Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
FINAL REJECTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/10/206, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kumar (US2020/0368786) in view of Pietzka (US2017/0232479).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US2020/0368786) in view of Pietzka (US2017/0232479).
Referring to claim 1. Kumar discloses a “Metal Sorter”. See Figs. 1-16 and respective portions of the specification. Kumar further discloses a system comprising: a first conveyor (103); a first sensor (109, 110) configured to visually scan articles of metal scrap on the first conveyor (See Sect. 0054, 0073); and a first actuator and a second actuator configured to sort the articles of metal scrap to one of a first sorting destination or a second sorting destination (See at least Sect. 0111-0113). Kumar further discloses that the conveyor bel conveys pieces through the sorting system where they are detected and classified and wherein a vision system (110) captures images of the scrap pieces and identifies material type based on detected features (See Sect. 0073) and wherein actuators eject scrap pieces from the conveyor into designated sorting bins (See Sect. 0111-0113). Further, Kumar discloses a controller/GPU (3401, 3415) for executing instructions to carry out operations (See Sect. 0089-0092). Thus, Kumar discloses a conveyor transporting metal scrap articles, sensors that detect features of scrap articles, and actuators that sort scrap pieces into destinations based on detected characteristics. Kumar does not disclose detecting a first or second machine-readable mark applied to a first or second article of metal scrap. Pietzka discloses a “Device and Method For Processing Metal Parent Parts and For Sorting Metal Waste Parts”. See Figs. 1-7 and respective portions of the specification. Pietzka further discloses a device for processing metal parts and sorting waste parts and further discloses applying a marking to the metal waste part that characterizes the material of the part (See Sect. 0020, discloses a marking unit applying an optically detectable marking to the waste part). Likewise, Pietzka discloses an optical detection unit configured to detect the marking or geometric feature on the waste part and generate a control signal corresponding to the detected feature (See Sect. 0013-0016). Moreover, Pietzka discloses a sorting unit configured to route the waste parts based on the control signal generated from the detected feature. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrap sorting system of Kumar to include the marking-based identification technique of Pietzka such that the scrap articles include detectable marking that correspond to material attributes and are detected by sensors for sorting, as this would provide a reliable and efficient mechanism for determining the material type of metal scrap prior to sorting, thereby improving sorting accuracy and enabling sorting decisions to be made based on predefined material attributes associated with the markings. Likewise, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide additional sensors to detect markings on multiple scrap articles as this would increase capacity and throughput. It should further be noted that the provision of a second sensor and detecting a second machine-readable mark merely represent a duplication and scaling of known sensor functionality to handle multiple/separate articles.
Referring to claim 2. Kumar in view of Pietzka disclose the combination as described above in detail. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the scrap sorting method of Kumar to include detecting a machine-readable marking corresponding to a material attribute of the scrap article as taught by Pietzka and sorting the scrap article based on that detected marking. It should be noted that this modification merely applies a known marking-based identification technique to an existing scrap metal sorting method for the purposes of improving the reliability and accuracy of material identification and sorting.
Applicant is further reminded that the specification explicitly discloses a physical tag or an RFID tag being inclusive of a marking applied to a metal scrap.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRELL HOWARD MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-5929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571)272-7805. 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.
/TERRELL H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights