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 .
DETAILED 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.
Claim 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 15, line 8, the claim state the limitation ‘preferably’ is indefinite. The limitation makes it unclear what the metes and bounds of claim in regards to what ‘preferably’ encompass.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comtois et al (US Pub 2018/0147607 A1) in view of Lampe (US Pub 2016/0250665 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Comtois discloses a system for analyzing and sorting a piece of material (paragraph 0001), the system comprising: a feeding means for transporting the piece of material (paragraph 0060), a sorting unit that is configured to feed the piece of material into one of two fractions (element 50), a laser device that is configured to generate a plasma on a surface of the piece of material using a laser beam propagating along a beam axis (element 30), a spectrometer system that is configured to perform a spectral analysis of a plasma light emitted by the laser-induced plasma and to generate an output signal in accordance with a result of the spectral analysis performed (element 40), and a control device that is configured to receive the output signal and to operate the sorting unit based on the output signal and a sorting criterion (element 60), the spectrometer system comprising a spectrometer and a detection unit optically connected to the spectrometer (paragraph 0041 where the LIBS applies a laser to the material creating a plasma suitable for spectral analysis), wherein the detection unit has an objective having a detection cone assigned to it which, in an overlap region with the laser beam, forms a plasma detection area (see Figs. 1 and 2 where elements 30 and 40 overlap), wherein each feeding unit is respectively configured to transport the piece of material along a feeding surface provided by the respective feeding unit (see Fig. 4; elements 11 and 12), but Comtois does not disclose wherein the feeding means comprises three individual feeding units arranged in series one behind the other in the direction of transport of the piece of material, wherein the feeding surfaces are each inclined relative to the horizontal, forming a respective angle of inclination wherein the angles of inclination are differently designed, wherein the angle of inclination of the feeding surface of the first feeding unit in the direction of transport is configured to be smaller than the angle of inclination (a2) of the feeding surface of the second feeding unit in the direction of transport, and the angle of inclination of the feeding surface of the second feeding unit in the direction of transport is smaller than the angle of inclination of the feeding surface of the third feeding unit in the direction of transport. Lampe teaches wherein the feeding means comprises three individual feeding units arranged in series one behind the other in the direction of transport of the piece of material (paragraph 0019), wherein the feeding surfaces are each inclined relative to the horizontal (paragraph 0042 and 0045), forming a respective angle of inclination wherein the angles of inclination are differently designed, wherein the angle of inclination of the feeding surface of the first feeding unit in the direction of transport is configured to be smaller than the angle of inclination (a2) of the feeding surface of the second feeding unit in the direction of transport (paragraph 0042 where the second conveyor has a steeper angle than the first conveyor), and the angle of inclination of the feeding surface of the second feeding unit in the direction of transport is smaller than the angle of inclination of the feeding surface of the third feeding unit in the direction of transport (paragraph 0045 where the angle may be changed to any desired angle, including a steeper angle than the previous conveyor) for the purpose of conveying material based on the conveyed amount and the bulk material to be checked. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Comtois, as taught by Lampe, for the purpose of conveying material based on the conveyed amount and the bulk material to be checked.
Regarding claim 2, Comtois in view of Lampe does not explicitly disclose a difference between the angles of inclination (a1,a2, a3) is 20 to 80. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to feed material because Applicant has not disclosed that angle difference between feeders provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Comtois in view of Lampe, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either angle of feeding per conveyor because both angles would perform the same function of feeding material for the purpose of imparting a certain speed to the material to be sorted.
Regarding claim 3, Comtois in view of Lampe does not explicitly disclose the angle of inclination (a1) of the feeding surface of the first feeding unit in the direction of transport is 70 to 130. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to feed material because Applicant has not disclosed that angle difference between feeders provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Comtois in view of Lampe, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either angle of feeding per conveyor because both angles would perform the same function of feeding material for the purpose of imparting a certain speed to the material to be sorted.
Regarding claim 4, Comtois in view of Lampe does not explicitly disclose the angle of inclination (a2) of the feeding surface of the second feeding unit in the direction of transport is 120 to 180. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to feed material because Applicant has not disclosed that angle difference between feeders provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Comtois in view of Lampe, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either angle of feeding per conveyor because both angles would perform the same function of feeding material for the purpose of imparting a certain speed to the material to be sorted.
Regarding claim 5, Comtois in view of Lampe does not explicitly disclose the angle of inclination (as) of the feeding surface of the third feeding unit in the direction of transport is 170 to 230. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to feed material because Applicant has not disclosed that angle difference between feeders provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Comtois in view of Lampe, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either angle of feeding per conveyor because both angles would perform the same function of feeding material for the purpose of imparting a certain speed to the material to be sorted.
Regarding claim 6, Comtois does not disclose the claim limitations. Lampe teaches the angles of inclination (ai, a2, a3) are designed to be adjustable (paragraph 0045 where the angle may be changed to any desired angle, including a steeper angle than the previous conveyor) for the purpose of conveying material based on the conveyed amount and the bulk material to be checked. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Comtois, as taught by Lampe, for the purpose of conveying material based on the conveyed amount and the bulk material to be checked.
Regarding claim 10, Comtois discloses a plasma detection area is configured such that, in the event of a plasma being present in the plasma detection area, a measurement component of the plasma light is detected by the associated objective (paragraph 0043 where the emission may comprise plasma which is detected by detecting electromagnetic radiation and generating an output signal).
Regarding claim 12, Comtois discloses the objective holder provides an optical passage opening through which the beam axis extends (see Fig. 1; elements 30 and 40).
Regarding claim 13, Comtois discloses the sorting unit is assigned to a lower edge of the chute, which lower edge is located opposite an upper section of the chute, the sorting unit being configured to feed the piece of material leaving the chute via the lower edge of the chute to one of two fractions (see Fig. 1; element 50 and 55 splitting into two fractions).
Regarding claim 14, Comtois discloses the detection unit carries a protective housing that surrounds the laser beam and the detection cone, the protective housing extending along the beam axis (paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 15, Comtois discloses the sorting unit comprises a compressed air nozzle (paragraph 0055), wherein the compressed air nozzle is arranged at a distance from a laser beam generated by the laser device in the direction of movement of a piece of material passing the laser beam (see Fig. 1; elements 30 and 50), wherein the distance between the laser beam and the center of the outlet opening of the compressed air nozzle is greater than 10 cm, preferably between 8 cm and 3 cm, but Comtois does not explicitly disclose a compressed air nozzle with an outlet opening diameter of greater than 3 mm, preferably from 5 mm to 8 mm and the center of the outlet opening of the nozzle is arranged a distance from a laser beam greater than 10 cm, preferably between 8 cm and 3 cm. However, before the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to sort materials because Applicant has not disclosed that specific dimensions and spacing of nozzle provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Comtois, and applicant’s invention, to perform equally well with either nozzle arrangement because both nozzles would perform the same function of sorting material for the purpose of applying sufficient force to sort the desired items.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comtois/Lampe in view of Scharer et al (US Pub 2014/0161531 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Comtois does not disclose the claim limitations. Scharer teaches the first feeding unit in the direction of transport is a vibration conveyor with an unbalanced drive (paragraph 0003 where an unbalanced drive can drive a vibrating conveyor to generate exciting forces to convey materials) for the purpose of generating exciting forces to convey materials. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Comtois, as taught by Scharer, for the purpose of generating exciting forces to convey materials.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comtois/Lampe in view of Groenewald (USP 9,481,526 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Comtois does not disclose the claim limitations. Groenewald teaches the second and third feeding units in the direction of transport are each an oscillating conveyor with a magnetic drive (col. 2, lines 42-54 where a magnetic drive within an oscillating conveyor) for the purpose of imparting reciprocal motion to a conveyor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Comtois, as taught by Groenewald, for the purpose of imparting reciprocal motion to a conveyor.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comtois/Lampe in view of Ito et al (US Pub 2014/0061103 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Comtois discloses a detection unit (see Figs. 1 and 2 where elements 30 and 40 overlap), but Comtois does not disclose another detection unit comprises a further objective having assigned to it a further detection cone which forms a further plasma detection area in a further overlap region with the laser beam, the objectives being arranged and/or aligned in relation to one another in such a way that the plasma detection area and the further plasma detection area are arranged offset along the beam axis and together form a viewing region of the detection unit. Ito teaches a second iteration of a detection unit (paragraph 0039 and elements 311a and 311b) for the purpose of detecting material information from multiple angles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Comtois, as taught by Ito, for the purpose of detecting material information from multiple angles.
Regarding claim 11, Comtois discloses a detection unit (see Figs. 1 and 2 where elements 30 and 40 plasma detection areas), but Comtois does not disclose the detection unit comprises a further objective having assigned to it a further detection cone which forms a further plasma detection area in a further overlap region with the laser beam, the objectives being arranged and/or aligned in relation to one another in such a way that the plasma detection area and the further plasma detection area the plasma detection areas are arranged such that they merge into one another or are spaced apart from one another along the beam axis. Ito teaches a second iteration of a detection unit (paragraph 0039 and elements 311a and 311b) for the purpose of detecting material information from multiple angles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify Comtois, as taught by Ito, for the purpose of detecting material information from multiple angles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under USC 112
Regarding the rejection under USC 112 for claims 1-14 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation ‘preferably’, line 8 has not been amended or addressed in Applicant’s arguments.
Rejection under USC 103
Regarding Applicant’s argument,” Following the teachings of Lampe, the skilled person therefore has no incentive to provide three feeding units with different angles of inclination, the angle of inclination of the first feeding unit in the transport direction being smaller than the angle of inclination of the second feeding unit, and the angle of inclination of the second feeding unit being smaller than the angle of inclination of the third feeding unit. Combining the teachings of Comtois and Lampe, one skilled in the art would rather modify the Comtois system for analyzing and sorting scrap pieces in such a manner that chute 20 at the end of vibration feeder 12 is replaced with a roller. If one skilled in the art were to consider providing three feeding units with different angles of inclination at all, this person would provide a third vibration conveyor that has a smaller angle of inclination than the second vibration conveyor. In addition, this person would provide an X-ray detector that screens the scrap pieces transported on the third conveyor,” the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner asserts that Lampe teaches multiple conveyors in order. Furthermore, Lampe teaches any tilt angle is generally conceivable and are determined by the conveyed amount and the bulk material to be checked (paragraph 0045 where the angle may be changed to any desired angle, including a steeper angle than the previous conveyor). This teaching makes it obvious that the angles of each separate section of conveyance being at differing and increasing angles to adjust the material flow enable the overall conveyance to analyze and separate material at a desired rate.
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 Kalyanavenkateshware Kumar whose telephone number is (571)272-8102. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 08:00-16:30.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/K.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3653
/MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3653
Prosecution Insights