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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/23/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 03/23/26 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4-15 are pending. They comprise of 2 groups:
Method1: 1-2 and 4-9, and
System1: 10-15.
All appear to have similar scope and will be rejected together.
As of 3/23/26, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. A method for recycling residual material, the method comprising:
C) filling unmixed residual material into a container having a tracker of a track and trace system; wherein the tracker comprises a tag that is capable of being detected by a positioning system, wherein the unmixed residual material comprises a skeleton remaining from a previous sheet-metal processing process, and wherein the skeleton has a single material type;
D) storing information about a type of material of the unmixed residual material in the tag of the tracker; and
E) transporting the container to a recycler of the unmixed residual material, wherein the method steps C) and D) are performable in any order or at the same time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 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(a) 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.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Claims 1-2, 6-7 (method1) and respectively 10-12 (system1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over:
Names Publications:
(1) CN 209.999.733, and
(2) CN 103.691.536, and
(2) WO 2012/069.839.
As for independent method claim 1, CN 209.999.733 discloses a method for recycling residual material, the method comprising:
C) collecting unmixed residual material (scrap iron) and recycling the scrap iron in order to save resources, see “Description,”
As for the container in step C), this is inherently included in the teaching of CN 209.999.733 to allow the recycling of the scrap iron in order to save resources.
PNG
media_image1.png
232
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
E) transporting the container a recycler of the unmixed residual material (many scrap iron). As for the amended feature of “residual material comprising a skeleton,” CN 209.999.733 discloses the residual material is a scrap metal from a previous sheet-metal processing, the use of other residual material form such as “skeleton” would have been obvious to a skilled artisan as merely selection of other similar materials falling off from the sheet-metal processing.
CN 209.999.733 fairly teaches the claimed invention except for step ( C) and (D).
CN 103.691.536 discloses a method for recycling residual material, the method comprising:
C) filling unmixed residual material into a container having a tracker of a track and trace system;
{see CN 103.691.536 abstract, “conveying the separated waste materials into a second material collection box (container) for storage through a belt conveyor respectively.”}
E) transporting the container to a recycler of the unmixed residual material, wherein the method steps C) and D) are performable in any order or at the same time.
{see CN 103.691.536 abstract, “conveying the separated metal materials…the recovery method, the waste metal materials can be efficiently recycled.”
The feature of transporting the container to a recycler is inherently included in the teachings of “conveying the separated metal materials and “recycled” which would include the step of transporting the box (container) to a recycler of the unmixed residual material of “CN 103.691.536 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material recycling system of CN 209.999.733 by including filling into a container, and storing step as taught by CN 103.691.536 for effectively recycling of the sheet metal iron scrap.
CN 209.999.733 / CN 103.691.536 fairly teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly discloses that (1) the container has a tracker of a track and trace system, and (2) step (D) of “storing information about a type of material of the unmixed residual material (scrap iron) in the tracker;”
In a similar system for automatically monitoring recyclable materials, WO 2012069839 is cited to teach
(1) the container has a tracker of a track and trace system, see page 15.
PNG
media_image2.png
162
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(D) storing information about the content on the tag of the tracker.
PNG
media_image3.png
284
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
504
686
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
730
526
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material recycling system of CN 209.999.733 /CN 103.691.536 by including a tracker on the container and storing the information of the scrap iron waste materials on the tag in the tracker as taught by WO 2012069839 for monitoring parameters of the recycling material within the containers, see cited portion above. Rational G/TSM, combine. Alternatively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. The storing of the information in CN 209.999.733 for only scrap iron waste materials or unmixed residual material would have been obvious in view of the teaching in WO 2012/069839.
As for dep. claim 2 (part of 1 above) which deals the step of crushing the unmixed residual material using a crusher, this is taught in CN 103.691.536 step (1) of “breaking the waste metal materials in a breaking machine”.
As for dep. claim 7 (part of 1 above) which deals with a type of tracker for identifying the material, a material number or a weight of the material, this is taught in WO 2012069839 Fig. 1B and cited paragraph.
As for independent claim 10, which is the combination of independent claim 1 and dep. claim 2, it’s rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of dep. 2 and independent claim 1 cited above.
As for dep. claim 11 (part of 10 above) which deals with a machine tool configured to feed the crusher, this is taught in CN 103.691.536 which discloses various tools for treating the waste material and feeding the treated material to the crusher. The selection of the shape of the scrap material, i.e. skeleton, etc., for generating would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.
As for dep. claim 12 (part of 10 above) which deals the step of crushing the unmixed residual material using a crusher, this is taught in CN 103.691.536 step (1) of “breaking the waste metal materials in a breaking machine” and store the information on the tag of the tracker, this is taught in Fig. 1B above and the following par.
PNG
media_image3.png
284
544
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Dependent claim(s) 4-6 and respective 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 209.999.733 /CN 103.691.536 / WO 2012069839 as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of (4) WO 2020/079.036.
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above) and respective dep. claim 5 (part of 2 above), WO 2020/079036 discloses updates of removed parts or a scrap skeleton workpieces in the machine tool (crusher), see “Description”.
PNG
media_image6.png
170
608
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material recycling system of CN 209.999.733 /CN 103.691.536 /WO 2012069839 by having material comprising a scrap skeleton formed by machine tool as taught by WO 2020/079036 for generating scrap skeleton.
As for dep. claim 6 (part of 1 /5 above) and respective dep. claim 13 (part of 10 above) which deals with how the skeleton is formed, using image generated and code at the machine tool, this is taught in WO 2020/079036, see “Description” below. As for the type of communication between the machine tool and the crusher, it appears that the system is a wired communication system. Alternatively, the selection of wireless communication for expedient would have been obvious to a skilled artisan.
PNG
media_image6.png
170
608
media_image6.png
Greyscale
WO 2012/069839’s teachings above.
PNG
media_image2.png
162
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 8-9 and respectively claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 209.999.733 / CN 103.691.536 / WO 2012069839 as applied to claims 1-2, 4-7 above, and further in view of (5) LIPANOV, US 2017/0.284.690.
As for dep. claim 8 (part of 1 above) and respective 14 (part of 10 above) LIPANOV teaches the uploads of sensor data to the cloud-based server for collection, analysis and pattern detection.
PNG
media_image7.png
136
578
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the material recycling system of CN 103.691.536 /LARDNER by including the step of uploading of sensor data to the cloud-based server as taught by LIPANOV for collection, analysis and pattern detection, see [0030]. Rational G/TSM, combine. Alternatively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Alternatively, the selection of electrical equipment such as IT equipment would have been obvious as mere selection of other similar electrical equipment and/or environment.
As for dep. claim 9 (part of 1 above) and respective 15 (part of 10 above) which deals with the information being displayed at least partially in an online marketplace, LARDNER, on Fig. 4, step 420, “Displaying the summary … on a display to an entity in possession of the one or more containers,” and [0003 … the recyclable materials are collected in return for payment…] and [0055..Internet-based web portal. The communication maybe formatted and displayed on a user interface of a website…]. The display of the information at least partially in an online marketplace would have been obvious in view of the teachings above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Relevant information:
1) WO 2010/009.448 A1, teaches a system and computer program for managing and tracking recyclable products.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689