform the function of “a sensor detecting position of an object”. Since Claims 2-3, 6, 10-11, 16-17, and 20 depend on claim 1, they are also rejected.
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 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) 1-3, 10-11, 16, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda Yutaka et al (JP 2017190529 A, with on-line translation, listed in IDS field on 7/31/202. Thereafter JP’529) in view of Fukuda Morinori et al (JP 2003112156 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’156), Yabu Shigehiro et al (JP 2003001632 A, with on-line translation, thereafter JP’632) and Cowling et al (US-PG-pub 2007/0278139 A1, thereafter PG’139).
JP’529 in view of JP’156 and JP’632 is applied to the instant claims 1-3 and 10-11 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 9/10/2025.
Regarding the amended features in the instant claim 1, JP’156 teaches applying two stage wind power sorting process for removing powder and film (steps 5a and 5b in Fig.1 and 5-6 and par.[0004]-[0006], [0013], and [0017] of JP’156) including resin (par.[0055] of JP’156) and metal sorting (steps 4 and 8-9 of Fig.1 and 5-6 of JP’156). JP’529 in view of JP’156 and JP’632 does not specify applying camera as sensor to detect a position of an object to be processed. However applying camera to detect a position of an object is a well-known technique as demonstrated by PG’139. PG’139 teaches a sorting process to tracking the process object (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’139). PG’139 specify applying camera to detect the positions of such objects across the conveyor belt (Fig.1 and par.[0035] of PG’139). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply camera position sensor as claimed from the disclosure of PG’139 in the process of JP’529 in view of JP’156 and JP’632 in order to sorting the object. (Fig.1 and par.[0035] of PG’139).
Regarding the newly added claim 16, JP’529 in view of JP’156 teaches that the scraps (electric wire scrap, lead frame, IC chip, substrate scrap with resin, ultra-small coil, switch, etc.) generated from the electrical/electronic component and these scraps are composite materials including metals, resins, and ceramics. (par.[0001] of JP’529). JP’156 teaches applying two stage wind power sorting process for removing powder and film (steps 5a and 5b in Fig.1 and 5-6 and par.[0004]-[0006], [0013], and [0017] of JP’156) and metal sorting (steps 4 and 8-9 of Fig.1 and 5-6 of JP’156), which reads on the claimed limitation in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed air volume in the wind power sorting is considered as experimental parameter which can be obtain by experiment test according to the materials, wind power sorting apparatus, and process steps (Fig.1-9 and examples of JP’156).
Claims 6, 12-13, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP’529 in view of JP’156, Ueno et al (US 6,336,601 B1, listed in IDS field on 7/31/202, thereafter US’601), and further in view of PG’139
JP’529 in view of JP’156, and JP’601 is applied to the instant claims 6 and 12-13 for the same reason as stated in the previous office action dated 9/10/2025.
Regarding the amended features in the instant claim 12, JP’529 in view of JP’156 and JP’601 does not specify applying camera as sensor to detect a position of an object to be processed. However applying camera to detect a position of an object is a well-known technique as demonstrated by PG’139. PG’139 teaches a sorting process to tracking the process object (Abstract, examples, and claims of PG’139). PG’139 specify applying camera to detect the positions of such objects across the conveyor belt (Fig.1 and par.[0035] of PG’139). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to apply camera position sensor as claimed from the disclosure of PG’139 in the process of JP’529 in view of JP’156 and JP’601 in order to sorting the object. (Fig.1 and par.[0035] of PG’139).
Regarding newly added claim 18, JP’529 in view of JP’156 teaches that the scraps (electric wire scrap, lead frame, IC chip, substrate scrap with resin, ultra-small coil, switch, etc.) generated from the electrical/electronic component and these scraps are composite materials including metals, resins, and ceramics. (par.[0001] of JP’529). JP’156 teaches applying two stage wind power sorting process for removing powder and film (steps 5a and 5b in Fig.1 and 5-6 and par.[0004]-[0006], [0013], and [0017] of JP’156) and metal sorting (steps 4 and 8-9 of Fig.1 and 5-6 of JP’156), which reads on the claimed limitation in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 21, the claimed air volume in the wind power sorting is considered as experimental parameter which can be obtain by experiment test according to the materials, wind power sorting apparatus, and process steps (Fig.1-9 and examples of JP’156).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the art rejection to claims 1-3, 6, 10-13, 16, 18, and 20-21 have been considered but they are moot in view of the new ground rejection as stated above. Regarding the arguments related to the amended features in the instant claims, the Examiner’s position has stated as above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIE YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1884. The examiner can normally be reached on IFP.
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, Jonathan J Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734