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 .
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.
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 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) an information processing device, which is considered a machine and therefore claim 12 is within one of the four statutory categories.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements (information processing device that acquires at least one of a photographed image and a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of a magnetic material, identification means configured to identify a magnetic material, output means configured to output information indicating that the material unsuitable for shredding is included). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”. The recitation of the information processing device, identification means, and output means is recited at a high level of generality and represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer, using generic computing components. The computer implementation thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The system for removing material unsuitable for shredding that removes, before feeding scrap into a shredding facility that shreds the scrap, materials unsuitable for shredding is a mere indication of the field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Additionally, this limitation and that of acquiring a photographed image and a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape is insignificant extra solution activity because it merely gathers data for use in implementation of the abstract idea of identifying a magnetic material and outputting information. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(g) (citing OIPTechs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Ultramercial, Inc. v.Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016) which describe that gathering data and collecting and reporting data is insignificant extra solution activity. The acquiring of the photographed image is described at a high level of generality and amounts mere data gathering as well. Further looking at the additional limitations in ordered combination, there is nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular identification of a recyclable product, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract into a practical application.
Claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as those discussed above. Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well understood, routine conventional activity in the field. As described above, these limitations are data gathering limitations for use in implementation of the abstract idea of identifying a magnetic material and outputting information indicating that the material is unsuitable for shredding. Those additionally recited limitations of this claim fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found mere data gathering to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d) (citing buy SAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
With respect to the dependent claims, claims 13-16 recite limitations with respect to further details about the data acquired and as such fails to provide an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to claim 17, the magnetic material which has been coarsely shredded by a pre-shredder is a mere indication of the field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793).
Regarding claim 9, Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) teaches a drum-type magnetic separator (Fig. 4a #4) that configures a system for removing material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-6) that removes, before feeding scrap into a shredding facility (Fig. 4a #5) that shreds the scrap (Paragraph 0041 lines 1-6), materials unsuitable for shredding that may cause damage to the shredding facility (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-6, Paragraph 0035 lines 1-6), wherein a magnetic force is set so as to attract a magnetic material having a weight less than a predetermined weight from the scrap (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 11, Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) teaches the drum-type magnetic separator according to claim 9, wherein the scrap includes scrap that has been coarsely shredded by a pre-shredder (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-4).
Claims 12-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909).
Regarding claim 12, Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches an information processing device (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3) that acquires at least one of a photographed image (Paragraph 0016 lines 1-4) and a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of a magnetic material (Paragraph 0024 lines 3-10) in a system for removing material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0018 lines 1-5) that removes, before feeding scrap into a shredding facility that shreds the scrap (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-11), materials unsuitable for shredding that may cause damage to the shredding facility (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-4, “prohibited objects”), the information processing device comprising:
an identification means (Fig. 3 #124) configured to identify a magnetic material that is to be the material unsuitable for shredding, based on at least one of a photographed image and a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-6); and
an output means (Fig. 3 #121) configured to output, when a material unsuitable for shredding is identified by the identification means (Fig. 3 #124, Paragraph 0032 lines 1-9), information indicating that the material unsuitable for shredding is included (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 13, Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches the information processing device according to claim 12, further comprising:
an acquisition means (Fig. 3 #120) configured to acquire the photographed image from an imaging device (Fig. 1 #10, Paragraph 0021 lines 1-2), wherein the identification means (Fig. 3 #124) uses a learning model that identifies the material unsuitable for shredding to identify the material unsuitable for shredding from a photographed image acquired by the acquisition means (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-10, Paragraph 0026 lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 14, Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches the information processing device according to claim 12, further comprising:
a means to acquire measurement result (Fig. 3 #120), where the means is configured to acquire information on at least one of a volume, a height, and a thickness of the magnetic material as a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material (Paragraph 0021 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0024 lines 3-10, “characteristics (shape, color, etc.)” include height and thickness), wherein the identification means (Fig. 3 #124) identifies a material unsuitable for shredding from the magnetic material, based on information acquired by the means to acquire measurement result (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-10, Paragraph 0026 lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 16, Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches the information processing device according to claim 14, wherein the means to acquire measurement result (Fig. 3 #120) acquires information on at least the thickness of the magnetic material as a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material (Paragraph 0021 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0024 lines 3-10, “characteristics (shape, color, etc.)” include thickness).
Regarding claim 17, Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the magnetic material includes magnetic materials that have been coarsely shredded by a pre-shredder (Paragraph 0015 lines 1-4).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) in view of Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909).
Regarding claim 1, Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) teaches a system for removing material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-6) that removes, before feeding scrap into a shredding facility (Fig. 4a #5) that shreds the scrap (Paragraph 0041 lines 1-6), materials unsuitable for shredding that may cause damage to the shredding facility (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-6), the system comprising:
a drum-type magnetic separator (Fig. 4a #4) whose magnetic force is set so as to attract a magnetic material having a weight less than a predetermined weight from the scrap (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-4); and
an information processing device (Fig. 4a #3) including:
an identification means configured to identify a magnetic material that is to be the material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0035 lines 1-6), based on a magnetic material having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator (Paragraph 0032 lines 5-7).
Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) lacks teaching an information processing device including: an identification means configured to identify a magnetic material that is to be the material unsuitable for shredding, based on at least one of a photographed image and a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of a magnetic material; and an output means configured to output, when a material unsuitable for shredding is identified by the identification means, information indicating that the material unsuitable for shredding is included.
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches a system for removing material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3) comprising an information processing device (Paragraph 0018 lines 1-5) including:
an identification means (Fig. 3 #124) configured to identify a magnetic material that is to be the material unsuitable for shredding, based on at least one of a photographed image (Paragraph 0016 lines 1-4) and a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape (Paragraph 0024 lines 3-10) of a magnetic material (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-6); and
an output means (Fig. 3 #121) configured to output, when a material unsuitable for shredding is identified by the identification means (Fig. 3 #124, Paragraph 0032 lines 1-9), information indicating that the material unsuitable for shredding is included (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-7).
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) explains that this inspection technology can efficiently detect prohibited objects, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects from a pile of iron scrap (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) to include an information processing device including: an identification means configured to identify a magnetic material that is to be the material unsuitable for shredding, based on at least one of a photographed image and a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of a magnetic material; and an output means configured to output, when a material unsuitable for shredding is identified by the identification means, information indicating that the material unsuitable for shredding is included as taught by Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) in order to provide an efficient detection of material unsuitable for shredding, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects.
Regarding claim 2, Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) lacks teaching the system for removing material unsuitable for shredding according to claim 1, further comprising:
an imaging device that photographs a magnetic material having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator, wherein
the information processing device further includes:
an acquisition means configured to acquire the photographed image from the imaging device, and
the identification means uses a learning model that identifies the material unsuitable for shredding to identify the material unsuitable for shredding from a photographed image acquired by the acquisition means.
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches a system for removing material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3) comprising:
an imaging device (Fig. 1 #10) that photographs a magnetic material (Paragraph 0016 lines 1-4), wherein
the information processing device further includes:
an acquisition means (Fig. 3 #120) configured to acquire the photographed image from the imaging device (Paragraph 0021 lines 1-2), and
the identification means (Fig. 3 #124) uses a learning model that identifies the material unsuitable for shredding to identify the material unsuitable for shredding from a photographed image acquired by the acquisition means (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-10, Paragraph 0026 lines 1-7).
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) explains that this inspection technology can efficiently detect prohibited objects, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects from a pile of iron scrap (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-4). While Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) lacks explicitly teaching the magnetic material having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator, the inspection is performed on iron scrap (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-3), which was previously separated from non-ferrous materials (Paragraph 0004 lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) to include an imaging device that photographs a magnetic material having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator, wherein the information processing device further includes: an acquisition means configured to acquire the photographed image from the imaging device, and the identification means uses a learning model that identifies the material unsuitable for shredding to identify the material unsuitable for shredding from a photographed image acquired by the acquisition means as taught by Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) in order to provide an efficient detection of material unsuitable for shredding, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects.
Regarding claim 3, Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) lacks teaching the system for removing material unsuitable for shredding according to claim 1, further comprising:
a three-dimensional shape measuring device that measures a three-dimensional shape of a magnetic material having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator, wherein
the information processing device further includes:
a means to acquire measurement result, where the means is configured to acquire information on at least one of a volume, a height, and a thickness of the magnetic material as a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material, and
the identification means identifies a material unsuitable for shredding from magnetic materials having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator, based on information acquired by the means to acquire measurement result.
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches a system for removing material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3) comprising:
a three-dimensional shape measuring device that measures a three-dimensional shape of a magnetic material (Paragraph 0024 lines 3-10, Paragraph 0026 lines 1-6), wherein
the information processing device further includes:
a means to acquire measurement result (Fig. 3 #120), where the means is configured to acquire information on at least one of a volume, a height, and a thickness of the magnetic material as a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material (Paragraph 0021 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0024 lines 3-10, “characteristics (shape, color, etc.)” includes height and thickness), and
the identification means (Fig. 3 #124) identifies a material unsuitable for shredding from magnetic materials, based on information acquired by the means to acquire measurement result (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-10, Paragraph 0026 lines 1-7).
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) explains that this inspection technology can efficiently detect prohibited objects, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects from a pile of iron scrap (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-4). While Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) lacks explicitly teaching the magnetic material having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator, the inspection is performed on iron scrap (Paragraph 0007 lines 1-3), which was previously separated from non-ferrous materials (Paragraph 0004 lines 1-2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) to include a three-dimensional shape measuring device that measures a three-dimensional shape of a magnetic material having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator, wherein the information processing device further includes: a means to acquire measurement result, where the means is configured to acquire information on at least one of a volume, a height, and a thickness of the magnetic material as a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material, and the identification means identifies a material unsuitable for shredding from magnetic materials having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator, based on information acquired by the means to acquire measurement result as taught by Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) in order to provide an efficient detection of material unsuitable for shredding, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects.
Regarding claim 7, Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) teaches the system for removing material unsuitable for shredding according to claim 1, further comprising:
a removing device (Fig. 4a #3) that removes, the material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0032 lines 5-7, Paragraph 0035 lines 1-6).
Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) lacks teaching a removing device that removes, when the output means outputs information indicating that the material unsuitable for shredding is included, the material unsuitable for shredding.
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches a system for removing material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3) comprising: a removing device (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-9) that removes, when the output means (Fig. 3 #121) outputs information indicating that the material unsuitable for shredding is included, the material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-9).
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) explains that this inspection technology can efficiently detect prohibited objects, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects from a pile of iron scrap (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) to include a removing device that removes, when the output means outputs information indicating that the material unsuitable for shredding is included, the material unsuitable for shredding as taught by Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) in order to provide an efficient detection of material unsuitable for shredding, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects.
Regarding claim 8, Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) lacks teaching the system for removing material unsuitable for shredding according to claim 3, wherein
the means to acquire measurement result acquires information on at least the thickness of the magnetic material as a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material.
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches a system for removing material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3) wherein the means to acquire measurement result (Fig. 3 #120) acquires information on at least the thickness of the magnetic material as a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material (Paragraph 0021 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0024 lines 3-10, “characteristics (shape, color, etc.)” includes thickness).
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) explains that this inspection technology can efficiently detect prohibited objects, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects from a pile of iron scrap (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) to include wherein the means to acquire measurement result acquires information on at least the thickness of the magnetic material as a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material as taught by Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) in order to provide an efficient detection of material unsuitable for shredding, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) in view of Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) and further in view of Ruiz (US 2011/0240528).
Regarding claim 4, Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) teaches the system for removing material unsuitable for shredding according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first feeder (Fig. 4a #11) that conveys scrap that has been coarsely shredded by a pre-shredder (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-4), wherein the drum-type magnetic separator (Fig. 4a #4) attracts a magnetic material having a weight less than a predetermined weight from the scrap conveyed by the first feeder (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-5).
Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) lacks teaching a first feeder which is a first vibrating feeder.
Ruiz (US 2011/0240528) teaches a system for removing material (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-6) comprising a first vibrating feeder (Fig. 2 #220) that conveys scrap that has been coarsely shredded by a pre-shredder (Fig. 1 #20)
Ruiz (US 2011/0240528) explains that the vibrating table disperses the shredded materials evenly before they are transported to separating mechanisms (Paragraph 0010 lines 1-3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) to include a first vibrating feeder that conveys scrap that has been coarsely shredded by a pre-shredder as taught by Ruiz (US 2011/0240528) in order to disperse the materials evenly before they are transported to the magnetic separator.
Regarding claim 6, Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) teaches the system for removing material unsuitable for shredding according to claim 2, further comprising:
a second feeder (Fig. 4a #17) that conveys magnetic materials having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator (Paragraph 0033 lines 5-6).
Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) lacks teaching wherein the imaging device photographs a magnetic material on the second vibrating feeder or on a conveyor downstream of the second vibrating feeder.
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches a system for removing material unsuitable for shredding (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-3) wherein the imaging device (Fig. 1 #10) photographs a magnetic material on the feeder (Paragraph 0016 lines 1-4) or on a conveyor downstream of the feeder.
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) explains that this inspection technology can efficiently detect prohibited objects, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects from a pile of iron scrap (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) to include wherein the imaging device photographs a magnetic material on the feeder or on a conveyor downstream of the feeder as taught by Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) in order to provide an efficient detection of material unsuitable for shredding, including non-ferrous substances and sealed objects.
Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) lacks teaching wherein the second feeder is a second vibrating feeder.
Ruiz (US 2011/0240528) teaches a system for removing material (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-6) comprising a second vibrating feeder (Fig. 1 #60) that conveys magnetic materials having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator (Fig. 1 #40, Paragraph 0062 lines 26-46).
Ruiz (US 2011/0240528) explains that the second vibrating feeder disperses the shredded materials to the downstream equipment (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) to include a second vibrating feeder that conveys magnetic materials having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator as taught by Ruiz (US 2011/0240528) in order to disperse the materials evenly.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) in view of Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909), Ruiz (US 2011/0240528) and further in view of Shuttleworth et al. (US 8857746).
Regarding claim 5, Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) teaches the system for removing material unsuitable for shredding according to claim 4, wherein
the drum-type magnetic separator (Fig. 4a #4) is configured to enable at least one of a distance from the first vibrating feeder, a magnetic force of a magnet of a drum (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-4), and a rotation speed of the drum to be adjusted.
Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) lacks teaching wherein
the drum-type magnetic separator is configured to enable at least one of a distance from the first vibrating feeder, a magnetic force of an electromagnet of a drum, and a rotation speed of the drum to be adjusted.
Shuttleworth et al. (US 8857746) teaches a system for removing material (Col. 1 lines 14-26) wherein
the drum-type magnetic separator (Fig. 2 #14a) is configured to enable at least one of a distance from the first vibrating feeder, a magnetic force of an electromagnet of a drum (Col. 2 lines 9-13, Col. 3 lines 23-27), and a rotation speed of the drum to be adjusted.
Shuttleworth et al. (US 8857746) explains that the drum separators may comprise permanent magnets, electromagnets, or electro-permanent magnets (Col. 2 lines 9-13), and explains that the magnetic material may be separated with varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the strength of the magnets used and the machine settings of the sorter (Col. 3 liens 23-27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) to include wherein the drum-type magnetic separator is configured to enable at least one of a distance from the first vibrating feeder, a magnetic force of an electromagnet of a drum, and a rotation speed of the drum to be adjusted as taught by Shuttleworth et al. (US 8857746) in order to vary the strength of the magnetic separator and thus, vary the degree of effectiveness of the separation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) in view of Shuttleworth et al. (US 8857746).
Regarding claim 10, Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) teaches the drum-type magnetic separator according to claim 9, wherein the drum-type magnetic separator (Fig. 4a #4) is configured to enable at least one of a distance from a vibrating feeder that conveys the scrap, a magnetic force of a magnet of a drum (Paragraph 0034 lines 1-4), and a rotation speed of the drum to be adjusted.
Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) lacks teaching wherein the drum-type magnetic separator is configured to enable at least one of a distance from a vibrating feeder that conveys the scrap, a magnetic force of an electromagnet of a drum, and a rotation speed of the drum to be adjusted.
Shuttleworth et al. (US 8857746) teaches a drum-type magnetic separator (Col. 1 lines 14-26) wherein
the drum-type magnetic separator (Fig. 2 #14a) is configured to enable at least one of a distance from a vibrating feeder that conveys the scrap, a magnetic force of an electromagnet of a drum (Col. 2 lines 9-13, Col. 3 lines 23-27), and a rotation speed of the drum to be adjusted.
Shuttleworth et al. (US 8857746) explains that the drum separators may comprise permanent magnets, electromagnets, or electro-permanent magnets (Col. 2 lines 9-13), and explains that the magnetic material may be separated with varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the strength of the magnets used and the machine settings of the sorter (Col. 3 liens 23-27).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morikazu et al. (JP 2006075793) to include wherein the drum-type magnetic separator is configured to enable at least one of a distance from a vibrating feeder that conveys the scrap, a magnetic force of an electromagnet of a drum, and a rotation speed of the drum to be adjusted as taught by Shuttleworth et al. (US 8857746) in order to vary the strength of the magnetic separator and thus, vary the degree of effectiveness of the separation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) in view of Ruiz (US 2011/0240528).
Regarding claim 15, Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) teaches the information processing device according to claim 13, wherein the acquisition means (Fig. 3 #120) acquires, from the imaging device (Fig. 1 #10), a photographed image of a magnetic material (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-7) being conveyed by a feeder (Paragraph 0016 lines 1-4) or by a conveyor downstream of a vibrating feeder.
Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) lacks teaching a feeder which is a vibrating feeder.
Ruiz (US 2011/0240528) teaches information processing device (Paragraph 0002 lines 1-6) comprising a magnetic material (Paragraph 0062 lines 26-46) being conveyed by a vibrating feeder (Fig. 1 #60).
Ruiz (US 2011/0240528) explains that the vibrating feeder disperses the shredded materials to the downstream equipment (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koichiro et al. (JP 2020176909) to include a vibrating feeder as taught by Ruiz (US 2011/0240528) in order to disperse the materials evenly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653