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 .
Status of the Application
This is a Final Action in response to the claim amendments submitted on 08/01/2025.
Claims 1-5 are amended and examined herein.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the claims are directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process and machine, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity” and Mathematical Concepts groups within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite commercial or legal interactions (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Claims 1 and 4-5 recites the abstract idea of managing service related waste management (see paragraphs 002, 005-006) by calculating a need prediction, and estimating a level of service based on the need prediction. This idea is described by the following claim steps:
obtaining (i) a discharge history of discharge of waste by a user using the service based on data about a kind of the waste and a weight of the waste and (ii) and a purchase history of a product by the user based on image data;
calculating a discharging tendency of discharge of the waste by the user based on the discharge history and a discharge prediction about discharge of the waste by the user based on the purchase history;
calculating a need prediction about the service by using a prediction model which uses, as a parameter, the discharging tendency of discharge of the waste and the discharge prediction about discharge of the waste;
estimating a level of the service by a simulation which uses, as parameters, the need prediction and a resource employed for the service;
determining whether an estimated level of the service obtained by the simulation is within a predetermined range having a lower limit and an upper limit; and
transmitting, a notification which suggests a modification of behavior of at least one of discharge of the waste and purchase of the product by the user when it is determined that the estimated level of the service obtained by the simulation is not within the predetermined range.
This idea falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas because it is directed towards sales activities or behaviors or business relations such that as required when providing a waste management service. The noted abstract idea is also directed to mathematical concepts such as that required during the calculation of a need prediction, and estimation of a level of service based on the need prediction.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and Mathematical Concepts abstract idea groupings of the MPEP 2106, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and Mathematical Concepts abstract idea groupings described in the MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below. Claims 4 and 5 recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements that fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application are:
a terminal of a user;
a sensor provided at a waste collection space at a location of the user;
a camera installed in a preservation space at which the product is stored at the location of the user;
a device;
a memory;
a processor configured to execute processing based on data stored in the memory;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program;
However, using a computer environment such as a processor and the additional recites elements amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Managing a service for treatment of waste (003) can reasonably be performed by a person perhaps with the aid of pencil and paper until limited to a computerized environment by requiring a computer environment to perform the recited steps. For example, specifying that the abstract idea of providing a waste treatment service relates to a process that is executed in a computer environment through the recited computing elements merely limits the claims to the computer field, similar to how specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment in FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016) was insufficient. This concept is also similar to, buySAFE Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1095-96 (Fed. Cir. 2014) wherein it was determined that requiring the abstract idea of creating a contractual relationship guarantees performance of a transaction (a) be performed using a computer that receives and sends information over a network, or (b) be limited to guaranteeing online transactions simply attempted to limit the use of the abstract idea to computer environments. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and alternatively serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h).
With regards to the sensor and camera claimed, the examiner views these additional elements as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
In addition, these limitations fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As noted above, the claims as a whole merely describes a method, computer system, and computer program product that generally “apply” the concepts discussed in prong 1 above. (See MPEP 2106.05 f (II)) In particular applicant has recited the computing components at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. As the court stated in TLI Communications v. LLC v. AV Automotive LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) merely invoking generic computing components or machinery that perform their functions in their ordinary capacity to facilitate the abstract idea are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea within a computing environment and does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional computer components do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea and as a result the claim is not patent eligible.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For the reasons identified with respect to Step 2A, prong 2, claims 1, 4 and 5 fail to recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. For example, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a commercial or legal interaction or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 2-3 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite details that serve to narrow the same abstract idea recited in the independent claims accompanied by the same generic computing elements or software as those addressed above in the discussion of the independent claims, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, or other additional elements that fail to amount to a practical application or add significantly more, as noted above.
Dependent claims 2-3 further limits the abstract idea by narrowing the abstract idea and linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment by introducing the limitation wherein, when the comparison result indicates that the estimated level of the service obtained by the simulation falls below the lower limit of the predetermined range, the notification includes information about a service charge corresponding to a day and time when the waste is collected and information which encourages reduction in production or discharge of the waste and wherein, when the comparison result indicates that the estimated level of the service obtained by the simulation exceeds the upper limit of the predetermined range, the notification includes information about a service charge corresponding to a day and time when the waste is collected and information which encourages an increase in production or discharge of the waste. Further embellishing that the invention is capable of processing information in a generic computing environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide high level of generality computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For more information see MPEP 2106.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/01/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 08/01/2025, with respect to 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-5 has been withdrawn. Examiner finds the arguments persuasive the cited prior art, alone or in combination, does not disclose taking into consideration the purchase history of a product, determined by a camera installed in a preservation space as claimed, in order to calculate a discharging tendency and a need prediction as claimed. The specifics of the claim as amended is not disclosed by the prior art and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filled.
In regards to the previously presented 35 USC 101, Applicant’s arguments are found to be non-persuasive. Applicant specifically argues that applicant’s independent claims include a practical application due to the sensor, camera and user location. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed elements are not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application because the claimed elements are recited as such level of generality that they are viewed as results-oriented steps given that there is no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result are currently present such that this is viewed as equivalent to “apply it” for merely implementing the abstract idea using generic computing components (See Id.). Generally lining the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment by requiring that the data is gathered with generic computer elements such as a sensor and a camera, claimed as a such high level of generality does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c) ; and Applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1. Jones, US 20180189751, SYSTEMS AND METHODS OF ANALYZING RECYCLED PRODUCTS TO DETECT TRENDS AND ADJUST INVENTORY BASED ON THE TRENDS. In some embodiments, methods and systems are provided that include a scanner for scanning products recycled by consumers at a retail facility and an electronic inventory management device to analyze the scan data obtained by this scanner in order to determine consumer trends with respect to the recycled products and to determine whether the consumer-recycled products are associated with a trends that warrants one or more adjustments to the inventory at the retail facility.
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 MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6532. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/MARIA C SANTOS-DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629