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 .
Preliminary Amendments
The preliminary amendments filed 05/02/2024 and 06/06/2024 have been entered. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) has/have been considered and placed in the application file.
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: “control section,” “dust-proof section,” “removal section,” and “detection section.” Each uses the generic placeholder "section" coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function. These limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is: for the control section, a microprocessor centered on a CPU together with the algorithms of Figs. 8, 9 and 12 and correspondence relationship information 55 (spec ¶¶ 23-25); for the dust-proof section, gas circulation section 61 , liquid circulation section 65, and filter section 75 (spec ¶¶ 21-22); for the removal section, X-axis slider 35 , Y-axis slider 40, lifting and lowering section 41, and pickup section 46 (spec ¶¶ 16-20); and for the detection section, a stereo camera (spec ¶ 15).
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 2 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, claim 1 recites “one or more of control processing ... and output processing ...” , so that a device performing only control processing satisfies claim 1. Claims 2 and 9 recite “the output processing”, which has no antecedent basis when the output processing alternative is not performed.
Claim 6 recites “the amount of powder dust from the waste material.” Claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, recites only “an amount of waste material” and provides no antecedent basis for an amount of powder dust. Claim 6 further recites “an amount of waste material” where claim 1 has already introduced that quantity, rendering it unclear whether the two are the same quantity.
Claims 7 and 8 recite “the information regarding the maintenance,” which exists only within the output processing alternative of claim 1 and has no antecedent basis when the output processing alternative is not performed.
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 3, 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 3 and 14.
Claim 3 recites a control device comprising “a control section configured to acquire an amount
of powder dust as information regarding an amount of waste material from a captured image
captured by the imaging section.” Claim 14 recites the identical step in method form. The claims fall within the machine and process categories, respectively.
Under Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite a mental process and a mathematical concept. Estimating the quantity of dust that a body of material will generate from its observed extent is an evaluation a person can perform in the mind or with pen and paper. The specification confirms that the operation is a lookup against an empirically derived correspondence curve (SPECIFICATION: "Correspondence relationship information 55 can obtain the amount of powder dust from waste material 12 by using at least width W substantially orthogonal to conveyance direction D of waste material 12 included in the captured image." (¶ 25).)
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite no control action, no output, and no physical effect. The acquired value is obtained and nothing is done with it. The removal section, dust-proof section, conveyance device and imaging section appear only in the preamble as the environment of intended use, and the imaging section serves as insignificant extra-solution data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The control section is a generic microprocessor applying the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and spec ¶ 23.
Under Step 2B, the claims add nothing beyond the exception. Cameras positioned over conveyed material and processors performing table lookups are well-understood, routine and conventional, as applicant acknowledges at spec ¶¶ 2-3. Claim 4 is rejected to the extent its output processing alternative is elected, which likewise recites no physical effect; the control processing alternative of claim 4 integrates the exception and is not rejected on that basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2008-215862 A (SASAKI) in view of JP 2015-136681 A (JIGOI) and JP 2007-046797 A (SUZUKI).
Claims 1 and 13.
A control method used in a foreign substance removal device including a removal section configured to pick up and remove a foreign substance from a waste material conveyed by a conveyance device (SASAKI: “The present invention relates to a foreign object detection device that automatically detects and removes foreign objects such as wood chips, iron chips, and resin chips from concrete aggregates such as mined limestone, crushed stone, crushed sand, and concrete waste.” (¶ 1); “The removal means used in the present invention is selected from one of a damper device, a dropout conveyor device, an extrusion device, a scraping device, a compressed air injection device, and a pickup device.” (¶ 32); “The pick-up device consists of a claw that scoops up foreign matter or a claw that holds it, and a flexibly bendable arm that fixes and rotates the claw.” (¶ 38). This teaches a removal section that picks up and removes a foreign substance from conveyed waste material.),
(JIGOI: see below.), and
an imaging section located upstream of the removal section and configured to capture an image of the waste material, the control method comprising (SASAKI: “These removal means are provided downstream from the position of the conveyance means where the photographing means is arranged.” (¶ 32). This teaches an imaging section located upstream of the removal section.): (SUZUKI: see below.).
Sasaki does not specifically teach “a dust-proof section configured to perform dust-proofing related to maintenance of the foreign substance removal device with respect to powder dust derived from the waste material.” However, Jigoi teaches a dust-proof section acting on powder dust derived from the conveyed waste material (JIGOI: “The present invention, as described above, advances the conveyor belt in a state in which heavy and light objects are floated on the conveyor belt in a predetermined area while transporting mixed waste materials such as debris and crushed stone ... By blowing air in a direction orthogonal to the direction, it is possible to efficiently blow away and sort only lightweight objects toward the insertion port.” (¶ 29); “it can prevent effectively that the dust etc. accompanying the blow-off of a lightweight thing scatter on the outer side of the shielding case 33.” (¶ 112); “lightweight foreign matter, dust and the like appearing on the surface by means of a suction duct provided on a conveyor belt” (¶ 2). This teaches gas
circulation acting on powder dust from the waste material and confining that dust within
the machine enclosure so that it does not foul the surroundings.).
Sasaki and Jigoi do not specifically teach the control section “controlling the dust-proof section based on information regarding an amount of waste material obtained from a captured image captured by the imaging section, and output processing of outputting information regarding the maintenance of the foreign substance removal device based on the information regarding the amount of waste material obtained from the captured image captured by the imaging section”. However, Suzuki teaches controlling a dust countermeasure from an image-derived quantity of the conveyed waste material (SUZUKI: “By providing a video camera that receives light on the opposite side wall surface, image information of the contour of the mountain of the workpiece on the conveyor 7 is obtained, and the average height of the mountain is measured by the built-in computer based on this image information. h is obtained, LhV is obtained as a carry amount per unit time by multiplying the conveyor width L and the carry speed V, and this value is sent to the control device 10.” (¶ 28); “It is preferable to control the humidity adjusting device so as to increase the amount of water vapor or exhaust gas sprayed as the detection height increases” (¶ 14). The conveyed material is “crushed waste plastic as a processing object containing combustible dust” (¶ 24), so the quantity so obtained is information regarding the amount of waste material, and it sets the operation of the device that acts on the powder dust.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sasaki, Jigoi and Suzuki before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. All three convey waste material on a belt conveyor past a station that acts on that material, and in each the powder dust liberated from the material is what degrades operation. The motivation would have been to set the dust countermeasure from the quantity of material actually present rather than running it continuously, so that the countermeasure is sufficient when the conveyor is loaded and is not run needlessly when it is not, and so that the brightness measurements on which Sasaki's removal signal depends are not corrupted by dust liberated from the passing material.
Claim 2.
Sasaki, Jigoi and Suzuki teach wherein the control section is configured to acquire an amount of powder dust as the information regarding the amount of waste material from the captured image, and execute the control processing and/or the output processing based on the acquired amount of powder dust (SUZUKI: “It is preferable to control the humidity adjusting device so as to increase the amount of water vapor or exhaust gas sprayed as the detection height increases.” (¶ 14)).
Claims 3 and 14.
Claims 3 and 14 recite the same environment as claim 1 and require only that the control section acquire an amount of powder dust as information regarding an amount of waste material from the captured image. Sasaki and Jigoi teach that environment as set forth above, and Suzuki teaches the acquisition (SUZUKI: “image information of the contour of the mountain of the workpiece on the conveyor 7 is obtained, and the average height of the mountain is measured by the built-in computer based on this image information. h is obtained, LhV is obtained as a carry amount per unit time by multiplying the conveyor width L and the carry speed V, and this value is sent to the control device 10.” (¶ 28).). Suzuki's conveyed material is “crushed waste plastic as the object to be treated containing combustible dust” (¶ 24), and LhV governs the vapor blown to wet that dust, so the acquired quantity is an amount of powder dust taken as information regarding the amount of waste material.
Claim 4.
Sasaki, Jigoi and Suzuki teach wherein the control section is configured to execute one or more of control processing of controlling the dust-proof section based on the amount of powder dust and output processing of outputting information regarding the maintenance of the foreign substance removal device based on the amount of powder dust (SUZUKI: “It is preferable to control the humidity adjusting device so as to increase the amount of water vapor or exhaust gas sprayed as the detection height increases.” (¶ 14)).
Claim 5.
Sasaki, Jigoi and Suzuki teach wherein the control section is configured to obtain the amount of waste material and/or an amount of powder dust from the waste material, based on information including at least a width of the waste material included in the captured image (SUZUKI: “image information of the contour of the mountain of the workpiece on the conveyor 7 is obtained, and the average height of the mountain is measured by the built-in
computer based on this image information. h is obtained, LhV is obtained as a carry amount per unit time by multiplying the conveyor width L and the carry speed V, and this value is sent to the control device 10.” (¶ 28). The contour or outline of the pile obtained from the image bounds the material laterally, and that lateral extent together with the conveyor width L is what the conveyance amount is computed over.).
Claim 6.
Sasaki, Jigoi and Suzuki teach wherein the control section is configured to acquire height information of the waste material from a detection section, and obtain an amount of waste material and/or the amount of powder dust from the waste material, based on the height information of the waste material, the detection section being located upstream of the removal section and configured to detect a height of the waste material (SUZUKI: “The detection device 9 is provided with a slit light source extending in the height direction on the side of the duct in the height range above the transport surface of the conveyor 7, ... By providing a video camera that receives light on the opposite side wall surface, image information of the contour of the mountain of the workpiece on the conveyor 7 is obtained, and the average height of the mountain is measured by the built-in computer based on this image information.” (¶ 28); “It is preferable to control the humidity adjusting device so as to increase the amount of water vapor or exhaust gas sprayed as the detection height increases” (¶ 14).).
Claim 7.
Sasaki, Jigoi and Suzuki teach wherein the control section is configured to execute either control processing of controlling the dust-proof section with a tendency that the smaller the amount of waste material obtained from the captured image and/or an amount of powder dust from the waste material obtained from the captured image, the more an operation of the dust-proof section is suppressed, or output processing of outputting the information regarding the maintenance of the foreign substance removal device with a tendency that the smaller the amount of waste material obtained from the captured image and/or the amount of powder dust from the waste material obtained from the captured image, the longer an output interval of the information regarding the maintenance (SUZUKI: “It is preferable to control the humidity adjusting device so as to increase the amount of water vapor or exhaust gas sprayed as the detection height increases” (¶ 14). The relationship Suzuki states is proportional to the detected amount, so it both increases the operation as the amount rises and suppresses it as the amount falls.).
Claim 8.
Sasaki, Jigoi and Suzuki teach The control device according to claim 1,wherein the control section is configured to execute either control processing of controlling the dust-proof section with a tendency that the larger the amount of waste material obtained from the captured image and/or an amount of powder dust from the waste material obtained from the captured image, the more an operation of the dust-proof section is increased, or output processing of outputting the information regarding the maintenance of the foreign substance removal device with a tendency that the larger the amount of waste material obtained from the captured image and/or the amount of powder dust from the waste material obtained from the captured image, the shorter an output interval of the information regarding the maintenance (SUZUKI: “It is preferable to control the humidity adjusting device so as to increase the amount of water vapor or exhaust gas sprayed as the detection height increases” (¶ 14). The relationship Suzuki states is proportional to the detected amount, so it both increases the operation as the amount rises and suppresses it as the amount falls.).
Claim 10.
Sasaki, Jigoi and Suzuki teach The control device according to claim 1,wherein the dust-proof section includes one or more of a gas circulation section configured to cause a gas to flow to remove powder dust from the waste material, a liquid circulation section configured to cause a liquid to flow to remove powder dust from the waste material, and a filter section configured to filter powder dust from the waste material (JIGOI: “on the opposite side of the blower nozzle 8 across the conveyor belt 2 in the installation area E, a lightweight foreign matter and particles blown away by the blower nozzle 8 are received” (¶ 67).).
Claim 11.
Sasaki, Jigoi and Suzuki teach The control device according to claim 1,wherein the removal section is configured to remove a foreign substance present in the waste material based on the captured image captured by the imaging section (SASAKI: “When the brightness increase rate (or brightness difference) between the aggregate and the foreign material measured and calculated by the captured image is different or exceeds the reference value, a removal signal is transmitted from the detection means to the removal means” (¶ 33); “scoop up the foreign substance that caused the removal signal to be transmitted” (¶ 38).).
Claim 12.
Sasaki, Jigoi and Suzuki teach a foreign substance removal device comprising the removal section, the imaging section and the conveyance device (SASAKI: “a conveying means for conveying the material to be sorted, an illuminating means for illuminating the material to be sorted, a photographing means for photographing the illuminated material to be sorted,” (¶ 11); “As the conveying means for the material to be selected used in the present invention, any one of belt conveyors, chain conveyors, and roller conveyors can be appropriately selected and used.” (¶ 17).), the dustproof section being supplied by Jigoi as set forth above, together with the control device of claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SASAKI, JIGOI, SUZUKI and further in view of US 2010/0277701 A1 (YAMAMOTO).
Claim 9.
Sasaki, Jigoi and Suzuki teach the control device according to claim 1 but do not teach wherein the control section is configured to execute the output processing of outputting the information regarding the maintenance of the foreign substance removal device based on the information regarding the amount of waste material obtained from the captured image captured by the imaging section, accumulate an operation amount of the dust-proof section in the output processing, and output the information regarding the maintenance when the accumulated operation amount reaches a predetermined maintenance execution amount.
However, Yamamoto teaches accumulating use of a dust-proof element and signaling maintenance at a threshold (YAMAMOTO: “when a flow of air is produced by a cooling fan blowing in air, dust in the air enters the apparatus, so that it is necessary to remove the dust by providing the air intake with a filter. However, when the dust accumulates on the filter, the cooling effect drops.” (¶ 5); “since the length of the filter that can be taken up is fixed, the filter needs replacing when it is taken up entirely. To know an indication of the timing to replace the filter, it is necessary to detect the used amount or remaining amount of the filter.” (¶ 6); “The control unit 51 detects the used amount of the filter 18 ... The detected used amount is displayed to a user through the display unit 53.” (¶ 54).).
Yamamoto is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which applicant was concerned, namely preventing dust drawn into a fan-cooled apparatus from degrading its operation and knowing when that dust-proof element must be serviced. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sasaki, Jigoi, Suzuki and Yamamoto before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to service the dust-proof section on the dust load it has actually taken rather than on a fixed schedule, so that servicing is neither performed prematurely nor deferred until the accumulated dust has already degraded operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ross Varndell whose telephone number is (571)270-1922. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, O’Neal Mistry can be reached at (313)446-4912. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights