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 .
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.
Claim 1-4, 7-10, 13, 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi (US 20090078806 A1) in view of Huber (US 20110182493 A1).
Adachi teaches a document disposal apparatus comprising:
a shredder (42 in Figure 3);
a conveyor positioned relative to the shredder to transport a shred object to the shredder (conveyance line guided by rollers 24, 32, 36, 38, 44 and 48);
a scanner positioned upstream of the shredder relative to the conveyor (scanners 28 and 46 are both upstream of shredder 42);
and a controller (control system structurally diagrammed in Figure 4) in communication with:
at least one of the shredder, the conveyor, or a removal tool to provide, in response to the indication of the unfit portion of the shred object, an operational command to the at least one of the shredder, the conveyor, or a removal tool to reduce a likelihood that the unfit portion of the shred object is processed by the shredder (rollers 36 and 44 can eject documents in response to indication of an unfit portion of a shred object as described in paragraphs 0130 and 0154).
Adachi does not teach:
the scanner configured to generate an image of the shred object on the conveyor
an image parser to generate an indication of a portion of the shred object as unfit for shredding by parsing the image of the shred object based on an identifier model trained on a sample training data set;
and a controller in communication with:
the image parser to receive the indication from the image parser.
Huber teaches an image acquisition apparatus and image parser that generates indicia (described in paragraph 0066).
Regarding Claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an image acquisition apparatus and image parser similar to the ones taught by Huber to the disposal apparatus of Adachi. The image parser can be trained by data sets to identify indicia on documents that would render the documents unfit for shredding. The result would improve the disposal apparatus of Adachi by expanding the potential documents that can be processed by the disposal apparatus outside of recognition of a QR code. For example, the image parser can be directed to withhold any documents that have a key word, image, signatures or other possible markings within its contents from the shredder. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the image acquisition apparatus and image parser of Huber to the disposal apparatus of Adachi without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the image acquisition apparatus and image parser of Huber to the disposal apparatus of Adachi would produce the predictable results of breaking down material to facilitate disposal.
Regarding Claim 2, Adachi further teaches wherein the shredder is equipped to process the shred object by at least one of mechanically shredding the shred object or exposing the shred object to a laser or a chemical (Figure 3 depicts the shredder as a mechanical shredder).
Regarding Claim 3, Adachi further teaches the conveyor comprises: a scan conveyor portion corresponding to the scanner to convey the shred object relative to the scanner; and a shred conveyor portion of the conveyor corresponding to the shredder to convey the shred object relative to the shredder independent of the scanner conveyor portion of the conveyor (Figure 3 depicts conveyance path A1, starting from document tray 20, for the scan conveyor portion and conveyance path A2 for the shred conveyor portion).
Regarding Claim 4, Adachi further teaches wherein the controller provides a removal command to remove the unfit portion from the conveyor (paragraph 0130 describes rollers being controlled to eject a document).
Adachi teaches a document disposal method comprising:
generating, by a controller, an operational command based on the indication of the unfit portion of the shred object; and communicating, by the controller, the operational command to reduce a likelihood that the unfit portion of the shred object is processed by a shredder (described in paragraphs 0130 and 0154).
Adachi does not teach:
generating, by a scanner, an image of a shred object on a conveyor;
parsing, by an image parser, the image to generate an indication of a portion of the shred object as unfit for shredding;
the controller being in communication with the image parser.
Regarding Claim 7, Huber further teaches the image acquisition apparatus can be an x-ray device (described in paragraph 0066). It would have been further obvious to incorporate such an x-ray device into the document disposal apparatus of Adachi for the purpose of improving identification capabilities of the apparatus. For example, the x-ray device can be utilized in the identification of watermarks, erasures, and even possible forgeries when the image parser is trained with the right data set by one of ordinary skill in the art. The result would produce the predictable results of identification of material for determination to dispose or not to dispose of it.
Huber teaches a method of image acquisition and image parsing (described in paragraph 0066)
Regarding Claim 8, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an image acquisition and image parsing similar to the ones taught by Huber to the disposal method of Adachi. The image parser can be trained by data sets to identify indicia on documents that would render the documents unfit for shredding. The result would improve the disposal method of Adachi by expanding the potential documents that can be processed by the disposal apparatus beyond recognition of a QR code. For example, the image parser can be directed to withhold any documents that have a key word, image, signatures or any other possible markings within its contents from the shredder. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the image acquisition apparatus and image parser of Huber to the disposal method of Adachi without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the image acquisition and image parsing of Huber to the disposal method of Adachi would produce the predictable results of breaking down material to facilitate disposal.
Regarding Claim 9, Adachi further teaches transporting the shred object on a scan conveyor portion of the conveyor to pass the shred object proximate the scanner; and delivering the shred object from the scan conveyor portion to a shred conveyor portion of the conveyor to convey the shred object to the shredder (Figure 3 depicts conveyance path A1, starting from document tray 20, for the scan conveyor portion and conveyance path A2 for the shred conveyor portion).
Regarding Claim 10, Adachi further teaches generating, by the controller, a removal command based on the indication of the unfit portion of the shred object to remove at least the unfit portion from the conveyor (paragraph 0130 describes rollers being controlled to eject a document).
Regarding Claim 13, Huber further teaches the image acquisition can be performed by an x-ray device (described in paragraph 0066). It would have been further obvious to incorporate such an x-ray device into the document disposal apparatus of Adachi for the purpose of improving identification capabilities of the apparatus. For example, the x-ray device can be utilized in the identification of watermarks, erasures, and even possible forgeries when the image parser is trained with the right data set by one of ordinary skill in the art. The result would produce the predictable results of identification of material for determination to dispose or not to dispose of it.
Regarding Claim 15, Adachi further teaches an apparatus for controlled shredding comprising:
a processor;
memory in communication with the processor (paragraphs 0056 and 0059 describe a microcomputer and memory); and
instructions stored in the memory, the instructions executable by the processor to:
generate, by a controller in communication with the image parser, an operational command based on the indication of the unfit portion of the shred object (described in paragraphs 0130 and 0154); and
communicate, by the controller, the operational command to reduce a likelihood that the unfit portion of the shred object is processed by a shredder (rollers 36 and 44 can eject documents in response to indication of an unfit portion of a shred object as described in paragraphs 0130 and 0154).
Adachi does not teach:
the instructions executable by the processor to:
generate, by a scanner, an image of a shred object on a conveyor;
parse, by an image parser, the image to generate an indication of a portion of the shred object as unfit for shredding.
Huber teaches an image acquisition apparatus and image parser (described in paragraph 0066) that can generate images and provide indications of features of the generated images.
Regarding Claim 16, Adachi further teaches instructions executed by the processor to: transport the shred object on a scan conveyor portion of the conveyor to pass the shred object proximate the scanner; and deliver the shred object from the scan conveyor portion to a shred conveyor portion of the conveyor to convey the shred object to the shredder (Figure 3 depicts conveyance path A1, starting from document tray 20, for the scan conveyor portion and conveyance path A2 for the shred conveyor portion).
Regarding Claim 17, Adachi further teaches wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to generate, by the controller, a removal command based on the indication of the unfit portion of the shred object to remove at least the unfit portion from the conveyor (paragraph 0130 describes rollers being controlled to eject a document).
Regarding Claim 20, Huber further teaches the image acquisition can be performed by an x-ray device (described in paragraph 0066). It would have been further obvious to incorporate such an x-ray device into the document disposal apparatus of Adachi for the purpose of improving identification capabilities of the apparatus. For example, the x-ray device can be utilized in the identification of watermarks, erasures, and even possible forgeries when the image parser is trained with the right data set by one of ordinary skill in the art. The result would produce the predictable results of identification of material for determination to dispose or not to dispose of it.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If the allowable subject matter were incorporated into an existing independent claim, the respective independent claim would be considered allowable. The closest prior art: the apparatus of Adachi (US 20090078806 A1) does not teach wherein the image parser detects the unfit portion based on an identification of a geometry corresponding to a container.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If the allowable subject matter were incorporated into an existing independent claim, the respective independent claim would be considered allowable. The closest prior art: the apparatus of Adachi (US 20090078806 A1) does not teach wherein the image parser detects the unfit portion based on an identification of a density of the unfit portion exceeding a capacity of the shredder.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If the allowable subject matter were incorporated into an existing independent claim, the respective independent claim would be considered allowable. The closest prior art: the method of Adachi (US 20090078806 A1) does not teach detecting, by the image parser, the unfit portion based on an identification of a geometry corresponding to a container.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If the allowable subject matter were incorporated into an existing independent claim, the respective independent claim would be considered allowable. The closest prior art: the method of Adachi (US 20090078806 A1) does not teach detecting, by the image parser, the unfit portion based on an identification of a density of the unfit portion exceeding a capacity of the shredder.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If the allowable subject matter were incorporated into an existing independent claim, the respective independent claim would be considered allowable. The closest prior art: the apparatus of Adachi (US 20090078806 A1) does not teach determining, by the image parser, a confidence level of the indication of the unfit portion.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If the allowable subject matter were incorporated into an existing independent claim, the respective independent claim would be considered allowable. The closest prior art: the apparatus of Adachi (US 20090078806 A1) does not teach wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to detect, by the image parser, the unfit portion based on an identification of a geometry corresponding to a container.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. If the allowable subject matter were incorporated into an existing independent claim, the respective independent claim would be considered allowable. The closest prior art: the apparatus of Adachi (US 20090078806 A1) does not teach wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to detect, by the image parser, the unfit portion based on an identification of a density of the unfit portion exceeding a capacity of the shredder.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Spencer (US 20130079918 A1) for a material sorter that removes objects from a shredder stream using x-ray recognition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272 -9330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655
