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 .
Detailed Action
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed 01/16/2026.
The effective filing date of the present application is 11/20/2020.
Claims 1 – 10, 12 – 17, and 19 – 20 are pending; claim 11 being presently cancelled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's remarks of 01/16/2026 have been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 17, have persuaded the Examiner to withdraw the previous interpretation under 112(f) for this claim.
Applicant has not amended claim 13 to affirmatively recite statutory subject matter; therefore, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter is included within this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 14 has not resolved the previous rejection for this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter; therefore, a new rejection for this claim is included within this Office Action.
The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. §101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Regarding claim 13, “a computer program element” is referred to as “software per se” when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. Claim 13 reads as a product that does not have a physical or tangible form, and is therefore, not directed to any of the statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03(I), where it is noted, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, the addition of “tangible” does not serve to recite allowable subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03(I). Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. For instance, a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter. Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1356-1357, 84 USPQ2d at 1501-03.
Claims 1 – 10, 12 – 17, and 19 – 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
With regards to claims 1 – 10, 12 , 15 – 17, and 19 – 20, at Step 1 of eligibility analysis, these claims recite methods (processes) and systems (machines). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Regarding claim 13, at Step 1 of eligibility analysis, the claim recites a computer program element that instructs a processor to perform; thus, there is no physical or tangible form, and is interpreted to be software per se. software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See MPEP 2106.03(I). This claim is rejected for failure to claim statutory subject matter as detailed above and no further analysis is needed. However, to advance prosecution, the Examiner has included this claim under further Alice/Mayo test analysis (Step 2A, below), as if the Applicant has amended the claim to properly recite the included element.
Regarding claim 14, at Step 1 of eligibility analysis, this claim is rejected for failure to claim statutory subject matter as detailed above and no further analysis is needed. Even when a product has a physical or tangible form, it may not fall within a statutory category. However, to advance prosecution, the Examiner has included this claim under further Alice/Mayo test analysis (Step 2A, below), as if the Applicant has amended the claim to properly recite non-transitory computer readable medium.
Regarding claims 1 – 10. 12 – 17, and 19 – 20, at Step 2A, Prong One, of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims, as a whole, set forth a method for identifying plastic compounds and determining a sustainability score (a metric describing characteristics of the plastic). This describes a mental process which includes observations (obtaining and receiving scan data), evaluations (identifying a marker), and judgments and opinions (determining a score) of the plastic compound. Claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of claim 17, contains elements that define this abstract idea (and are highlighted below):
A computer-implemented method for determining generating a sustainability score of a plastic compound, comprising:
obtaining spectral scan data by scanning a plastic compound using a scanning device;
receiving, via a receiving unit having a physical hardware interface, the spectral scan data from the scanning device;
accessing, by one or more processing units coupled to the receiving unit, a computer-based database storing marker definitions for a plurality of plastic compounds:
identifying, by the one or more processing units, at least one marker embedded in the scanned plastic compound by comparing the received spectral scan data to the marker definitions stored in the database: and
calculating, by the one or more processing units, a sustainability score for the plastic compound based on the identified marker and the associated data stored in the database;
wherein the calculated sustainability score is configured for controlling further processing of the plastic compound.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, of eligibility analysis. the Examiner has determined that the identified abstract idea (judicial exception) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in MPEP 2106.05(f) it is noted that "[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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology.
Claims 1 and 17 recite the following additional elements:
computer-implemented;
a scanning device;
a receiving unit having a physical hardware interface;
one or more processing units coupled to the receiving unit;
a computer-based database.
These elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in the disclosure, at page 11 and Figure 4, as filed. Simply implementing the abstract ideas on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. For example, “The term computer-based database is to be understood broadly in the present case and comprises any database or data system, which is configured to store and manage data.” The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of eligibility analysis, the Examiner has determined that the claims 1 and 17 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea within a computer environment to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of: (computer-implemented; a receiving unit having a physical hardware interface; one or more processing units coupled to the receiving unit; a computer-based database.), amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP 2106.05(f).
The element scanning device is also broadly defined: “the wavelength scanner is configured for scanning a sample of a plastic compound”; and, “The X-ray fluorescence scanner 14 is configured to for scanning a sample of the plastic compound 16, wherein scanning means detecting the emitted radiation of the markers.” Thereby describing a certain device operating in its ordinary capacity to detect emitted radiation; i.e., gather data. Noting that this step is further generically defined: “The term wavelength scanner is to be understood broadly in the present case and comprises a scanner that is configured to determine a wavelength of an atom or a molecule.” Therefore, this step recites mere data gathering, which describes insignificant extra-solution activity, and does not provide for integration into a practical application or provide for significantly more.
Dependent claims 2 and 3 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to data of samples and identifying data, are further steps performed to identify plastic compounds; therefore, they are directed to the abstract idea. Further, these claims utilize block chain, which is a generic term for a distributed ledger, or a database. These additional elements describe the system in a generic way, as disclosed at Specification [3:34]. Thus, the mere automation of receiving a block chain and uploading a block chain, is noted that use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 4 – 7, 12, and 20, contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to determining a type and/or quantity of the marker, a weight, a sustainability score, and number of recycling loops, are further refinements to the observations, evaluations, and judgments and opinions for scoring. Further, these claims are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), because they utilize the generically described additional elements of claim 1 – “computer-implemented”.
Dependent claims 8 and 16 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claims 1 and 15. Recitations to display on a user interface is a further recitation to instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer. Instructions to display information is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 9 and 10 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to a group of markers or group of plastic compounds are further refinements to the method employed to perform the abstract idea – they are the core data that defines the plastic compounds to be observed, evaluated, and judged. Further, these claims are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), because they utilize the generically described additional elements of claim 1 – “computer-implemented”.
Dependent claims 13 and 14 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to a computer program element, instructions, and non-transitory computer readable medium (if appropriately amended), are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), because they utilize the generically described additional elements of claim 1 – “computer-implemented”.
Dependent claims 15 and 16 contain further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 1. Recitations to components that make up a plastic compound handing device and the user interface is noted to be 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 does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 19 contains further embellishments to the same abstract idea found in claim 1, as it requires the method steps of claim 1 and adds more to the abstract idea. Recitations to receiving a score that is calculated, and comparing the score, are further refinements to the observations, evaluations, and judgments and opinions for the scores. Further, these claims are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP 2106.05(f), because they utilize the generically described additional elements of claim 1 – “computer-implemented”.
Therefore, for the reasons cited above, claims 1 – 10, 12 – 17, and 19 – 20, are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and without reciting significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saltzman (US 2019/0017863), in view of Stöcker (US 2019/0295045), further in view of, Barlow (US 2013/0013218).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Saltzman discloses:
a computer-implemented method for determining generating a sustainability score of a plastic compound, comprising: obtaining spectral scan data by scanning a plastic compound using a scanning device; (first, because Applicant does not define spectral, a review of the Specification shows: “…wherein the wavelength scanner is configured for scanning a sample of a plastic compound; and, [t]he term wavelength scanner is to be understood broadly in the present case and comprises a scanner that is configured to determine a wavelength of an atom or a molecule” Therefore, the Examiner interprets this element to recite scanning a wavelength, and determines that Salzman discloses a code scanning system to determine material by analyzing spectral characteristics of the plastic. See [0149]. The device (machine) is further detailed at [0116].
Further to claims 1 and 17, see [0170-0176] detailing a computer-implemented method.
Not disclosed by Saltzman is: receiving, via a receiving unit having a physical hardware interface, the spectral scan data from the scanning device;
accessing, by one or more processing units coupled to the receiving unit, a computer-based database storing marker definitions for a plurality of plastic compounds;
identifying, by the one or more processing units, at least one marker embedded in the scanned plastic compound by comparing the received spectral scan data to the marker definitions stored in the database; and
wherein the calculated sustainability score is configured for controlling further processing of the plastic compound.
However, Stöcker discloses a recycling system, and teaches: receiving scanned data: (first, see [0032 and 0025] showing the system receiving readable code elements; from the plastic materials; next, see [0010] detailing the recycling system that comprises at least one tagging unit configured to provide at least one recyclable material element with at least one identifier and configured to register at least the recyclable material element by storing at least the provided identifier and the provided status parameter data set in at least one registry storage. Thus, disclosing accessing a database (storage) and identification of the material). Lastly, at [0130], processing parameters are detailed which define further processing steps; [0138] discusses treatment parameters of the analyzed material. See also see [0032] detailing data feeds can provide further treatment parameter data relating to a treatment/process of the recyclable material element, e.g. during a recycling step, from at least one further source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send/receive/identify materials within a database, per the method of Stöcker, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because this information is widely used and shared throughout a vast recycling system and used for many materials. See Stöcker’s introduction at [0003 – 0009].
Also not disclosed by Saltzman is: calculate a sustainability score for the plastic compound based on the identified marker and associated sustainability data.
However, Barlow discloses a system and method for evaluating environmental impacts of shipping materials, and teaches plastics, at [0133], and calculating a sustainability by a scoring method, at [0124].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a sustainability score, per the method of Barlow, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because this provides the intended result of viable data to ascertain the sustainability of materials when used in their normal methods. See Barlow’s explanation at [0002-0003].
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker, and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed by Saltzman is receiving a block chain storing a plurality of scan data of samples, a plurality of identified markers of samples, and/or a plurality of sustainability scores of samples; and uploading into the block chain the received scan data of the sample, the identified marker of the sample, and/or the calculated sustainability score of the sample.
However, Stöcker discloses a recycling system, and teaches: block chain storing a plurality of scan data: (see [0032] detailing data captured and stored on block chain. [0033] adds that the above detailed identifiers of recyclable material are within this data. [0034] includes more processing for the data; uploading data detailed as “ a further peer-to-peer module assigned to the recycling unit may be at least configured to receive the stored treatment parameter data set related to the recyclable material element (to be processed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use block to store data, per the method of Stöcker, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because this method and system provide the intended result of safe and secure storage of data as blockchain is well known in the art. See Stöcker [0072].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker, and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 2, above.
Not disclosed is wherein the calculating of the sustainability score comprises: identifying in the block chain at least one data entry associated with the identified marker of the sample: and calculating the sustainability score based on the at least one data entry and the identified marker.
However, Stöcker discloses a recycling system, and teaches: identifying and determining based on the marker; (see [0013] detailing each recyclable material element of the system has a unique identifier and can be uniquely identified. [0033] adds that the above detailed identifiers of recyclable material are within this data. [0034] includes more processing for the data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use block to identify data, per the method of Stöcker, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because this method and system provide the intended result of safe and secure storage of this identification data and blockchain is well known in the art. See Stöcker [0072].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker, and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Further disclosed by Saltzman is wherein the identifying of the marker comprises: calculating a type and/or a quantity of the marker in the sample of the plastic compound; (see [Abstract] detailing distinguishing the type of recyclable material).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker, and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed is wherein the identifying of the marker comprises: calculating a weight portion of the marker in the sample of the plastic compound.
However, Stöcker discloses a recycling system, and teaches: detailing information about the composition/ingredients (e.g. in percent by weight per ingredient) of the recyclable material element. See [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a weight portion, per the method of Stöcker, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because this method is well known and understood in the art as a robust method of material identification. See Stöcker [0032].
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker, and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Further disclosed by Saltzman is generating a signal, which comprises the command to display the calculated sustainability score on a user interface; (see [0098] detailing a graphical user interface and [0128] detailing a display screen).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker, and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed is wherein the marker is selected from the group consisting of UV marker, XRD marker, XRF marker, QR code, and/or steganographic feature.
However, Stöcker discloses a recycling system, and suggests: the tagging unit 204 comprises a tagging tool 210 configured to attach a code element 216, such as an RFID transponder tag 216, an NFC transponder tag 216, a QR code 216, or a barcode 216, to a recyclable material element 206. See [0097].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a QR code, per the method of Stöcker, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because this are all known in the art methods to obtain this information. See [0018].
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker, and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claims 1, above.
Further disclosed by Saltzman is a computer program element and a tangible computer readable medium, storing the computer program element; (see [0170-0176]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker, and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 13, above.
Further disclosed by Saltzman is a computer program element and a tangible computer readable medium, storing the computer program element; (see [0170-0176]).
Claims 6, 12, 19, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saltzman, in view of Stöcker, in view of, Barlow, further in view of Walker (US 2010/0274629).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Not disclosed by Saltzman is calculating based on the sustainability score an emission footprint, over the lifetime of the sample of the plastic compound.
However, Walker discloses product lifecycle sustainability tracking and teaches calculation or determination of impact value that can be based upon one or more sustainability factors, which can relate to, e.g., energy consumption or efficiency, water usage or other resource utilization, emissions, an energy provider, raw materials, carbon footprint,…or the like. The Abstract suggests an architecture that can facilitate sustainability monitoring and indicia thereof for a product over the course of the entire lifecycle of the product.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor an emission footprint over the product’s lifecycle, per the method of Walker, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because this provides the intended result of data (indicia) updated at each stage of manufacturing. Walker teaches that each stage of a supply chain affects the carbon footprint. See [0002].
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Not disclosed by Saltzman is validating with a calculated sustainability score a received sustainability score of the plastic compound.
However, Walker discloses product lifecycle sustainability tracking and teaches; first, at [0005], the method can facilitate sustainability score tracking or monitoring in connection with a manufactured product as well as suitable display or other indicia or representation of the sustainability score or other sustainability metrics; next, at [0014], a system that can facilitate third party ratings based upon a variety of suitable factors. Finally, at [0037], the scoring method is further analyzed by authorized entities for validation against standards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to validate a score, per the method of Walker, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because this provides the intended result of data updated at each stage of manufacturing. Walker teaches that each stage of a supply chain affects the carbon footprint. See [0031-0032].
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1 above.
Not disclosed by Saltzman is receiving a third-party sustainability score linked to the plastic compound; and comparing the calculated sustainability score and the third-party sustainability score to validate the plastic compound and/or to validate if the plastic compound fulfils a predefined quality and/or predefined sustainability criteria.
However, Walker discloses product lifecycle sustainability tracking and teaches third party updating of scores (ratings) with updated data then available to all parties. See [0039-0041]. See also Figure 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare scores among third-parties, per the method of Walker, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because this provides the intended result of updated data that takes into account all known impact to that rating, as explained at [0005].
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 12 above.
Not disclosed by Saltzman is wherein the content of recycled material of the plastic compound is validated and/or the number recycling loops of the recycled material of the plastic compound are validated.
However, Stöcker discloses a recycling system, and teaches ingredients and the portion in the recyclable material element are discussed. See [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to validate content, per the method of Stöcker, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because this method is well known and understood in the art as a robust method of material identification. See Stöcker [0032].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saltzman, in view of Stöcker, in view of, Barlow, further in view of Walker (US 2018/0239764).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed is calculating based on the sustainability score a fluid usage, over the lifetime of the samp of the plastic compound.
However, Walker discloses a sustainability search engine for products and teaches; (first, at [0024]: “sustainability factors can include resource consumption, such as water, air, gas, electricity, and steam (e.g., WAGES)”; second, at [0042]: that the search criteria can include one or more properties of the query object, including but not limited to manufacturer, cost, life cycle, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to score a fluid usage, per the method of Walker, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because this is a known method in the art to display information to users and can be performed on the ordinary devices disclosed.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saltzman, in view of Stöcker, in view of Barlow, further in view of Klinkhamer (US 2020/0143336).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker, and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed is wherein the sample of the plastic compound comprises one or more elements selected from the group consisting of: low density polyethylene (LDPE), linear LDPE (LLDPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), polyoxymethylene (POM) polypropylene (PP), polyamide (PA), poly ethylene terephthalate (PET), poly butylene terephthalate (PBT), acrylonitrile acrylonitrilebutadiene-styrene (ABS), polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polystyrene (PS), polylactic acid (PLA), polyvinylchloride (PVC), and polycarbonate (PC).
However, Klinkhamer discloses a method for a waste recycling economy and suggests the system works with teaches several plastics selected from the group above. See [0022].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a material from a certain group, per the method of Klinkhamer, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because these comprise a known (and nearly exhaustive) list of plastic compounds. As Klinkhamer teaches, these compounds are common within recyclable plastics.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saltzman, in view of Stöcker, in view of Barlow, further in view of Whitman (US 2017/0011363).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker, and Barlow, discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 1, above.
Not disclosed is wherein the wavelength scanner is configured for scanning a sample of a plastic compound.
However, Whitman discloses a system for tracking recyclable material and teaches the scanner at [0103] may be sensitive at various wavelengths to capture different types of information about the unit of material. See [0050].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a wavelength scanner, per the method of Whitman, within Saltzman’s method and system of processing recyclable material, because these are known devices to read plastic material as evidenced at [0105].
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Saltzman, Stöcker, Barlow, and Whitman discloses all the limitations of claim 15, above.
Further disclosed by Saltzman is a user interface; (see [0098] detailing a graphical user interface and [0128] detailing a display screen).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first remarks that the amended claims are “now directed to a practical application implemented by a specific computer-implemented system and therefore overcome the outstanding § 101 rejection.” See page 7. Based on the reasoning that follows, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments.
A judicial exception is integrated into a practical application if, when analyzed at Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements describe certain conditions that show this integration. These considerations are set forth in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), and MPEP 2106.05(e) through (h). No such additional elements are present within the instant amended claims that would show integration. As detailed above, the additional elements recite: computer-implemented; a scanning device; a receiving unit having a physical hardware interface; one or more processing units coupled to the receiving unit; a computer-based database. The Examiner has determined that these elements are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP § 2106.05(f). Applicant has described these computing elements generically in the disclosure, at page 11 and Figure 4, as filed. Simply implementing the abstract ideas on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. For example, “The term computer-based database is to be understood broadly in the present case and comprises any database or data system, which is configured to store and manage data.” The claims are directed to an abstract idea and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant combines arguments about allowability and remarks that the amended claims are patently distinguished over the applied referenced. See pages 7 – 9. This argument is misplaced and not persuasive because analysis under §§ 101 and 102 or 103 are separate and distinct. 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. 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). 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). 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. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Further, the Examiner has conducted a fresh search under prior art and includes new rejections for all amended claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 within this Office Action. Notably, is the recitation of spectral scan data within independent claims 1 and 17. The Examiner has better pointed out where cited prior art Saltzman discloses analyzing “spectral characteristics of the plastic”, thus analogous to new recitations “obtaining spectral scan data”. Further discussion of prior cited art is deemed to continue to disclose all limitations within the instant amended claims. Applicant’s argument as to the applied references are not persuasive.
Applicant remarks on the use of Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMEDs). See page 9. Because applicant has not provided any declarations, this argument is moot. Further, Applicant’s arguments as to declarations further supporting the amened claims is not persuasive.
Applicant’s final remark discusses § 112 rejections. See page 10. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Applicant has not amended claim 13 to affirmatively recite statutory subject matter; therefore, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter is included within this Office Action. Applicant’s amendment to claim 14 has not resolved the previous rejection for this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter; therefore, a new rejection for this claim is included within this Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Neige discloses a method for spectral identification of materials.
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 DON EDMONDS whose telephone number is (571)272-6171. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, 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.
DONALD J. EDMONDS
Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629