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 .
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 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 10, the claims recite, in part, obtaining information about a category and an age of a particular product; obtaining information about an average period of use of the category to which the product belongs; determining a remaining period of use based on a difference between the average period of use and the age of the product when a second-hand trading of the product is concluded; and calculating, based on the remaining period of use for the product, carbon emission reductions when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites determining a remaining period of use of a product with regard to second hand trading and calculating carbon emission reductions based on the remaining period of use, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically commercial interactions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of one or more modules (claim 1, merely software), processor (claims 1, 9, 10), server device (claims 1, 10), manufacturer database (claims 1, 9, 10, not actively part of the invention), service device (claim 9), memory (claim 9), acquisition module (claim 9), first computation module (claim 9), second computation module (claim 9) and computer-readable recording medium (claim 10). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of obtaining, determining, and calculating) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) 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).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using one or more modules (claim 1, merely software), processor (claims 1, 9, 10), server device (claims 1, 10), manufacturer database (claims 1, 9, 10, not actively part of the invention), service device (claim 9), memory (claim 9), acquisition module (claim 9), first computation module (claim 9), second computation module (claim 9) and computer-readable recording medium (claim 10) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Page 6, “The processor may be a general-purpose processor”); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 3-8 appear to merely limit the calculation being based on first and second carbon emissions, displaying of environmental points, exchanging points for carbon credits, calculation being based on excess period of use, calculation being based on weight given to a brand, and calculation being based on past trading history, , and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The one or more modules (claim 1, merely software), processor (claims 1, 9, 10), server device (claims 1, 10), manufacturer database (claims 1, 9, 10, not actively part of the invention), service device (claim 9), memory (claim 9), acquisition module (claim 9), first computation module (claim 9), second computation module (claim 9) and computer-readable recording medium (claim 10) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of obtaining, determining, and calculating, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the one or more modules (claim 1, merely software), processor (claims 1, 9, 10), server device (claims 1, 10), manufacturer database (claims 1, 9, 10, not actively part of the invention), service device (claim 9), memory (claim 9), acquisition module (claim 9), first computation module (claim 9), second computation module (claim 9) and computer-readable recording medium (claim 10) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1 and 3-10 are not patent eligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, this claim references “a computer-readable recording medium”. It is noted that a computer-readable recording medium is broad enough to include “signals” and "carrier waves". Signals are not a statutory type of storage media. The specification states “The computer-readable may be a non-transitory readable medium”. However, the language “may be” does not mean that a computer readable medium is never a “signal” or “carrier wave”. Therefore, to avoid the claiming of a signal, Examiner recommends incorporating the language “non- transitory" into the preamble of the claim in order to overcome this rejection.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitamura (JP 2006350610) in view of Kim (KR 102360491). Neither Kitamura nor Kim have paragraph numbers, and therefore relied upon sections of each reference will be reproduced below in their entirety.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 10, Kitamura teaches obtaining information about a category and an age of a particular product (“The price calculation system for facility equipment according to a ninth aspect is the price calculation system according to the eighth aspect, wherein the used sales price calculation unit is a value obtained by subtracting the cumulative operation time of the air conditioner from the average life of the air conditioner model”, model reads on category and operation time reads on age); obtaining information about an average period of use of the category to which the product belongs (“the remaining device life is a value obtained by subtracting the accumulated operation time of the indoor unit 2a and the outdoor unit 2b from the average life of the models of the indoor unit 2a and the outdoor unit 2b”, “The device management database stores device management information related to device operation. The device management information is transmitted from the device management apparatus”), wherein the information about the average period of use is obtained from at least one of a manufacturer database and the server device (“The device management database stores device management information related to device operation. The device management information is transmitted from the device management apparatus”); and determining a remaining period of use based on a difference between the average period of use and the age of the product when a second-hand trading of the product is concluded (“Next, in step S2, the second-hand sales price calculation unit 22 determines the remaining device life, which is the remaining life of the indoor unit 2a and the outdoor unit 2b, based on the device management information stored in the device management database 9 of the centralized monitoring device 5”, “For example, the remaining device life is a value obtained by subtracting the accumulated operation time of the indoor unit 2a and the outdoor unit 2b from the average life of the models of the indoor unit 2a and the outdoor unit 2b”).
Kitamura does not appear to specify calculating, based on the remaining period of use for the product, carbon emission reductions when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded. However, Kim teaches calculating, based on the remaining period of use for the product, carbon emission reductions when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded (“the aggregated data of the reduced carbon emission may be calculated by multiplying the carbon emission during manufacturing of a predetermined bicycle calculated according to the above-described operations S1010 to S1040 by the number of used transactions of the bicycle. Since the provision of a used bicycle trading platform can reduce carbon emissions from additional manufacturing or disposal due to non-use of existing bicycles and can reduce carbon emissions by encouraging the use of bicycles, the subject of providing a platform that concluded a used transaction is also the subject of carbon emission”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to calculate carbon emission reductions since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 3, Kitamura does not appear to specify obtaining a first carbon emission of an average manufacturing process of the category to which the product belongs and a second carbon emission of an average disposal process of the category to which the product belongs, and wherein a calculation of the carbon emission reductions when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded is based on the remaining period of use of the product, the first carbon emission and the second carbon emission. However, Kim teaches obtaining a first carbon emission of an average manufacturing process of the category to which the product belongs and a second carbon emission of an average disposal process of the category to which the product belongs, and wherein a calculation of the carbon emission reductions when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded is based on the remaining period of use of the product, the first carbon emission and the second carbon emission (“the aggregated data of the reduced carbon emission may be calculated by multiplying the carbon emission during manufacturing of a predetermined bicycle calculated according to the above-described operations S1010 to S1040 by the number of used transactions of the bicycle. Since the provision of a used bicycle trading platform can reduce carbon emissions from additional manufacturing or disposal due to non-use of existing bicycles and can reduce carbon emissions by encouraging the use of bicycles, the subject of providing a platform that concluded a used transaction is also the subject of carbon emission. As a subject involved in the reduction, data related to the reduction of carbon emissions can be stored through the above-described process”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to calculate carbon emission reductions since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4, Kitamura does not appear to specify displaying, on a user interface of an e-commerce platform, environmental points to be provided at least one of a buyer and a seller of the product when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded, the environmental points being calculated based on the carbon emission reductions when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded. However, Kim teaches displaying, on a user interface of an e-commerce platform, environmental points to be provided at least one of a buyer and a seller of the product when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded, the environmental points being calculated based on the carbon emission reductions when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded (“the control module 124 discloses information on the used transaction of the bicycle corresponding to the acquired image to the used trading platform, relays the used transaction between the seller and the buyer through the platform, and participates in the used transaction of the bicycle. It is possible to provide mileage based on carbon emissions to the entity”, mileage represents points, platform of Kim is an e-commerce platform that would need to have a display to allow users to interact with the system). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide carbon emission reduction points since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 5, Kitamura does not appear to specify paying the environmental points to at least one of the buyer and the seller of the product when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded through the e-commerce platform, and exchanging, in response to receiving a selection of a user intending to buy carbon credits through a user interface of the e-commerce platform, the paid environmental points to carbon credits. However, Kim teaches paying the environmental points to at least one of the buyer and the seller of the product when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded through the e-commerce platform, and exchanging, in response to receiving a selection of a user intending to buy carbon credits through a user interface of the e-commerce platform, the paid environmental points to carbon credits (“The control module 124 may trade carbon credits with other entities based on data related to the reduction of carbon emissions generated according to the above-described operation, or may request additional carbon credits from the carbon emission rights management entity”, platform of Kim is an e-commerce platform that would need to have a display to allow users to interact with the system). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide carbon emission reduction points since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 6, the instant claim recites a limitation that occurs (determining an excess period of use based on a difference between the age of the product and the average period of use of the product if the age of the product is older than the average period of use) if a conditional statement is met (when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded). However, because of the conditional statement, the limitation is not required to occur. That is, should the second-hand trading of the product never conclude, the limitation of determining an excess period of use based on a difference between the age of the product and the average period of use of the product if the age of the product is older than the average period of use will never happen. Therefore, this limitation is not required. Further, the claims are silent on what should occur if the conditional statement is not met, leaving this portion of the claim broad and open to interpretation. Therefore, should the second-hand trading of the product never conclude, Examiner interprets no change to the invention, which has been rendered obvious by Kitamura in view of Kim for the reasons above. According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 7, the instant claim recites a limitation that occurs (the remaining period of use and the excess period of use are calculated, based further on a weight given to a brand of the product) if a conditional statement is met (if a brand manufacturer's certification exists for the brand of the product). However, because of the conditional statement, the limitation is not required to occur. That is, should a brand manufacturer's certification not exist for the brand of the product, the limitation of the remaining period of use and the excess period of use are calculated, based further on a weight given to a brand of the product will never happen. Therefore, this limitation is not required. Further, the claims are silent on what should occur if the conditional statement is not met, leaving this portion of the claim broad and open to interpretation. Therefore, should a brand manufacturer's certification not exist for the brand of the product, Examiner interprets no change to the invention, which has been rendered obvious by Kitamura in view of Kim for the reasons above. According to MPEP 2106 II, language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation.
Regarding claim 8, Kitamura teaches the remaining period of use is calculated based further on a past second-hand trading history of the category to which the product belongs, achieved through an e-commerce platform (“For example, the remaining device life is a value obtained by subtracting the accumulated operation time of the indoor unit 2a and the outdoor unit 2b from the average life of the models of the indoor unit 2a and the outdoor unit 2b. It is calculated by adding the extended time extended by the effect of the above, or reducing (or multiplying by the reduced rate) the shortened time shortened by the use area or use or use state where the deterioration is severe. For example, the extension time is obtained by using a correspondence map in which a replacement part in a model of a certain indoor unit 2a and outdoor unit 2b is associated with an average extension time due to replacement with the replacement part. Here, the replacement part in the part replacement history included in the device management information is used for association with the extended time. As another example, the extension time is obtained using a correspondence map in which the maintenance contents of a certain indoor unit 2a and outdoor unit 2b are associated with the average extension time due to the maintenance contents. Here, the maintenance content in the maintenance record included in the device management information is used for association with the extended time. As yet another example, the extended time is obtained using a correspondence map in which the repair contents of a certain indoor unit 2a and outdoor unit 2b are associated with the average extended time due to the repair contents. Here, the repair content in the repair history included in the device management information is used for association with the extended time”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to second-hand trading and carbon emission reduction:
U.S. Pub No. 2023/0252531 to Bae
U.S. Pub No. 2022/0393872 to Kim
KR 102002731 to Lee
JP 2022047119 to Shimizu
Fortuna, Lorena M., and Vasil Diyamandoglu. "Optimization of greenhouse gas emissions in second-hand consumer product recovery through reuse platforms." Waste Management 66 (2017): 178-189.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621