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 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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al (US Pub 2021/0229133 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Kumar discloses an operation method of a plant comprising the following steps: acquiring the images of said objects by means of an image acquisition and processing device (elements 124, 123, and 107); detecting predetermined visual features of said objects in said acquired images by means of a logic control unit (paragraph 0065); associating a category of precious metals comprised in said objects with said predetermined visual features (paragraph 0055); classifying said objects based on said association and sending signals corresponding to said classification (paragraph 0069); sorting said objects by means of an actuator device based on said corresponding signals (paragraph 0051 and elements 126-129).
Regarding claim 9, Kumar discloses said detection step comprises the following sub-steps: conditioning the image acquired in said acquisition step; extracting the predetermined visual features by means of trained convolutional filters; classifying the said objects by means of a neural network (paragraph 0064-0065 where visual information is acquired by element 120 and used in a machine learning system in order to identify and classify each of the material pieces).
Regarding claim 10, Kumar discloses it comprises the step of training said neural network, comprising the following sub-steps: determining the image dataset for training the neural network (paragraph 0066); selecting the images based on their quality (paragraph 0068 where materials are of a control set known to be specific materials); associating each image selected in said selection step with a certain category based on the precious metals and copper comprised in the object of the image (paragraph 0068 the machine learning algorithm learns how to detect, recognize, and classify specific material).
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 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (US Pub 2021/0229133 A1) in view of Nygaard et al (US Pub 2020/0363342 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar discloses a plant for classification and selection of objects comprising precious metals and copper (paragraph 0031 and 0110), comprising a conveyor belt (element 103), capable of sliding according to a sliding direction from said first end to said second end in order to convey said objects, wherein said plant comprises an image acquisition (element 124) and processing device (elements 107 and 123), capable of acquiring the images of said objects, detecting predetermined visual features of said objects in said acquired images, associating a category of precious metals comprised in said objects with said visual features, classifying said objects based on said association, and sending signals corresponding to said classification (paragraph 0055 where a material piece is classified as falling into a predetermined grouping of classifications and sending a signal to sort these materials); and wherein said plant comprises at least one actuator device (elements 126-129) arranged downstream of said image acquisition and processing device, capable of receiving said corresponding signals from said image acquisition and processing device and of sorting said objects based on said corresponding signals (paragraph 0051 and element 108), wherein said image acquisition and processing device comprises a logic control unit capable of supporting a neural network capable of detecting predetermined visual features of said objects in said acquired images, associating a category of precious metals comprised in said objects with said predetermined visual features, and classifying said objects based on said association (paragraph 0065 and 0069), but Kumar does not explicitly disclose a supporting frame for supporting said plant on the ground, which extends from a first end to a second end and the supporting frame holding elements of the plant raised with respect to the conveyor belt. Nygaard teaches a supporting frame for supporting said plant on the ground, which extends from a first end to a second end (see Figs. 2-4) and the supporting frame holding elements of the plant raised with respect to the conveyor belt (see Figs. 2 and 4; element 34) for the purpose of mounting multiple components of the plant spaced apart above the conveying system (paragraph 0099). 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 Kumar, as taught by Nygaard, for the purpose of mounting multiple components of the plant spaced apart above the conveying system.
Regarding claim 3, Kumar discloses said image acquisition and processing device comprises at least one lighting element capable of lighting up said objects (element 121); at least one detection element capable of acquiring images of said objects (element 124); a logic control unit, operatively connected to said at least one lighting element and to said at least one detection element (paragraph 0069).
Regarding claim 4, Kumar does not disclose the claim limitations. Nygaard teaches said at least one lighting element is a LED - Light Emitting Diode (element 350), and in that said detection element is a video camera (element 32) or a CMOS optical sensor for the purpose of detecting defects within the materials and sorting materials (paragraph 0109). 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 Kumar, as taught by Nygaard, for the purpose of detecting defects within the materials.
Regarding claim 5, Kumar discloses said image acquisition and processing device comprises a graphic interface capable of showing the operator the result of the classification of said objects and of modifying the classification parameters (paragraphs 0124-0125).
Regarding claim 6, Kumar does not disclose the claim limitations. Nygaard teaches a plurality of slides (elements 44) arranged in said second end of said conveyor belt, and in that said actuator device comprises at least one piston capable of moving from a rest position (element 46), retracted with respect to said conveyor belt, to an extracted working position, in which it is capable of contacting said objects arranged on said conveyor belt and of conveying them toward a slide of said plurality of slides based on said corresponding signals (paragraph 0229) for the purpose of sorting good parts from defective parts. 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 Kumar, as taught by Nygaard, for the purpose of sorting good parts from defective parts.
Regarding claim 7, Kumar does not disclose the claim limitations. Nygaard teaches a plurality of slides (elements 44) arranged in said second end of said conveyor belt, and in that said actuator device comprises a supporting element coupled to said supporting frame (element 21 connected to element 34), raised with respect to said conveyor belt (see Fig. 4 where element 21 is above the conveyor belt), and a gripping and conveying means coupled to said supporting element (element 17), capable of picking up said objects arranged on said conveyor belt and of conveying them toward a slide of said plurality of slides based on said corresponding signals (paragraph 0090 where material items are picked up and placed closer to elements 44 via conveying section 36) for the purpose of sorting good parts from defective parts. 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 Kumar, as taught by Nygaard, for the purpose of sorting good parts from defective parts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objection
Regarding the claim objection, the objection has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” The Office Action refers to paragraphs [0065] and [0069] of Kumar. This disclosure does not teach or suggest the type of neural network (CNN) nor the classification criterion (precious metal categories). Moroever, a combination of the teachings of Kumar and Nygaard would not render the features of claim 1 obvious. For example, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar as taught by Nygaard for the purpose of mounting multiple components of a plant spaced apart above a conveying system. A person skilled in the art operating in the field of metal scrap recycling, as disclosed in Kumar, would have no reasonable technical motivation to look toward an inspection system for aerospace fasteners, as disclosed in Nygaard, to improve his own system. The two systems operate in entirely distinct technical, industrial, and functional domains, involving objects of a radically different nature and different scopes. Kumar aims at the mass sorting of heterogeneous scrap, whereas Nygaard aims at the precision re-certification of standardized components,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that paragraph 0065 discloses a computer system discloses the logic control unit where paragraph 0065 discloses that the computer system comprises a machine learning system that implements a type of neural network. Paragraph 0069 then implements classification of the items based on the machine learning system which includes the neural network disclosed in paragraph 0065, and, therefore, discloses the claim limitations related to the logic control unit supporting a neural network.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights