DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 5/30/2023 has been entered and fully considered.
Claims 1-14 are pending with claims 9-14 withdrawn from further consideration.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/29/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “the physical property” in lines 13-14 is indefinite as it is unclear as to which physical properties are being referred to or which of the previous recitations this limitation refers to.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation of “the texture structural feature” in lines 10-11 is indefinite as it is unclear as to which texture structural features are being referred to.
Regarding claim 5, the recitation of “the physical property” in line 16 is indefinite as it is unclear as to which of the previous recitations these limitations refer to.
Claims 2 and 6-8 are similarly rejected for being depending on claims 1.
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 1-8 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) "a physical property and deterioration estimator configured to estimate, using a physical property and deterioration estimation model, a physical property and a deterioration degree of the plastic based on a texture structural feature extracted from surface analysis date of the plastic"; “a blending estimator configured to estimate a physical property of the recycled plastic based on the physical property and the deterioration degree of the plastic and a blending condition of the additive using a physical property recovery model”; “the physical property and deterioration estimator estimates a physical property and a deterioration degree of a sample based on a texture structural feature extracted from surface analysis date of the sample, and the blending estimator inversely estimates the blending condition of the additive to be blended in the sample based on the physical property and the deterioration degree of the sample, that are estimated by the physical property and deterioration estimator, and the desired physical property of the recycled plastic”. These limitations fall under the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states an abstract idea can be certain methods of mathematical concepts, such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. The claims do not integrate this mental step into a particular application - no action is done after estimating a physical property and deterioration degree or estimating a blending condition. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because "estimating" for blending conditions and deterioration degrees don't actually recite actual steps of doing these actions, but rather a mental step of mathematical calculations - could be verbally, could be written. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Interpretation
The recitations in the claims below all recite the intended use of the structures (estimator, determinator, database, etc.).The claims below are apparatus claims. The Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in apparatuses. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that OYASATO discloses the structures (estimator, determinator, database, etc.) as presently claimed, it is clear that these structures of OYASATO would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. storing, calculating, estimating, determining, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention. See also In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963) (It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim.); In re Casey 152 USPQ 235 (The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oyasato et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2004/0054516), hereinafter OYASATO.
Regarding claim 1, OYASATO teaches: A plastic recycling supporting apparatus for supporting plastic recycling in which a plastic is blended with an additive and is recycled into a recycled plastic having a desired physical property (OYASATO teaches a plastic recycling apparatus [Figs. 1-2; 0003].), the plastic recycling supporting apparatus comprising: a physical property and deterioration estimator configured to estimate, using a physical property and deterioration estimation model, a physical property and a deterioration degree of the plastic based on a texture structural feature extracted from surface analysis data of the plastic (OYASATO teaches a processor (CPU, 10) executes various necessary control processes including input/output control, various arithmetic processes, and evaluation process by executing the programs in the memory (100) [0080; Fig. 2]. OYASATO teaches the evaluation apparatus evaluates environmental loads in recyclability and life cycle of products [0005] and a cost deteriorating factor analysis method [0303]. OYASATO teaches the admissible composites that are evaluated include classification based on colors [0201; 0089] and the material can displayed or selected from a list [0089]. The Examiner is interpreting the physical property and the texture structural feature to be color.); and a blending estimator configured to estimate a physical property of the recycled plastic based on the physical property and the deterioration degree of the plastic and a blending condition of the additive using a physical property recovery model (OYASATO teaches the apparatus and evaluation tool includes a database for polymer blends [0202] and combinations of compatible polymer blends that are determined as admissible composites [0204]. OYASATO teaches the recyclability of the blends of polymers is computed [0245].), wherein the physical property and deterioration estimator estimates a physical property and a deterioration degree of a sample based on a texture structural feature extracted from surface analysis data of the sample (OYASATO teaches the admissible composites that are evaluated include classification based on colors [0201; 0089] and the material can display or selected from a list [0089]. OYASATO teaches samples [0079; 0088-0089].), and the blending estimator inversely estimates the blending condition of the additive to be blended in the sample based on the physical property and the deterioration degree of the sample, that are estimated by the physical property and deterioration estimator, and the desired physical property of the recycled plastic (OYASATO teaches the apparatus and evaluation tool includes a database for polymer blends [0202] and combinations of compatible polymer blends that are determined as admissible composites [0204]. OYASATO teaches the recyclability of the blends of polymers is computed [0245]. OYASATO teaches that the apparatus uses all the parts [Fig. 2] to execute the various models [0080-0089].).
Regarding claim 2, OYASATO teaches: further comprising: a determiner configured to determine whether the sample is acceptable, wherein the determiner determines whether the sample is acceptable based on whether the texture structural feature extracted from the surface analysis data of the sample is included in an allowable range corresponding to the desired physical property of the recycled plastic (OYASATO teaches the set contents of evaluation conditions include, e.g., the range of recycle, i.e., the recycle level representing “whether heat recovering of plastics should be included” or the “composite admissibility level in composite admissibility determination”. [0122-0126].), and the allowable range is defined by the blending estimator inversely estimating allowable ranges of the physical property and the deterioration degree allowable for the sample based on the desired physical property of the recycled plastic, and the physical property and deterioration estimator converting the allowable ranges of the physical property and the deterioration degree into a texture structural feature space (OYASATO teaches output conditions that the recycle range should be discriminated depending on the process method range or whether there is a charge for receiving a collected article are set and displayed [0240; Fig. 20].).
Regarding claim 3, OYASATO teaches: further comprising: a model database that stores a plurality of the physical property and deterioration estimation models, wherein the physical property and deterioration estimation model is stored in association with physical property estimation accuracy, deterioration estimation accuracy, and a surface analysis method, a time, and a measurement cost that are necessary for extracting the texture structural feature to be input to the model (OYASATO teaches a storage unit (16) that stores multiple databases and manages the parts/material data generated when the processor (10) executes the parts/material data generation program in the memory (100) [0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 4, OYASATO teaches: wherein in a case where the texture structural feature extracted from the surface analysis data of the sample is a value in a region where the estimation is not able to be performed by the physical property and deterioration estimation model, the determiner determines that the sample is acceptable when a physical property measured for the sample satisfies the allowable range of the physical property allowed for the sample, which is obtained and inversely estimated by the blending estimator based on the desired physical property of the recycled plastic (The Examiner would like to state that claim 4 recites “in a case”, indicating that the limitations after the clause “in a case” are optional; therefore, not required and OYASATO meets the claim limitations.).
Regarding claim 5, OYASATO teaches: wherein the determiner determines whether the sample is acceptable based on whether the texture structural feature extracted from the surface analysis data of the sample is included in a first allowable range corresponding to the desired physical property of the recycled plastic, and when it is not possible to make the determination based on the first allowable range, the determiner determines whether the sample is acceptable based on whether the texture structural feature is included in a second allowable range corresponding to the desired physical property of the recycled plastic, the first allowable range is defined by the physical property and deterioration estimator converting the allowable ranges of the physical property and the deterioration degree into the texture structural feature space using a first physical property and deterioration estimation model, and the second allowable range is defined by the physical property and deterioration estimator converting the allowable ranges of the physical property and the deterioration degree into the texture structural feature space using a second physical property and deterioration estimation model, and the number of types of the surface analysis method necessary for extracting the texture structural feature to be input into the model in the first physical property and deterioration estimation model is smaller than that in the second physical property and deterioration estimation model (OYASATO teaches a determining process and the determination of the products and plastics are based on ranges [0171-0174]. OYASATO also uses the color image of the different parts that may be selected in the models [0088-0089].).
Regarding claim 6, OYASATO teaches: wherein in a case where the texture structural feature extracted from the surface analysis data of the sample is a value in a region where the estimation is not able to be performed by the second physical property and deterioration estimation model, the determiner determines that the sample is acceptable when a physical property measured for the sample satisfies the allowable range of the physical property allowed for the sample, which is obtained and inversely estimated by the blending estimator based on the desired physical property of the recycled plastic (The Examiner would like to state that claim 4 recites “in a case”, indicating that the limitations after the clause “in a case” are optional; therefore, not required and OYASATO meets the claim limitations.).
Regarding claim 7, OYASATO teaches: further comprising: a plastic database that stores, for each type of plastic, the surface analysis data, physical property data, and deterioration degree data of the plastic, the deterioration degree data being based on a condition of an accelerated deterioration test performed on the plastic (OYASATO teaches a storage unit (16) that stores a parts basic information database and a waste collection information database [0081; 0090; claims 17, 22].); and a first model constructor configured to construct the physical property and deterioration estimation model by using, as training data, a combination of the texture structural feature extracted from the surface analysis data of the plastic stored in the plastic database with the physical property data and the deterioration degree data of the plastic that are stored in the plastic database (OYASATO teaches the evaluation unit (computer) may execute various evaluation programs and has a storage (16) [0080-0081]. OYASATO also teaches an improvement effect test computation unit (312) that updates provisionally evaluation condition [0076-0079].).
Regarding claim 8, OYASATO teaches: further comprising: a second model constructor, wherein the plastic database further stores, for each type of plastic, physical property data of recycled plastic obtained by recycling by blending an additive with the plastic after the accelerated deterioration test and a blending condition of the additive (OYASATO teaches a storage unit (16) that stores a parts basic information database and a waste collection information database [0081; 0090; claims 17, 22]. OYASATO also teaches the storage unit may include data of the blend compatibility [0202-0204].), and the second model constructor constructs the physical property recovery model by using, as training data, a combination of the physical property data of the recycled plastic stored in the plastic database with the physical property data and deterioration degree data of the plastic and the blending condition of the additive that are stored in the plastic database (OYASATO teaches the evaluation unit (computer) may execute various evaluation programs and has a storage (16) [0080-0081]. OYASATO also teaches an improvement effect test computation unit (312) that updates provisionally evaluation condition [0076-0079].).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748