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 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: “a shredding unit that shreds paper into paper pieces” in claim 1 the term “shredding unit” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “that shreds”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure was found in page 10 of specification “ As illustrated in FIG. 3, the shredding unit 20 has a first slope portion 21, a first vertical blade 22, a second vertical blade 23, a horizontal blade 24, a second slope portion 26, a top plate 27, and a stirring portion 28. In the shredding unit 20, the first slope portion 21, the first vertical blade 22 and the second vertical blade 23, the horizontal blade 24, and the second slope portion 26 are disposed above the top plate 27 in the above-described order. The paper to be shredded sequentially moves from the charging port 7 to the first slope portion 21, the first vertical blade 22 and the second vertical blade 23, the horizontal blade 24, the second slope portion 26, and the stirring portion 28”. Therefore, “a shredding unit” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure in the specification and drawings that entirely performs the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 § 102
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(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (KR 20210014041 A) .
Regarding claim2 Jung discloses a method (fig.8, page 12, 13, see attached translation) for controlling a shredder, the shredder (fig.4, also see abstract) including a shredding unit (fig.4, 4) that shreds paper into paper pieces, a tank (fig.4, 5, referred as shredded paper collection box) that stores the paper pieces, a weight sensor (using proximity and laser sensor) that measures a weight of the paper pieces inside the tank (page9, para6, see attached translation), a processor (fig.3, 12, referred as controller), and a display (fig.3, 15), the method (fig.8, page 12, 13, see attached translation) for controlling the shredder, comprising: a first step ( page 11, para7, page 17, para 1, see attached translation) of measuring the weight of the paper (weight of the paper before shredding is measured based on the thickness); a second step of calculating (see page 11, para 9 (last para), see attached translation), by the processor (fig.3, 12, referred as controller), an environmental contribution value (see page9, para 6, 7, referred as carbon money referred as carbon money, see attached translation) based on the weight of the paper; and a third step of displaying the environmental contribution value (calculated carbon money is displayed, page6, para5, see attached translation) on the display (fig.3, 15).
Regarding claim3, which depends on claim2, Jung discloses the method for controlling a shredder according to claim 2. Jung further discloses the second step (calculating carbon money/environmental contribution value after shredding, page9, para7, see attached translation) and the third step (accumulated amount is displayed, page6, para5, see attached translation) are performed after shredding by the shredding unit (page9, para8).
Regarding claim4, which depends on claim2, Jung discloses the method for controlling a shredder according to claim 2. Jung further discloses that in the second step, an accumulated value of the measured weight of the paper pieces is calculated , and the environmental contribution value (referred as carbon money) is calculated based on the calculated accumulated value (page11, last para, measure the weight, accumulated carbon money is calculated based on user input of waste paper, see attached translation).
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.
Claims 1is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al. (KR 20210014041 A) in view of Chang (US 20190134642 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jung discloses a shredder (fig.4, also see abstract) comprising: a shredding unit (fig.4, 4) that shreds paper into paper pieces; a tank (fig.4, 5, referred as shredded paper collection box) that stores the paper pieces; a processor (fig.3, 12, referred as controller) that calculates an environmental contribution value (page9, para 6, 7, referred as carbon money, see attached translation) based on the weight of the paper pieces; and a display (fig.7a) that displays the environmental contribution value (page9, para 6, 7, referred as carbon money referred as carbon money, see attached translation).
Jung is silent about a weight sensor that is provided below the tank and that measures a weight of the paper pieces inside the tank;
However, Chang teaches a weight sensor (§[0022], lines 12-15) that is provided below the tank (§[0018], lines 9-12) and that measures a weight of the paper pieces inside the tank;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the shredder disclosed by Jung and incorporate a weight sensor below the tank, as taught by Chang, for the purpose of determining when the container is full (§[0018], lines 9-12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ji Whan (KR 102145554 B1): also teaches carbon money based on paper weight.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-5pm.
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.
/M.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights