DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Oct 10, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on Oct 10, 2025 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claim 9 has been amended; Claims 10-18 have been cancelled; Claims 19-24 are added.
Claims 9 and 19-24 are pending.
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
Previous 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection has been withdrawn in light canceled claims.
New 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection has been added in light of newly added claims.
35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Priority
The present application claims priority to National Stage Entry of PCT/JP2022/022864, filed on June 7, 2022.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the Specification, as originally filled fails to disclose with enough specificity, the following limitations:
Claim 23 recites “allocate the carbon credits proportionally to the food waste sources” which is considered new matter. In para. [0035] and [0054] of the specification indicates businesses are entitled to receive carbon credits, however, the specification does not state the claimed system performs the step of allocating them nor does it mention how to proportionally allocation method.
Claim 24 recites “preprocessing requirements for the food waste before transportation; and target fermentation tank identifiers at a destination biogas plant of the plurality of biogas plants” which is considered new matter. In para. [0031]-[0032] of the specification describes oil/sludge separation process as part of collection process, however, the specification does not describe a method for an instruction sent from the server to the waste source for preprocessing requirements for the food waste before transportation; and target fermentation tank identifiers at a destination biogas plant. The specification does not provide sufficient support for level of granularity of the specific tank identifier within the plant.
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 9 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 9 and 19-24 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
The limitations of independent claim 9 have been denoted with letters by the Examiner for easy reference. The bold language of claim 9 recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) as explained further below:
receive, located at food waste sources, input data associated with food waste collected at the food waste sources, the input data comprising volume data, moisture content data, chemical composition data, photographic data, type data, quantity data, and property data of the food waste;
process the input data to estimate values for bio methane potential, loss on ignition, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, water content, nitrogen concentration, and PH of the food waste;
classify the food waste based on the estimated values into a carbohydrate-rich classification, a fat-rich classification, a nitrogen/sulfur-rich classification, and a fiber-rich classification;
receive operating status data from a plurality of biogas plants;
determine compatibilities between the food waste from the food waste sources and the plurality of biogas plants by evaluating the carbohydrate-rich classification, the fat-rich classification, the nitrogen/sulfur-rich classification, and the fiber-rich classification; and
generate allocation instructions based on the compatibilities; and
transmit the allocation instructions to the plurality of biogas plant to coordinate food waste distribution to the plurality of biogas plants.
The bolded portions of limitations above recite concepts performable in the human mind including observation, evaluation, and judgement, which falls under “Mental Processes,” one of the abstract idea categories. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements (analyzed under step 2A prong two and step 2B below) of “methane resource matching system comprising: a management server comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to”; “from a plurality of smartphones located at food waste sources”; “from a plurality of biogas plant terminal devices, each biogas plant terminal device of the plurality of biogas plant terminal devices being associated with a different biogas plant of a plurality of biogas plants”; the claim recites processes that are all acts that could be performed by a human, e.g., mentally or manually, using a pen and paper, without the need of a computer or any other machine. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information (steps [A] and [D]), analyzing the collected information (steps [B], [C], [E], and [F]), and transmitting the analyzed result (step [G]), the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally, the claims recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of advertising, marketing, or sales activity or behaviors for waste management industry. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of “methane resource matching system comprising: a management server comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to”; “from a plurality of smartphones located at food waste sources”; “from a plurality of biogas plant terminal devices, each biogas plant terminal device of the plurality of biogas plant terminal devices being associated with a different biogas plant of a plurality of biogas plants”; the steps of receiving information relating to food waste and operating status, processing and classifying the food waste into classification for allocation instruction based on compatibilities, and notifying biogas plants to coordinate food waste distribution. These steps have been a practice performed by waste management industry before the invention of computer to support these tasks because waste management industry has existed longer than computers. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps standard in commercial interaction for a business practice of providing a service of waste management, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity. In particular, the claim only recites the additional elements - the use of “methane resource matching system comprising: a management server comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to”; “from a plurality of smartphones located at food waste sources”; “from a plurality of biogas plant terminal devices, each biogas plant terminal device of the plurality of biogas plant terminal devices being associated with a different biogas plant of a plurality of biogas plants” to receive, process, classify, determine, generate, and transmit information.
The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0038]-[0041], [0059]-[0060] and Fig. 6) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[G] are steps of adding 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 as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).” MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “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 fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).”
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations in [A]-[G] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for managing and coordinating food waste. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 19 and 22-24, the claims further recite additional abstract step of predicting, adjusting, identifying, prioritizing, calculating, allocating, and scheduling information. These additional abstract steps do not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer system processor performing generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
As for dependent claim 20, the claim further recites abstract information regarding the operating status information, which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. No additional element has been added. The claim is ineligible.
As for dependent claim 21, the claim further recites additional abstract step of implementing an artificial intelligence gasification promotion program for determining information, which does not change the abstract idea of the independent claim. The additional element is recited at a high level of generality (para. [0019] and [0048]-[0049] describes the AI gasification promotion program can be used to determine a predictable result, however, there is no specifics on how the AI gasification promotional program is developed or implemented to accomplish the result), such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 9 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter over Prior Art
Examiner has withdrawn the previous 102 and 103 rejections.
The closest prior art found are:
Ike (JP 2007098369 A) is directed to a management system and method for methane fermentation treatment (abstract and claim 5), which teaches: methane resource matching system comprising: a management server (abstract: management system for biologically treating organic waste. In page 3, biological treatment used for methane fermentation treatment. Page 5, control center 12 that manages the discharge and delivery of organic waste; connected via a network 20, and shares information based on a common database via the network 20, and performs efficient operation management) comprising: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor (Page 6, discloses control center 12 is provide with a CPU (central processing unit) to:
receive, from a plurality of smartphones located at food waste sources (remote discharger input data online, fig 3.), data associated with food waste collected at the food waste source (page 4, “the organic waste discharger, the processing facility, and the control center are connected by a network, and the delivery of the organic waste is managed based on a common database.” Page 7, “property database may be fed back based on the actual properties in the treatment tank transmitted from the treatment facilities 11A and 11B. When creating a database of organic waste, if the client is a supermarket that manages product inventory using barcodes, IC tags, etc., the workload is shared by sharing the database with such barcodes. This makes it possible to manage waste more accurately without increasing the amount of waste.” “a take-out decision notification is transmitted to the discharger 10 (S6). In response to this, the processing facility 11A takes over (S7). In this system, a desired take-up request is received from a plurality of dischargers 10 in advance, a take-up plan according to each take-up request is created, and each discharger 10 is notified.” Which disclosing the receiving and communication of data information with the food waste collected from food waste source),
Ike teaches the input data comprising volume/amount and type of waste, which converts this information into waste property data including nitrogen concentration, organic matter, and carbon amount, then providing classification of the waste into waste types based on amount of composition (page 7). Ike teaches the determining of compatibilities between the food waste from the food waste sources based on classification (abstract, the system compares the present treatment state of the treatment facility 11 with a maximum permissible range and compares the calculated difference with the waste property data to create a collection plan). Ike teaches generate allocation instructions based on the compatibilities and transmit the allocation instructions to the plurality of biogas plant to coordinate food waste distribution to the plurality of biogas plants (Abstract: the control center “prepar[es] a plan of the organic waste to be received” which is an allocation instruction. Fig. 2 step 6, “transmit a take-out decision notification to the discharger 10”, which is the transmission of the instruction to coordinate the distribution of the food waste to the designated facility.
While Ike teaches the collection of input data comprising type and amount (volume/quantity), with waster property data of nitrogen concentration, carbon amount, and type of organic waste, however, Ike does not expressly teach the specific detail of receive, from a plurality of smartphones located at food waste sources, input data comprising (combination of all) volume data, moisture content data, chemical composition data, photographic data, type data, quantity data, and property data of the food waste; to be processed to estimate values for (combination of all) bio methane potential, loss on ignition, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, water content, nitrogen concentration, and PH of the food waste.
Kunihiro (WO 2022054261 A1) is directed to a management system and method for collecting biomass resources of waste water oil ad grease. Kunihiro teaches a central site management server 50 that connects terminals at waste sites (first terminal), collection companies (second terminal), and headquarters (third terminal). Hunihiro further teaches the use of smartphone and receive photographic data of grease trap before and after work as well as the amount of recovered wastewater fats and oil. Kunihiro also teaches the creating and adjusting work schedules, transmitting schedule requests, and generating work report. Kunihiro describes the use of AI for calculation and navigation of scheduled work time and traffic for optimization. The process is associated with eligibility of CO2 reduction credit.
However, Kunihiro does not teach the receiving of operating status data and collecting of photo and volume for the determination of estimate values of (combination of all) bio methane potential, loss on ignition, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, water content, nitrogen concentration, and PH of the food waste.
Begin et al. (US 20150114061 A1) is directed to a Food waste streams may be managed efficiently with a waste-processing facility, which in some embodiments may be co-locating a food distribution facility. The waste processing facility includes a pulper fluidly connected to an input configured to receive a heterogeneous waste stream including biodegradable and non-biodegradable components, the pulper configured to mechanically de-fiber the biodegradable component and form a de-fibered biodegradable material, and an anaerobic membrane bioreactor fluidly connected downstream of the pulper and configured to produce biogas and anaerobic effluent from the de-fibered biodegradable material.
However, Begin does not teach the classifying the income waste into categories and processing input data (waste category) to estimate specific value of Bio Methane Potential or nitrogen concentration.
Hirata (JP 2002366641 A) teaches a computerized marketplace or brokerage system for recycling food waste. Hirata teaches the classification for receiving waste information then judging the recycling form as either feed, fertilizer or fuel then selecting a recycling company with collection request information that includes waste source, type, and amount. Hirata teaches the calculating mixing ratios of different available composts to create a custom blend that meets user’s specific component requirement.
However, Hirata does not teach the receiving of operating status data and collecting of photo and volume for the determination of estimate values of (combination of all) bio methane potential, loss on ignition, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, water content, nitrogen concentration, and PH of the food waste.
In sum, the combination of the above references does not explicitly teach the specific configuration of the limitations:
receive, from a plurality of smartphones located at food waste sources, input data associated with food waste collected at the food waste sources, the input data comprising volume data, moisture content data, chemical composition data, photographic data, type data, quantity data, and property data of the food waste; process the input data to estimate values for bio methane potential, loss on ignition, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, water content, nitrogen concentration, and PH of the food waste; (i.e. in the particular manner it is claimed in the context of the whole claim is not disclosed, taught or suggested in the prior art(s)).
Examiner notes that the underlined limitations above, in combination with the other limitations found within the independent claims are found to be allowable over the prior art of record.
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor fairly and reasonably teach the independent claim 9.
Examiner notes that while Applicant has overcome the art of record, the application is not in condition for allowance, given the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejection:
Claims 17 and 18 have been cancelled, the corresponding 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however, the Applicant has amended the claims, the remarks are fully directed to new and amended claim limitations, therefore, the remarks are deemed moot. Still, for the purpose of expediting compact prosecution, the Examiner has addressed the remarks below.
On pages 10-12 of the remarks, the applicant provided a conclusory statement that the amended claims do not recite a mathematical concept, certain methods of organizing human activity, or a mental process for the reason that the operations are performed by the processor and therefore are not directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As indicated in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) “[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Further see MPEP 2106.05(f) providing various courts cases that applying abstract idea on a computer or computer component does not integrate a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The functional steps of the claims can be performed by a person, mentally without the need of a computer system.
On pages 13-16, the Applicant asserts a “human cannot feasibly process photographic data to extract biochemical information while simultaneously analyzing volume, moisture, chemical composition, and multiple other data parameters from numerous smartphones distributed across different geographical locations. The mere processing of photographic data alone to derive meaningful biochemical indicators exceeds human mental capabilities.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the claim limitations, there are two steps, first step, receiving input data associated with food waste collected at the food waste sources for moisture content data, chemical composition data, photographic data, type data, quantity data, and property data of the food waste, then second step of processing the collected input data to make an estimation (e.g., evaluation, observation, judgement, etc.) for bio methane potential, loss on ignition, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, water content, nitrogen concentration, and PH of the food waste.
Per first step, without the need of smartphone, a person can transmit/provide a collection of information data about the food waste comprising moisture content data, chemical composition data, photographic data, type data, quantity data, and property data of the food waste to another person or facility. The additional element of smartphone is being used at a high-level of generality for a generic function for the intended result of transmitting information, see MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Per second step, the claim does not provide any technological detail to how the process of input data to make estimation is performed for the predictable result of bio methane potential, loss on ignition, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, water content, nitrogen concentration, and PH of the food waste. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a person ordinary in the art can reasonably make an observation to make appropriate estimation for bio methane potential, loss on ignition, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, water content, nitrogen concentration, and PH of the food waste based on the collected input data information provided to the person. If the Applicant asserts the estimation from one ordinary skilled in the art is unable to determine or make the same estimation by the claimed system, then it becomes necessary for the applicant to provide additional information for how the applicant is intended for this estimation of bio methane potential, loss on ignition, carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, water content, nitrogen concentration, and PH of the food waste from the collected input information of moisture content data, chemical composition data, photographic data, type data, quantity data, and property data of the food waste. Because the Examiner finds the step to be enabled because one skilled in the art, without undue experimentation, could possibly come up with one way of performing the above-mentioned steps. If the Applicant asserts the steps to be more specific and more technological without sufficient support from the specification, then we might be arguing a possession issue under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, because one skilled in the art would be unable to determine how the applicant has intended for this “process the input data to estimate…” step to be done and would, therefore, be unable to determine if the applicant had possession of the invention. To put it another way, one skilled in the art would be unable to make and use the invention in the manner intended by the Applicant since the applicant has failed to provide sufficient working examples of how the above steps are performed so as to cover the wide scope laid out by the claimed invention and, therefore, one skilled in the art would be unable to determine whether the applicant had possession. One skilled in the art would have found that the claimed invention and corresponding specification is attempting to claim all known and unknown possibilities of performing the above-mentioned steps without providing sufficient examples in the Specification to allow one skilled in the art to determine whether the Applicant had possession of such a wide scope of possibilities. As a point of clarification, the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See AriadPharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Col., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Similar analysis is described in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) - “an examiner should determine that an element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude, based on their expertise in the art, that the element is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. The analysis as to whether an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use is the same as the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as to whether an element is so well-known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification. See Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1377, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 ( Fed. Cir. 2016) (supporting the position that amplification was well-understood, routine, conventional for purposes of subject matter eligibility by observing that the patentee expressly argued during prosecution of the application that amplification was a technique readily practiced by those skilled in the art to overcome the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph); see also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481, 489 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("[T]he specification need not disclose what is well known in the art."); In re Myers, 410 F.2d 420, 424, 161 USPQ 668, 671 (CCPA 1969) ("A specification is directed to those skilled in the art and need not teach or point out in detail that which is well-known in the art."); Exergen Corp., 725 Fed. App’x. 959, 965 (Fed. Cir. 2018)”
On pages 16-19, the Applicant provided court cases of McRo, Finjian, and DDR Holdings, and provided conclusory statement without specific comparison. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and unpersuaded by the Applicant’s assertion.
On pages 20-27, the Applicant reminded the Examiner regarding the August 2025 USPTO Memorandum. The Examiner addressed the remarks regarding the receiving and processing of photographic data from a plurality of smartphones. The claim does not recite the improvement of AI in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind. The examiner has carefully considered the claims that recites an abstract idea rather than merely involving abstract idea. The claim limitations fail to provide specific detail to technical detail to improvement. In the rejection above, the Examiner has considered each and every claim limitation individually and in combination as a whole for the analysis. The Examiner did not oversimplify the claim limitations and have considered each and every claim limitations.
To clarify, the asserted technological improvement is not reflected in the specification nor the claims. The use of computer system (i.e., processor) for receiving information to estimate and determine waste classification from the received information, in a convenience (e.g., accuracy, faster, and etc.) has been held not be an “inventive concept” or specific improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In the case of the instant invention, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention does not lie with the improvement of a technology, identifying and resolving an issue that arose from the technology, or that the claimed invention is “deeply rooted in the technology”, but merely demonstrating that the claimed invention is directed towards the abstract idea and merely applying or utilizing generic computing devices performing their generic functions in the technical field of classifying and managing waste due to the benefits that computing devices provided (e.g., more accurate, more efficient, faster, and etc.).
As reflected in Enfish, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements (improvement of the technology or technical field), on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task (collecting, analyzing, and transmitting information), on the other. The alleged advantages that the Applicant touts do not concern an improvement to computer capabilities or any machinery but instead relate to an alleged improvement in transmitting, analyzing, and determining information for a desirable result, which a computer is used as a mere tool in its ordinary capacity, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). To further clarify, the Applicant reflected a benefit or reason of using computer system processor for receiving waste information and determining waste classification for waste management with the purpose and intended result of more efficient and accurate. The computer system, itself is merely used (“apply it”) for the expected result of convenience and time/cost saving. The claims do not reflect an improvement to the technology of the computer functionalities, other than, by using the additional elements of the computer system, which the desired result can be produced without a doubt or concern to the technological details on how the result is accomplished. That is, the computer system itself or specific technology is not improved in anyway other than being applied as a tool/instrument for the judicial exception (abstract idea).
For these reasons above, the 101 rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 Rejections:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, the remarks are fully directed to amended claim limitations. The art rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
Parker et al. (US 10472721 B1) is directed to a system and method for conversion of biowaste into usable energy components comprises anaerobic digestion of carbonaceous feedstocks, production of an aqueous solution of hydrogen bromide and carbon dioxide, and recovery of hydrogen via electrolysis of the aqueous hydrobromic acid formed in the process. In one embodiment, a hydrogen enriched biogas generator is employed to produce electricity and heat.
V. Anbarasu, P. Karthikeyan and S. P. Anandaraj, "Turning Human and Food Waste into Reusable Energy in a Multilevel Apartment Using IoT," 2020 6th International Conference on Advanced Computing and Communication Systems (ICACCS), Coimbatore, India, 2020, pp. 440-444, doi: 10.1109/ICACCS48705.2020.9074170, teaching the collecting of food waste and treating the waste to biogas as electricity with utilization of IoT.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626