DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 August 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments filed on 4 August 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 12-14, and 16-20 have been amended.
Claims 3, 10, and 15 are cancelled.
Claims 7, and 11 are original / previously presented.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 4 and 6-7, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the previous invocation of 35 USC 112(f) for claim 19 for ‘receiving unit’, this invocation of 35 USC 112(f) in claim 19 has been rescinded. However, note that amendments to claim 19 have prompted a different invocation of 35 USC 112(f) regarding ‘loading device’.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 112(f) invocation in claims 1, 8, and 20 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 35 USC 112(f) is improper because “The specification describes the receiving unit as integrated with hardware components including weight sensors and image recognition cameras, as interfacing with industrial weight sensors to determine the total weight of mixed iron scrap loaded onto a truck bed or platform, and as receiving data from vision-based systems that analyze images of scrap materials to identify the composition and percentage of different scrap types (Specification, page 22). Either the term connotes sufficient structure, in which case Section 112(b) interpretation applies and the structural content informs the eligibility analysis, or it does not, in which case the eligibility analysis engages the corresponding structure just described. The Section 101 analysis applied neither construction, characterizing the receiving unit as a generic computer component without engaging the structure the Section 112(f) interpretation identifies. A single construction should be applied across both analyses, and on either construction the receiving unit contributes structural content to the ordered combination under MPEP 2106.04(d)” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. The structure of the receiving unit is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Applicant specification details that the receiving unit is part of the device 100, software that accepts data through a user interface, and includes hardware components such as weight sensors, image recognition cameras, barcode scanners, to automate collection of real-time measurement data, and data acquisition gateway. (see Applicant specification Fig 1, and pg. 22-23). This represents a generic computer / general computer component, as referenced in the 35 USC 101 rejection in the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 10 and 15, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-20 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The Claims are Integrated Into a Practical Application and Provide a Technological Solution to a Technological Problem. The relevant field is the determination of a grade for iron scrap in which multiple types of iron are mixed. The specification identifies the conventional failure mode: iron scrap loaded onto trucks and delivered often contains a mixture of various types of iron, the conventional process of inspecting mixed iron scrap an determining its grade was performed manually with low accuracy and long inspection time, and accurate measurement data such as the weight to each scrap type and its proportion in the mixture was often unavailable, leading to inconsistencies and inaccuracies (Specification, pages 1-2). The specification describes obtaining that measurement data from instrumentation associated with the loading device on which the scrap is placed, including weight sensors and imaging systems, and processing the collected data to identify the types and proportions of the scrap materials present in the load (Specification, page 22 and the description accompanying FIGS 7 and 8)” (Remarks pg. 11-12). Examiner disagrees. The claims do not provide a technological solution to a technological problem that is sufficient to demonstrate a practical application of a judicial exception. First, Applicant’s specification pg. 2 states “there is a problem in that a process of inspecting mixed iron scrap and determining its grade is performed manually, which results in low accuracy and requires a long inspection time. Moreover, determining the grade of mixed iron scrap requires accurate measurement data such as the weight of different scrap types and their proportions in the mixture, which is often unavailable in traditional methods leading to inconsistencies and inaccuracies”. Determining a grade manually without accurate data that results in inconsistencies and inaccuracies is a commercial / entrepreneurial problem, not a technical problem. Second, to resolve this problem, claim 1 states “automatically determining, the grade for the mixed iron scrap to be a first grade corresponding to the first type of iron scrap or a second grade corresponding to the second type of iron scrap based on a result of comparing the threshold weighted average unit price with the weighted average unit price, wherein the grade is determined without manual inspection of the mixed iron scrap loaded on the loading device”. The claimed solution to the problem of determining the grade manually by ‘automatically determining’ the grade is a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions; mental processes: evaluation, judgment) and ‘applying’ an otherwise a manually performed judicial exception on a computer, which is not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). See MPEP 2106.05(a) citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) “It is important to note the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”. The remaining additional elements recited (e.g. obtaining steps, measuring steps, iron scrap) represent pre-solution / extra-solution data gathering recited at a high level of detail and limiting the judicial exception to a field of use, and are routine / well-understood / conventional, thus do not provide a technical solution that is a technical improvement. Hence, the claims do not recite a technical solution that is a practical application or significantly more to solve a technical problem. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The composition ratio is not supplied to the processor as a given value; claim 1 recites deriving it by processing the measurement data to identify the proportions of the two types of iron scrap in the load. The weighted average unit price is not computed from values open to free selection; claim 1 recites computing it from the derived composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices. These features impose meaningful limits on the alleged exception under MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(a), because the grade the claims produce is ties to the measured physical characteristics of a particular load of mixed iron scrap” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. First, the feature of determining, a composition ratio of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap by processing the measurement data to identify proportions of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap is part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One (organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions; mental processes: evaluation, judgment), and performing this step by a processor is not a practical application or significantly more, because this is ‘applying’ a judicial exception on a computer. The fact that the measurement data was previously obtained in a high-level extra-solution data gathering step is also not a practical application or significantly more, using computers and other machinery as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data). This does not place meaningful limits on the judicial exception. Second, the feature of determining, a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on the composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap is also part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong One (organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions; mental processes: evaluation, judgment), and performing this step by a processor is not a practical application or significantly more, because this is ‘applying’ a judicial exception on a computer. The fact that the composition ratio was previously computed in the judicial exception is also not a practical application or significantly more, because it is still ‘applying’ a judicial exception on a computer and using computers as a tool. This also does not place meaningful limits on the judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The December 2025 amendment to MPEP 2106.05(a) directs that claims not be evaluated at so high a level of generality that meaningful technological features are dismissed or treated as generic computer components, and the Examiner’s analysis proceeds at that level of generality” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. The technological features are all claimed at a high level of generality and do not provide a practical application or significantly more, which is identified in the 35 USC 101 analysis. First, the processor, device, and computer-readable recording medium are claimed at a high level of detail and represent generic / general purpose computers and general computer components. Second, the receiving unit, loading device and activities of obtaining are claimed at a high level of detail and represent using a general purpose computer / general computer component and other machinery performing in its ordinary capacity for other tasks (e.g. to receive, or transmit data), in extra-solution data gathering. Third, the iron scrap does not perform any functions and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a field of use. Fourth, the weight sensor and the activity of measuring is claimed at a high level of detail and represents a general computer component performing in its ordinary capacity for other tasks (e.g. to receive data), in extra-solution data gathering. Hence, each of these technological features represent performance by generic / general purpose computers, general computer components, or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, or a general linkage to a field of use. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 further constrain the recited determinations by the source of the data on which they operate. The recited weight data is data measured by a weight sensor, the recited composition data is data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap, and the mixed iron scrap is loaded on a loading device. A claim is not ineligible because a calculation appears within it, and the claim is evaluated as a whole rather than by dissecting the calculation from the process in which it operates. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). The Federal Circuit applied that reasoning to sensor-derived measurements in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017), where the claims employed a particular arrangement of inertial sensors and a particular use of the raw data those sensors produced, and a mathematical relationship converting the sensor signals into the claimed output did not render the claims ineligible” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. The claim is ineligible because the claim recites a judicial exception, and the additional elements fail to provide a practical application or significantly more than the recited judicial exception. First, the obtaining and measuring limitations as claimed (e.g. obtaining policy information…, obtaining measurement data…, weight data measured by a weight sensor) are each recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for the subsequent determining steps), and amount to the extra-solution activity of data gathering performed by computer components (e.g. receiving unit, sensors) and other machinery in its ordinary capacity (e.g. loading device) to perform other tasks (e.g. to receive, or transmit data). There is no particular arrangement of the receiving unit and as a computer component it is performing in its ordinary capacity to receive data. There is no particular arrangement of the sensors and the sensors are performing in their ordinary capacity. There is no particular arrangement of the loading device and as other machinery it is performing in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive and transmit data, location where scrap is loaded). Second, the limitation regarding composition data is data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap is part of the judicial exception (organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions; mental processes: evaluation, judgment); and at best using a device to perform the determining / processing is no than adding a computer after the fact to a judicial exception. Collectively as a whole, these limitations do not provide a practical application because they are no more than high level extra-solution data gathering and applying the judicial exception on computers. Third, the source data used in the composition ratio as measurement data representing physical characteristics of the mixed iron scrap loaded on a loading device that includes weight data and composition data does not make the claim any less abstract. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2018) "As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content or a particular source, that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." (citation and quotation marks omitted). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The characterization of the obtaining as high-level extra-solution data gathering under MPEP 2106.05(g) does not reach the claims as amended. Insignificant extra-solution activity is activity incidental to the primary process. Here the measurement data is not gathered and then set aside. Claim 1 recites processing that measurement data to identify the proportions of the first and second types of iron scrap, deriving the composition ratio from those proportions, and using the composition ratio as an operand of the weighted average unit price determination that drives the grade determination. Each recited step consumes the output of the step before it, which is the opposite of activity incidental to the process” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. The obtaining and measuring limitations as claimed (e.g. obtaining policy information…, obtaining measurement data…, weight data measured by a weight sensor) are each recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for the subsequent determining steps), and amount to the extra-solution activity of data gathering performed by computer components (e.g. receiving unit, sensors) and other machinery in its ordinary capacity (e.g. loading device) to perform other tasks (e.g. to receive, or transmit data), which is not a practical application or significantly more. These obtaining and measuring limitations are all pre-solution data gathering activities to obtain the data for the subsequent judicial exception steps of determining normal purchase unit price…, determining composition ratio…, determining threshold weighted average unit price…, determining weighted average unit price…, determining grade for mixed iron scrap…, and determining lowest normal purchase unit price. These obtaining and measuring limitations are extra-solution activities because they are pre-solution activities that are tangential additions to the claim prior to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g) noting this is similar to the data gathering in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016) of selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The recited determinations do not rest on speed. They operate on weight data measured by a weight sensor and on composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap, which is measurement data the specification identifies as unavailable in the conventional process (Specification, pages 1-2). The distinction is the data on which the recited determinations operate, not the rate at which they run” (Remarks pg. 14). Examiner disagrees. The source measurement data is used in the abstract step of determining a composition data ratio. First, the types of source data as measurement data representing physical characteristics of the mixed iron scrap loaded on a loading device that includes weight data and composition data does not make the claim any less abstract. See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2018) "As many cases make clear, even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content or a particular source, that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." (citation and quotation marks omitted). Second, the claimed feature of ‘weight data measured by a weight sensor’ is high level extra-solution data gathering, performed by a general computer component (weight sensor) in its ordinary capacity, that is not a practical application or significantly more; and also represents computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). Also, see the Applicant’s specification pg. 22 ¶3 describing the additional element of industrial weight sensors to determine the total weight of mixed iron scrap loaded onto a truck bed or platform at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Also, see the article “Weighing technology in the waste management and recycling industry” <https://web.archive.org/web/20230608122458/https://www.recovery-worldwide.com/en/artikel/weighing-technology-in-the-waste-management-and-recycling-industry-3932638.html> (2023) to recovery-worldwide demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of a loading device and weight sensors in a scrap system (see recovery-worldwide Quantity recording on conveyor belts section, Belt and apron conveyor weighing section, Weighing of bunkers and containers section and the Conclusion ¶ detailing weighing systems (e.g. built-in belt scales including belt scales retrofitted into conveyors, belt weighing, apron conveyors, conveyor discharge weigher) are a part of the basic equipment in the waste management and recycling without which effective operation of a sorting and processing plant would no longer be possible). Third, the claimed feature of ‘composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap’ is part of the judicial exception, reciting certain methods of organizing human activities (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (evaluation, judgement), and only further limits the judicial exception. Hence these argued additional elements do not provide a practical application or significantly more to the judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “At Final Office Action page 8, the Examiner observed that independent claims 1, 13, and 20 did not explicitly mention obtaining measurement data or the weight of the scrap, and that independent claim 8 obtained measurement data without stating that the measurement data includes the weight of the scrap. Claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 now recite obtaining measurement data that includes weight data measured by a weight sensor and composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap” (Remarks pg. 14). Examiner disagrees. These amended steps do not provide a practical application or significantly more to the recited judicial exception. First, obtaining measurement data that includes weight data measured by a weight sensor is an additional element that is not a practical application or significantly more. These obtaining and measur[ing] steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The use of the receiving unit, loading device, and weight sensor in these steps merely represents using a generic computer / general computer component and other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform ‘other tasks’ (e.g. to receive data). Furthermore, these obtaining and measuring steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). See the Applicant’s specification Fig 2, pg. 4 ¶2, pg. 9 ¶1 and ¶3, pg. 12 ¶3 describing the additional element of obtaining policy information on criteria for determining a grade for mixed iron scrap, and receiving measurement data that provides information on the mixed scrap at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification pg. 22 ¶3, pg. 23 ¶2 describing the additional element of weight sensors to determine total weight of mixed iron scrap loaded onto a truck bed or platform, and a receiving unit collecting real-time measurement data from weight sensors and vision-based systems that analyze images of scrap, and the receiving unit receiving measurement data transmitted by the loading device at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the article “Weighing technology in the waste management and recycling industry” <https://web.archive.org/web/20230608122458/https://www.recovery-worldwide.com/en/artikel/weighing-technology-in-the-waste-management-and-recycling-industry-3932638.html> (2023) to recovery-worldwide demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of a loading device and weight sensors in a scrap system (see recovery-worldwide Quantity recording on conveyor belts section, Belt and apron conveyor weighing section, Weighing of bunkers and containers section and the Conclusion ¶ detailing weighing systems (e.g. built-in belt scales including belt scales retrofitted into conveyors, belt weighing, apron conveyors, conveyor discharge weigher) are a part of the basic equipment in the waste management and recycling without which effective operation of a sorting and processing plant would no longer be possible). See the background of the 2003 Kumar patent publication (US 6,545,240 B2) demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of a loading device obtaining measurement data in a scrap system (Kumar col 2 ln 3-12 details it is known to sort objects including metal scraps on a moving conveyor by periodically acquiring color images of the objects and discriminating between the objects on the basis of their color). Second, composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap is a certain method of organizing human activities (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) and a mental process (evaluation, judgment) in Step 2A Prong 1 that only further limits the judicial exception. In combination the obtaining and measuring limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea; and their combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The specification identifies the problem in the field and describes the measurement-based approach that addresses it, and claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 recite the features that carry out that approach. That alignment between the specification and the claims is the alignment identified in Ex parte Desjardins, which became precedential on November 4, 2025 and binds all Technology Centers. Applicant maintains the positions previously advanced under Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), as applied to the claims as amended” (Remarks pg. 14-15). Examiner disagrees. Per the Desjardins memo, whether or not the claims improve technology or a technical field based on the specification and claims was considered, and Enfish and McRO were also considered in the evaluation of the claims. First, the claims do not improve a technology or technical field through additional elements, or additional elements in combination with the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) “It is important to note the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements”. In the Applicant’s claims, the additional elements are no more than implementing the judicial exception on general computer components, and high-level extra-solution data gathering and field of use limitations, which are not a practical application or significantly more. The claims are more directed to solving a business / economic problem (e.g. how to determine the grade of mixed iron scrap) than solving a technology / technical problem. Second, note that the court cited that the claims in Enfish were contained to the plain focus on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity (see Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.). This is in contrast to the Applicant’s claims in which a computer is used as a tool to determine normal purchase unit price / composition ratio / threshold weighted average unit price / weighted average unit price / grade / lowest normal purchase price, i.e. ‘other tasks’ for which a computer is used, per Enfish. Since the claims are more directed towards improving a business process in association with a computer (i.e. a judicial exception ‘applied’ on a computer), rather than improving computers or technology, the claims do not present significantly more than an abstract idea and the claims are not eligible. Hence, the claims do not resemble the claims in Enfish. Third, note that the court cited that the claims in McRo provided a new computer capability due to specific rules in a computer technology (see McRo.). This is in contrast to the Applicant’s claims which are not rooted in computer technology, and instead are merely using computers as tool. If the technology elements are removed from the judicial exception (i.e. processor), the Applicant’s claims still represent the judicial exception activities. Even though the claims recite use of a computer, note that all of the claim limitations identified in Step 2A Prong 1 (e.g. determining a normal purchase price…, determine a composition ratio…, determining a threshold weighted average unit price…, determining a weighted average unit price…, determining the grade…, determining a lowest normal purchase unit price…) could otherwise be performed manually by a person either using the mind and/or pen and paper (i.e. mental process), or still represent the activity of managing personal behavior (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity). This is no more than using the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or presenting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. As such, the claims are not rooted in technology and do not present significantly more than a judicial exception / abstract idea, thus the claims do not resemble those in McRo. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The Claims Do Not Recite a Mental Process… Claim 1 now recites a determination that does not operate on values already in hand, namely ‘determining, by the processor, a composition ratio between the first type of irons crap and the second type of iron scrap by processing the measurement data to identify proportions of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap,’ where the measurement data includes ‘composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap’. Identifying the proportions of type types of iron scrap in a load by processing image data of that load is not an evaluation or a judgment that a person performs mentally or with pen and paper, and the weighted average unit price and the grade are each determined form the composition ratio so obtained. The recited sequence therefore cannot practically be performed in the human mind” (Remarks pg. 15). Examiner disagrees. These limitations are mental processes, representing the subgroupings of evaluation and judgment. First, other than reciting the processor, “determining, by the processor, a composition ratio between the first type of irons crap and the second type of iron scrap by processing the measurement data to identify proportions of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap” encompasses a person manually evaluating a composition ratio and normal purchase unit prices for each type and judging a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap, which could be performed by a person in the mind or in the mind using pen and paper. Second, “composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap” encompasses a person manually evaluating an image and judging composition data. Third, other than reciting the processor, “determining, by the processor, a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on the composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap” encompasses a person manually evaluating composition ratio and normal purchase unit prices for each type and judging a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap. These are high level claims represent the subgroupings of mental processes, and other than reciting implementation by generic / general purpose computers, there is nothing in these limitations that preclude a person from performing these limitations in the mind or in the mind with pen and paper. Hence, they are mental processes. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The Claims Do Not Recite a Method of Organizing Human Activity. The Examiner placed the determining steps in the managing personal behavior subgrouping and in the following rules or instructions subgrouping, on the reasoning that each step represents a person such as an evaluator or inspector performing a behavior, or performing instructions based on rules, and that managing personal behavior extends to intrapersonal behavior (Final Office Action, paragraphs 11 and 15, and pages 17-18). Under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the managing personal behavior subgrouping addresses fundamental social activities such as managing relationships or interactions between people. Claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 recite no person, no relationship or interaction between people, and no conduct of a person. Reading the subgrouping to reach any rule-governed computation that a person could instead carry out by hand leaves the subgrouping without a boundary and gives the qualifier in its title no work to do. The observation that the number of people involved is not dispositive does not supply the missing element, because the question posed by the authority the Examiner cites is whether the recited activity itself falls within one of the subgroupings, and determining a grade for a physical article from sensor-derived and image-derived measurement data does not” (Remarks pg. 16). Examiner disagrees. First, activities are recited that represent the subgroupings of certain methods of organizing human activities and following rules or instructions. Even when the number of people recited in the claims is zero (i.e. the invention is implemented by computer components and/or machines), the claim still recites certain methods of organizing human activities since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(II). Second, note that managing personal behavior does not require relationships or interactions between people because personal behaviors can be intrapersonal behaviors (i.e. managing oneself), such as the activities of determining composition data by processing image data, determining a normal purchase unit price, determining a composition ratio, determining a threshold weighted average unit price, determining an average unit price, determining a grade, comparing a threshold weighted average unit price with weighted average unit price, and determining a lowest normal purchase unit price. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The Claims Do Not Recite a Mathematical Concept. The Examiner identified the determination of the threshold weighted average unit price and the determination of the weighted average unit price as reciting mathematical formulas or calculations (Final Office Action, page 19). Claims 1, 8, 13, and 20 recite no formula or equation. They recite each determination in functional terms, identifying the inputs to the determination and the use to which its output is put, and each determination operates within the recited sequence that begins with the measurement data obtained from the loading device and ends with the grade for the mixed iron scrap. Under the August 2025 USPTO Memorandum on Subject Matter Eligibility, which applies to Technology Center 3600 and is reinforced for all Technology Centers by the December 2025 MPEP amendments, a claim that describes a mathematical operation in functional terms without stating the formula involves a mathematical concept but does not recite one. See also USPTO Example 39. Even accepting for the sake of analysis that the recited determinations involve mathematical concepts, the characterization does not carry the rejection (Remarks pg. 16). Examiner disagrees. It is identified in Step 2A Prong one that in addition to reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, there are individual limitations that also recite mathematical concepts. The limitations of determining a threshold weighted average unit price using the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; and determining, a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on a percentage of the first type of iron scrap, a percentage of the second type of iron scrap, and the normal purchase unit price for each type of iron scrap recite mathematical formulas / calculations for a threshold weighted average unit price and weighted average unit price. Note that each of these determining steps are determined to recite mathematical concepts because a weighted average is a calculation and formula (i.e. weighted average = Sum (xi multiplied by wi) / Sum (wi), where xi represent individual values and wi represent weight of each value), and there is a mathematical relationship between each determined result and variables (e.g. a threshold weighted average unit price has a mathematical relationship with (1) the acceptable mixed loading ratio and (2) normal purchase unit prices; a weighted average unit price has a mathematical relationship with (1) the composition ratio and (2) normal purchase unit prices). Since the claims recite mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations and formulas, the claims also recite a mathematical concept. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “At Final Office Action paragraph 29, the Examiner stated that the Examiner knows of no art teaching or suggesting the features recited together in independent claim 1 as then pending, and similarly recited together in independent claims 8, 13, and 20, and the prior rejection under 35 USC 103 was rescinded (Final Office Action, paragraph 17). That statement is evidence of record bearing on the factual question at Step 2B” (Remarks pg. 17). Examiner disagrees. First, note that whether or not the claims are novel / obvious is evaluated with respect to satisfying the conditions of 35 USC 102 / 35 USC 103, not necessarily determining whether the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. Second, merely adding novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstract idea into something concrete, per Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Additional elements that are not routine / well-understood / conventional could provide significantly more in Step 2B. However, in the present claims, the additional elements are each routine / well-understood / conventional elements, and when viewed in combination with the claims these additional elements add nothing that is not already present when considered separately. Hence, the claims do not provide significantly more to a judicial exception in Step 2B. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The recited combination in which measurement data obtained from a weight sensor and from image data of the mixed iron scrap on a loading device is processed to derive a composition ratio, and that composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices yield a weighted average unit price compared against a threshold weighted average unit price derived from the acceptable mixed loading ratio, is not a conventional arrangement of computer components” (Remarks pg. 17). Examiner disagrees. First, determining composition data from an image, determining a composition ratio, determining a weighted average unit price, comparing weighted average unit price against a threshold weighted average unit price are part of the judicial exception and the additional elements are evaluated for whether or not they are routine / well-understood / conventional, and whether their ordered combination is unconventional. The additional elements associated with obtaining measurement data that includes weight from a weight sensor and composition data of mixed iron scrap on a loading device are routine / well-understood / conventional. First, the obtaining steps are claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification pg. 22 ¶3, pg. 23 ¶2 describing the additional element of a receiving unit collecting real-time measurement data from weight sensors and vision-based systems that analyze images of scrap, and the receiving unit receiving measurement data transmitted by the loading device at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the article “Weighing technology in the waste management and recycling industry” <https://web.archive.org/web/20230608122458/https://www.recovery-worldwide.com/en/artikel/weighing-technology-in-the-waste-management-and-recycling-industry-3932638.html> (2023) to recovery-worldwide demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of a loading device and weight sensors in a scrap system (see recovery-worldwide Quantity recording on conveyor belts section, Belt and apron conveyor weighing section, Weighing of bunkers and containers section and the Conclusion ¶ detailing weighing systems (e.g. built-in belt scales including belt scales retrofitted into conveyors, belt weighing, apron conveyors, conveyor discharge weigher) are a part of the basic equipment in the waste management and recycling without which effective operation of a sorting and processing plant would no longer be possible). See the background of the 2003 Kumar patent publication (US 6,545,240 B2) demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of a loading device obtaining measurement data in a scrap system (Kumar col 2 ln 3-12 details it is known to sort objects including metal scraps on a moving conveyor by periodically acquiring color images of the objects and discriminating between the objects on the basis of their color). Viewing these obtaining limitations in ordered combination with the other limitations does nothing more than its conventional pre-solution data gathering activity viewed individually. Second, the subject matter of mixed iron scrap is routine / well-understood / conventional. See the Applicant’s specification background pg. 1 ¶2 through pg. 2 ¶1 describing the element of mixed iron scrap, which is inspected to determine its grade at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Viewing the subject matter of the judicial exception as mixed iron scrap in combination with the limitations still does no more than generally linking the invention to a field of use (i.e. iron scrap). Third, the measuring steps are claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). See the Applicant’s specification pg. 22 ¶3 describing the additional element of industrial weight sensors to determine the total weight of mixed iron scrap loaded onto a truck bed or platform at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Viewing the measuring limitation in ordered combination with the other limitations does nothing more than its conventional pre-solution data gathering activity viewed individually. Individually each of these additional elements are routine / well-understood / conventional, and in combination with the other limitations they provide nothing more than their respective routine / well-understood / conventional nature. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The Examiner’s analysis addressed claims that did not recite the acquisition of weight data measured by a weight sensor, the acquisition of composition data determined by processing image data, or the derivation of a composition ratio from that measurement data. As applied to the claims now pending, the rejection rests on no analysis of those features” (Remarks pg. 17-18). Examiner disagrees. First, composition data determined by processing image data, and determining a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on the composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices is identified as part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong one, as certain methods of organizing human activities (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) and mental processes (evaluation, judgment). Second, obtaining measurement data of the mixed iron scrap loaded on a loading device, wherein the measurement data represents physical characteristics of the mixed iron scrap obtained from the loading device and wherein the measurement data includes (i) weight data measured by a weight sensor and (ii) composition data are additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B; representing high level extra-solution data gathering with computer components (e.g. weight sensor, receiving unit) and other machinery in its ordinary capacity (e.g. loading device) as a tool to perform ‘other tasks’ (to receive data) which is not a practical application or significantly more; and these obtaining and measuring activities represent routine, well-understood, conventional activities based on computer functions identified by court decisions in the MPEP 2106.05(d), the level of detail provided in the Applicant’s Specification, and discussions in additional provided publications (e.g. recover-worldwide “Weighing technology in the waste management and recycling industry” article, Kumar patent), as provided in the rejection below. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues dependent claims 2, 9, and 14 are eligible because “Claims 2, 9, and 14 depend from claims 1, 8, and 13 respectively and further recite that "the composition data is determined by analyzing the image data to identify a composition of the mixed iron scrap and percentages of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap." That recitation specifies the analysis performed on the image data to obtain the composition data, which claims 1, 8, and 13 recite as determined by processing image data without specifying that analysis. Support appears at Specification page 22, which describes receiving data from vision-based systems that analyze images of scrap materials to identify the composition and percentage of different scrap types. For at least the reasons given regarding claims 1, 8, and 13, and in view of these additional features, claims 2, 9, and 14 are also eligible” (Remarks pg. 18). Examiner disagrees. The limitation wherein the composition data is determined by analyzing the image data to identify a composition and percentages of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) and mental processes (evaluation, judgment) in Step 2A Prong One as described in the independent claims. These limitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive.
Priority
The application 18/991,147 filed on 20 December 2024 claims priority from Republic of Korea application KR10-2024-0031940 filed on 6 March 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 20 December 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
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: receiving unit in claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, and 20; loading device in claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-20.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-20:
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-2, 4-7, and 20 recite a method; claims 8-9, 11-12 recite a device; and claims 13-14, 16-19 recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A prong one.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-20 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites wherein the policy information includes an acceptable mixed loading ratio indicating a maximum acceptable proportion of the second type of iron scrap relative to the first type of iron scrap; composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap; determining, a normal purchase unit price for each of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap based on the policy information; determining, a composition ratio of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap by processing the measurement data to identify proportions of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap; determining a threshold weighted average unit price using the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; determining, a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on the composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; determining, the grade for the mixed iron scrap to be a first grade corresponding to the first type of iron scrap or a second grade corresponding to the second type of iron scrap based on a result of comparing the threshold weighted average unit price with the weighted average unit price, wherein the grade is determined without manual inspection of the mixed iron scrap loaded on the loading device; and determining a lowest normal purchase unit price, which represents a lowest value of the normal purchase unit price for the first type of iron scrap, based on the policy information, wherein the lowest normal purchase unit price represents the threshold weighted average unit price. Independent claim 8 recites wherein the policy information includes an acceptable mixed loading ratio indicating a maximum acceptable proportion of the second type of iron scrap relative to the first type of iron scrap; composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap; and determine a normal purchase unit price for each of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap based on the policy information; determine a composition ratio of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap by processing the measurement data to identify proportions of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap; determine a threshold weighted average unit price using the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; determine a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on the composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices; and determine the grade for the mixed iron scrap to be a first grade corresponding to the first type of iron scrap or a second grade corresponding to the second type of iron scrap based on a result of comparing the threshold weighted average unit price with the weighted average unit price, wherein the grade is determined without manual inspection of the mixed iron scrap loaded on the loading device; and determine a lowest normal purchase unit price, which represents a lowest value of the normal purchase unit price for the first type of iron scrap, based on the policy information, wherein the lowest normal purchase unit price represents the threshold weighted average unit price. Independent claim 13 recite wherein the policy information includes an acceptable mixed loading ratio indicating a maximum acceptable proportion of the second type of iron scrap relative to the first type of iron scrap; composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap; and determine a normal purchase unit price for each of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap based on the policy information; determine a composition ratio of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap by processing the measurement data to identify proportions of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap; determine a threshold weighted average unit price using the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; determine a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on the composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; and determine the grade for the mixed iron scrap to be a first grade corresponding to the first type of iron scrap or a second grade corresponding to the second type of iron scrap based on a result of comparing the threshold weighted average unit price with the weighted average unit price, wherein the grade is determined without manual inspection of the mixed iron scrap loaded on the loading device; and determine a lowest normal purchase unit price, which represents a lowest value of the normal purchase unit price for the first type of iron scrap, based on the policy information, wherein the lowest normal purchase unit price represents the threshold weighted average unit price. Independent claim 20 recites wherein the policy information includes an acceptable mixed loading ratio indicating a maximum acceptable proportion of the second type of iron scrap relative to the first type of iron scrap; composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap; determining, a normal purchase unit price for each of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap based on the policy information; determining, a composition ratio of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap by processing the measurement data to identify proportions of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap; determining a threshold weighted average unit price using the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; determining, a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on the composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; and determining, the grade for the mixed iron scrap to be a first grade corresponding to the first type of iron scrap or a second grade corresponding to the second type of iron scrap based on a result of comparing the threshold weighted average unit price with the weighted average unit price, wherein the grade is determined without manual inspection of the mixed iron scrap loaded on the loading device.
The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities and/or mental processes, and there are individual limitations that also recite mathematical concepts.
First, the limitations of wherein the policy information includes an acceptable mixed loading ratio indicating a maximum acceptable proportion of the second type of iron scrap relative to the first type of iron scrap; composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap; determining, a normal purchase unit price for each of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap based on the policy information; determining, a composition ratio of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap by processing the measurement data to identify proportions of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap; determining a threshold weighted average unit price using the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; determining, a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on the composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; determining, the grade for the mixed iron scrap to be a first grade corresponding to the first type of iron scrap or a second grade corresponding to the second type of iron scrap based on a result of comparing the threshold weighted average unit price with the weighted average unit price, wherein the grade is determined without manual inspection of the mixed iron scrap loaded on the loading device; and determining a lowest normal purchase unit price, which represents a lowest value of the normal purchase unit price for the first type of iron scrap, based on the policy information, wherein the lowest normal purchase unit price represents the threshold weighted average unit price are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of managing personal behavior (or relationships or interactions between people), and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior (or relationships or interactions between people) includes determining composition data by processing image data…, determining a normal purchase unit price…, determining a composition ratio…, determining a threshold weighted average unit price…, determining a weighted average unit price…, determining the grade for the mixed iron scrap…, comparing the threshold weighted average unit price with weighted average unit price, wherein the grade is determined without manual inspection of the mixed iron scrap…, determining a lowest normal purchase price… (noting that each one of these limitations represents a person (e.g. evaluator / inspector) performing a behavior, e.g. an intrapersonal behavior); and following rules or instructions includes determining composition data by processing image data…, determining a normal purchase unit price… wherein the policy information includes an acceptable mixed loading ratio, determining a composition ratio…, determining a threshold weighted average unit price…, determining a weighted average unit price…, determining the grade for the mixed iron scrap…, comparing the threshold weighted average unit price with weighted average unit price, wherein the grade is determined without manual inspection of the mixed iron scrap…, determining a lowest normal purchase price…(noting that each one of these limitations represents a person (e.g. evaluator / inspector) performing instructions or a behavior based on rules). The presence of generic computer components such as a processor, device, and computer-readable recording medium and performing steps ‘automatically’ does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitations of composition data determined by processing image data of the mixed iron scrap; determining, a normal purchase unit price for each of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap based on the policy information; determining, a composition ratio of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap by processing the measurement data to identify proportions of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap; determining a threshold weighted average unit price using the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; determining, a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on the composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; determining, the grade for the mixed iron scrap to be a first grade corresponding to the first type of iron scrap or a second grade corresponding to the second type of iron scrap based on a result of comparing the threshold weighted average unit price with the weighted average unit price, wherein the grade is determined without manual inspection of the mixed iron scrap loaded on the loading device; and determining a lowest normal purchase unit price, which represents a lowest value of the normal purchase unit price for the first type of iron scrap, based on the policy information, wherein the lowest normal purchase unit price represents the threshold weighted average unit price as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (i.e. mental processes) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor, device, and computer-readable recording medium and performing steps ‘automatically’, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind, or in the mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, but for the generic / general purpose computer language, determining in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating an image and judging composition data, evaluating policy information and judging normal purchase unit price / lowest normal purchase price, evaluating measurement data to judge a composition ratio of first type and second type, evaluating acceptable mixed loading ratio and normal purchase unit prices and judging a threshold weighted average unit price; evaluating composition ratio and normal purchase unit prices for each type and judging a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap, evaluating threshold weighted average and judging the grade for mixed iron scrap, judging grade without manual inspection of mixed iron scrap (i.e. judging grade from evaluation of threshold weighted average unit price with average unit price); identifying in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating received measurement data to judge proportions of first type / second type of iron scrap; and comparing in the context of this claim encompasses evaluating a threshold weighted average unit price with the weighted average unit price. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. an evaluation, judgment) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Third, the individual limitations of determining a threshold weighted average unit price using the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; and determining, a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on a percentage of the first type of iron scrap, a percentage of the second type of iron scrap, and the normal purchase unit price for each type of iron scrap recite mathematical formulas / calculations for a threshold weighted average unit price and weighted average unit price. Note that each of these determining steps are determined to recite mathematical concepts because a weighted average is a calculation and formula (i.e. weighted average = Sum (xi multiplied by wi) / Sum (wi), where xi represent individual values and wi represent weight of each value), and there is a mathematical relationship between each determined result and variables (e.g. a threshold weighted average unit price has a mathematical relationship with (1) the acceptable mixed loading ratio and (2) normal purchase unit prices; a weighted average unit price has a mathematical relationship with (1) the composition ratio and (2) normal purchase unit prices). Thus, the claim also recites a mathematical concept. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships, mathematical calculations and formula) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mathematical Concepts’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-20 as a whole merely describes how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities / mental processes in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. a processor, device, and computer-readable recording medium; and performing steps ‘automatically’) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an otherwise manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of obtaining and its steps of obtaining, by a receiving unit, policy information on criteria for determining a grade for mixed iron scrap in which a first type of iron scrap and a second type of iron scrap are mixed; obtaining, by the receiving unit, measurement data of the mixed iron scrap loaded on a loading device, wherein the measurement data represents physical characteristics of the mixed iron scrap obtained from the loading device, and wherein the measurement data includes: (i) weight data… and (ii) composition data; a receiving unit configured to obtain policy information and measurement data, the policy information relating to criteria for determining a grade for mixed iron scrap in which a first type of iron scrap and a second type of iron scrap are mixed, the measurement data relating to a characteristic of the mixed iron scrap; obtain measurement data of the mixed iron scrap loaded on a loading device, wherein the measurement data relates to physical characteristics of the mixed iron scrap loaded on a loading device and includes: (i) weight data… and (ii) composition data are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the receiving unit (generic computer / general computer component; see Applicant Specification pg. 22 implementation examples as an interface, software-based module, integrated with hardware component such as weight sensors / image recognition cameras / barcode / RFID scanners, gateway) and loading device (other machinery performing in its ordinary capacity; see Applicant Specification pg. 23 implementation example of a platform, truck bed, conveyor belt, automated loading platform, integrated with hardware such as weight sensors / cameras / scanners) are only being used as a tool in the obtaining, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f) in particular “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g. a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more”. Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding obtaining more than using computers and other machinery as a tool to perform otherwise manual processes (i.e. receiving / communicating information). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the subject element of iron scrap in the limitations does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. iron scrap), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). Hence, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of measuring and its step of weight data measured by a weight sensor is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for obtaining steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the weight sensor (general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the measuring, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding measuring more than using a computer component as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to collect information). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (a processor, device, and computer-readable recording medium) applied to a field of use (iron scrap); and adding high-level extra-solution activities (data gathering) and elements (receiving unit, loading device, weight sensor). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor, device, and computer-readable recording medium to automatically perform determining composition data by processing image data…, determining a normal purchase unit price…, determining a composition ratio…, determining a threshold weighted average unit price…, determining a weighted average unit price…, determining the grade for the mixed iron scrap…, comparing the threshold weighted average unit price with weighted average unit price, wherein the grade is determined without manual inspection of the mixed iron scrap…, determining a lowest normal purchase price amounts to no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the obtaining are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for subsequent determining steps), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the receiving unit and loading device in these steps merely represents using a generic computer / general computer component and other machinery in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform ‘other tasks’ (e.g. to receive data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these obtaining steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification Fig 2, pg. 4 ¶2, pg. 9 ¶1 and ¶3, pg. 12 ¶3 describing the additional element of obtaining policy information on criteria for determining a grade for mixed iron scrap, and receiving measurement data that provides information on the mixed scrap at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the Applicant’s specification pg. 22 ¶3, pg. 23 ¶2 describing the additional element of a receiving unit collecting real-time measurement data from weight sensors and vision-based systems that analyze images of scrap, and the receiving unit receiving measurement data transmitted by the loading device at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). See the article “Weighing technology in the waste management and recycling industry” <https://web.archive.org/web/20230608122458/https://www.recovery-worldwide.com/en/artikel/weighing-technology-in-the-waste-management-and-recycling-industry-3932638.html> (2023) to recovery-worldwide demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of a loading device and weight sensors in a scrap system (see recovery-worldwide Quantity recording on conveyor belts section, Belt and apron conveyor weighing section, Weighing of bunkers and containers section and the Conclusion ¶ detailing weighing systems (e.g. built-in belt scales including belt scales retrofitted into conveyors, belt weighing, apron conveyors, conveyor discharge weigher) are a part of the basic equipment in the waste management and recycling without which effective operation of a sorting and processing plant would no longer be possible). See the background of the 2003 Kumar patent publication (US 6,545,240 B2) demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of a loading device obtaining measurement data in a scrap system (Kumar col 2 ln 3-12 details it is known to sort objects including metal scraps on a moving conveyor by periodically acquiring color images of the objects and discriminating between the objects on the basis of their color). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the subject element regarding iron scrap does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. iron scrap). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See the Applicant’s specification background pg. 1 ¶2 through pg. 2 ¶1 describing the element of mixed iron scrap, which is inspected to determine its grade at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements regarding the measuring are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering data for obtaining steps and subsequent determining), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. the weight sensor) in these steps merely represents using a computer component in its ordinary capacity to perform ‘other tasks’ (e.g. to receive data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these measuring steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. data gathering) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document (Content Extraction). See the Applicant’s specification pg. 22 ¶3 describing the additional element of industrial weight sensors to determine the total weight of mixed iron scrap loaded onto a truck bed or platform at such a high level that indicates this additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead, the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities / mental processes ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, generally ‘applied’ to a field of use, and using general computer components and other machinery in its ordinary capacity in extra-solution capacities such as data gathering. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to determine the grade of mixed iron scrap), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims do not improve the functioning of iron scrap itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. Note the loading device is not a particular machine because it is claimed with high-generality, it represents other machinery in its ordinary capacity (i.e. obtaining loaded scrap characteristics), and its involvement is limited to the extra-solution activity of data gathering that only contributes nominally to the claimed method. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(III) citing Bilski “Use of a machine that that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 8, 13, 20 and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 14, and 16-19. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting an implementation as performed by using generic computers and/or general computer components (e.g. receiving unit, weight sensor, processor) and other machinery operating in its ordinary capacity (e.g. loading device); and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various components to achieve a technical improvement. Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 14: The limitation wherein the composition data is determined by analyzing the image data to identify a composition and percentages of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap is further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental processes (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4 and 16: The limitation wherein the first grade of the first type of iron scrap is higher than the second grade of the second type of iron scrap merely narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 5, 11, and 17: The limitations wherein the determining of the grade for the mixed iron scrap to be either the first grade or the second grade includes: determining, by the processor, the grade for the mixed iron scrap to be the first grade when the weighted average unit price is greater than the lowest normal purchase unit price; and determining, by the processor, the grade for the mixed iron scrap to be the second grade when the weighted average unit price is less than the lowest normal purchase unit price are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the processor is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 6, 12, and 18: The limitations wherein the determining of the lowest normal purchase unit price includes: determining, by the processor, a purchase unit price difference value representing a difference between a first normal purchase unit price for the first type of iron scrap and a second normal purchase unit price for the second type of iron scrap; and determining, by the processor, the lowest normal purchase unit price by applying the acceptable mixed loading ratio to the purchase unit price difference value are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim; and also mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations). The recitation of the processor is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 7 and 19: The limitations wherein the determining of the lowest normal purchase unit price by applying the acceptable mixed loading ratio to the purchase unit price difference value includes: determining, by the processor, an acceptable threshold value corresponding to the product of the purchase unit price difference value and an unacceptable ratio determined according to the acceptable mixed loading ratio; and determining, by the processor, the lowest normal purchase unit price to correspond to a value obtained by subtracting the acceptable threshold value from the first normal purchase unit price are further directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) / mental process (evaluation, judgment) as described in the independent claim; and also mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations). The recitation of the processor is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, these recitations do not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 8, 13, 20 and the dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-12, 14, and 16-19 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are ineligible.
Novelty / Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-14, and 16-20 are not rejected under 35 USC 102 or 35 USC 103. The Examiner knows of no art which teaches or suggests: “wherein the policy information includes an acceptable mixed loading ratio indicating a maximum acceptable proportion of the second type of iron scrap relative to the first type of iron scrap; determining, by a processor, a normal purchase unit price for each of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap based on the policy information; determining, by the processor, a composition ratio of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap by processing the measurement data to identify proportions of the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap in the mixed iron scrap; determining, by the processor, a threshold weighted average unit price using the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; determining, by the processor, a weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap based on the composition ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for the first type of iron scrap and the second type of iron scrap; automatically determining, by the processor, the grade for the mixed iron scrap to be a first grade corresponding to the first type of iron scrap or a second grade corresponding to the second type of iron scrap based on a result of comparing the threshold weighted average unit price with the weighted average unit price, wherein the grade is determined without manual inspection of the mixed iron scrap loaded on the loading device” as recited together in independent claim 1, and similarly recited together in independent claims 8, 13, 20.
The prior art of Makoto et al. (JP 2023-070671A) details ‘teacher data’ for the model to determine the grade ratio for scrap groups; determining an overall grade ratio for the entire iron scrap based on the percentages of each scrap grade (i.e. composition ratio) including HS, H1, H2, H3 scrap grades; calculating the weight of each grade within the mixed grade iron scrap; presenting results that include each of the grades (e.g. HS, H1, H2, H3), the ratio present of each grade (e.g. 60%, 20%, 10%, 10%), the unit price of each grade in yen (e.g. 55,000; 54,000; 53,000; 52,500), and the price of each grade in yen (e.g. 422,400; 138,240; 67,840; 67,200); calculating a total value by multiplying the predetermined unit price of each grade in the scrap by the respective weights to obtain a weighted price (Makoto Fig 6, ¶[0003-4], ¶[0021], ¶[0026], ¶[0032-34], ¶[0037-38], ¶[0043], ¶[0046]).
The prior art of Sattler (US 4,883,584) details obtaining an unsorted price of scrap with 30% metal including 9% copper and brass, 12% aluminum, 3% zinc, 2% lead and 4% special steel in an unsorted state at 80 DM per 1000 kg; a sorted price of ferromagnetic metals is about 2000 DM per 1000 kg; and an unsorted price for mixed scrap including special steel with thresholds of 60% copper and brass is less by 450 to 550 DM per 1000 kg which the undesirable scrap blend (i.e. second type of iron scrap) can be increased by 85 DM if the special steel (i.e. first type of iron scrap) is separated from the residual scrap blend (Sattler col 1 ln 38 through col 2 ln 17).
The prior art of “Ferrous Raw Materials Manual Part 3 Ferrous Raw Materials Specifications” (2018) to Gerdau Midlothian (hereinafter Gerdau) details grade-specific requirements that mixed heavy metal scrap may not contain more than 2.5% by weight of cast iron, may contain up to 20% rebar, not more than 10% automotive parts; and heavy melt must be free of all but negligible amounts of automotive scrap, i.e. policy information that includes an acceptable mixed loading ratio indicating a maximum acceptable proportion of the second type of iron scrap relative to a first type of iron scrap (Gerdau pg. 11, pg. 31).
The prior art of Hideyuki (JP 2020-95709A) details using various thresholds to identify HS, H1, H2, H3, H4 scrap grades (e.g. thickness thresholds: less than 1, 1 or more to less than 3, 3 or more to less than 6, and 6 or more; width or height x length thresholds: 500 or less x 700 or less, 500 or less x 1200 or less; weight thresholds: 600 or less, 1000 or less) processing the table logic through execution of a learned model program; calculating weight of each grade, determining the ratio of each grade within the mixed iron scrap, using maximum weight thresholds for HS and H1 grades; heavy scrap is classified into grades HS to H4 according to the size (thickness, height, or length) and weight (Hideyuki Fig 2, ¶[0012], ¶[0015], ¶[0023], ¶[0055], ¶[0068], claim 7).
The prior art of Rembert (US 2020/0160413 A1) details assigning a quality grade to a product (e.g. food) based on received price data, which allows for a mathematical relationship between the product quality and its price (Rembert ¶[0082]).
The prior art of “Weighing technology in the waste management and recycling industry” <https://web.archive.org/web/20230608122458/https://www.recovery-worldwide.com/en/artikel/weighing-technology-in-the-waste-management-and-recycling-industry-3932638.html> (2023) to recovery-worldwide details metal scrap loading devices that include weight sensors to measure the weight of iron scrap on belt scales and conveyors (recovery-worldwide Quantity recording on conveyor belts section, Belt and apron conveyor weighing section, Weighing of bunkers and containers section and the Conclusion ¶)
The prior art of Kumar (US 6,545,240 B2) details a metal scrap sorting system, sorting objects include metal scraps on a moving conveyor by periodically obtaining color images of the objects and discriminating between the objects on the basis of their color; and using laser induced breakdown spectroscopy to categorize each object / particle based on their chemical composition with image detection (Kumar Fig 2, col 2 ln 3-12 and ln 37-42, col 5 ln 6-10).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeff Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
