DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed 11/5/2025 has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are pending and under consideration in this action. Claim 3 was canceled in the amendment filed 11/5/2025.
Priority
This application claims foreign priority from Republic of Korea Application KR1020200187051, filed 12/30/2020, as reflected in the filing receipt mailed 1/11/2022. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. The claims to the benefit of priority are acknowledged and the effective filing date of claims 1-2 and 4-8 is 12/30/2020.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 11/5/2025 (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 11/5/2025 (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 8).
Newly Recited Rejections
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are 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.
This rejection is newly recited and necessitated by claim amendment.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “acquiring, by the data collection unit, a fourth mass ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene included in the recycled ABS” in lines 16-17 of the claim. The metes and bounds of the claim are rendered indefinite due to the lack of clarity. It is unclear how the fourth mass ratio is different from the third mass ratio acquired in the previous limitation of “a third mass ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene included in recycled ABS recycled from the ABS product”, since both recite the ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene. Based on the specification (Pg. 29, Lines 8-25), the fourth mass ratio should be the ratio of the mass of styrene to the mass of butadiene included in the recycled ABS. This rejection can be overcome by amendment of claim 1 to clarify the appropriate mass components in the fourth mass ratio. Claims 2 and 4-8 are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 1 also recites the limitation “and a second mass ratio is within the second ratio range” in lines 12-13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since there is no prior mention of “the second ratio range” earlier in the claim. This rejection can be overcome by amendment of claim 1 to recite “and a second mass ratio is within a second ratio range”. Claims 2 and 4-8 are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Maintained Rejections
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 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite both (1) mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations) and (2) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including observations, evaluations, judgements or opinions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)).
Any newly recited portion is necessitated by claim amendment.
Step 1:
In the instant application, claims 1-2 and 4-8 are directed towards a method, which falls into one of the categories of statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One:
In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong One). The following instant claims recite limitations that equate to one or more categories of judicial exceptions:
Claim 1 recites a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of whether values are within a range) in “determining, by the server, that the ABS product is recyclable in response to determining that the first mass ratio is within a first ratio range and a second mass ratio is within the second ratio range”; a mathematical concept (i.e., a difference or absolute value calculation to be less than or equal to a threshold) in “in response to determining that an absolute value of a difference between the first mass ratio and the third mass ratio is equal to or less than a threshold mass ratio and an absolute value of a difference between the second mass ratio and the fourth mass ratio is equal to or less than the threshold mass ratio”; a mathematical concept (i.e., using a machine learning model to determine an index) in “applying, by the server, the recycled ABS composition information to a first machine learning model to acquire an index related to a characteristic of the recycled ABS”; a mathematical concept (i.e., using a machine learning model to determine an index) in “applying, by the server, the index related to the characteristic of the recycled ABS and the content ratios of the recycled ABS, the general ABS, the CNT, the CF, and the recycled TPU to a second machine learning model to acquire an index related to the property of the mixed material of the recycled ABS, the general ABS, the CNT, the CF, and the recycled TPU and a reliability of the index”; a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of the index to determine a range) in “determining, by the user terminal, a range of the property of the mixed material corresponding to the index related to the property of the mixed material”; a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of whether or not the index is lower than a threshold) in “generating, by the user terminal, a first output signal representing that it is necessary to perform an experiment to confirm the property of the mixed material when the reliability of the index is lower than a first threshold reliability”; a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of whether a property is within a range and an index is higher than a threshold) in “generating, by the user terminal, a second output signal representing that it is necessary to perform an additional experiment when the expected property information of the mixed material is within the range of the property of the mixed material and the reliability of the index is higher than a second threshold reliability”; a mathematical concept in “wherein the first machine learning model is a model which has performed machine learning on a relationship between recycled ABS composition information and indices related to the characteristic of recycled ABS”; a mathematical concept in “the second machine learning model is a model which has performed machine learning on relationships between indices related to the property of mixed materials and the index related to the characteristic of the recycled ABS, content ratios of the recycled ABS, the general ABS, the CNT, the CF, and the recycled TPU”; and a mental process (i.e., an observation of how the index correlates with a degree of breakage) in “wherein the index related to the characteristic of the recycled ABS includes information related to a degree of breakage of polymer chains made of acrylonitrile, butadiene, and styrene included in the recycled ABS”.
Claim 2 recites a mathematical concept (i.e., using data to generate the machine learning model) in “performing, by the server, machine learning on relationships between the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS composition information and the indices related to the characteristic of the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS to generate the first machine learning model”.
Claim 4 recites a mathematical concept (i.e., using data to generate the machine learning model) in “performing, by the server, machine learning on the indices related to the characteristic of the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS, the content ratios of the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS, the content ratios of the plurality of pieces of past general ABS, the content ratios of the plurality of pieces of past CNT, the content ratios of the plurality of pieces of past CF, the content ratios of the plurality of pieces of past recycled TPU, and the indices related to the property of the plurality of past mixed materials to generate the second machine learning model”.
Claim 5 recites a mathematical concept (i.e., using an algorithm to determine the similarity) in “determining a similarity between the distribution of the molecular weights of the molecules included in the recycled ABS and the distribution of the molecular weights of the molecules included in the general ABS”.
Claim 6 recites a mathematical concept (i.e., determining the maximum number in the distribution) in “determining a first molecular weight (A2) having a maximum number (A1) in the distribution of the molecular weights of the molecules included in the recycled ABS”, a mathematical concept (i.e., determining the maximum number in the distribution) in “determining a second molecular weight (B2) having a maximum number (B1) in the distribution of the molecular weights of the molecules included in the general ABS”, and a mathematical concept (i.e., calculating similarity with a formula) in “determining the similarity between the distributions as follows: the similarity between the distributions = 1/((((A2 – B2)2/(A22 + B22))1/2 + (((A1 – B1)2/(A12 + B12))1/2)”.
Claim 8 recites a mental process (i.e., an evaluation of whether the content ratio is below a threshold) in “wherein the content ratio of the general ABS is one or less which is a ratio of a mass of the general ABS to a mass of the recycled ABS”, “the content ratio of the CNT is 1/20 or less which is a ratio of a mass of the CNT to the mass of the recycled ABS”, “the content ratio of the CF is 1/5 or less which is a ratio of a mass of the CF to the mass of the recycled ABS”, and “the content ratio of the recycled TPU is 2/3 or less which is a ratio of a mass of the recycled TPU to the mass of the recycled ABS”.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis is Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)), and organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or mathematical relationships.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification, and are determined to be directed to mental processes that in the simplest embodiments are not too complex to practically perform in the human mind. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind. The instant claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(III)). The following claims recite limitations that equate to additional elements:
Claim 1 recites “a server for analyzing data using a machine learning mode”; “a user terminal for receiving an input of a user and transmitting the input to the server”; “a data collection unit for collecting data”; “transmitting, by the user terminal, information related to an ABS product to the server”; “acquiring, by the server, a first mass ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene based on the information related to the ABS product”; “acquiring, by the server, a second mass ratio of a mass of styrene to a mass of butadiene based on the information related to the ABS product”; “acquiring, by the data collection unit, a third mass ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene included in recycled ABS recycled from the ABS product”; “acquiring, by the data collection unit, a fourth mass ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene included in the recycled ABS”; “performing, by a gel permeation chromatography equipment of the data collection unit, gel permeation chromatography (GPC) analysis on the recycled ABS to acquire recycled ABS composition information including a recycled ABS-related number average molecular weight and a recycled ABS-related weight average molecular weight”; “transmitting, by the data collection unit, the recycled ABS composition information to the server”; “acquiring, by the user terminal, content ratios of the recycled ABS, general ABS, carbon nanotubes (CNT), carbon fiber (CF), and recycled thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) included in a mixed material and expected property information of the mixed material”; “transmitting, by the user terminal, the content ratios of the recycled ABS, the general ABS, the CNT, the CF, and the recycled TPU to the server”; and “transmitting, by the server, the index related to the property of the mixed material and the reliability of the index to the user terminal”.
Claim 2 further recites “acquiring, by the server, a plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS composition information and indices related to the characteristic of a plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS each corresponding to the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS composition information”.
Claim 4 further recites “acquiring, by the server, the indices related to the characteristic of the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS, content ratios of the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past general ABS, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past CNT, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past CF, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past recycled TPU, and indices related to the property of a plurality of past mixed materials”.
Claim 5 further recites “performing GPC analysis on the recycled ABS to generate a distribution of molecular weights of molecules included in the recycled ABS”, “performing GPC analysis on the general ABS to generate a distribution of molecular weights of molecules included in the general ABS”, “transmitting the similarity between the distributions to the server”, and “acquiring, by the server, an index related to the characteristic of the recycled ABS on a basis of the similarity between the distributions without using the first machine learning model when the similarity between the distributions is a first threshold similarity or more”.
Claim 7 further recites “acquiring an index related to the characteristic of the recycled ABS to represent a lowest degree of breakage of polymer chains made of acrylonitrile, butadiene, and styrene included in the recycled ABS when the similarity between the distributions is the first threshold similarity or more”.
Regarding the above cited limitations in claim 1 of (i) a server for analyzing data using a machine learning model, (ii) a user terminal for receiving an input of a user and transmitting the input to the server, and (iii) a data collection unit for collecting data. These limitations require only a generic computer component, which does not improve computer technology. Therefore, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which the courts have established does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp. 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 of (iv) transmitting, by the user terminal, information related to an ABS product to the server; (v) acquiring, by the server, a first mass ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene based on the information related to the ABS product; (vi) acquiring, by the server, a second mass ratio of a mass of styrene to a mass of butadiene based on the information related to the ABS product; (vii) acquiring, by the data collection unit, a third mass ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene included in recycled ABS recycled from the ABS product; (viii) acquiring, by the data collection unit, a fourth mass ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene included in the recycled ABS; (ix) performing, by the data collection unit, gel permeation chromatography (GPC) analysis on recycled ABS to acquire recycled ABS composition information including a recycled ABS-related number average molecular weight and a recycled ABS-related weight average molecular weight; (x) transmitting, by the data collection unit, the recycled ABS composition information to the server; (xi) acquiring, by the user terminal, content ratios of the recycled ABS, general ABS, carbon nanotubes (CNT), carbon fiber (CF), and recycled thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) included in a mixed material and expected property information of the mixed material; (xii) transmitting, by the user terminal, the content ratios of the recycled ABS, the general ABS, the CNT, the CF, and the recycled TPU to the server; (xiii) transmitting, by the server, the index related to the property of the mixed material and the reliability of the index to the user terminal; (xiv) acquiring, by the server, a plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS composition information and indices related to the characteristic of a plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS each corresponding to the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS composition information; (xv) acquiring, by the server, the indices related to the characteristic of the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS, content ratios of the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past general ABS, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past CNT, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past CF, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past recycled TPU, and indices related to the property of a plurality of past mixed materials; (xvi) performing GPC analysis on the recycled ABS to generate a distribution of molecular weights of molecules included in the recycled ABS; (xvii) performing GPC analysis on the general ABS to generate a distribution of molecular weights of molecules included in the general ABS; (xviii) transmitting the similarity between the distributions to the server; (xix) acquiring, by the server, an index related to the characteristic of the recycled ABS on the basis of the similarity between the distributions without using the first machine learning model when the similarity between the distributions is a first threshold similarity or more; and (xx) acquiring an index related to the characteristic of the recycled ABS to represent a lowest degree of breakage of polymer chains made of acrylonitrile, butadiene, and styrene included in the recycled ABS when the similarity between the distributions is the first threshold similarity or more. These limitations equate to insignificant, extra-solution activity of mere data gathering because these limitations gather data before or after the recited judicial exceptions of applying the recycled ABS composition information to a first machine learning model and applying the index related to the characteristic of the recycled ABS and the content ratios to a second machine learning model (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)). As such, claims 1-2 and 4-8 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that equate to well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The instant claims recite same additional elements described in Step 2A, Prong Two above.
Regarding the above cited limitations in claim 1 of (i) a server for analyzing data using a machine learning model, (ii) a user terminal for receiving an input of a user and transmitting the input to the server, and (iii) a data collection unit for collecting data. These limitations equate to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computing environment, which the courts have established does not provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 (iv) transmitting, by the user terminal, information related to an ABS product to the server; (v) acquiring, by the server, a first mass ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene based on the information related to the ABS product; (vi) acquiring, by the server, a second mass ratio of a mass of styrene to a mass of butadiene based on the information related to the ABS product; (vii) acquiring, by the data collection unit, a third mass ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene included in recycled ABS recycled from the ABS product; (viii) acquiring, by the data collection unit, a fourth mass ratio of a mass of acrylonitrile to a mass of butadiene included in the recycled ABS; (x) transmitting, by the data collection unit, the recycled ABS composition information to the server; (xi) acquiring, by the user terminal, content ratios of the recycled ABS, general ABS, carbon nanotubes (CNT), carbon fiber (CF), and recycled thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) included in a mixed material and expected property information of the mixed material; (xii) transmitting, by the user terminal, the content ratios of the recycled ABS, the general ABS, the CNT, the CF, and the recycled TPU to the server; (xiii) transmitting, by the server, the index related to the property of the mixed material and the reliability of the index to the user terminal; (xiv) acquiring, by the server, a plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS composition information and indices related to the characteristic of a plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS each corresponding to the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS composition information; (xv) acquiring, by the server, the indices related to the characteristic of the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS, content ratios of the plurality of pieces of past recycled ABS, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past general ABS, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past CNT, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past CF, content ratios of a plurality of pieces of past recycled TPU, and indices related to the property of a plurality of past mixed materials; (xviii) transmitting the similarity between the distributions to the server; (xix) acquiring, by the server, an index related to the characteristic of the recycled ABS on the basis of the similarity between the distributions without using the first machine learning model when the similarity between the distributions is a first threshold similarity or more; and (xx) acquiring an index related to the characteristic of the recycled ABS to represent a lowest degree of breakage of polymer chains made of acrylonitrile, butadiene, and styrene included in the recycled ABS when the similarity between the distributions is the first threshold similarity or more. These limitations equate to receiving/transmitting data over a network, which the courts have established as a WURC limitation of a generic computer in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Regarding the above cited limitations in claims 1 and 5 of (ix) performing, by the data collection unit, gel permeation chromatography (GPC) analysis on recycled ABS to acquire recycled ABS composition information including a recycled ABS-related number average molecular weight and a recycled ABS-related weight average molecular weight, (xvi) performing GPC analysis on the recycled ABS to generate a distribution of molecular weights of molecules included in the recycled ABS, and (xvii) performing GPC analysis on the general ABS to generate a distribution of molecular weights of molecules included in the general ABS. These limitations when viewed individually and in combination, are WURC limitations as taught by Bai et al. (Reprocessing Acrylonitrile–Butadiene–Styrene Plastics: Structure-Property Relationships. Polymer Engineering and Science 47(2): 120-130 (2007); previously cited). Bai et al. discloses that acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS) plastics from computer equipment housings have been reprocessed, and analyzed for structural changes using infrared spectroscopy, gel permeation chromatography (GPC), and dynamic mechanical thermal analysis (Abstract). Bai et al. also discloses that the molecular weight distribution was analyzed at room temperature with a GPC system (limitations (ix), (xvi), and (xvii)) (Pg. 122, Col. 1, Para. 2).
These additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the instant claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). As such, claims 1-2 and 4-8 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter is not directed to (a) mathematical concepts. Specifically, at least the features "performing, by a gel permeation chromatography equipment of the data collection unit, gel permeation chromatography (GPC) analysis on the recycled ABS to acquire recycled ABS composition information including a recycled ABS-related number average molecular weight and a recycled ABS-related weight average molecular weight" are not directed to mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 9-10). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
The limitations reciting mathematical concepts are described in Step 2A, Prong One above. The limitation of “performing, by a gel permeation chromatography equipment of the data collection unit, gel permeation chromatography (GPC) analysis on the recycled ABS to acquire recycled ABS composition information including a recycled ABS-related number average molecular weight and a recycled ABS-related weight average molecular weight” has been identified as an additional element in Step 2A, Prong Two above. This limitation has therefore not been identified as reciting a mathematical concept, and this argument is thus not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claimed subject matter is not directed to (b) certain methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, at least the features "performing, by a gel permeation chromatography equipment of the data collection unit, gel permeation chromatography (GPC) analysis on the recycled ABS to acquire recycled ABS composition information including a recycled ABS-related number average molecular weight and a recycled ABS-related weight average molecular weight" are not directed to fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, etc. (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 10). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
As described in the arguments directly above, the limitation of “performing, by a gel permeation chromatography equipment of the data collection unit, gel permeation chromatography (GPC) analysis…” has been identified as an additional element in Step 2A, Prong Two above, and not as a limitation reciting a judicial exception. This limitation therefore is not directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity, and this argument is thus not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter is not directed to (c) mental processed such as concepts that can be performed in the human mind. Independent claim 1 recites specific features that methods that cannot be performed in the human mind. For example, independent claim I recites "performing, by a gel permeation chromatography equipment of the data collection unit, gel permeation chromatography (GPC) analysis on the recycled ABS to acquire recycled ABS composition information including a recycled ABS-related number average molecular weight and a recycled ABS-related weight average molecular weight." (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 10-11). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
The limitations reciting mental processes have been identified in Step 2A, Prong One above. As described in Step 2A, Prong Two and the arguments directly above, the limitation of “performing, by a gel permeation chromatography equipment of the data collection unit, gel permeation chromatography (GPC) analysis…” has been identified as an additional element, and therefore does not recite a mental process. This argument is thus not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed subject matter includes an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. The claimed subject matter is monitoring an object. The claims of the present application are similar to those that were held eligible by Federal Circuit in CARDIONET, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F. 3d 1358. Similar to the claims in Cardionet, independent claim 1 focuses on a specific means or method that produce recycled ABS that has similar properties to regular ABS, and is not "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Specifically, the claimed subject matter utilizes two specific machine learning models. Then, the claimed subject matter generates a first output signal representing that it is essentially necessary to perform an experiment to confirm the property of the mixed material when the reliability of the index is lower than a first threshold reliability; and generates a second output signal representing that it is necessary to perform an additional experiment when the expected property information of the mixed material is within the range of the property of the mixed material and the reliability of the index is higher than a second threshold reliability. This allows a user to produce recycled ABS that has properties similar to those of regular ABS. Through recycling, the claimed subject matter of claim 1 of the present application has the effect of reducing the ever-increasing amount of plastic waste. (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 12-13). Applicant’s arguments are not pervasive for the following reasons:
MPEP 2106.04(d)(II) recites:
The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h).
The limitations indicated by Applicant, of “applying the recycled ABS composition information to a first machine learning model to acquire an index related to a characteristic of the recycled ABS", “applying the index related to the characteristic of the recycled ABS and the content ratios of the recycled ABS, the general ABS, the CNT, the CF, and the recycled TPU to a second machine learning model to acquire an index related to the property of the mixed material of the recycled ABS, the general ABS, the CNT, the CF, and the recycled TPU and a reliability of the index”, “generating, by the user terminal, a first output signal representing that it is necessary to perform an experiment to confirm the property of the mixed material when the reliability of the index is lower than a first threshold reliability” and “generating, by the user terminal, a second output signal representing that it is necessary to perform an additional experiment when the expected property information of the mixed material is within the range of the property of the mixed material and the reliability of the index is higher than a second threshold reliability”, have been identified as reciting judicial exceptions in Step 2A, Prong One above. The integration of a judicial exception into a practical application can only be achieved by additional elements, not by a limitation that recites a judicial exception. Thus, the recited limitations are not considered as an improvement in the method of producing recycled ABS that has similar properties to regular ABS.
MPEP 2106.05(a) recites:
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
Furthermore, the alleged improvements indicated by Applicant are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Applicant appears to assert that the claimed features may be used reduce the ever-increasing amount of plastic waste or reduce the environmental pollution (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 13 and Specification, Pg. 2, Lines 9-17). However, the claim provides a method for estimating the properties of the material, and whether it is necessary to perform additional experiments based on the material properties, but does not provide any indication of the property correlating with the reduction in plastic waste or environmental pollution. Therefore, it appears the alleged improvements are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. This argument is thus not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the combination of elements for each claim, taken individually and as a whole, amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The features of intendent claim 1 are not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Specifically, the features of independent claim 1 are not disclosed, taught or suggested by the prior art of record. (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 14-16). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
MPEP 2106.05(I) recites:
“Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting "the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101"). As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty."). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art … [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
Without reiterating all limitations in the claim, the additional elements of transmitting/acquiring data by the user terminal/server/data collection (corresponding to limitations (iv)-(viii) and (x)-(xiii) in Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B above) equate to receiving/transmitting data over a network, which the courts have established as a WURC limitation of a generic computer in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
The limitation of “performing, by the data collection unit, gel permeation chromatography (GPC) analysis on recycled ABS to acquire recycled ABS composition information…” (limitation (ix) in Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B above) has been identified as a WURC limitation taught by Bai et al. When these WURC limitations are viewed in combination, they do not comprise an inventive concept that that transforms the claimed judicial exceptions into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exceptions. Therefore, the instant claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al., Bai et al., Memarian et al., Yan et al., and Shin et al. is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 11/5/2025 and Applicant’s Remarks were found persuasive (Applicant’s Remarks, Pg. 17-23). Specifically, the system disclosed by Choi et al. predicts properties of composite resins, but not for recycled acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS). Choi et al. also does not disclose the acquisition of specific mass ratios or their comparison to ranges/thresholds, nor the use of gel permeation chromatography (GPC) to acquire the composition information. Bai et al., Memarian et al., Yan et al., and Shin et al. also do not disclose the acquisition of specific mass ratios or their comparison to ranges/thresholds.
The rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al., Bai et al., Memarian et al., Yan et al., Shin et al., and Bajusz et al. is withdrawn for the same reasons as described for claims 1-4 above.
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al., Bai et al., Memarian et al., Yan et al., Shin et al., Bajusz et al., and de Leon et al. is withdrawn for the same reasons as described for claims 5-7 above.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 appear to be free from the prior art because the prior art does not fairly suggest or teach a method for estimating the properties of recycled acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), including steps of acquiring mass ratios, using gel permeation chromatography (GPC) to obtain ABS composition information, and using two machine learning models to predict the degree of breakage of polymer chains in the recycled ABS. The closest prior art is Choi et al. (Korean Application 20200052393A; previously cited). Choi et al. discloses physical property prediction system based on artificial intelligence for various composite resins. The system disclosed by Choi et al. includes a model generation unit, a property calculation unit, and an output unit that are wirelessly linked for acquiring and transmitting input or output composition/raw material data. However, Choi et al. does not teach that the property prediction is for recycled ABS, including the degree of breakage for individual components, the acquiring of specific mass ratios of the ABS product, or that the composition information is obtained by performing GPC analysis on the recycled ABS, as disclosed in instant claim 1. Claims 2 and 4-8 are free from the prior art due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA P SANFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-6504. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571)272-9047. 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.
/D.P.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Lori A. Clow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687