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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments and remarks filed on June 16, 2025.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Applicant’s remarks and arguments are addressed below.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2007/0147776 A1) in view of Clark (US 10,556,240 B2).
Claim 1. Ito teaches: A destruction device management method for managing a plurality of destruction devices configured to physically destruct an information recording medium as waste using a system including a mobile terminal and a server device (see Figure 12 feature 102 and ¶s 209, 229-230, and 245-246 teaching a server device; regarding a “mobile terminal,” see, e.g., Figure 2 teaching that there can be a personal computer 93, such as a laptop, that serves to control the destruction device 92), the destruction device management method being an information recording medium destruction device management method (see, e.g., at least ¶s 19, 25, 27, 29, 37, 46, 47, 53, 72, 74, and 297 teaching that the control device 293 is an “information recording means” that can record the destruction of the device, such as with image data or identifying data of the device that is destroyed), wherein the plurality of the destruction devices each include:
a destruction means configured to apply a destruction action to physically destruct an information recording medium (see, e.g., at least Figure 1 and ¶s 129-134 teaching a recording medium destruction apparatus that deforms and destroys hard disks by pressing with pins and a motor into the hard drive; see also Figures 9A and 9B and ¶s 208-215 and 238 teaching cylindrical rotary cutting edges 119 to destroy information recording media);
a counter for displaying the total number of destruction times so far (this is addressed below); and
an identification display including destruction device identification information that is unique information for identifying each destruction device (see, e.g., ¶s 290 and 300 teaching that the destruction device has a bar code reader 292 that records a bar code in the memory; see further ¶s 96, 97, 305, 307, 326, 332, 343, and 345 teaching a bar code or IC chip that identifies the hard drive being destroyed; see further Figure 22 teaching a “name” of the computer, a serial number of the hard disk as items tracked; see additionally Figures 4 and 16 teaching a certificate of destruction that includes the identifying number),
the mobile terminal includes:
an information recording means configured to store personal identification information for identifying a person who uses the mobile terminal (see, e.g., Figures 4, 16, and 22 and ¶ 249 teaching that the certificate of destruction includes the identity of the “destruction worker;” see further ¶s 144, 146, 151-152, 158, 170, 176, 182-190, et al. teaching substantially the same including taking a picture of the worker performing the destruction);
a location information acquisition means configured to acquire location information of the mobile terminal (see Figures 4, 16, and 22 teaching that the certificate of destruction includes “place of destruction;” see further ¶ 168); and
a camera means configured to capture an external appearance of an information recording medium to be destructed (see at least, e.g., Figure 1 and ¶s 130-137, 142-152 teaching a video camera 10; see further Figure 3 and ¶s 156-158, 176, 182-189, 296-299, 310, 337-342 teaching two video cameras 34 and 37 that records the person destroying the hard drive and the hard drive destroyed, respectively),
the server device includes:
an information recording means configured to store information received from the mobile terminal (see, e.g., ¶s 28, 187, 249, 251-252, 284, 357 teaching storing the video and other data documenting the destruction, e.g., in a CD 108),
the information recording medium destruction device management method further comprising:
a step of reading, by the mobile terminal, via its own camera means, the destruction device identification information included in the identification display of the destruction device before starting a destruction work using the destruction device (see, e.g., ¶s 135-137, 142, 144, 299, 310, 337-342 teaching that the cameras are controlled by the destruction device to read the identification of the device being destroyed; alternatively, see ¶s 290, 300, 305-307, 326, 332, and 343-345 teaching recording the bar code of the device being destroyed with the bar code reader of the destruction device);
a step of acquiring, by the mobile terminal, via its own location information acquisition means, location information on a current location of the mobile terminal at the time of execution of the step (a) (see Figures 4, 16, and 22 teaching that the certificate of destruction includes “place of destruction;” see further ¶s 168 and 312; see further, e.g., ¶ 183 teaching obtaining “the surroundings of the place where the recording medium destruction apparatus 91 itself is installed”);
a step of transmitting, by the mobile terminal, to the server device, personal identification information for identifying a person who uses the mobile terminal, the destruction device identification information read in the step (a), and the location information acquired in the step (b) (see, e.g., ¶ 235 teaching transmitting all of the identification data along with the image data that was recorded to document the destruction; see also, e.g., ¶s 72-76, 137, 358, 368, 369, and Claims 11-12 teaching transmitting data such as the identification means, the operator, i.e., person who uses the destruction device, and from the destruction device to the PC, i.e., server); and
a step of recording, by the server device, in an information recording means, the personal identification information, the destruction device identification information, and the location information received from the mobile terminal (see, e.g., ¶ 137 teaching that after transmitting the data is stored in the memory 9 of the controller 21; see also ¶ 235 teaching that the data is transmitted to the image data recorder 132 and ¶s 368-369 teaching transmitting the personal identification information and device identification information to the data recorder 256; see additionally, e.g., Figures 4, 16, 22 teaching the recording of identification information for the recording device, the worker, and the place of destruction).
Regarding the limitation of a counter for displaying the total number of destruction times so far, Ito fails to expressly teach such a limitation. Nevertheless, analogous reference Clark teaches the limitation (see at least column 10 lines 1-9 teaching that the certificate of destruction can include data such as “a running count of sub-components collected” for productivity reports; see also Figure 24 teaching an exemplary certificate of destruction including the running count). Examiner notes that Clark is similar to the instant application and Ito because it relates to the verification of the destruction of particular hard drives (see Clark column 1 lines 15-18) including generating certificates of destruction (see Clark Figure 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of using a counter to count the number of devices destroyed (as disclosed by Clark) to the known destruction device and method of recording hard drive destruction for verification (as disclosed by Ito). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of using a counter to count the number of devices destroyed because it could be used in productivity reports (see Clark column 10 lines 1-9).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of using a counter to count the number of devices destroyed (as disclosed by Clark) to the known destruction device and method of recording hard drive destruction for verification (as disclosed by Ito), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of using a counter along with other data that are recorded when verifying the destruction of a hard drive because the recording of additional data can be added to and included with other data recorded for data retention and verification purposes). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim 2. The combination of Ito and Clark teach the limitations of Claim 1. Ito further teachers: The information recording medium destruction device management method according to claim 1, further comprising:
(h) a step of capturing, by the mobile terminal by using the camera means, an external appearance of an information recording medium as waste after the information recording medium has been destructed, and acquiring post-destruction image data in which the external appearance has been captured (see, e.g., Figure 4 teaching a certificate of destruction that includes a picture of the hard drive as well as a picture of the serial number of the hard drive; see further ¶s 187-189); and
a step of transmitting, by the mobile terminal, the post-destruction image data acquired in the step (h) to the server device (see, e.g., ¶ 235 teaching transmitting all of the identification data along with the image data that was recorded to document the destruction; see also, e.g., ¶s 72-76, 137, 358, 368, 369, and Claims 11-12 teaching transmitting data such as the identification means, the operator, i.e., person who uses the destruction device, and from the destruction device to the PC, i.e., server),
wherein in the step (1) the server device records, in the information recording means, the personal identification information, the destruction device identification information, the location information, and the post-destruction image data received from the mobile terminal (see, e.g., ¶ 137 teaching that after transmitting the data is stored in the memory 9 of the controller 21; see also ¶ 235 teaching that the data is transmitted to the image data recorder 132 and ¶s 368-369 teaching transmitting the personal identification information and device identification information to the data recorder 256; see additionally, e.g., Figures 4, 16, 22 teaching the recording of identification information for the recording device, the worker, and the place of destruction).
Claim 3. The combination of Ito and Clark teach the limitations of Claim 2. Ito further teachers: The information recording medium destruction device management method according to claim 2, further comprising:
(f) a step of capturing, by the mobile terminal by using the camera means, an external appearance of an information recording medium as waste before being destructed and acquiring pre-destruction image data in which the external appearance has been captured (see, e.g., Figure 4 teaching a certificate of destruction that includes a picture of the hard drive as well as a picture of the serial number of the hard drive; see further ¶s 184-189, noting that ¶ 184, as well as 87 and 339, teaches that the data are obtained both before and after destruction); and
(g) a step of transmitting, by the mobile terminal, the pre-destruction image data acquired in the step (f) to the server device (see, e.g., ¶ 186 teaching recording the pre-destruction image data in the memory of the personal computer 93),
wherein in the step (1) the server device records, in the information recording means, the personal identification information, the destruction device identification information, the location information, the pre-destruction image data, and the post- destruction image data received from the mobile terminal (see, e.g., ¶ 186 teaching recording the pre-destruction image data in the memory of the personal computer 93; see also, e.g., ¶ 137 teaching that after transmitting the data is stored in the memory 9 of the controller 21; see also ¶ 235 teaching that the data is transmitted to the image data recorder 132 and ¶s 368-369 teaching transmitting the personal identification information and device identification information to the data recorder 256; see additionally, e.g., Figures 4, 16, 22 teaching the recording of identification information for the recording device, the worker, and the place of destruction).
Claim 4. The combination of Ito and Clark teach the limitations of Claim 3. Ito further teachers: The information recording medium destruction device management method according to claim 3, wherein an information recording medium to be destructed has an identification display indicating medium identification information for identifying the information recording medium (see, e.g., Figure 4 teaching a certificate of destruction that includes a picture of the hard drive as well as a picture of the serial number of the hard drive; see further ¶s 187-189), and in the step (f), the pre-destruction image data acquired by the mobile terminal by using the camera means includes an identification display indicating the medium identification information (see, e.g., Figure 4 teaching a certificate of destruction that includes a picture of the hard drive as well as a picture of the serial number of the hard drive; see further ¶s 187-189), and in the step (h), the post-destruction image data acquired by the mobile terminal by using the camera means includes an identification display indicating the medium identification information (see, e.g., Figure 4 teaching a certificate of destruction that includes a picture of the hard drive as well as a picture of the serial number of the hard drive; see further ¶s 184-189, noting that ¶ 184 teaches that the data are obtained both before and after destruction).
Claim 5. The combination of Ito and Clark teach the limitations of Claim 1. Ito further teachers: The information recording medium destruction device management method according to claim 1, wherein in the step (1), the information to be recorded in the information recording means by the server device further includes information on a requester of destruction of the information recording medium (see, e.g., ¶s 45, 52-57, 167, 175, 298, and 319 teaching that the person who requested destruction of the medium is one datum obtained and recorded in the invention; see also Figures 4, 16, and 22 noting the recording of such people in a certificate of destruction or recorded data tables).
Claim 6. The combination of Ito and Clark teach the limitations of Claim 1. That combination further teachers: The information recording medium destruction device management method according to claim 1, further comprising:
(d) a step of reading, by the mobile terminal by using its own camera means, a pre-work counter value that is a numerical value displayed on a counter of the destruction device, before starting a destruction work using the destruction device (see, e.g., Clark column 10 lines 1-9 teaching tracking a running count of the components destroyed thus far); and
(e) a step of transmitting, by the mobile terminal, the pre-work counter value read in the step (d) to the server device, wherein in the step (1), the server device records, in the information recording means, the personal identification information, the destruction device identification information, the location information, and the pre-work counter value received from the mobile terminal (see, e.g., Ito ¶ 235 teaching transmitting all of the identification data along with the image data that was recorded to document the destruction; see also, e.g., ¶s 72-76, 137, 358, 368, 369, and Claims 11-12 teaching transmitting data such as the identification means, the operator, i.e., person who uses the destruction device, and from the destruction device to the PC, i.e., server; Examiner notes that Clark teaches obtaining a running count number in column 10 lines 1-9 and the rationale for combining Ito and Clark was provided in the rejection of Claim 1).
Claim 7. The combination of Ito and Clark teach the limitations of Claim 1. Ito further teachers: The information recording medium destruction device management method according to claim 6, further comprising:
(j) a step of reading, by the mobile terminal, by using its own camera means, a post-work counter information that is a numerical value displayed on a counter of the destruction device, after completing a destruction work using the destruction device (see, e.g., Figure 4 teaching a certificate of destruction that includes a picture of the hard drive as well as a picture of the serial number of the hard drive; see further ¶s 184-189, noting that ¶ 184 teaches that the data are obtained both before and after destruction);
(k) a step of transmitting, by the mobile terminal, the post-work counter value read in the step (j) to the server device, wherein in the step (1), the server device records, in the information recording means, the personal identification information, the destruction device identification information, the location information, the pre-work counter value, and the post-work counter value received from the mobile terminal (see, e.g., Figure 4 teaching a certificate of destruction that includes a picture of the hard drive as well as a picture of the serial number of the hard drive; see further ¶s 184-189, noting that ¶ 184 teaches that the data are obtained both before and after destruction).
Claim 8. The combination of Ito and Clark teach the limitations of Claim 7. Clark further teachers: The information recording medium destruction device management method according to claim 7, further comprising a step of calculating, by the server device, the number of destruction times in the current destruction work based on the pre-work counter value and the post-work counter value, wherein in the step (1), the server device records, in the information recording means, the personal identification information, the destruction device identification information, the location information, the pre-work counter value, the post-work counter value, and the number of destruction times in the current destruction work received from the mobile terminal (see Clark column 10 lines 1-9 teaching obtaining a running count number before and after destruction; Examiner notes that the rationale for combining Clark with Ito was provided in the rejection of Claim 1).
Claim 9. The combination of Ito and Clark teach the limitations of Claim 7. Clark further teachers: The information recording medium destruction device management method according to claim 7, wherein an increase amount of the counter value in a predetermined period is obtained for each of the plurality of destruction devices based on the pre-work counter value and the post-work counter value recorded in the information recording means of the server device (see Clark column 10 lines 1-9 teaching obtaining a running count number before and after destruction; Examiner notes that the rationale for combining Clark with Ito was provided in the rejection of Claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered. In the remarks, Applicant specifically addresses the following:
Claim Rejections - Prior Art:
Regarding the application of the prior art to the claims, Applicant makes one main argument: that the secondary reference Clark fails to teach the limitation of a counter for displaying the total number of destruction times so far (see Remarks pages 2-6). Specifically, Applicant argues that the “running count” on Clark’s “certificate of destruction” (see Clark Figure 24 and column 10 lines 1-9) refers solely to “components containing rare earth metals” (see Remarks pages 4-5, citing, e.g., Clark claims 3 and 7 and columns 8 and 9) and thus is “not at all concerned with a ‘running count’ of the destruction of hard drive data or the hard drive itself” (see Remarks page 5). This argument is not persuasive because the “components” referred to in Clark are not limited only to components containing rare earth metals. For example, Clark teaches in Figure 1A that there are “targeted components in all 3.5 inch and 2.5 inch HDDs, SSds, and HHDs. The primary components consist of: the hard drive cover, circuit boards, and rare earth metals that including [sic] the voice-coil magnets, and spindle coils.” Further, Clark teaches that the invention utilizes a product visioning system that uses Cartesian coordinates “to aid in the destruction or extraction of their targeted components” (see Clark column 5 lines 18-20). Clark additionally teaches that the devices of the invention “can be used for destroying the data storage portion of electronic media storage devices such as HDD, SSD, and HHD hard drives” (see Clark column 3 lines 55-57). Thus, while one or more sub-components of the hard drive can include the rare earth metal containing sub-components, other components are included as well including those parts of the hard drive that have the data the invention seeks to destroy. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not considered persuasive. The § 103 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Chihara, US 7,973,959 B2.
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 JAN P MINCARELLI whose telephone number is (571)270-5909. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Nathan C. Uber, can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
/JAN P MINCARELLI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights