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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Republic of Korea on 09/19/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of KR10-2024-0126442 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1–4 in the reply filed on 07/15/2026 is acknowledged.
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 limitations are: “a grade determining unit configured to determine a grade” (emphasis added) in claim 1; “a filtering unit configured to filter out,” “a Fourier transform unit configured to perform Fourier transform” (emphasis added) in claim 3; and “a carbon emission calculating unit configured to calculate carbon emission” (emphasis added) in claim 4.
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 specification1 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 § 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 (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 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)(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kishimoto et al. (U.S. 12,330,190 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Kishimoto discloses a recycled metal processing system using artificial intelligence (AI), comprising:
a vision camera installed above metal scrap that is crushed, the vision camera being configured to obtain a captured image by capturing an image of an upper part of the metal scrap; and (Per Fig. 1, Kishimoto’s scrap determination system 1 comprises camera(s) 10 to acquire an image of an iron scrap. Kishimoto col. 3 line 45 – col. 4 line 2. A camera image is an image of iron scrap taken when the iron scrap has been moved to a yard after being transported by a truck.)
a grade determining unit configured to determine a grade of the metal scrap according to a preset quality criterion, by analyzing the captured image based on an AI model. (Per Fig. 1, Kishimoto discloses a scrap determination model 221 where a grade of scrap is analyzed based on the scrap image. Ibid. col. 4 lines 32–64. The first scrap determination model 221 is a learning model for determining each grade of scrap included in a camera image and the ratio of the grade based on the camera image.)
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto in view of Gao et al. "An RGB-D-based thickness feature descriptor and its application on scrap steel grading." IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 72 (2023): 1-14. (Year: 2023).
Regarding claim 2, Kishimoto fails to specifically disclose the recycled metal processing system using AI, wherein, according to the quality criterion, a grade is classified into a plurality of grades according to whether the metal scrap corresponds to a vehicle outer skin, whether the metal scrap has a thickness of 3 mm or less, and whether the metal scrap has a thickness of 3 mm or less and is surface-plated, wherein the grade determining unit is configured to classify a grade of the metal scrap based on the quality criterion.
In related art, Gao discloses the recycled metal processing system using AI, wherein, according to the quality criterion, a grade is classified into a plurality of grades according to whether the metal scrap corresponds to a vehicle outer skin, whether the metal scrap has a thickness of 3 mm or less, and whether the metal scrap has a thickness of 3 mm or less and is surface-plated, wherein the grade determining unit is configured to classify a grade of the metal scrap based on the quality criterion. (Per Fig. 16, Gao discloses thickness evaluation corresponding to a position of scrap steel. Gao p. 10, D. Thickness Feature Extraction Results. We determine whether the extracted thickness feature is valid by measuring
the corresponding position of scrap steel using vernier calipers.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Gao into the teachings of Kishimoto to provide efficient and simple feature extraction method in terms of 3D dataset. Ibid. p. 12, VI. Conclusion.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto in view of Guan (CN 115222958 A).
Regarding claim 3, Kishimoto fails to specifically disclose the recycled metal processing system, wherein the grade determining unit comprises:
a filtering unit configured to filter out shadow noise formed by lighting, a thermal noise component, and a dust noise component formed by scattering dust in the obtained captured image; and a Fourier transform unit configured to perform Fourier transform on the filtered captured image.
In related art, Guan discloses the recycled metal processing system, wherein the grade determining unit comprises:
a filtering unit configured to filter out shadow noise formed by lighting, a thermal noise component, and a dust noise component formed by scattering dust in the obtained captured image; and (Guan eliminates noise of object texture applying Gaussian pyramid decomposition. Guan Spec. ¶99. [t]o obtain the local feature saliency map of the fabric pilling image, eliminating noise such as fabric texture and uneven lighting.)
a Fourier transform unit configured to perform Fourier transform on the filtered captured image. (Guan discloses Fourier transform to reconstruct related images. Ibid. By performing Fourier transform on the grayscale image of the original image, inverse Fourier transform is performed on the spectral residual and phase spectrum and reconstructed to obtain the global feature saliency map of the fabric pilling image,)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Guan into the teachings of Kishimoto to establish machine learning model correlated to evaluating material surface status. Ibid. ¶7.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kishimoto in view of Lee (TW 202420217 A).
Regarding claim 4, Kishimoto fails to specifically disclose the recycled metal processing system, further comprising a carbon emission calculating unit configured to calculate carbon emissions generated in a processing process of the metal scrap and a grade determination result for the metal scrap, generate a grade report on recycled metal based on the carbon emissions, and provide the grade report to a management terminal.
In related art, Lee discloses the recycled metal processing system, further comprising a carbon emission calculating unit configured to calculate carbon emissions generated in a processing process of the metal scrap and a grade determination result for the metal scrap, generate a grade report on recycled metal based on the carbon emissions, and provide the grade report to a management terminal. (Per Fig. 1, Lee discloses how much carbon emissions are consumed during aluminum shavings in a standard package 70. Lee Spec. ¶23. [t]he carbon emissions consumed by the aluminum shavings in the standard package 70 from generation, recycling and transportation to warehousing can be notarized and effectively recorded in its carbon data report.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lee into the teachings of Kishimoto in order that the image capturing device 50 records process of metal package. Ibid. ¶18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar et al. (U.S. 10,710,119 B2) discloses a material sorting system.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENEDICT LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-0390. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-17:00 (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, Stephen R. Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BENEDICT E LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
1 Examiner referred to Applicant’s Spec. ¶31 where he discloses that his recycled metal processing system consist of a vision camera, a grade determining unit, and a carbon emission calculating unit.
Prosecution Insights