DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/202,771, filed May 26, 2023, now U.S. Patent 12,234,128, which is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/406,343, filed August 19, 2021, now U.S. Patent 11,702,322, which is a Continuation of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/559,299, filed September 3, 2019, now U.S. Patent 11,136,223.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the accessory “further configured to shred materials” and the “teeth” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
Claim 2 is 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. The term “non-rigid” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “non-rigid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6, and 8-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 2-10, and 14-17, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11, 702,322. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application completely encompass the claims of the patent. One cannot make or use the invention recited in the claims of the patent without infringing upon the claims of this application.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,234,128. Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct because the claim of this application completely encompasses the claim of the patent. One cannot make or use the invention recited in the claim of the patent without infringing upon the claim of this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-12, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Low et al. (US 5,242,059).
Regarding independent claim 1, Low discloses a sorting system, the sorting system comprising: sorting control logic and electronics (32) configured to, in response to a signal generated by an object recognition device (20), convert a compressed air stream into a vacuum airflow (see at least col. 3, lines 25-65); a vacuum extractor device comprising: an inlet (22) and an outlet (24), wherein the vacuum airflow is configured to enter the inlet and exit the outlet; and an accessory (37) coupled to the inlet, wherein the accessory is configured to guide a target object into the inlet; and wherein the vacuum extractor device is configured to extract the target object identified by the sorting control logic and electronics utilizing the vacuum airflow, and further utilizing the vacuum airflow, to pass the target object through the inlet and the outlet to a deposit location (25).
Regarding claims 2-12 and 14-16, Low discloses that the accessory is configured to guide non-rigid material (see at least col. 1, lines 1-20) through into the inlet. The accessory is further configured to shred materials entering the inlet (see at least col. 1, liens 53-65). The accessory is further configured to separate the target object from other materials (see at least col. 1, lines 53-65). The accessory comprises a specific angle (see Fig. 3). The accessory comprises a funnel (see Fig. 5). The accessory comprises teeth (37). The vacuum extractor device is included in a vacuum extraction assembly that comprises a plurality of vacuum extractor devices individually operated by the sorting control logic and electronics via a respective compressed air stream (see at least col. 3, lines 25-65). The vacuum extractor device of the plurality of vacuum extractor devices is selected for operation to capture the target object based on a characteristic of the target object identified by the sorting control logic and electronics (see at least col. 3, line 44 – col. 4, line 15). The characteristic comprises one or more of a size, a shape, an orientation, a material type, or a material composition of the target object (see at least col. 3, line 44 – col. 4, line 15). The object recognition device comprises at least one of: a camera (20), an infrared camera, a non-visible electromagnetic radiation sensor, a magnetic sensor, or a capacitive sensor. Low further discloses a conveyor mechanism (10) configured to channel the target object past the object recognition device and towards the vacuum extractor device. Low further discloses a ducting system (23) coupled to the outlet of the vacuum extractor device, wherein the ducting system is reconfigurable to direct individual target objects to the deposit location (25 when in “second position”; see col. 3, lines 25-35) or another location (14 when in “first position”; see coll. 3, lines 25-35). The sorting control logic and electronics comprises one or more neural processing units (32), wherein the one or more neural processing units are configured to distinguish the target object from one or more non- target objects based on a neural network parameter set (see at least col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 15). The one or more neural processing units further identify predefined characteristics of the target object based on the neural network parameter set (see at least col. 3, line 65 – col. 4, line 15).
Regarding independent claim 17, Low discloses A method, the method comprising: in response to a signal generated by an object recognition device (20), converting a compressed air stream using sorting control logic and electronics (32) into a vacuum airflow through a vacuum extractor device (see at least col. 3, lines 25-65), wherein the vacuum extractor device having an inlet (22) and an outlet (24), wherein the vacuum airflow enters the inlet and exits the outlet, wherein the vacuum extractor device further includes an accessory (37) coupled to the inlet, wherein the accessory is configured to guide a target object into the inlet; utilizing the vacuum airflow to extract the target object identified by the sorting control logic and electronics by drawing the target object in through the inlet of the vacuum extractor device and out through the outlet of the vacuum extractor device (see at least col. 3, lines 25-65);; and discharging the target object to a deposit location (25).
Regarding dependent claims 18-20, Low discloses that the vacuum extractor device is included in a vacuum extraction assembly that comprises a plurality of vacuum extractor devices individually operated by the sorting control logic and electronics via a respective compressed air stream (see at least col. 3, lines 25-65). Low further discloses selecting the vacuum extractor device for operation to extract the target object based on a characteristic of the target object identified by the sorting control logic and electronics (see at least col. 3, line 44 – col. 4, line 15). The object recognition device comprises at least one of: a camera (20), an infrared camera, a non-visible electromagnetic radiation sensor, a magnetic sensor or a capacitive sensor
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Evans et al. (US 5,040,353).
Regarding independent claim 1, Evans discloses a sorting system, the sorting system comprising: sorting control logic and electronics (PLC) configured to, in response to a signal generated by an object recognition device (see at least col. 7, line 12, “detection station”), convert a compressed air stream into a vacuum airflow; a vacuum extractor device comprising: an inlet (generally at 20A) and an outlet (20B), wherein the vacuum airflow is configured to enter the inlet and exit the outlet; and an accessory (20A) coupled to the inlet, wherein the accessory is configured to guide a target object into the inlet; and wherein the vacuum extractor device is configured to extract the target object identified by the sorting control logic and electronics utilizing the vacuum airflow (see at least col. 7, lines 10-60), and further utilizing the vacuum airflow, to pass the target object through the inlet and the outlet to a deposit location (see at least col. 7, lines 20-60).
Regarding claims 4-6, 8-10, 12, 13, and 15-16, Evans discloses that the accessory is further configured to separate the target object from other materials (see at least col. 7, lines 10-60). The accessory comprises a specific angle (see Fig. 6). The accessory comprises a funnel (see Fig. 6). The vacuum extractor device is included in a vacuum extraction assembly that comprises a plurality of vacuum extractor devices (see Fig. 1) individually operated by the sorting control logic and electronics via a respective compressed air stream (see abstract). The vacuum extractor device of the plurality of vacuum extractor devices is selected for operation to capture the target object based on a characteristic of the target object identified by the sorting control logic and electronics (see at least col. 7, lines 10-60). The characteristic comprises one or more of a size, a shape, an orientation, a material type, or a material composition of the target object ((see at least col. 7, lines 20-60). Evans further discloses a conveyor mechanism (S) configured to channel the target object past the object recognition device and towards the vacuum extractor device. The conveyor mechanism comprises one or more raised features, recessed features, or perforation features, configured to provide airflow for intake into the vacuum airflow (see at least Fig. 6). The sorting control logic and electronics comprises one or more neural processing units (PLC), wherein the one or more neural processing units are configured to distinguish the target object from one or more non- target objects based on a neural network parameter set (see at least col. 7, lines 10-60). The one or more neural processing units further identify predefined characteristics of the target object based on the neural network parameter set (see at least col. 7, lines 10-60).
Regarding independent claim 17, Evans discloses A method, the method comprising: in response to a signal generated by an object recognition device (see at least col. 7, line 12, “detection station”), converting a compressed air stream using sorting control logic and electronics (PLC) into a vacuum airflow through a vacuum extractor device, wherein the vacuum extractor device having an inlet (generally at 20A) and an outlet (20B), wherein the vacuum airflow enters the inlet and exits the outlet, wherein the vacuum extractor device further includes an accessory (20A) coupled to the inlet, wherein the accessory is configured to guide a target object into the inlet; utilizing the vacuum airflow to extract the target object identified by the sorting control logic and electronics by drawing the target object in through the inlet of the vacuum extractor device and out through the outlet of the vacuum extractor device (see at least col. 7, lines 10-60); and discharging the target object to a deposit location (see at least col. 7, lines 10-60).
Regarding dependent claims 18-19, Evans discloses that the vacuum extractor device is included in a vacuum extraction assembly that comprises a plurality of vacuum extractor devices individually operated by the sorting control logic and electronics via a respective compressed air stream (see at least col. 7, lines 10-60). Evans further discloses selecting the vacuum extractor device for operation to extract the target object based on a characteristic of the target object identified by the sorting control logic and electronics (see at least col. 7, lines 10-60).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Borrell (US 2019/0374978) and Lukka et al. (2021/0061588) disclose similar vacuum extraction systems which utilize venturi nozzles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK HEWEY MACKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6916. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 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, 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.
/PATRICK H MACKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights