Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 6, 14-17,21, 23, 33, 34, 36, 57-59, 61, and 66 are objected to because of the following informalities: A symbol appears at the beginning of each of these claims that needs to be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 17, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelly (USP 4,848,590).
Regarding claim 14, Kelly discloses an object distribution and conveying arrangement (see Fig. 1) for distributing and conveying a plurality of objects, said arrangement comprising an outlet manifold (element 64 where a manifold would be defined as a component that manages the flow of material) for receiving and conveying sorted objects from at least two sorting units (elements 41 and 46, 51 and 56, 61 and 65), wherein the outlet manifold comprises a plurality of inlets (passages between elements 44, 45, 57, and 63) for conveying the sorted objects out of the sorting units and at least two separate outlet passages (element 64, sections A, B, C, and D), wherein each of the at least two separate outlet passages is joined with at least two inlets of the plurality of inlets (see Fig. 1 where the passages between elements 44, 45, 57, and 63 feed to the sections of element 64), each of said at least two inlets being arranged to convey sorted objects from a respective sorting unit of the at least two sorting units into said separate outlet passage (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Kelly discloses the outlet manifold is adapted to convey the objects downwardly and diagonally relative a horizontal reference plane from the plurality of inlets downstream through the at least two separate outlet passages (passages between elements 44, 45, 57, and 63 convey materials at a downward angle).
Regarding claim 21, Kelly discloses the plurality of inlets (see Fig. 2; element 37) form inlet channels, said inlet channels being adapted to convey the objects downwardly and diagonally relative a horizontal reference plane.
Regarding claim 23, Kelly discloses an inlet manifold (see Fig. 1; elements generally at the top and where a manifold would be defined as a component that manages the flow of material) for receiving and conveying the objects to the sorting units (see Fig. 1) for sorting of the objects, wherein the inlet manifold comprises one or more feeder inlet (element 11) for feeding the objects into the inlet manifold and at least two outlets (col. 10, lines 25-27 and elements 15a) for distributing the objects to the sorting units (elements 43 and 46, elements 51 and 56, elements 60 and 65).
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 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 of this title, 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 1-6 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Malatesta (US Pub 2005/0205387 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kelly discloses an object sorting system comprising a plurality of sorting units (see Fig. 1), wherein each sorting unit (see Figs. 1 and 5 and col. 10, lines 21-27 discloses multiple parallel sorting units) of said plurality of sorting units comprises: a guide plate (elements 15 and 17) having at least one channel (elements 17, 35, 36, and 37 form channels) extending in a sorting plane (see Figs. 1 and 2) inclined relative a horizontal reference plane for conveying the objects from a first longitudinal position (top of element 17) to a second longitudinal position (bottom of element 17) downstream to the first longitudinal position (see Fig. 1), the first longitudinal position being elevated relative the second longitudinal position (see Figs. 1 and 5; top and bottom of element 17), a sorting inlet (element 12) for conveying the objects into the sorting unit to the first longitudinal position (see Fig. 1; from element 12 to element 17 via element 15), a sorting outlet (element 64) for conveying the objects out of the sorting unit from the second longitudinal position (bottom of element 17), a sorting system comprising an object measurement unit (element 21) for conducting measurement associated with at least one property of an object of the objects and at least one ejector unit (element 46) arranged to eject the object conveyed based on the at least one measured property of the object at a longitudinal position of the channel (see Figs. 1 and 2; element 41) between the first and second longitudinal position (along element 17), but Kelly does not disclose a plurality of sorting units wherein each sorting unit comprises the whole sorting structure as disclosed wherein a least one sorting unit of the plurality of sorting units is arranged above at least one other sorting unit of the plurality of sorting units relative a vertical reference direction. Malatesta teaches a plurality of sorting units wherein each sorting unit comprises the whole sorting structure as disclosed wherein a least one sorting unit of the plurality of sorting units is arranged above at least one other sorting unit of the plurality of sorting units relative a vertical reference direction (see Fig. 2 and 3 where there is a series of sorting units including a guide plate (element 122), inlet (beginning of element 120), outlet (end of element 120), sorting system (paragraph 0026) for the purpose of increasing the throughput of items to be sorted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kelly, as taught by Malatesta, for the purpose of increasing the throughput of items to be sorted.
Regarding claim 2, Kelly discloses the angle between each of the sorting planes and the vertical reference direction is about 80 degrees (col. 6, lines 5-10). Kelly does not explicitly disclose the angle between each of the sorting planes and the vertical reference direction is from 30 to 60 degrees. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to allow items to slide down the surface to the sorting unit because Applicant has not disclosed that specific angle of the guide being 30 to 60 degrees provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Kelly, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either guide angle because both angles would perform the same function of providing an angle for sorting for the purpose of providing minimal frictional retardation during sorting.
Regarding claim 3, Kelly discloses at least two sorting units have channels (elements 37 along element 17) extending in coinciding sorting planes (see Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 4, Kelly discloses at least two sorting units have channels extending in substantially parallel sorting planes (see Fig. 2; element 37).
Regarding claim 5, Kelly discloses at least two sorting units and/or sorting planes are arranged in a stacked configuration along a stacking axis (elements 43 and 46, elements 51 and 56, elements 60 and 65).
Regarding claim 6, Kelly discloses the object measurement unit (13) is adapted to conduct an optical measurement (element 43) associated with the at least one property of the object.
Regarding claim 34, Kelly does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Malatesta teaches a support structure (see Fig. 3; support structure attached to element 138), said support structure being adapted to releasably retain the sorting units for the purpose of supporting and facilitating movement of the sorting structure (paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kelly, as taught by Malatesta, for the purpose of supporting and facilitating movement of the sorting structure.
Claims 15, 33, 57-59, 61, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Design Choice.
Regarding claim 15, Kelly does not explicitly disclose the outlet manifold is adapted to be releasably connected to the sorting units. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to detach components because Applicant has not disclosed that the outlet manifold being releasably connected provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Kelly, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with detachably components because both manifolds would perform the same function of conveying objects for the purpose of making maintenance of the components more efficient. Furthermore, making elements separable has been held to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
Regarding claim 33, Kelly discloses an inlet manifold for receiving and conveying the objects to the sorting units for sorting of the objects (see Fig. 1; elements generally at the top and where a manifold would be defined as a component that manages the flow of material), but Kelly does not explicitly disclose the inlet manifold is adapted to be releasably connected to the sorting units. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to detach components because Applicant has not disclosed that the inlet manifold being releasably connected provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Kelly, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with detachably components because both manifolds would perform the same function of conveying objects for the purpose of making maintenance of the components more efficient. Furthermore, making elements separable has been held to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
Regarding claim 57, Kelly discloses an object distribution and conveying arrangement (see top of Fig. 1) for distributing and conveying a plurality of objects, said arrangement comprising: an inlet manifold (see Fig. 1; elements generally at the top and where a manifold would be defined as a component that manages the flow of material) for receiving and conveying the objects to sorting units (see Fig. 1) for sorting of the objects, wherein the inlet manifold comprises: one or more feeder inlet (element 11) for feeding the objects into the inlet manifold, at least two outlets (col. 10, lines 25-27 and elements 15a) for distributing the objects to the sorting units (elements 43 and 46, elements 51 and 56, elements 60 and 65), and a guiding arrangement (element 12a) connecting the one or more feeder inlet (see Figs. 1 and 5; elements 12a and 15a) and the at least two outlets (310), said guiding arrangement being adapted to convey the objects downwardly and diagonally relative a horizontal reference plane from the one or more feeder inlet (see Fig. 1; where element 12 feeds at an angle to element 15) downstream to the at least two outlets. Kelly does not explicitly disclose a first outlet of the least two outlets is spaced from a second outlet of the at least two outlets along a vertical axis. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to feeding of material because Applicant has not disclosed that the orientation of the feeding outlets provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Kelly, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either feeding outlets because both feeding outlets would perform the same function of feeding material for the purpose of feeding material into multiple sorting zones.
Regarding claim 58, Kelly discloses the guiding arrangement is arranged to convey the objects in an angle relative a horizontal reference plane larger than an angle of repose of the objects such that the objects are at least partially conveyed by means of gravity (see Fig. 1; element 12).
Regarding claim 59, Kelly discloses the guiding arrangement forms a plurality of passages for conveying and distributing the objects to the at least two outlets (element 14 vibrates items into paths that feed on element 15a).
Regarding claim 61, Kelly discloses the guiding arrangement is arranged to convey the objects along a feeding plane, said feeding plane being inclined relative a reference horizontal plane (see Fig. 1; element 12).
Regarding claim 66, Kelly does not explicitly disclose the outlet manifold is adapted to be releasably connected to the sorting units. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to detach components because Applicant has not disclosed that the outlet manifold being releasably connected provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Kelly, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with detachably components because both manifolds would perform the same function of conveying objects for the purpose of making maintenance of the components more efficient. Furthermore, making elements separable has been held to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)).
Claims 16 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Culp et al (USP 10,766,055 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Kelly does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Culp teaches outlets is connected to a distribution outlet for conveying the objects out of the object distribution and conveying arrangement (see Fig. 6A; elements 604 where objects are distributed to buffers for further processing) for the purpose of buffering items to a desired quantity of items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kelly, as taught by Culp, for the purpose of buffering items to a desired quantity of items.
Regarding claim 36, Kelly discloses an inlet manifold for receiving and conveying the objects to the sorting units for sorting of the objects (see Fig. 1; elements generally at the top and where a manifold would be defined as a component that manages the flow of material), but Kelly does not disclose the limitations of the claim. Culp teaches a plurality of gate units (col. 8, lines 13-25) provided at the inlet manifold, each gate unit of the plurality of gate units being adapted to selectively enable conveying and distribution of the objects to a sorting unit (col. 8, lines 21-24) for the purpose of buffering items to a desired quantity of items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Kelly, as taught by Culp, for the purpose of buffering items to a desired quantity of items.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under USC 112
Regarding the rejection under USC 112, the rejection has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Rejection under USC 102 and 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” In rejecting claim 1, the Office Action takes the position that Kelly discloses "at least one sorting unit of the plurality of sorting units is arranged above at least one other sorting unit of the plurality of sorting units relative a vertical reference direction," citing elements 43 and 46 being above elements 51 and 56. However, elements 43, 51 are photodetectors and elements 36, 56 are blast valves. Photodetector 43 "provides a signal on conductor 49 to control unit 23 when a piece of scrap passes window 40." Blast valve 36 then operates based on photodetector 43 sensing when the piece of scrap passes window 40. See Kelly, col. 7, lines 19-43. Thus, neither elements 43 and 46 (collectively "assembly 1") nor elements 51 and 56 (collectively "assembly 2) constitute a "sorting unit" as recited in amended claim 1. For example, assembly 1 and assembly 2 each lack an object measuring unit. Indeed, the Office Action confirms this, citing "element 21" as the object measurement unit. Both assembly 1 and assembly 2 operate based on feedback from element 21. Therefore, Kelly fails to disclose a plurality of sorting units as recited in claim 1, wherein at least one sorting unit of the plurality of sorting units is arranged above at least one other sorting unit of the plurality of sorting units relative a vertical reference direction. Thus, Kelly fails to anticipate claim 1,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that the new rejection of Kelly in view of Malatesta teaches as obvious a sorting system with multiple sorting units arranged vertically for sorting items for the purpose of increasing the throughput of items to be sorted.
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Accordingly, claim 14 requires that "each of the at least two separate outlet passages is joined with at least two inlets of the plurality of inlets." In contrast, the Office Action cites the splitter plates 44, 45, 57, and 58 as defining inlets and outlets (at A, B, C, and D). However, each of A, B, C, D of the splitter plates is in communication with a single one of the "passages between elements 44, 45, 57, and 63," characterized as being inlets. Thus, Kelly fails to disclose at least an outlet manifold, wherein each of the at least two separate outlet passages is joined with at least two inlets of the plurality of inlets. Thus, Kelly fails to teach every limitation of claim 14 and, therefore, fails to anticipate claim 14,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts the claim limitations disclose at least two inlets being joined to at least two separate outlet passages. In this case, sections A, B, C, and D are joined to the above-mentioned outlet passage denoted by elements 44, 45, 57, and 63. Applicant’s argument, that the present invention is distinct from the prior art is unclear because a single one of the passages between elements 44, 45, 57, and 63 is unclear. The claim language of claim 14 does not make it clear that an outlet is connected to multiple inlets.
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” As set forth herein, claim 57 has been amended to recite "wherein a first outlet of the at least two outlets is spaced from a second outlet of the at least two outlets along a vertical axis." Kelly fails to disclose this limitation. To the contrary, the structure cited in the Office Action as equivalent to the "inlet manifold" is merely a pan having a plurality of vertically aligned troughs. Thus, Kelly fails to disclose or suggest every limitation of amended claim 57. Further, Applicant submits that modifying Kelly to arrive at the claim would not have been obvious. The system of Kelly relies on calculating position based on falling time. Therefore, having a fixed height from which scrap falls, as taught in Kelly, assists with sorting. Having scrap falling from different heights would frustrate the purpose of Kelly, and without providing any benefit. Accordingly, Applicant submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Kelly to arrive at the combination recited in claim 57 or claims dependent thereof,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner refers to new 103 rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached on 571-272-7805. 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.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653 /MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653