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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/29/26 has been entered. Currently claims 1, 5-8, 10-12, 16-19, 21-25 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-12, 16-19, 21-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a method and a system; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of recycling a product based on a chemical tag where information is generated for plastic recycling management by creating a registry of information indicating chemical tag information for plastic produced articles.
For claim 1, and applicable to claims 11, 12, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
automatically identifying a chemical tag attached to a plastic article of a product
acquiring a wavelength spectral profile from the chemical tag
retrieving product information related to recycling of the product based on the wavelength spectral profile;
generating tag product information with which the product information is associated in the wavelength spectral profile,
updating the tag product information when a new chemical tag is introduced during raw material manufacturing operation and the one or more intermediate manufacturing operations;
transmitting the tag product information
receiving a request for product information, the request including a waste plastic article wavelength spectral profile automatically acquired from a waste plastic article obtained by decomposing the product by detecting the chemical tag;
retrieving from the tag product information, corresponding product information based on the waste plastic article wavelength spectral profile included in the request, wherein the corresponding product information includes:
manufacturing operation information indicating a manufacturing operation in which a wavelength spectral profile that is identical or similar to the waste plastic article wavelength spectral profile was detected, composition information indicating a composition corresponding to the manufacturing operation, recycling information indicating whether the waste plastic article is separable or not, and a wavelength spectral information identifier indicating a wavelength spectral profile before the manufacturing operation;
based on the product information, controlling one or more separating operations of the waste plastic article;
controlling recycling operations;
executing a carbon dioxide emission reduction calculation based on an amount of recycled raw material derived from the waste plastic article; and
transmitting calculation results,
tracks recycling performance and aggregates the calculation results,
the tag product information and the calculation results are accessible at a subsequent raw material and intermediate manufacturing operations
The above limitations are reciting a process where information about plastic articles and chemical tag(s) is being registered, so that the information can be used for recycling of the plastic articles. The recycling of plastic and using chemical tag information as claimed is considered to be a commercial practice that is represents a certain method of organizing human activities. As is recognized in the specification in paragraph 003, it is known in the art that chemical tags are used to identify plastic components in recycling operations. Recycling of plastic materials is a commercial practice that falls into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities. Identifying a chemical tag and acquiring a spectral profile (in a non-limiting manner that reads in simply receiving the spectral profile) with subsequent retrieval of information and further generation of information are steps that people can perform manually. Updating tag information as claimed can be done by a person updating data in a database. The receipt of a request for product information and providing information in response to the request is something people can do with no technology at all. A person can request information and another person can provide it verbally or by providing it in paper format for reading. The claimed controlling of the separating operations of the plastic article and controlling recycling operations is broadly claimed such that it is just reciting the end result to be achieved, which is part of the abstract idea because a human being can monitor and control a recycling operation by instructing workers to do certain things. A person can also make the claimed calculation as to a carbon dioxide emission reduction based on am amount of raw material recycled. This is something that a person can do mentally if they want to, so this step can be considered as being part of the certain method of organizing human activities or can be a mental abstract idea that is coupled to the certain method of organizing human activities, where a combination of two abstract ideas does not make the claim any less abstract. Lastly, calculation results can be stored and tracked as claimed so that the results are accessible at a later time. Nothing that is claimed as far as the abstract idea elements that cannot be performed by a person manually to recycle a plastic article. The above noted elements are what defines the abstract idea that is found to be recited in the claims.
For claims 1, 11, 12, the additional elements of the claim are the plurality of first terminals (the terminal of claim 11), a server that is in communication with the terminals, a network, a second terminal, a controller (reads on a computer due to the breadth of this limitation).
For claims 1,11, 12, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of computing devices (plurality of first terminals, server, a controller, second terminal, network) that are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea see MPEP 2106.05(f).
With respect to the claimed plurality of first terminals, a second terminal, a network for communication between the terminals and a server, and the controller, these elements are claiming the use of networked computers that can communicate data with each other. This is taken as an instruction for one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing devices and does not provide for integration into a practical application. The claimed terminals are broadly recited such that they read on a computer. The same is noted for the claimed server and the controller, both of those elements are broadly recited and amount to claiming a computer. The terminals, server, and the network are simply being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The claimed additional elements do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea using computers connected to each other via a network such as the Internet (the web), all of which are being generically recited.
Therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing devices and a network for data communication. The extent of the use of the additional elements in the claim is that they are being used as a tool to execute the steps that defines the abstract idea. Mere computer implementation of the abstract idea does not amount to claiming significantly more at step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
For the above reasons, claims 1, 11, 12 do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 5, 16, claiming that two or more tags are attachable in a raw material step or an intermediate step is not claiming anything to the method itself or to the functionality of the system. Being able to attach more than one type of a chemical tag is defining an aspect of the abstract idea. No further additional element is claimed for consideration. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 6, 17, the claimed acquisition step is claiming the act of reading information, which is considered to be part of the abstract idea. No further additional element is claimed for consideration. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 7, 18, the registration of the tag product information is considered to be part of the abstract idea as was set forth for claims 1 and 12. The recitation to the use of blockchain technology is interpreted as being additional element(s) that is not part of the abstract idea. The use of blockchain technology is a link to a particular technological environment which is the use of blockchain technology to store data. Blockchain technology is used to store data in an immutable registry and the applicant is using it for the same purpose. The claimed use of the blockchain in the claims is nothing more than a general link to the field of blockchain technology. When the claimed is viewed as a whole, the use of blockchain technology to store the tag information in combination with the other additional elements, does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more. The claim is not eligible.
For claims 8, 19, the applicant is reciting more about the abstract idea by claiming a manufacturing step at a high level of generality with inputting of data (part of the abstract idea) and by claiming that the carbon dioxide emission is calculated. The calculation of the carbon dioxide emissions is arguably part of the same abstract idea and/or is an additional abstract idea that is a mental calculation and/or a commercial practice of determining a carbon footprint for a manufactured product. This is part of the abstract idea. A combination of more than one abstract idea does not render a claim non-abstract. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 10, 21-24, the chemical tag is considered to be part of the abstract idea as far as this is the field of use for the concept of using a chemical tag and registering the information for later use. The claim recites nothing about how the plastic is being made, does not recite how the tag is incorporated into the plastic, and does not actually use the tag in any manner other than claiming that a spectral profile is acquired. The claim is just registering the information that is read from the tag, but the tag itself is not doing anything in the claim. Claiming the specifics of the tag in terms of the pore size for the particles is reciting more about the abstract idea. The structure of the tag and the pore sizes have nothing to do with the claimed invention in terms of reading the spectral profile and registering the information of the tag for subsequent use. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims 25, the product information is part of the abstract idea. Claiming the product information is reciting more about the abstract idea and the ineligible part of the claim. No further additional element has been claimed for consideration. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1, 5-8, 10-12, 16-19, 21-25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive.
On page 9 of the reply the applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea step 2A. The applicant argues that the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human activities without further explanation. This is a general allegation that is not persuasive and is little more than a statement of disagreement with the examiner.
On page 9 the applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application. The applicant argues that the claims have been amended and repeats the claimed invention on page 10 by citing the claimed elements with an allegation that the claims improve the field of plastic recycling. The applicant argues that as compared to convention tags that are barcodes or that are wireless tags, the chemical tag of the claimed invention has advantages. This is not persuasive because the applicant is not addressing the fact that chemical tags are known in the art and the use of a chemical tag is not in and of itself an improvement to the field of plastic recycling. Comparing the claimed chemical tag to a wireless tag such as an RFID tag is not useful in clarifying how and why the claims recite additional elements that provides for integration, especially when one notes that the current state of the art for plastic recycling already recognizes the advantages of using chemical tags. The use of a chemical tag that is attached to a plastic article is known in the art of plastic recycling and does not represent an improvement to a recycling process itself. The argument that is addressing the linking of information for the chemical tags and allowing for accurate identification and sorting is an argument directed to the abstract idea and not an additional element. Any alleged innovation lies in the abstract idea and not in a resulting improvement to the field of recycling or a specific way to perform recycling, or to a new type of chemical tag that is used for recycling. The fact that by storing the information of the claim it allows for traceability does not equate to an improvement to technology or an improvement to the field of recycling a plastic article. The argument is not persuasive. The claims have not been integrated into a practical application.
On page 11 the applicant argues step 2B. The applicant argues that the claimed invention is a non-conventional and inventive combination of elements. The applicant argues that conventional tags get damaged and cannot be tracked. The applicant argues that the claimed invention uses chemical tags to overcome this problem. This is not persuasive because the applicant is comparing the chemical tag of the claims to prior art that is not the state of the art for plastic recycling. This is not persuasive because the applicant is not addressing the fact that chemical tags are known in the art and are not an improvement to the field of plastic recycling. Comparing the claimed chemical tag to a wireless tag such as an RFID tag is not useful in clarifying how and why the claims recite additional elements that provides for integration. The use of a chemical tag that is attached to a plastic article is known in the art of plastic recycling and does not represent an improvement to a recycling process itself. The fact that the system can track plastic article data using a computer and can calculate a carbon dioxide emission reduction are elements that are arguing the abstract idea that is implemented by a computer. This is not persuasive because the argued elements are part of the abstract idea and the fact that the claims use a controller or a server or the claimed terminals to execute the abstract idea does not amount to reciting significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The carbon dioxide calculation that is claimed is also part of the abstract idea and the result of the calculation is not used in any manner to improve technology or to do anything.
The comment that the prior art does not teach what is claimed so the claim must recite significantly more is not persuasive. Novel and non-obvious abstract ideas are still abstract ideas. In buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court stated that "abstract ideas, no matter how groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant, are outside what the statute means by "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter", and reference is made to Myriad by the court for this position. Also stated in buySAFE is "In defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1303. The Court in Mayo rejected the contention that the very narrow scope of the natural law at issue was a reason to find patent eligibility, explaining the point with reference to both natural laws and one kind of abstract idea, namely, mathematical concepts.
From SAP AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. INVESTPIC, LLC:
We affirm. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function). No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.
Therefore, for the above reasons the argument is not persuasive that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. When viewed as a whole, the additional elements of the claim and the elements that define the abstract idea is/are an instruction for one to use computers to perform the abstract idea. This does not render the claims eligible with the examiner referring applicant to MPEP 2106.05(f) for the supporting rationale for the rejection (using a computer as a tool to execute a judicial exception). The 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
With respect to prior art, the cited prior art of record does not teach the combination as claimed in total and the arguments to that effect are persuasive. Specifically not disclosed or suggested by the cited art of record is the claimed combination that includes:
receiving, by a server, a request for product information via a network from a second terminal assigned to a recycling operation, the request including a waste plastic article wavelength spectral profile automatically acquired from a waste plastic article obtained by decomposing the product by detecting the chemical tag;
retrieving, by the server, from the tag product information, corresponding product information based on the waste plastic article wavelength spectral profile included in the request, wherein the corresponding product information includes:
manufacturing operation information indicating a manufacturing operation in which a wavelength spectral profile that is identical or similar to the waste plastic article wavelength spectral profile was detected, composition information indicating a composition corresponding to the manufacturing operation, recycling information indicating whether the waste plastic article is separable or not, and a wavelength spectral information identifier indicating a wavelength spectral profile before the manufacturing operation;
executing, by the controller, a carbon dioxide emission reduction calculation based on an amount of recycled raw material derived from the waste plastic article; and
transmitting calculation results to the server such that the server tracks recycling performance and aggregates the calculation results, wherein the server is communicable with the plurality of first terminals such that the tag product information and the calculation results are accessible by at least one of the plurality of first terminals at a subsequent raw material and intermediate manufacturing operations.
Further reasons for allowance will be set forth if and when the application is allowed as the claims may change in a further response and that would necessarily affect the reasons for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights