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 .
Specification
The following title is suggested: Method for controlling a process for recycling plastic waste.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 5 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 09/10/2025.
Newly submitted claims 6-7 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claims are directed to a method for optimizing a plastic pyrolysis process which is a different scope than the elected invention of a method for the control of the conversion of plastic waste into commodities originally elected.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 6-7 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-4 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.
Claim 1 discloses the limitation “analyzing said data according to said instructions to determine fluid and solid chemical traits of said amount of polymers”, however it is unclear to what instructions the Applicant is referring to. Therefore the scope of the step of analyzing is unclear. For examination purposes the claim is interpreted as best understood.
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 1-4 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 1-4 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Concepts” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that recite concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical relationships.
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of converting of plastic waste into commodities [001]. In claim 1, this idea is described by the following claim steps:
loading and amount of polymers into a pyrolysis apparatus;
collecting data; and
sending said collected data;
analyzing said data according to said instructions to determine fluid and solid chemical traits of said amount of polymers; and
determining chemical reactions in said pyrolysis apparatus from said chemical traits; and
identifying a chemical ratio by said chemical reactions; and
referencing an ideal chemical ratio; and
determining deficiency of chemicals in said identified chemical ratio with reference to said ideal chemical ratio; and
determining abundance of chemicals in said identified chemical ratio with reference to said ideal chemical ratio; and
sourcing polymers having chemical properties according to determined abundance and determined deficiency; and
adding said sourced polymers to achieve said ideal ratio; and
converting said amount of polymers according to said ideal chemical ratio.
This idea falls within the Mental processes since it is directed to observation, evaluation and opinion of the data and Mathematical Concepts since it is further directed to mathematical relationships.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the Mental Processes 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 Mental Processes 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.
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:
Pyrolysis apparatus; and
A plurality of sensors
However, using generically a pyrolysis apparatus and a plurality of sensors amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Converting plastic waste into commodities can reasonably be performed manually until limited to a pyrolysis apparatus and requiring generic sensors to collect data.
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).
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, claim 1 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 2-4, 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 claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by introducing transferring said converted polymers to appropriate markers. Transferring converted polymers to appropriate markets is a process that could be performed manually and is not limited by technology. Therefore the claims are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 3-4 further limits the abstract idea by introducing the limitation wherein said ideal chemical ratio is selected from a group. Determining an ideal chemical ration is a process that could be performed mentally or perhaps with the aid of pen and paper until limited by technology. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
DeBruin, US 20230110481, CHEMICAL RECYCLING OF POLYOLEFIN-CONTAINING PLASTIC WASTE AND SOLVOLYSIS COPRODUCT STREAMS. In one aspect, the present technology concerns a method for processing waste plastic, the method comprising: introducing a polyolefin-containing coproduct stream from a solvolysis facility into at least one of the following: (i) a partial oxidation (POX) gasification facility; (ii) a pyrolysis facility; (iii) a solidification facility; (iv) a cracker facility; and (v) an energy generation/energy production facility.
STANLEY, WO 2016168894, PYROLYSIS APPARATUS AND METHOD. The present invention relates to the field of pyrolysis. More particularly, the invention relates to an apparatus and a method for the pyrolysis and processing of biomass.
Lee, US 9156017, Pyrolysis Apparatus Using Liquid Metal. The present invention relates to a pyrolysis device using liquid metal, and more particularly, to a pyrolysis device which may heat liquid metal using decomposition heat generated by directly combusting char, which is a byproduct generated during a decomposition process of fuel supplied to a reactor, within the reactor and heat generated by oxidizing some of the liquid metal and extract gas of a volatile component by pyrolyzing fuel, such as biomass, coal, and waste plastic, using the heated liquid metal.
LIN, US 20110247927, THERMAL PYROLYSIS APPARATUS. The present invention relates to a thermal pyrolysis apparatus, and more particularly to one having a pyrolysis device to decompose waste rubbers or waste tires efficiently to produce carbon power and gas after pyrolysis.
Prajapati R, Kohli K, Maity SK, Sharma BK. Potential Chemicals from Plastic Wastes. Molecules. 2021 May 26;26(11):3175. doi: 10.3390/molecules26113175. PMID: 34073300; PMCID: PMC8199254.
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