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 .
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:
“weight measurement section is configured to measure a weight of the shredded pieces accumulated in the waste box” in claim 1; the specification describes it as a base plate portion 51, a load cell 53, and a circuit board 55 ([0050], [0054]).
“weight measurement mechanism” in claim 1 is the equivalent of a mechanism for measuring weight; the specification describes it as a load cell 53, spring scale, or electromagnetic scale ([0050], [0054]).
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 § 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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda et al. (US2015298134), hereinafter referred to as “Takeda” in view of Paeslack (WO2022038197), further in view of Tschukan et al. (DE102017118889), hereinafter referred to as Tschukan.
Re Claim 1, Takeda discloses a shredder (“the shredder includes ...” [0047]) comprising:
a shredding section (shredding mechanism 11) that is configured to shred paper into shredded pieces (“a shredding mechanism 11 for shredding a sheet-like object S” [0047]);
a waste box that is configured to store the shredded pieces (trash container 12);
a holding section (comprising support 8, holding support 9, and inclined portion 10, which are shown in Fig. 1B to be integral to each other, and catching member 6) that includes a bottom plate portion (catching member 6); and
a base plate portion fixed to a frame portion of the shredder (see Fig. 1, illustrated below)
Takeda does not disclose a bottom plate portion on which the waste box is mounted, instead mounting its waste box (trash container 12) on a rack (partition frame member 2), or a weight measurement section that is configured to measure a weight of the shredded pieces accumulated in the waste box, the weight measurement section includes a base plate portion fixed to a frame portion of the shredder, and a wight measurement mechanism supported by the base plate portion, the bottom plate portion of the holding section being supported by the weight measurement mechanism from below, wherein the weight measurement section is configured to measure the weight of the shredded pieces together with a weight of the bottom plate portion and a weight of the waste box.
Paeslack teaches a bottom plate portion (insert 36) on which the waste box (receiving container 42) is mounted (Figs. 2-5).
Paeslack teaches mounting the waste box onto the bottom plate portion so that the waste box can be removed from the shredder (“The insert can be designed to be partially or fully extendable from the waste treatment device. arranged, in particular, to be fastened. For example, the insert can be designed as a drawer. Preferably, the insert can be completely removed from the waste treatment device, e.g. when changing the receiving container, to allow for a movable transport option of the compacted waste to a storage site.” [0021]-[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda by directly mounting the trash container of Takeda on the catching member of Takeda, as taught by Paeslack in order to make the trash container extendable from the shredder (“The insert can be designed to be partially or fully extendable from the waste treatment device” [0021]).
Examiner notes that this modification necessarily involves removing the frame member of Takeda as the frame member would overlap with the trash container of Takeda if the trash container was directly mounted on the catching member of Takeda. The integral component comprising support 8, holding support 9, and inclined portion 10 performs the function of supporting the frame member 2 (Takeda, “supports 8 for supporting the projecting portions 7 are arranged on both the side walls in the width direction of the shredder casing 1” [0059] and projecting portions 7 is a part of partition frame member 2). Examiner notes that modification of Takeda, in view of Paeslack, does not change the integral component comprising support 8, holding support 9, and inclined portion 10 because one of ordinary skill in the art would still include the integral component in the invention as the integral component is disclose to perform the secondary function of guiding shredded pieces into the catching member of Takeda (Takeda, “even when the particles that are not received in the trash container 12 fall downward along the peripheral walls of the shredder casing 1 , the particles are guided downward into the catching member 6 along the inclined portions 10” [0064])
Tschukan teaches a weight measurement section (bottom 28 and pressure sensor 30) that is disposed under (“The pressure sensor can then be positioned below the guide device and indirectly absorb the weight of the waste container.” [0011]) the bottom plate portion (“guide device” [0011]) and measures a weight of the shredded pieces accumulated in the waste box (“The fill level sensor measures the fill level indirectly via the total weight of the waste container and, if applicable, the guide device, and the pressure exerted on the pressure sensor resulting from the total weight.” [0011]), wherein the weight measurement section measures the weight of the shredded pieces together with a weight of the bottom plate portion and a weight of the waste box (“The fill level sensor measures the fill level indirectly via the total weight of the waste container and, if applicable, the guide device, and the pressure exerted on the pressure sensor resulting from the total weight.” [0011]), the weight measurement section includes a base plate portion (bottom 28) fixed to a frame portion of the shredder (housing 12, Fig. 1b), and a wight measurement mechanism (pressure sensor 30) supported by the base plate portion (Fig. 1b), the bottom plate portion of the holding section being supported by the weight measurement mechanism from below (Fig. 1b shows the waste container being supported by the weight measurement mechanism. After combination, the weight measurement mechanism would support the bottom plate portion).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takeda, in view of Paeslack, to incorporate a weight measurement section below the bottom plate portion as taught by Tschukan in order to measure the fill level of the waste box (“The fill level sensor measures the fill level indirectly via the total weight of the waste container and, if applicable, the guide device, and the pressure exerted on the pressure sensor resulting from the total weight.” [0011], Tschukan).
Re Claim 2, Takeda, in view of Peaslack and Tschukan, disclose the shredder according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Takeda further discloses that
the holding section includes a guide portion (see Fig. 1 of Takeda, illustrated below),
the bottom plate portion includes a bottom plate guide portion (see Fig. 1 of Takeda, illustrated below), and
PNG
media_image1.png
549
1034
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Takeda, illustrated
the guide portion and the bottom plate guide portion come into contact with each other and the bottom plate guide portion slides relative to the guide portion due to displacement of the bottom plate portion to correct inclination of the bottom plate portion with respect to a horizontal plane (The guide portion and bottom guide portion as identified in Takeda are configured such that, if the bottom guide portion were inclined, they would come into contact with each other and the bottom plate guide portion could slide relative to the guide portion).
Re Claim 3, Takeda, in view of Peaslack and Tschukan, disclose the shredder according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and further discloses that the holding section includes a visor portion (see Fig. 1 of Takeda, illustrated above), and an inner edge of the visor portion (see Fig. 1 of Takeda, illustrated below) overlaps an outer edge of the bottom plate portion (see Fig. 1 of Takeda, illustrated below) in plan view when viewed from above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 4-5, filed September 16th, 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amended claim is not anticipated by Paeslack. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed September 16th, 2026 regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant Argued:
“More specifically, independent claim 1 now recites that the weight measurement section includes a base plate portion fixed to a frame portion of the shredder, and a weight measurement mechanism supported by the base plate portion, wherein the bottom plate portion of the holding section is supported by the weight measurement mechanism from below. Applicant respectfully asserts that none of Takeda, Paeslack, and Tschukan, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests this structural arrangement.
Takeda's catching member (6) is a tray-like component that is insertable and removable from the shredder casing. The catching member (6) of Takeda functions as a particle-catching tray, analogous to collection tray 24 in Tschukan. In Tschukan, the pressure sensor (30) is positioned on the floor of the housing (Boden 28) and the waste container (Abfallbehälter 20) sits above and over the sensor. The sensor is not positioned below Tschukan's collection tray (24) but rather below the waste container itself, with the collection tray interposed between the waste container and the housing floor. If Tschukan's arrangement were combined onto Takeda as the Office Action proposes, the pressure sensor would be placed beneath the waste container (trash container 12 of Takeda), not beneath the catching member (6). The Office Action's proposed modification (placing the weight measurement section below the catching member (6) of the modified Takeda device) therefore does not follow from Tschukan's own disclosure.”
Applicant argued that because the pressure sensor is positioned above the collection tray in Tschukan, it would be improper to place the pressure sensor below the collection tray in the rejection by Takeda, in view of Paeslack and Tschukan. First, Tschukan says that the pressure sensor should be placed on “a base 28 of the housing 12” ([0014]), which is shown in Fig. 1b to not be part of the movable portion of the shredder. The rejection properly mapped the base of the housing to the part beneath the bottom plate portion (see Fig. 1 of Takeda, illustrated above), which is also a base of a housing. Second, Applicant’s mapping does not follow from Tschukan’s own disclosure. Applicant argues Tschukan’s pressure sensor would be properly mapped to beneath the waste container, not beneath the catching member. Examiner notes that the area beneath the catching member is also beneath the waste container, but assuming Applicant is arguing that the pressure sensor must be directly beneath the waste container with no intervening components, Takeda, in view of Paeslack and Tschukan, in Applicant’s mapping, would have the pressure sensor on the catching member. Tschukan does not teach that the pressure sensor can be on the collection tray because Tschukan teaches that the pressure sensor is on the immovable housing. Third, to the extent that Applicant’s argument is that Tschukan’s pressure sensor cannot be incorporated to a location not directly beneath the waste container, Tschukan teaches Examiner’s proposed combination of having a bottom plate portion (Takeda’s catching member 6) in between the pressure sensor (Tschukan’s pressure sensor 30) and the waste container (“For example, a guide device can be provided on which the waste container stands and which facilitates extraction thereof from the housing. The pressure sensor can then be arranged below the guide device and indirectly absorb the weight of the waste container. The fill level sensor measures the fill level indirectly via the total weight of the waste container and optionally of the guide device and the pressure exerted on the pressure sensor resulting from the total weight.” [0011]).
The applicant further argues:
In any event, as set forth in amended claim 1, the bottom plate portion is supported by the weight measurement mechanism from below. This upward-supporting arrangement is not taught by Tschukan, in which the pressure sensor merely sits passively beneath the weight of the container placed on top of it.
Examiner notes that the difference between the weight measurement mechanism supporting the bottom plate portion and the bottom plate portion sitting on the weight measurement mechanism is one of semantics. There is no patentable difference in structure.
Next, the applicant argues that:
As mentioned above, Paeslack's weight-measurement disclosure is limited to a vague, optional statement about an integrated scale in the removable slide-in unit or receiving container. No structural detail is provided in Paeslack regarding the scale. Thus, Paeslack does not teach a base plate portion fixed to a frame portion, nor a weight measurement mechanism that supports a bottom plate portion from below. The combination of Takeda and Paeslack therefore does not yield the claimed structural arrangement.
Examiner agrees and for this reason has withdrawn the rejections under 35 USC 102.
The applicant argues:
More specifically, Tschukan discloses a pressure sensor (Drucksensor 30) arranged on the floor of the housing, upon which the waste container (Abfallbehälter 20) is placed directly. In this arrangement, the waste container sits on top of the pressure sensor, and the sensor passively receives the weight of the waste container from above. Tschukan does not disclose a bottom plate portion supported by a weight measurement mechanism from below, wherein the weight measurement mechanism mechanically supports the bottom plate portion upward above a fixed base plate portion. The claimed invention provides that the load of the waste box and shredded pieces is transmitted exclusively through the bottom plate portion to the weight measurement mechanism. This structural arrangement is entirely absent from Tschukan.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The embodiment of Tschukan shown in the drawings does not show a bottom plate portion supported by a weight measurement because Tschukan does not show a bottom plate portion. Tschukan shows that the waste container is supported by the weight measurement mechanism wherein the weight measurement mechanism supports the waste container above the fixed base plate. Takeda, in view of Paeslack and Tschukan, does disclose a bottom plate portion supported by a weight measurement mechanism from below, wherein the weight measurement mechanism mechanically supports the bottom plate portion upward above a fixed base plate portion and the structural arrangement as such is supported by the alternative embodiment of Tschukan ([0011]).
Lastly, the applicant argued that:
Because none of the three references discloses the claimed combination of (i) a base plate portion fixed to the frame, (ii) a weight measurement mechanism supported by the base plate portion, and (iii) the bottom plate portion supported by the weight measurement mechanism from below, the combination of Takeda, Paeslack, and Tschukan does not render amended claim 1 obvious.”
For the reasons mentioned above, the rejection of claim 1 under Takeda, in view of Paeslack and Tschukan, is maintained.
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 WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 5712701477. 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.
/W.D.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725 30 September 2026
