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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract is objected to for exceeding 150 words in length. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: “a motion separation station,” “an air separation station,” and “a secondary shredding station” in claim 1.
Regarding the motion separation station, the limitation recites a generic placeholder (“motion separation station”) that is coupled with functional language (“utilizing motion of the fabric pieces and the metal pieces for separating the pieces”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the motion separation discussed in Para. [0039] which is described as conveyors and vibratory conveyors as well as equivalents thereof.
Regarding the air separation station, the limitation recites a generic placeholder (“air separation station”) that is coupled with functional language (“providing an airflow to separate fabric pieces from the metal pieces”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the air separation station in Para. [0042] which is described as a blower and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the secondary shredder station, the limitation recites a generic placeholder (“secondary shredder station”) that is coupled with functional language (“further shredding the material”) without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The corresponding structure is interpreted as
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.
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 § 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.
Claims 5-9, 15 and 20 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim depends from claim 1 and recites “the magnetic separation station: which renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 does not recite a magnetic separation station. Claim 2 recites a magnetic separation station, thus it is unclear if claim 5 is meant to depend from claim 2 or if it should recite “a magnetic separation station,” i.e., introducing a new element. For the purposes of examination, claim 5 will be interpreted as depending from claim 2. Claims 6-8 depend from claim 5 and fail to clarify the indefinite claim language.
Regarding claim 9, the claim depends from claim 1 and recites “the magnetic separation station includes a belt passing over a magnetic roller” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 does not recite a magnetic separation station. Claim 2 recites a magnetic separation station, thus it is unclear if claim 9 is meant to depend from claim 2 or if it should recite “a magnetic separation station,” i.e., introducing a new element. For the purposes of examination, claim 9 will be interpreted as depending from claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “a distance of approximately 0.007 inches” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what distances would be “approximately” 0.007 inches, e.g., 0.01 inches or 0.008 inches. For the purpose of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as a distance of 0.007 inches.
Regarding claim 20, the claim depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the faster shaft may operate at a range of 20-60 RPM while the opposing slower shaft may operate at a slower speed in the range of 10-50 RPM” which renders the claim indefinite because claim 1 does not recite faster or slower shafts. This claim appears as if it should depend from claim 19, which recites the shredding station includes faster and slower shafts. For the purpose of examination, this claim will be interpreted as depending from claim 19.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2009082840 A to Kobayashi in view of US 2007/0241216 A1 to Wada.
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches a system for recycling pocketed metal coil mattresses (Abstract) comprising:
a primary shredding station 1 (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0034]), the primary shredding station implementing a primary shredder element having a housing 11 with opposing shafts 12 mounted to extend along sidewalls of the housing, each shaft including a plurality of opposing shredding knives 13 configured to bypass each other for shredding materials in the housing 11 into metal and fabric pieces (Figs. 1-2; Para. [0036]);
a motion separation station C1 utilizing motion of the fabric pieces and the metal pieces for separating the pieces following the primary shredder station 1 (Fig. 1; Para. [0034]; the conveyor separates out the fabric and metal pieces from each other as they fall out of the crusher and are then moved away from the crusher outlet);
an air separation station providing an airflow to separate fabric pieces from the metal pieces (Para. [0054]; when the soft material of the mattress is being recycled, a wind sorter, i.e., air separation, is used to sort the material); and
a secondary shredding station 2 for further shredding the material (Fig. 1; Para. [0034]).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly teach the knives each having a thickness in the range of 17-50 mm, the knives of each respective opposing shaft being spaced apart from each other along the respective shaft in the range of 17-50 mm, and the primary shredder element being free of stationary elements in the spaces between the shredding knives at the sidewalls.
Wada teaches a system for shredding and recycling material such as mattresses (Para. [0002]) including the knives each having varying thicknesses (Paras. [0024] and [0209]; Fig. 2), the knives of each respective opposing shaft being spaced apart from each other along the respective shaft (Fig. 2; Para. [0207]; the spacers 8 are provided between the knives to create a small clearance between the faces of the knives), and the primary shredder element being free of stationary elements in the spaces between the shredding knives at the sidewalls (Fig. 2; Para. [0215]; it is noted that the housing includes members 14 that protrude towards the interior of the housing, however these members are not positioned in the spaces between the blades and function to direct the shredded material towards the outlet). Further, Wada teaches that the thickness of the knives is a result effective variable as the thickness of the knives impacts the efficacy of the shredding depending on the size of the material being shred (Wada, Para. [0024]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shredder of Kobayashi to include the knives and housing configuration taught by Wada so that the thickness of the knives may be adjusted to better shred larger materials initially (Wada, Para. [0024]) and nothing between the blades would impede the shredding of larger materials. Further, as Wada teaches the thickness of the knives is a result effective variable, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the thickness of the knives to have a thickness between 17-50 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). It is noted that modifying the knives to have such a thickness also results in the knives being spaced apart from each other along the respective shaft in the range of 17-50 mm as modified Kobayashi includes the spacing of Wada, which teaches there is a clearance of 0.5 to 1 mm between the faces of the knives (Para. [0207]), e.g., if the thickness were 25 mm then the spacing would be 26-27 mm between the knives.
Regarding claim 2, modified Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (Fig. 1) further comprising: a magnetic separation station 3, following the secondary shredding station 2, the magnetic separation station using at least one magnetic element 32 to separate fabric pieces from the metal pieces (Fig. 1; Para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly teach wherein the shredding knives on one shaft are separated from the bypassing shredding knives on an opposing shaft by a distance below 0.010 inches. Modified Kobayashi includes the knife configuration of Wada, which teaches that the “side faces have a small gap (for example, approximately 0.5 mm-1.0mm) therebetween.” (Wada, Para. [0207]). Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any evidence that the claimed range produces any new or unexpected results (Para. [0053] discusses the ranges of separation with no discussion about any benefit or criticality). As Wada discloses that the gap should be small and provides a range close to the claimed range as an example (0.5 mm is 0.019 inches), it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap between the faces of the knives to be below 0.010 inches, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (i.e., the principle operation is the same), the claimed device does not patentably distinguish over the prior art device (MPEP § 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claim 9, modified Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (Fig. 1) wherein the magnetic separation station 3 includes a belt 31 passing over a magnetic roller 32 following the secondary shredding station 2, the magnetic roller 32 attracting metal pieces to the belt 31 at an end of the belt to allow fabric pieces to fall away from the metal pieces at an end of the belt 31 (Fig. 1; Para. [0048]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (Fig. 1) wherein the knives of the primary shredding station are formed by two side-by-side knife portions for forming one thicker knife having a thickness in the range of 17-50 mm (Wada, Para. [0209]; Fig. 2; modified Kobayashi includes the knife configuration of Wada, which teaches stacking at least two blades 7 together to form each knife segment).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Wada in further view of US 2006/0243830 A1 to Josephs.
Regarding claim 4, modified Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly teach the motion separation station includes a vibratory conveyor for vibrating the fabric pieces and the metal pieces for separating the pieces prior to the air separation station.
Josephs teaches a system for shredding and recycling material including metal and non-metals (Fig. 1; Paras. [0003]-[0004]) comprising a shredder 12 that outputs material to a motion separation station that includes a vibratory conveyor 17 for vibrating the fabric pieces and the metal pieces for separating the pieces (Fig. 1; Para. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the motion separator station in the recycling system of Kobayashi with the motion separator station of Josephs as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of conveying and separating the material output from the shredder. Further, it is noted that this modification results in the vibratory conveyor being prior to the air separation station as the motion separation station in Kobayashi is prior to the air separation station.
Regarding claim 5, modified Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the magnetic separation station 3 receives material from the secondary shredding station 2 (Fig. 1; Paras. [0052]-[0053]).
Kobayashi fails to explicitly teach the magnetic separation station includes, a magnetic drum separator following the secondary shredding station, the magnetic drum separator receiving material from the secondary shredding station in an input chute and rotating the fabric pieces and the metal pieces around a fixed magnetic field for separating the metal pieces from the fabric pieces into different discharge chutes.
Josephs teaches a system for shredding and recycling material including metal and non-metals (Fig. 1; Paras. [0003]-[0004]) comprising a shredder 12 and a magnetic separation station 41 including a magnetic drum separator 42a, 42b receiving material from the shredding station in an input chute (Figs. 2, 5 and 7; Para. [0020]; conveyor 18 carries the shredded material to the magnetic separation station 41 and an input chute, i.e., the opening at the outlet of the conveyor 18, receives the material into the magnetic separation station) and rotating the fabric pieces and the metal pieces around a fixed magnetic field for separating the metal pieces from the fabric pieces into different discharge chutes (Figs. 5 and 7; Para. [0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the magnetic separation station in the recycling system of Kobayashi with the magnetic separator station of Josephs as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of separating the magnetic material from the non-magnetic material for recycling purposes.
Regarding claim 6, modified Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 5 (Fig. 1) wherein the magnetic separation station includes, a plurality of magnetic drum separators 42a, 42b following the secondary shredding station, each magnetic drum separator rotating the fabric pieces and the metal pieces around a fixed magnetic field for separating the metal pieces from the fabric pieces into different discharge chutes, a discharge chute for the fabric pieces of one magnetic drum separator being directed to an input chute of another magnetic drum separator (Josephs, Figs. 1B, 5 and 7; Para. [0020]; modified Kobayashi include the magnetic separation station of Josephs, which includes a plurality of drum separators 42a, 42b that each discharge material into different discharge chutes and the first drum 42a discharges some of the material via a chute, i.e., the housing for conveyor 47, to the input for the second drum 42b, and it is noted that the magnetic separator station is positioned after the secondary shredding station in Kobayashi, as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kobayashi teaches the system of claim 5 (Fig. 1) wherein the magnetic separation station includes a plurality of magnetic drum separators 42a, 42b following the secondary shredding station, each magnetic drum separator rotating the fabric pieces and the metal pieces around a fixed magnetic field for separating the metal pieces from the fabric pieces into different discharge chutes, a discharge chute for the metal pieces of one magnetic drum separator being directed to an input chute of another magnetic drum separator (Josephs, Figs. 1B, 5 and 7; Para. [0020]; modified Kobayashi include the magnetic separation station of Josephs, which includes a plurality of drum separators 42a, 42b that each discharge material into discharge chutes and the first drum 42a discharges via a chute, i.e., the housing for conveyor 47, to the input for the second drum 42b, and it is noted that the magnetic separator station is positioned after the secondary shredding station in Kobayashi, as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, The system of claim 5 wherein the magnetic separation station includes a plurality of magnetic drum separators 42a, 42b, 57 following the secondary shredding station, each magnetic drum separator rotating the fabric pieces and the metal pieces around a fixed magnetic field for separating the metal pieces from the fabric pieces into different discharge chutes, a discharge chute for the metal pieces of a first magnetic drum separator being fed to an input chute of another magnetic drum separator and a discharge chute for the fabric pieces of the first magnetic drum separator being fed to an input chute of another magnetic drum separator (Josephs, Figs. 1B, 5 and 7; Paras. [0020] and [0022]; modified Kobayashi include the magnetic separation station of Josephs, which includes a plurality of drum separators 42a, 42b that each discharge material into discharge chutes and the first drum 42a discharges via a chute, i.e., the housing for conveyor 47, to the input for the second drum 42b as well as to the eddy current separator 59 which is a magnetic separator using a rotating rotor to generate a magnetic field to separate out ferrous material, i.e., a magnetic drum, and it is noted that the magnetic separator station is positioned after the secondary shredding station in Kobayashi, as shown in Fig. 1).
Claims 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada.
Regarding claim 11, Wada teaches a shredding station for recycling pocketed metal coil mattresses (Fig. 1; Para. [0002]; the shredding machine is capable of shredding materials including plastic, paper, metal, rubber, fibers, and leather and thus is capable of shredding a mattress) comprising:
a housing 1 defining a cutting chamber 11 and sidewalls (Figs. 2, 4-5, and 7; Para. [0208]);
a pair of opposing rotating shafts 2, 3 mounted to extend in the cutting chamber along sidewalls of the housing 1 (Fig. 2; Para. [0207]), each shaft including a plurality of opposing shredding knives 7 configured to bypass each other for shredding materials in the housing into metal and fabric pieces (Fig. 2; Para. [0207]); and
the primary shredder element being free of stationary elements in the spaces between the shredding knives 7 at the sidewalls (Fig. 2; Para. [0215]; it is noted that the housing includes members 14 that protrude towards the interior of the housing, however these members are not positioned in the spaces between the blades and function to direct the shredded material towards the outlet).
Wada fails to explicitly teach the knives each having a thickness in the range of 17-50 mm.
Wada teaches that the thickness of the knives is a result effective variable as the thickness of the knives impacts the efficacy of the shredding depending on the size of the material being shred (Wada, Para. [0024]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the thickness of the knives to have a thickness between 17-50 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, modified Wada teaches the shredding station of claim 11 (Fig. 2) further comprising: the knives of each respective opposing shaft being spaced apart from each other along the respective shaft in the range of 17-50 mm (Para [0207]; Wada teaches there is a clearance of 0.5 to 1 mm between the faces of the knives, e.g., if the thickness were 25 mm then the spacing would be 26-27 mm between the knives, and thus modified Wada teaches a range at least between 18 and 50 mm as the knives have a thickness between 17 and 50 mm).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wada teaches the shredding station of claim 11 (Fig. 2).
Wada fails to explicitly teach wherein the shredding knives on one shaft are separated from the bypassing shredding knives on an opposing shaft by a distance in the range of 0.005 to 0.015 inches.
Wada teaches that the “side faces have a small gap (for example, approximately 0.5 mm-1.0mm) therebetween.” (Wada, Para. [0207]). Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any evidence that the claimed range produces any new or unexpected results (Para. [0053] discusses the ranges of separation with no discussion about any benefit or criticality). As Wada discloses that the gap should be small and provides a range close to the claimed range as an example (0.5 mm is 0.019 inches), it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap between the faces of the knives to be between 0.005 and 0.015 inches, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (i.e., the principle operation is the same), the claimed device does not patentably distinguish over the prior art device (MPEP § 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claim 14, modified Wada teaches the shredding station of claim 11 (Fig. 2).
Wada fails to explicitly teach wherein the shredding knives on one shaft are separated from the bypassing shredding knives on an opposing shaft by a distance below 0.010 inches.
Wada teaches that the “side faces have a small gap (for example, approximately 0.5 mm-1.0mm) therebetween.” (Wada, Para. [0207]). Applicant’s disclosure does not provide any evidence that the claimed range produces any new or unexpected results (Para. [0053] discusses the ranges of separation with no discussion about any benefit or criticality). As Wada discloses that the gap should be small and provides a range close to the claimed range as an example (0.5 mm is 0.019 inches), it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gap between the faces of the knives to be below 0.010 inches, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device (i.e., the principle operation is the same), the claimed device does not patentably distinguish over the prior art device (MPEP § 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claim 15, modified Wada teaches the shredding station of claim 14 (Fig. 2) wherein the shredding knives on one shaft are separated from the bypassing shredding knives on an opposing shaft by a distance of approximately 0.007 inches (modified Wada includes the gap between the knives on opposing shafts being modified according to MPEP § 2144.04 IV, which may be modified to 0.007 inches with the device of Wada not performing differently).
Regarding claim 16, modified Wada teaches the shredding station of claim 11 (Fig. 2) wherein the knives of the primary shredding station are formed by two side-by side knife portions for forming one thicker knife having a thickness in the range of 17-50 mm (Fig. 2; Para. [0209]; each of the knives on the rotating shafts are formed by “piling up two cutting blades” in the embodiment shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, modified Wada teaches the shredding station of claim 11 (Fig. 2) wherein the knives of the primary shredding station are made of a unitary knife structure for forming a thicker knife having a thickness in the range of 17-50 mm (Figs. 8 and 9; Paras. [0228] and [0232]; Wada teaches that an embodiment includes the knives formed as single knives of varying thickness, and thus for this dependent claim that particular embodiment is relied upon).
Regarding claim 19, modified Wada teaches the shredding station of claim 11 (Fig. 2) wherein the opposing rotating shafts 2, 3 operate at different speeds with one shaft being a faster shaft and another being a slower shaft (Fig. 2; Para. [0206]; it is noted that this is a system claim and it is interpreted as the shafts are configured to rotate at different speeds, and in Wada each shaft 2, 3 is driven by its own driver 5, 6 which would allow the shafts to rotate at different speeds).
Regarding claim 20, modified Wada teaches the shredding station of claim 1 (Fig. 2; it is noted that this claim is interpreted as depending from claim 19 as discussed in the indefiniteness rejection) wherein the faster shaft may operate at a range of 20-60 RPM while the opposing slower shaft may operate at a slower speed in the range of 10-50 RPM (Fig. 2; Para. [0206]; each shaft 2, 3 is driven by its own driver 5, 6 which would allow the shafts to rotate at different speeds and be capable of rotating at such RPM ranges depending on the load on the shafts).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada in further view of US 11,389,805 B1 to Ebadian.
Regarding claim 18, modified Wada teaches the shredding station of claim 11 (Fig. 2).
Wada fails to explicitly teach the knives of the primary shredding station have a hardness of 58-62 on the Rockwell scale. Wada is silent regarding the material and hardness of the knives.
Ebadian teaches a system for shredding and recycling materials that include metals (Abstract; Fig. 3) including a shredder having knives 14 (Fig. 3; Col. 3, Lns. 32-67) wherein the knives of the primary shredding station have a hardness of 58-62 on the Rockwell scale (Col. 3, Lns. 64-66 and Col. 6, Lns. 16-19; it is noted that Ebadian discussed the range of H9 steel as being between 54 and 64 Rockwell hardness, which is slightly larger than the claimed range but anticipates the claimed range because Applicant’s specification does not describe any criticality to the claimed range, e.g., Para. [0054] provides ranges as large as 40-68 Rockwell hardness).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the knives of Wada to be made from a steel with a hardness between 58-62 on the Rockwell scale as taught by Ebadian so that the knives are able to shred the metal material without being damaged.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0045456 A1 teaches a method for shredding and recycling material with fibrous and ferrous materials including shredding the material and then using an air separator or magnetic separator to separate out the ferrous material (Figs. 1-2; Paras. [0062] and [0070]-[0071]). US 2017/0216980 A1 teaches a method for shredding and recycling a mattress including a shredder and a magnetic separation station (Figs. 2-5; Para. [0022]). US 2015/0336103 A1 teaches a shredding system in which each knife portion on a shaft includes a plurality of knives stacked together (Fig. 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Chris Templeton can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725