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
This communication is a First Office Action Non-Final on Merits. Claims 1-9, as originally filed, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an article identifier configured to; a material price acquirer configured to; a recommended disassembly-target price decider configured to; a recommended disassembly-target part displayer configured to (Claim 1); a disassembled part identifier configured to (Claim 3); a sending destination decider configured to (Claim 9)
Examiner note: “an article information storage configured to” in claim 1; a feedback information storage configured to (Claim 7) do not invoke 112f as storage is not a generic place holder and therefore fails the 3- prong test.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Spec Fig 2 and [0030] The controller 21 is provided with an article identifier 211, a material price acquirer 212, a recommended disassembly-target part decider 213, a recommended disassembly-target part displayer 214, a disassembled part identifier 215, and a sending destination decider 216.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-9 are directed to a system. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recite methods for a recycling work support system that includes an article identifier to identify a kind of an article to be recycled, based on external appearance information and/or identification information about the article; store article information about the article identified by the article identifier, the article information including parts of the article, materials of the parts, amounts of the materials, and working hours required to remove each of the parts; acquire resource prices of the materials of the parts; decide disassembly-target parts to be disassembled in disassembly work and/or a disassembly procedure for the disassembly work so that a total of resource prices for parts that can be disassembled per predetermined time is high, based on the resource prices of the materials, recovery amounts of the materials, and the working hours; and display the decided disassembly-target parts and/or disassembly procedure to workers who perform the disassembly work.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) including interaction between person and computer), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as an article information storage, a material price acquirer, a recommended disassembly-target part decider, a recommended disassembly-target part displayer), the claims are directed to providing recycling support by deciding parts to be disassembled and providing disassembly procedure. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing recycling recommendation. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – an article information storage, a material price acquirer, a recommended disassembly-target part decider, a recommended disassembly-target part displayer. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are directed to an abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; provide recycling recommendation. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to an article information storage, a material price acquirer, a recommended disassembly-target part decider, a recommended disassembly-target part displayer these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Paragraph [0026] details “ The controller 21 is realized, for example, by a hardware processor such as a CPU (central processing unit) executing a program (software). [0025] the work support apparatus 2 is provided with a controller 21, a storage 22, a communicator 23, an inputter 24 and a display 25. [0028] The storage 22 is realized, for example, by a storage device provided with a non-transitory storage medium, such as an HDD (hard disk drive), a flash memory [0030]The controller 21 is provided with an article identifier 211, a material price acquirer 212, a recommended disassembly-target part decider 213, a recommended disassembly-target part displayer 214, a disassembled part identifier 215, and a sending destination decider 216..” These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-9 add additional limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as Independent claim 1. Claims 2, 3, 9 recites notifies a purchase price for the parts that can be disassembled per predetermined time by subsequent disassembly work or notifies that the purchase price for the parts that can be disassembled per predetermined time has become equal to or lower than a predetermined value; identify parts disassembled by the workers, wherein in a case where the parts identified by the disassembled part identifier are different from the disassembly-target parts or disassembly procedure displayed, the recommended disassembly-target part decider newly decides subsequent disassembly-target parts or disassembly procedure; decide, based on kinds of the parts identified by the disassembled part identifier, the amounts of the materials of the parts stored in the article information storage, and a requested sending amount of each material that can be sent into each of one or more sending destinations, a sending destination of each of the parts, and display the decided sending destination of the part to the workers. These limitations further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim by including purchase price for parts and making decision based on parts information. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 4-5, 6-8 further define the abstract idea of independent claim by including corrects the working hours required to remove each of the parts based on at least one selected from equipment of the workers, a number of the workers and a degree of skills of the workers; decides the disassembly-target parts and/or the disassembly procedure for the disassembly work further based on a degree of difficulty of removal work for each of the parts; in a case where a total of purchase prices for parts obtained by the disassembly work is higher than a decided value, the recommended disassembly-target part decider feeds back the disassembly-target parts and the working hours to decision of subsequent disassembly-target parts and/or disassembly procedure for disassembly work; viewer evaluations that are evaluations by a viewer about the disassembly-target parts and the disassembly procedure fed back and the disassembly-target parts and the disassembly procedure stored, wherein the recommended disassembly-target part displayer preferentially displays disassembly-target parts and/or a disassembly procedure with a relatively high value of the viewer evaluation; decides which parts of which article to be recycled are to be disassembled, based on a predetermined unit time amount, identification information about all articles to be recycled for which disassembly work can be performed in the predetermined unit time amount, and at least one selected from equipment of, a number of, and a degree of skills of the workers. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-6, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 6,633,795 B1) in view of Yamakado (JP 2004234323 A1)
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki discloses the recycling work support system (Abstract lines 1-3 A recycle system for a manufactured article including an input unit which inputs first information relating to the manufactured article and a storage unit which stores second information relating to recycle processes and third information relating to materials to be controlled by the recycle system.) comprising:
Suzuki discloses an article identifier configured to identify a kind of an article to be recycled, based on external appearance information and/or identification information about the article (Col 22 lines 36-44 At first, the article information and the use history information of a discarded article 21 are inputted. Subsequently, the article history information of the discarded article 21 is recorded onto the history information accumulating unit 40 together with the identification information of the discarded article 21 (article identifier), Col 37 lines 64-67, Col 38 lines 1-2 FIG. 25, the article code information (identification information about the article) such as manufacture name, category of article, article name, model name, manufactured date, manufacturing number affixed to the discarded article is obtained, whereon the article code information as obtained is recorded on the discarded article processing result Col 38 lines 14-18 inputting and recording article information indicated on a label or the like attached to the discarded article in the form of characters, symbols or the like by reading visually the information by the worker and inputting the information. Col 38 lines 27-32 Reading the article information stored previously in a memory incorporated in the discarded article at the time of the manufacture thereof. In that case, the article is provided with an article information output terminal 21h );
Suzuki discloses an article information storage configured to store article information about the article identified by the article identifier (Fig 14 # 35 article specification information database Col 38 lines 45-50 the article specifications information is retrieved from the article specifications information database 35 on the basis of the article information of the discarded article concerned as acquired in the aforementioned step 250. FIG. 7 illustrates an example of data of the article specifications information), the article information including parts of the article, materials of the parts, amounts of the materials, ( Fig 7 #C design information, component part information shows part number, part name (parts of article), material, weight (amount of material), number (amount of material e.g. cable (10)) and user history, Col 38 lines 33-36 the information output terminal coupling connector 43 is connected to thereby read out the article information or alternatively an article information storage unit 21a may be provided in the article) and workers/hours required to remove each of the parts (Fig 26 disassembling method information table D shows component number, quantity and required number of workers for each component disassembly, Col 35 lines 1-7 article specifications information, there may be enumerated manufacturer name, category or class of article, name of article, model name, manufactured date, manufacture ID number, component part information (part name, part number, part manufacturer, model name of part, harmfulness or non-harmfulness, possibility of reuse, use history, etc.), disassembling or decomposing methods (disassembling procedure, tool necessitated, disassemble guiding chart, etc.), standard number of disassembling steps or processes involved (hours), etc. Col 40 lines12-27 When one of the disassembling method information contained in the article specifications information of the article is given by a disassembling process time required therefor, the design of the article concerned arithmetically estimates a standard disassembling process (standard time) (hours required) in advance to thereby store the estimated value in the article specifications information database 35, as shown in FIG. 26. By way of example, referring to FIG. 26, when the used article demand exists for the part "PWB ASS'Y" identified by a disassembling sequence number "7" (i.e., when the recycle method decision processor unit 29 determines on the basis of the used part demand information contained in the market information database 41 that the part "PWB ASS'Y" is commercially demanded), the standard disassembling process costs for the disassembling sequence numbers "1" to "7" are added together to thereby calculate the standard disassembling process cost for disassembling and separating or detaching the components "PWB ASS'Y".);
Suzuki discloses a material price acquirer configured to acquire resource prices of the materials of the parts (Col 35 lines 56-62 Market Information Database 41 This is a database containing information of the demand for used parts concerned, information of the market prices of various restored materials/substances concerned, information of purchasing prices for various restoration-destined used materials (resource price), information concerning possibility of accommodation by recycle processing persons, harmful/hazardous material processing persons and final disposal processing persons, information of used part buyers and various processing facilities (name, residence, television number, facsimile number, etc.), information of costs involved in various transfers and transportations.);
Suzuki discloses a recommended disassembly-target part decider configured to decide disassembly-target parts to be disassembled in disassembly work and/or a disassembly procedure for the disassembly work (Fig 2 # 205, 206, 207, 208 article is within allowable life limit; recycle method decision step for parts/assemblies after disassembling, Col 10 lines 31-38 FIG. 2, upon reception of a discarded television by the recycling factories 6 and 7, information concerning the discarded television inputted from the article specifications information database 35 shown in FIG. 5 is acquired (step 201), whereon the recycle processing method for the discarded television is decided on the basis of the acquired information. Col 11 lines 19-25 information concerning the parts and the assemblies which are separated when the discarded television is disassembled or decomposed is extracted for each of the parts and the assemblies (step 206a), whereupon decision is made as to whether the parts or the assemblies can be reused in a step 206b., Fig 5 #29 recycle method decision processor unit Col 5 lines 43-49 a recycle method decision processor unit 29 for deciding a recycle processing for a given article in accordance with the recycling rules prepared previously by referencing the information of the article destined for reuse as contained in the database stored in the storage unit 350 on the basis of the information concerning the article inputted through the medium of the input unit 34)so that a total of resource prices for parts that can be disassembled per predetermined time is high, based on the resource prices of the materials, recovery amounts of the materials, and the hours (Col 23 lines 58-67 a further step of deciding whether the discarded television is worthy to be restored by repairing or exchanging component parts may be provided for the purpose of promoting the restoration or regeneration of the discarded article. Such decision method may be so designed as to compare the used-article market price of the corresponding used articles with the cost involved in restoring the article. When the restoration is profitable, then the discarded article is decided to undergo the recycle processing. Col 24 lines 1-22 The market price of the article to be restored may be estimated by acquiring at least the manufacture name, article name, model name, manufactured date and the use history of the discarded article from the article specifications information and the article use history information, and then retrieving from the market information database 41 the price data of the used article of the same conditions as that to be restored or alternatively the price data of similar used article circulated on the market, on the basis of the above-mentioned information acquired from the article specifications information and the article use history information. On the other hand, the cost involved in repairing the discarded article is estimated on the basis of data concerning the locations requiring to be repaired as detected in the quality check process as well as the costs involved in packing, shipping and others. In this way, the whole cost demanded for restoring the discarded article as a used article to be put on the market can be estimated. Thus, by comparing the used-article market price of the corresponding article with the cost involved in restoration of the discarded article as described above, restoration or recycle processing is carried out for the discarded article, when the above comparison shows that the restoration is profitable); and
Suzuki discloses a recommended disassembly-target part displayer configured to display the decided disassembly-target parts and/or disassembly procedure to workers who perform the disassembly work. (Fig 5 #29-33 recycling processing procedure generating module, Col 8 lines 35-38 a recycle procedure generating module 33 for generating a recycle processing method for the discarded article for which the recycle processing method has been determined or decided, Fig. 32 #325 display on decision result display device “disassembling methods in disassembling procedures and recycle methods for parts detached in combination Col 27 line 67, Col 28 lines 1-10 The discarded article disassembling method or disassembling procedure information read out from the article specifications information database 35 and the recycle processing methods for the detached parts read out from the recycle processing method decision result storage unit 79 are displayed in combination on the processing result display device 38 shown in FIG. 5 as the recycle processing procedure. Fig 14 #62 Information displayed to worker Disassembly 1: detachment of cover, part information print out Col 28 lines 49-55 FIG. 14 shows, by way of example only, a process for detaching and separating a cover 60 from a discarded television. A disassembling worker 61 detaches and separates the cover 60 from the discarded television while viewing the disassembling procedure displayed on the processing result display device 38.
Suzuki teaches workers needed for task (Fig 26 disassembling method information table D shows component number, quantity and required number of workers for each component disassembly Col 35 lines 1-7 standard number of disassembling steps or processes involved (hours)). However, Suzuki does not specifically teach working hours required to remove each of the parts;
Yamakado teaches working hours required to remove each of the parts (Abstract lines 3-7 & [0011] a standard working time storage means for storing standard working time of dismantling work of each part beforehand, a working time storage means for storing dismantling working time of each dismantling object part, a working time measuring means for measuring the dismantling working time of each part for structuring the recycle object and storing it in the working time storing means and a difficult work extracting means for extracting a work of which dismantling work is difficult by referring standard time stored in the standard working time storing means an dismantling work time of each part stored in the work time storing means., [0037] FIG. 17 is an explanatory diagram showing the table structure of the actual work time table in the work analysis DB 72. In this table, the part ID (disassembled actual part ID) of the part specified in step S315 and the work time (actual work time) measured in step S316 are registered in association with each other.) display the decided disassembly-target parts and/or disassembly procedure to workers who perform the disassembly work. ([0019] displaying a disassembly diagram, and for each part, a part ID, a part type, a work instruction direction, a material, a weight, and part CAD data. Contains. In the example of FIG. 3, for the screw which is one of the parts, the part ID is “0001”, the part type is “screw”, the work instruction direction is “vertical”, and the material is “iron” as the part information.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included working hours required to remove each of the parts, as disclosed by Yamakado in the system disclosed by Suzuki, for the motivation of providing a method of determining degree of difficulty of task by comparing it with standard time and using as reference data for performing product design inconsideration of the ease of dismantling work. ([0011] Yamakado) .
Regarding Claim 2. Suzuki as modified by Yamakado teaches the recycling work support system according to claim 1,
Suzuki teaches wherein the recommended disassembly-target part decider notifies a purchase price for the parts that can be disassembled per predetermined time by subsequent disassembly work or notifies that the purchase price for the parts that can be disassembled per predetermined time has become equal to or lower than a predetermined value. (Col 39 lines 50-62 For a given component part for which the information "commercially demanded" is derived from the used part demand information, the purchase price of a corresponding used part commercially handled by the sued part dealers is retrieved from the used part demand information. Furthermore, the disassembling cost involved in separating or detaching the part from the discarded article as well as the fee charged for transportation is estimated by calculation, whereon the cost corresponding to the sum of the disassembling cost and the transportation fee is compared with the purchase price of the used part dealers for determining whether or not profit is resulted. When the profit is gained, then the part concerned is decided.)
Regarding Claim 3. Suzuki as modified by Yamakado teaches the recycling work support system according to claim 1, further comprising:
Suzuki teaches a disassembled part identifier configured to identify parts disassembled by the workers (Fig 27 #73 article name: color television, ID number: 00205, Col 37 lines19-24 The discarded article recycle method transmitting apparatus 73 is connected to the recycle method decision processor unit 29 for indicating or messaging to workers concerned in the recycling factory 18 the discarded article processing procedure generated by the recycle method decision processor unit 29. Col 42 lines 62-67 recording picture information on a recording medium (video tape or the like), there should be recorded at a starting portion of the record at least the article name (article category), type (model name), manufacturer name, manufactured date and the manufacturer number of the discarded article concerned. Col 43 lines 1-5, 25-32 The separation/sorting are commanded to the workers in accordance with the separation/sorting procedure for the part containing harmful/hazardous material/substance, the reuse-destined parts and the other parts of the discarded article as retrieved and decided in the steps 256 and 257 (step 259). The commands can be validated with the aid of the discarded article recycle method transmitting apparatus 73. At this time point, it is displayed which of the part containing harmful/hazardous material/substance, reuse-destined part and the other part the part decided to be detached in the preceding step belongs to. Further, when the part to be detached belongs to the category of the part containing harmful/hazardous material/substance, then the harmful/hazardous material/substance contained in that part are displayed as well. ), wherein in a case where the parts identified by the disassembled part identifier are different from the disassembly-target parts or disassembly procedure displayed by the recommended disassembly-target part displayer, the recommended disassembly-target part decider newly decides subsequent disassembly-target parts or disassembly procedure. (Col 23 lines 35-54the quality check procedure is generated by the recycle processing generating module 33 shown in FIG. 5, whereupon the procedure(s) as generated is displayed on the processing result display device 38 (step 203c2). Thus, the worker can perform the quality check in accordance with the check procedure as displayed (step 203c3). Furthermore, in accordance with the procedure as generated, the line control is performed by the line control unit 42. After the check processing, operator makes decision as to whether or not the quality criteria can be satisfied (step 203c4). When the quality criteria are met, operator checks whether there exist items to be checked or not (step 203c5). After completion of the check of all the items, the articles satisfying the quality criteria are restored as reusable articles in a step 204. On the contrary, those which do not satisfy the quality criteria are transferred to a part/assembly recycle processing method decision step 206 as the objects for decomposition processing.)
Regarding Claim 4. Suzuki as modified by Yamakado teaches the recycling work support system according to claim 1,
Suzuki teaches wherein the recommended disassembly-target part decider corrects the resources required to remove each of the parts based on at least one selected from equipment of the workers, a number of the workers and a degree of skills of the workers. (Col 8 lines 39-47 taking into consideration the necessity of modifying the recycling rules and the recycle method decision procedure, as occasion demands, since new recycle processing methods will be developed from one to another with the optimal recycle processing method changing correspondingly, the system of concern is provided with a recycle method decision procedure editing module 30 in order to make it possible to correct or modify the recycle method decision procedure.)
Suzuki does not specifically teach corrects the working hours required to remove each of the parts
Yamakado teaches corrects the working hours required to remove each of the parts based on at least one selected from equipment of the workers ([0064] the standard work time of the work whose work ID is “1” (for example, a screw is removed with a power tool) is “5seconds”. [0067] an average work time for each component ID is calculated with reference to the actual work time table of the work analysis DB 72 (step S501). This average work time is obtained by adding all the actual work times having the same part ID and dividing by the number of the added actual work times. Thereby, the average work time for each component is calculated, [0068] the dismantling work efficiency is “1” if the same time as the standard work time, “less than 1” if shorter than the standard work time, and longer than the standard work time. In this case, the value is "a value exceeding 1.", [0069] Extraction of difficult work is performed by disassembling parts having a disassembly work efficiency of “more than 1 and 1.5 or less” as “lightly difficult work”, and disassembling parts of “more than 1.5 and less than 2” as “disassembly work”. A "hard work" is output to a printer (not shown) or the like as a "super-hard work". [0070] difficult tasks are performed in order of increasing average working time)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included corrects the working hours required to remove each of the parts, as disclosed by Yamakado in the system disclosed by Suzuki, for the motivation of providing a method of determining degree of difficulty of task by comparing it with standard time and using as reference data for performing product design inconsideration of the ease of dismantling work. ([0011] Yamakado) .
Regarding Claim 5. Suzuki as modified by Yamakado teaches the recycling work support system according to claim 1,
Suzuki does not specifically teach wherein the recommended disassembly-target part decider decides the disassembly-target parts and/or the disassembly procedure for the disassembly work further based on a degree of difficulty of removal work for each of the parts.
Yamakado teaches wherein the recommended disassembly-target part decider decides the disassembly-target parts and/or the disassembly procedure for the disassembly work further based on a degree of difficulty of removal work for each of the parts. ([0012] In the recycling work analysis system, the difficult work extracting means extracts the dismantling work of each part as a difficult work based on a ratio between a standard time and a dismantling work time. According to this configuration, it is possible to objectively evaluate the degree of difficulty of each dismantling operation, [0069])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included wherein the recommended disassembly-target part decider decides the disassembly-target parts and/or the disassembly procedure for the disassembly work further based on a degree of difficulty of removal work for each of the parts, as disclosed by Yamakado in the system disclosed by Suzuki, for the motivation of providing a method of supporting the work of dismantling recyclable articles such as OA products and home electric appliances, and in particular, to analyze the dismantling work in order to efficiently perform the dismantling work and to extract difficult work.([0001] Yamakado)
Regarding Claim 6. Suzuki as modified by Yamakado teaches the recycling work support system according to claim 1,
Suzuki teaches wherein, in a case where a total of purchase prices for parts obtained by the disassembly work is higher than a decided value (Col 23 lines 65-67, Col 24 lines 1-18 When the restoration is profitable, then the discarded article is decided to undergo the recycle processing. The market price of the article to be restored may be estimated by acquiring at least the manufacture name, article name, model name, manufactured date and the use history of the discarded article from the article specifications information and the article use history information, and then retrieving from the market information database 41 the price data of the used article of the same conditions as that to be restored or alternatively the price data of similar used article circulated on the market, on the basis of the above-mentioned information acquired from the article specifications information and the article use history information. On the other hand, the cost involved in repairing the discarded article is estimated on the basis of data concerning the locations requiring to be repaired as detected in the quality check process as well as the costs involved in packing, shipping and others. In this way, the whole cost demanded for restoring the discarded article as a used article to be put on the market can be estimated. Thus, by comparing the used-article market price of the corresponding article with the cost involved in restoration of the discarded article as described above, restoration or recycle processing is carried out for the discarded article, when the above comparison shows that the restoration is profitable.), the recommended disassembly-target part decider feeds back the disassembly-target parts and the working hours to decision of subsequent disassembly-target parts and/or disassembly procedure for disassembly work. (Col 8 lines 50-62 management or administration to determine a section for managing the recycling rules and the recycle method decision procedures based thereon on a company-by-company basis to thereby manage en bloc generation of the recycling rules and the recycle method decision procedures, storage thereof as a database, correction thereof and other relevant activities. In that case, the recycling factories 6 and 7 should be provided with facility for accessing the database mentioned above in order to obtain the recycling rules updated latest as well as the recycle method decision procedure based thereon so that the recycling rules and the recycle method decision procedure can be stored in a recycle method decision module 31 incorporated in the recycle method decision processor, Col 23 lines 58-67 deciding whether the discarded television is worthy to be restored by repairing or exchanging component parts may be provided for the purpose of promoting the restoration or regeneration of the discarded article. Such decision method may be so designed as to compare the used-article market price of the corresponding used articles with the cost involved in restoring the article (working hours cost). When the restoration is profitable, then the discarded article is decided to undergo the recycle processing.
Regarding Claim 8. Suzuki as modified by Yamakado teaches the recycling work support system according to claim 1,
Suzuki teaches wherein the recommended disassembly-target part decider decides which parts of which article to be recycled are to be disassembled, based on a predetermined unit time amount (Col 25 lines 30-42 from the disassembling method information and the component part information contained in the article specifications information of the discarded television of concern, information of component part or assembly is inputted for each of the parts or assemblies detached separately from the discarded television upon disassembling thereof. For the assembly, information of parts or elements constituting that assembly as well as information thereof is inputted (step 206a). Subsequently, for the part or assembly whose information has been inputted, decision is made as to the possibility of reusing the same, i.e., reusability thereof (step 206b). Col 36 lines 8-16 As the specifications information, there may be mentioned information concerning the costs involved in the processing conducted in the recycling factory 18 (e.