DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments received on 23 January 2025. 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, 8-9, and 13-19 have been amended.
Claim 3 is cancelled.
Claims 4-7, 10-12 are original / previously presented.
Claim 20 is new.
Claims 1-2, and 4-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claim 3, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claim, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-19, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 1 because “The Examiner characterized the claims as directed to "certain methods of organizing human activity" (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) and "mental processes" (evaluation, judgment). The Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are not directed to either category of abstract idea” (Remarks pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. Limitations are claimed at such a high level of detail that they align with the subcategories of certain methods of organizing human activities and mental processes. First, 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, 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 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 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; 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; 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, because each of these limitations represent the at least a subgrouping of managing personal behavior (or relationships or interactions between people), or following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior (or relationships or interactions between people) includes determining a normal purchase unit price…, 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, determining a lowest normal purchase price… (noting that each one of these limitations represents a person (e.g. evaluator) performing a behavior); and following rules or instructions includes determining a normal purchase unit price… wherein the policy information includes an acceptable mixed loading 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, determining a lowest normal purchase price… (noting that each one of these limitations represents a person (e.g. evaluator) performing instructions or a behavior based on rules). Second, the steps of determining and comparing in the limitations of 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, 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 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 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; 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; 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 as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (i.e. mental processes), that could otherwise be performed in the mind or in the mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, determining in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually evaluating policy information and judging normal purchase unit price / lowest normal purchase price, evaluating acceptable mixed loading ratio and normal purchase unit prices and judging a threshold weighted average unit price; evaluating percentage of first / second type of iron scrap and normal purchase unit price 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; and comparing in the context of this claim encompasses evaluating a threshold weighted average unit price with the weighted average unit price. Since the claim limitations represent the activities and processes that satisfy the subcategories of both certain methods of organizing human activities, and mental processes, the claims are directed to a judicial exception in Step 2A Prong one. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 1 because “Amended claim 1 now recites a specific technical process for grading mixed iron scrap that includes: (1) obtaining policy information that 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’; (2) determining normal purchase unit prices for each scrap type; (3) ‘determining, by the processor, a threshold weighted average unit price using the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices’; (4) determining an actual weighted average unit price based on the percentages and prices of the mixed scrap; and (5) determining a grade by comparing the threshold with the actual weighted average unit price. The claimed process is not a mental process because it involves the computational derivation of a dynamic threshold value from multiple input variables (the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices for two different scrap types). The threshold is not a fixed value looked up from a table or determined by subjective human judgment. Rather, it is computationally derived such that it automatically adjusts when market prices fluctuate while maintaining consistent application of the mixture tolerance policy. A person could not practically perform this dynamic threshold calculation and comparison in their mind while simultaneously inspecting a truckload of mixed iron scrap" (Remarks pg. 9-10). Examiner disagrees. First, the activity of obtaining policy information is recognized as an additional element in Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as high level extra-solution data gathering, and is only gathering the policy information that is used for subsequent determining steps in the judicial exception. This does not preclude the claims from otherwise reciting a mental process or certain methods of organizing human activities. "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." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Second, each of the next argued determining steps are identified as part of the judicial exception in Step 2A Prong one because they are certain methods of organizing human activities (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions) and mental processes (evaluation, judgment) that are implemented by a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. This does not preclude the claims 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, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), or mental processes (since with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper, see MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(III) citing Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc, 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2s 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir 2016)). A person could perform determining steps that involve multiple inputs (e.g. a ratio and unit prices for each type of scrap). Third, the argument that the ‘threshold is not a fixed value looked up from a table or determined by subjective human judgment. Rather, it is computationally derived such that it automatically adjusts when market prices fluctuate while maintaining consistent application of the mixture tolerance policy’, and ‘simultaneously inspecting a truckload of mixed iron scrap’, note that these details regarding the threshold and simultaneous inspecting a truckload of mixed iron scrap are not represented in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Hence, this process represents implementing a judicial exception on a general purpose computer, and using a computer as a tool in in high-level extra-solution data gathering, which does not satisfy the criteria for a practical application or inventive concept of a judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 1 because “The claimed process is not "organizing human activity." The claims do not recite business relationships, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities, or managing interactions between people. The claims recite a technical method for classifying physical materials (mixed iron scrap) using a specific computational algorithm that derives a classification threshold from industry tolerance standards and current market pricing data” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. First, the claims recite managing personal behavior (of the sub-grouping managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people) which includes intrapersonal behavior (i.e. managing oneself), and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior (or relationships or interactions between people) includes determining a normal purchase unit price…, 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, determining a lowest normal purchase price… (noting that each one of these limitations represents a person (e.g. evaluator / inspector) performing a behavior); and following rules or instructions includes determining a normal purchase unit price… wherein the policy information includes an acceptable mixed loading 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, 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). Second, the only technical elements of these steps is that they are performed on a computer, which (1) the presence of generic computer components such as a processor, device, and computer-readable recording medium 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; and (2) mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not a practical application or significantly more. Hence, this is not a method or process rooted in the processor or computer technology, and instead it is merely ‘applying’ computers with the judicial exception. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 2 because “Even if the claims were considered to recite an abstract idea, the claims are integrated into a practical application because they provide a specific technological improvement to the field of industrial material classification. The specification explains the technological problem addressed by the claimed invention. As described in the Background section, ‘iron scrap that is loaded onto trucks and delivered often contains a mixture of various types of iron, and in the case of conventional technology, 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.’ (Specification, Background.) The specification further explains that ‘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.’ (Id.) The claimed invention provides a specific technological solution to these problems. As described in page 18 of the specification, the device ‘provide[s] the result of determination of the determined grade for the mixed iron scrap on the display screen to prevent errors occurring in a final grade determination process directly performed by a person through an inspector, as in the related art, and always determine and provide the grade for the mixed iron scrap consistently and accurately. Therefore, the accuracy of the result of determination of the grade for the mixed iron scrap can be improved, thereby improving user convenience and satisfaction.’” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. First, industrial material classification is itself is a manual business / entrepreneurial process and not a technical process. See Applicant Specification background pg. 1-2 “and in the case of conventional technology, there is a problem in that a process of inspecting mixed iron scrap and determining its grade is performed manually. Adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea is not a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Second, the argument states that “The specification further explains that ‘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”, however (1) independent claims 1, 13, 20 do not explicitly mention obtaining measurement data or weight of the scrap, and (2) independent claim 8 obtains measurement data but it does not explicitly state that this includes weight of the scrap (e.g. measurement data relating to a characteristic of the mixed iron scrap). As presented it is only reciting a high-level extra-solution data gathering step that at best provides data for subsequent judicial exception steps without any particular, technical details. This data gathering without any particular, technical details does not provide a practical application or significantly more. Third, the argument states that the result of the device provide the results of determination of the determined grade for the mixed iron scrap on the display screen to prevent errors occurring in a final grade process, and always determine and provide the grade for the mixed iron scrap consistently and accurately. However, these are inherent benefits of any computer-based implementation which the courts have identified are not sufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more merely by ‘applying’ the judicial exception on a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir 2015) stating “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. Also note that there is no display screen providing results in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in Step 2A Prong 2 because “The specification further explains the technological advantage of the claimed threshold calculation: ‘even when the normal purchase unit price for each grade for iron scrap fluctuates depending on the market conditions, the device 100 may determine the lowest normal purchase unit price based on the purchase unit price difference value representing the difference between the normal purchase unit prices for different grades and the acceptable mixed loading ratio and determine the grade for the mixed iron scrap by comparing the weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap with the lowest normal purchase unit price, thereby stably providing the information.’ (Specification, page 18.) Thus, the amended claims provide a technological improvement by. (1) replacing inconsistent manual inspection with a deterministic automated process; (2) providing a self-adjusting threshold that automatically recalibrates when market prices change; and (3) enabling consistent and accurate grade determinations that reduce errors in the steel recycling industry. These improvements are directed to the technological field of industrial material classification, not to fundamental economic practices or generic business methods” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. First, nothing in the claims reflects a self-adjusting threshold that automatically recalibrates when market prices change. The steps of determining a threshold weighted average unit price… and determining a lowest normal purchase unit price… are each performed once and there is no adjusting / self-adjusting. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Second, the alleged improvement of replacing inconsistent manual inspection with a deterministic automated process, and enabling consistent and accurate grade determinations that reduce errors are inherent benefits of any computer-based implementation which the courts have identified are not sufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more merely by ‘applying’ the judicial exception on a computer, and therefore not technological improvements. See MPEP 2106.05(f) citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir 2015) stating “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept”. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible in view of Enfish and McRO, “Similarly, the amended claims recite a specific algorithm (deriving a threshold from mixture tolerance ratios and current prices) that automates and improves a previously manual industrial process” (Remarks pg. 11). Examiner disagrees. First, 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 of iron scrap, determine a threshold weighted average unit price…, determine weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap, determine the grade for the mixed iron scrap, and determine a lowest normal purchase unit 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. Second, 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 (i.e. processor), the Applicant’s claims still represent a judicial exception. 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…, 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 Examiner's analysis characterized the claims as ‘managing personal behavior’ and ‘following rules or instructions,’ but did not explain how determining a grade for mixed iron scrap based on a computationally derived price threshold constitutes ‘managing personal behavior.’ The claimed invention does not involve any relationship between people, nor does it manage how people behave. It classifies physical materials” (Remarks pg. 11-12). Examiner disagrees. The limitation of “determining the grade for the mixed iron scrap…” is managing personal behavior (of the sub-category ‘managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people’), because it represents a person (e.g. evaluator / inspector) performing a behavior (e.g. determining a grade). Note that managing personal behavior does not require relationships or interactions between people and personal behaviors can be intrapersonal behaviors (i.e. managing oneself). This limitation also represents the sub-category of ‘following rules or instructions’ because it represents a person (e.g. evaluator / inspector) performing instructions or a behavior (e.g. determining a grade) based on rules (e.g. a first grade or a second grade based on comparing threshold weighted average unit price with weighted average unit price). Therefore, even though this limitation is associated with the activity of classifying (grading) physical materials, it is also managing personal behavior and following rules or instructions. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The Examiner also characterized the claims as ‘mental processes,’ but the specific limitation of ‘determining a threshold weighted average unit price using the acceptable mixed loading ratio and the normal purchase unit prices’ was not adequately analyzed. This limitation requires deriving a dynamic threshold from multiple variables in a specific mathematical relationship. The Office Action did not explain how a person could practically perform this computation mentally while simultaneously classifying mixed scrap loads in an industrial setting” (Remarks pg. 12). Examiner disagrees. First, the step 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 as drafted is a processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (i.e. mental processes), that could otherwise be performed in the mind or in the mind with the assistance of pen and paper. For example, determining in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually evaluating acceptable mixed loading ratio and normal purchase unit prices for first and second types of iron scrap and judging a threshold weighted average unit price. Nothing in this claims precludes a person from doing this individual step mentally, or mentally with pencil and paper. Second, the claims do not require simultaneously classifying mixed scrap loads in an industrial setting with determining a threshold weighted average unit price for the mixed iron scrap, as argued. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 8-9, 13-14, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
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, 19-20.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4:
Claim 4 recites the limitation "The method of claim 3" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (noting that claim 3 has been canceled). For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as ‘The method of claim 2’.
Claims 6-7
Claim 6 recites the limitation "The method of claim 3" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and its dependent claim 7 (noting that claim 3 has been canceled). For the purpose of examination, this will be interpreted as ‘The method of claim 2’.
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, and 4-20:
Claims 1-2, and 4-20 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 8-12 recite a device; and claims 13-19 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, 4-20 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; 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 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 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; 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; 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 claims 8 and 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; 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 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 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; 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. 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; 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 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 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; 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.
The claims as a whole recite certain methods of organizing human activities / mental processes, and individual limitations 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; 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 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 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; 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; 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 a normal purchase unit price…, 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, determining a lowest normal purchase price… (noting that each one of these limitations represents a person (e.g. evaluator / inspector) performing a behavior); and following rules or instructions includes determining a normal purchase unit price… wherein the policy information includes an acceptable mixed loading 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, 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 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 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 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 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; 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; 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 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, 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 the user manually evaluating policy information and judging normal purchase unit price / lowest normal purchase price, evaluating acceptable mixed loading ratio and normal purchase unit prices and judging a threshold weighted average unit price; evaluating percentage of first / second type of iron scrap and normal purchase unit price 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; 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. 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 formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) 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, 4-20 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) 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; 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 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) is 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). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding obtaining more than using computers as a tool to perform an otherwise manual process (i.e. to obtain 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.
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 and/or post-solution activities. 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 perform determining a normal purchase unit price…, 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, 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 computer (i.e. receiving unit) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool, 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, 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). 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.
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 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. 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, 9-12, and 14-19. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claims 2 and 14: The limitation wherein the determining the grade for the mixed iron scrap is based on measurement data… the measurement data including a weight of 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. Third, the limitation measurement data received by the receiving unit is an additional element, recited at a high level of detail representing extra-solution data gathering, with the receiving unit (generic computer / general computer component) as a computer performing in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to receive data), which is not a practical application or significantly more. The receiving step here is claimed at a high level of detail, and 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), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). 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.
Dependent claim 9: The limitation wherein the measurement data includes a weight of the mixed iron scrap merely narrows the previous data gathering additional element (i.e. obtaining policy information and measurement data) that is not indicative of a practical application or significantly more. See the Applicant’s specification pg. 9 ¶1 describing the additional element of the receiving unit obtaining measurement data that includes total weight of the mixed iron scrap, the weight of each type of scrap, and their respective proportions in the mixture 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). For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 10: The limitation wherein the processor determines 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 is further directed to a certain method 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, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 15: The limitation cause the processor to 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 is further directed to a certain method 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, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 8, 13, 20 and the dependent claims 2-7, 9-12, 14-19 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, 4-20 are ineligible.
Novelty / Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-2, 4-20 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 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 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; 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” 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 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]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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