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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 11th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 and 15-17 have been amended. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claims 22-23 have been added. Claims 1-13, 15-17 and 22-23 remain pending.
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 12-13 and 15-17 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 a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of a magnetic material, a central processing unit configured to identify a material unsuitable for shredding from the magnetic material, based on information acquired by the shape measuring device, and 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 and central processing unit are 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 a shape measuring device including a scanner or a camera configured to acquire information on at least one of a volume, a height, and a thickness of the magnetic material as the magnetic material is being conveyed in the system as a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material 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 shape measuring device including a scanner or a camera configured to acquire information on at least one of a volume, a height, and a thickness of the magnetic material as the magnetic material is being conveyed in the system as a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material is described at a high level of generality, and amounts mere data gathering. 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 and 15-16 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)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 22-23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites “a drum-type magnetic separator whose magnetic force is set so as to attract a magnetic material having a weight less than a predetermined weight from the scrap… a central processing unit 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 having been attracted to and separated by the drum-type magnetic separator” wherein this limitation, in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 1, was not seen in the searched prior art. The prior art more typically showed a drum-type magnetic separator used for separating magnetic material from non-magnetic material, or a series of magnetic separators are used to perform a first separation which separates lightweight magnetic objects and supplies these objects to a shredder, and a second separation which separates heavy magnetic objects from the remaining objects not previously fed to the shredder.
Claim 9 recites “A drum-type magnetic separator… wherein a magnetic force is set so as to attract a magnetic material having a weight less than a predetermined weight from the scrap and to not attract a magnetic material having a weight more than the predetermined weight from the scrap”, wherein this limitation, in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 9, was not seen in the searched prior art. The prior art more typically showed a drum-type magnetic separator used for separating magnetic material from non-magnetic material, or a series of magnetic separators are used to perform a first separation which separates lightweight magnetic objects and supplies these objects to a shredder, and a second separation which separates heavy magnetic objects from the remaining objects not previously fed to the shredder.
Claims 2-8, 10-11 and 22-23 are allowed as they are dependent upon claims 1 and 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed May 11th, 2026, with respect to amended claims 1 and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to amended claim 12 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The information acquired by the shape measuring device including a scanner or camera 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. These limitations are considered extra solution activity since they 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)). Additionally, 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)), as this field of use does not alter or affect the process of acquiring information as a measurement result of a three-dimensional shape of the magnetic material, identifying a material unsuitable for shredding, and outputting information indicating that the material unsuitable for shredding is included.
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 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
Prosecution Insights