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 Objections
Claims 1, 11, 13 and 16-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “are configured to destroy electronic devices” should be changed to “are configured to destroy the electronic devices”.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “the steps of” should be changed to “steps of”.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “inserting an electronic device” should be changed to “inserting the electronic devices”.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “the use of” should be changed to “use of”.
Regarding claims 16-18, the phrase “the step” should be changed to “a stepf”.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “the steps of” should be changed to “steps of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 8 and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the size" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 fails to positively recite mechanical cooperation between “a plurality of chutes” and the elements of the apparatus.
Claim 8 fails to positively recite mechanical cooperation between “a plurality of screens” and the elements of the apparatus.
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)(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.
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Becker (JFR2634400A1 attached NPL, English Machine translation).
Regarding claim 19, Becker discloses a method of gradually reducing the size of electronic components (abstract: metal objects) comprising the steps of:
placing a plurality of electronic components into a first component size reduction apparatus (fig.1: (8)), resulting in a plurality of first component size reduction apparatus remnants;
transferring the plurality of first component size reduction apparatus remnants to a second component size reduction apparatus (fig.1: (7)), resulting in a plurality of second component size reduction apparatus remnants;
transferring the plurality of second component size reduction apparatus remnants to a third component size reduction apparatus (fig.1: (1)), resulting in a plurality of third component size reduction apparatus remnants.
Claims 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Reggi (US20160318034A1).
Regarding claim 1, Reggi discloses an apparatus for destroying electronic devices (abstract, paragraphs 0001-0002 and paragraphs 0031-0057) comprising:
a shredder assembly (fig.1: (2)),
a first hammermill assembly (fig.1: (3)), and
a second hammermill assembly (fig.1: (5));
wherein said shredder assembly is operatively connected to said first hammermill assembly and said first hammermill assembly is operatively connected to said second hammermill assembly (fig.1); wherein said shredding assembly, said first hammermill assembly and said second hammermill assembly are configured to destroy electronic devices.
Regarding claim 2, Reggi discloses wherein the shredder assembly has a shredder input end and a shredder output end, the first hammermill assembly has a first hammermill input end and a first hammermill output end, and the second hammermill assembly has a second hammermill input end and a second hammermill output end (fig.1).
Regarding claim 3, Reggi discloses wherein the shredder output end is operatively connected to the first hammermill input end and the first hammermill output end is operatively connected to the second hammermill output end (fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, Reggi discloses further comprising a plurality of chutes (see fig.1 below).
Regarding claim 5, Reggi discloses a first chute, the first chute connecting the shredder output end and the first hammermill input end; a second chute, the second chute connecting the first hammermill output end and the second hammermill input end (see fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
463
690
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Reggi discloses wherein the first hammermill (figs.1 and 3: (3)) assembly is a single rotor hammermill.
Regarding claim 7, Reggi discloses wherein the second hammermill assembly (figs.1 and 4: (5)) is a single rotor hammermill.
Regarding claim 8, Reggi discloses a plurality of screens (fig.1: (4), (6) and (7)).
Regarding claim 9, Reggi discloses a first screen (fig.1: (6)), the first screen located between the first hammermill output end and the second hammermill input end; a second screen (fig.1: (7)), the second screen located after the second hammermill output end (fig.1).
Regarding claim 10, Reggi discloses wherein the second screen is less permissive than the first screen (paragraphs: 0062-0061 and 0073).
Regarding claim 11, Reggi discloses a method of destroying electronic devices (abstract, paragraphs 0001-0002 and paragraphs 0031-0057), the method comprising the steps of:
inserting an electronic device into a shredder (fig.1: (2)), resulting in a plurality of shredder remnants;
transferring the plurality of shredder remnants into a first hammermill (fig.1: (3)), resulting in a plurality of first hammermill remnants;
transferring the first hammermill remnants into a second hammermill (fig.1: (5)), resulting in a plurality of second hammermill remnants.
Regarding claim 12, Reggi discloses wherein the transferring of the plurality of shredder remnants into the first hammermill is facilitated by gravity (see fig.1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Reggi discloses wherein the transferring of the plurality of shredder remnants is assisted by the use of a chute (see fig.1 above).
Regarding claim 14, Reggi discloses wherein the transferring of the plurality of first hammermill remnants into the second hammermill is facilitated by gravity (see fig.1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Reggi discloses wherein the transferring of the plurality of first hammermill remnants is assisted by the use of a chute (see fig.1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Reggi discloses running the plurality of first hammermill remnants must through a screen (fig.1: (6)) before being transferred to the second hammermill.
Regarding claim 17, Reggi discloses running the plurality of second hammermill remnants through a screen (fig.1: (7)), resulting in a plurality of finished remnants.
Regarding claim 18, Reggi discloses running the plurality of first hammermill remnants through a screen (fig.1: (6)) before being transferred to the second hammermill; running the plurality of second hammermill remnants through a screen (fig.1: (7)), resulting in a plurality of finished remnants; wherein, the screen used for the plurality of second hammermill remnants is less permissible than the screen used for the plurality of first hammermill remnants (paragraphs: 0062-0061 and 0073).
Regarding claim 19, Reggi discloses a method of gradually reducing the size of electronic components (abstract and paragraphs 0031-0057) comprising the steps of:
placing a plurality of electronic components into a first component size reduction apparatus (fig.1: (2)), resulting in a plurality of first component size reduction apparatus remnants;
transferring the plurality of first component size reduction apparatus remnants to a second component size reduction apparatus (fig.1: (3)), resulting in a plurality of second component size reduction apparatus remnants;
transferring the plurality of second component size reduction apparatus remnants to a third component size reduction apparatus (fig.1: (5)), resulting in a plurality of third component size reduction apparatus remnants.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner (US20170246640A1).
Regrading claims 1-2, Wagner discloses an apparatus for destroying electronic devices (abstract and paragraphs 0040-0051) comprising:
a shredder assembly (fig.1: (50)),
a first hammermill assembly (fig.1: (90));
wherein said shredder assembly (fig.1: (50)) is operatively connected to said first hammermill assembly (fig.1: (90)); wherein said shredding assembly, said first hammermill assembly are configured to destroy electronic devices;
wherein the shredder assembly has a shredder input end and a shredder output end, the first hammermill assembly has a first hammermill input end and a first hammermill output end (fig.1).
Wagner does not disclose a second hammermill assembly
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Wagner to add as many as desired of the hammer mill (70) in order to produce the desired product, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Thereby having a first hammermill assembly, and a second hammermill assembly; wherein said shredder assembly is operatively connected to said first hammermill assembly and said first hammermill assembly is operatively connected to said second hammermill assembly; wherein said shredding assembly, said first hammermill assembly and said second hammermill assembly are configured to destroy electronic devices; and the second hammermill assembly has a second hammermill input end and a second hammermill output end.
Regrading claim 4, Wagner discloses a plurality of chute (fig.1: (66), (150) and (160)).
Regrading claims 11, 14 -17, Wagner discloses method of destroying electronic devices (abstract and paragraphs 0040-0051), the method comprising the steps of:
inserting an electronic device into a shredder (fig.1: (50)), resulting in a plurality of shredder remnants;
transferring the plurality of shredder remnants into a first hammermill (fig.1: (70)), resulting in a plurality of first hammermill remnants;
Wagner does not disclose transferring the first hammermill remnants into a second hammermill, resulting in a plurality of second hammermill remnants; wherein the transferring of the plurality of first hammermill remnants into the second hammermill is facilitated by gravity; running the plurality of first hammermill remnants must through a screen before being transferred to the second hammermill; and running the plurality of second hammermill remnants through a screen, resulting in a plurality of finished remnants
Wagner discloses running the plurality of first hammermill remnants must through a screen (paragraph 0071);
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Wagner to add as many as desired of the hammer mill (70) and screen in order to produce the desired product, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Thereby having transferring the first hammermill remnants into a second hammermill, resulting in a plurality of second hammermill remnants; wherein the transferring of the plurality of first hammermill remnants into the second hammermill is facilitated by gravity; running the plurality of first hammermill remnants must through a screen before being transferred to the second hammermill; and running the plurality of second hammermill remnants through a screen, resulting in a plurality of finished remnants.
Regrading claim 12, Wagner discloses wherein the transferring of the plurality of shredder remnants into the first hammermill is facilitated by gravity (fig.1: (150))
Regrading claim 13, Wagner discloses wherein the transferring of the plurality of shredder remnants is assisted by the use of a chute (fig.1: (150)).
.
Regrading claim 19, Wagner discloses a method of gradually reducing the size of electronic components (abstract and paragraphs 0040-0051) comprising the steps of:
placing a plurality of electronic components into a first component size reduction apparatus (fig.1: (50)), resulting in a plurality of first component size reduction apparatus remnants;
transferring the plurality of first component size reduction apparatus remnants to a second component size reduction apparatus (fig.1: (70)), resulting in a plurality of second component size reduction apparatus remnants;
Wagner does not disclose transferring the plurality of second component size reduction apparatus remnants to a third component size reduction apparatus, resulting in a plurality of third component size reduction apparatus remnants.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to Wagner to add as many as desired of the hammer mill (70) in order to produce the desired product, since it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Thereby having transferring the plurality of second component size reduction apparatus remnants to a third component size reduction apparatus, resulting in a plurality of third component size reduction apparatus remnants.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED S ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)272-2224. The examiner can normally be reached 08:00 am- 05:00 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 (571)270-1477. 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.
/MOHAMMED S. ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights