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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 02/02/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1, 5-12, 16-26 are pending.
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, 5-10, 12, 16-26, 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.
For claims 1, 12, the portion of the claim that reads “wherein new tag product information is generated each time a raw material manufacturing operation and the one or more intermediate manufacturing operations” is indefinite. Each time a raw material manufacturing what? Each time a raw material manufacturing operation “occurs” or is performed? That seems to be what the applicant intended to recite based on the remarks with the amendment but the claim itself does not clearly recite what the each time is for. Correction is required.
For claim 26, there is no antecedent basis for “the manufacturing step”. Claim 1 refers to a manufacturing operation but does not recite a manufacturing step. It is not clear if the recited manufacturing step is the same as the manufacturing operation of claim 1 or is different. Correction is required.
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, 5-12, 16-26, 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 device; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of generating information for plastic recycling management by creating a registry of information indicating chemical tag information for plastic produced articles (claims 1, 12), and the abstract idea of acquiring the information and outputting information for performing separating operations (claim 11).
For claim 1, and applicable to claim 12, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
automatically identifying a chemical tag attached to a plastic article of a product
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,
wherein new tag product information is generated each time a raw material manufacturing operation and the one or more intermediate manufacturing operations; and
registering the tag product information such that the tag product information is accessible at a subsequent raw material or intermediate manufacturing operation
For claim 11 the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
automatically acquiring, wavelength spectral profile read from a waste plastic article obtained by decomposing a product to which a chemical tag is attached,
retrieving product information related to recycling of the waste plastic article associated with the wavelength spectral profile
generating information for separating the waste plastic article into one or more composition based on the product information;
controlling one or more separating operations of the waste plastic article based on the information for separating,
wherein the chemical tag comprises information from a raw material operation and one or more intermediate manufacturing operations until a final product is reached
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 at a later time for recycling of the plastic articles. The recycling of plastic and using chemical tag information to determine disposition of discarded waste, such as plastic articles, 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 XRF markers are used to identify plastic components for recycling. As to the claimed steps themselves, a person can perform the recited steps/functions. A person can visually determine that a chemical tag is attached to a plastic article (attached is broad terminology and does not require a specific manner of attachment or incorporation of the tag into the plastic itself), a person can retrieve information as claimed, a person can generate tag information as claimed, and a person can register the information as claimed. A paper notebook can be used to enter information and register the tag information, where a person is the one generating the tag product information. The elements that are found to be defining the abstract idea are those that are capable of being performed manually by people. For claim 11, the same is concluded, namely that a person can manually perform the recited steps/functions that defines the abstract idea. Obtaining data and registering or storing it for use later, such as to control a separating operation, are functions that can be performed by people who are managing the recycling of plastic waste products. This represent a certain method of organizing human activities that is the act of performing recycling management.
For claims 1, 11, the additional elements of the claim are the plurality of terminals, a server that is in communication with the terminals, and detecting, by an optical spectroscopic reader, a unique reflection pattern generated by a pore structure in units of nanometers in the chemical tag, or by reading, by an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) reader, an XRF-identifiable marker in the product and obtaining a wavelength spectral profile of the chemical tag. The claim uses the word “or” to describe how the tag is being identified and the examiner has addressed the use of an XRF reader as being an additional element of the claim. Claim 11 also recites a controller, which has been interpreted as being a computer.
For claim 12, the additional elements are the processor and memory storing a program that is configured to cause the processor to perform the steps that are considered to be defining the abstract idea, a server, and detecting by an optical spectroscopic reader, a unique reflection pattern generated by a pore structure in units of nanometers in the chemical tag, or by reading, by an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) reader, an XRF-identifiable marker in the product and obtain a wavelength spectral profile of the chemical tag.
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 (terminals, server, a controller) with a processor and memory that are being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea in combination with the use of an XRF reader device that is being used in its ordinary capacity to obtain the spectral profile of the tag, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (f)(2).
With respect to the claimed plurality of terminals, the server that can communicate with the terminals, and the controller this is claiming the use of networked computers, which is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected via a network such as the Internet (the web), all generically recited. For the XRF reader, an XRF reader is used to detect XRF markers that are found in a plastic article and is used to determine a spectral profile as the applicant has claimed. The claimed XRF reader and using it to obtain the spectral profile of the tag is claiming the use of the XRF reader to do what it is designed to do, which is to detect compounds or elements that can be confirmed from fluorescent x-rays. The applicant is simply using the XRF reader in its ordinary capacity to perform a data collection step that is obtaining the spectral profile so that it can be later used for product recycling. This is interpreted as being the ordinary use for an XRF reader device in conjunction with a judicial exception to obtain spectral data. Claiming computer implementation for the abstract idea (terminals, server) in combination with the use of the XRF reader in its ordinary capacity to detect XRF markers does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
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 device with a processor and memory to perform steps that define the abstract idea (the plurality of terminals, the server, controller) and the use of an XRF reader device to obtain spectral data. For the XRF reader, an XRF reader is used to detect XRF markers that are found in a plastic article and is used to determine a spectral profile as the applicant has claimed. The claimed XRF reader and using it to obtain the spectral profile of the tag is claiming the use of the XRF reader to do what it is designed to do, which is to detect compounds or elements that can be confirmed from fluorescent x-rays. The applicant is simply using the XRF reader in its ordinary capacity to perform a data collection step that is obtaining the spectral profile so that it can be later used for product recycling. Claiming computer implementation for the abstract idea (terminals, server) in combination with the use of the XRF reader in its ordinary capacity to detect XRF markers does not amount to reciting significantly more.
The 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, 9, 19, 20, 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 to read a spectral profile. 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, 26, 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, 5-12, 16-26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 11, 12, 16-20, 25, 26, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alon et al. (20240109227) in view of Tang (20100149531).
For claims 1, 6-8, 12, 17-19, 25, 26, Alon teaches a computer implemented system and method for adding taggants (a chemical tag) to a plastic article that is to be manufactured. The system includes a processor and memory as claimed, as all computers possess. The addition of chemical tags to plastic allows for tracking of the plastic to occur during the lifecycle of the plastic and allows for stored information about the taggants to be used in determining how to recycle or further process the plastic, see paragraph 011.
Alon teaches that the addition of taggants (a chemical tag) can occur in the initial production of a product or in intermediate steps of making a product, see paragraph 011. Alon discloses that during the manufacturing stage taggants are added to the raw materials, see paragraphs 012-014, 20 as examples. This satisfies the claimed plastic article with a chemical tag attached. Alon discloses in paragraph 013 that XRF markers are used as marker materials, and that an XRF reader is used to read the chemical tags. Readers such as an XRF spectrometer is used to read and detect the identify of the markers (the chemical tags). See paragraphs 013, 030. This satisfies the claimed automatically identifying a chemical tag that is attached to the plastic article of a product, and that is detected by using an XRF reader. The use of the XRF reader results in a wavelength being determined as claimed. In paragraphs 012 it is disclosed that information from the taggant can be read by using a spectrometer, which is done by allowing a product to decompose (relevant for claim 11). A spectrometer is used to measure spectral data such as wavelengths. The claimed retrieving of the product information (can be any information) that is related to the recycling of the product is disclosed in paragraph 41 where Alon teaches that a database record is stored for the plastic and the markers (chemical tags), and that includes information on how to further process or recycle the plastic. Disclosed is that the information is stored such that when one wants to further process the plastic (can be raw material or an intermediate form), information can be retrieved from the database to assist.
With respect to the portion of the claim that is attempting to recite that the tag information is updated each time a raw material manufacturing step or intermediate step occurs, Figures 7 and 8 show that information can be read from the plastic at different times in the lifecycle of the plastic and which allows for tracking to occur. Also see paragraphs 120-124 that discusses figure 7. In paragraphs 125-129 it is disclosed that the readers are used multiple times to detect the taggant materials and to record updated data in the monitoring system, which is storing the updated information (the tag information) in the database. Upon receipt of plastic materials that already contain a chemical tag (taggant), it is disclosed that upon further processing the monitoring system is updated with new information regarding the plastic and its further processing. Paragraph 068 discloses that taggants can be added to the plastic and that the information is updated for storage, such as by using the cloud. Therefore, Alon teaches that the readers are used to detect the taggants and that information is also being updated at each time the readers are used. This also satisfies what is claimed.
The claimed registration step, that is also recited as using blockchain technology in claims 7, 18, is disclosed in paragraphs 024, and 068. Paragraph 068 teaches that information encoded by the product taggant materials is uploaded to the cloud for storage, and teaches the use of blockchain. This satisfies the claimed registration step that is also claimed as using blockchain technology in dependent claims 7, 18. This allows for the information to be used later in a subsequent manufacturing operation, which is the intended use of the registration step.
Not disclosed by Alon is that the generation step includes generating tag information that is associated with the wavelength spectral profile. Alon does not teach the use of a spectral profile for wavelengths although Alon does teach the use of XRF markers and readers to detect the tags using a spectrometer.
Tang teaches a system and method for detecting taggants in a material and comparing the detected light emission (wavelength) with a store profile, see paragraph 004. Tang teaches the use of a taggant profile that includes wavelength range information and information obtained from analyzing the taggants. See paragraph 051 where the use of a spectrometer is disclosed to detect wavelength. Paragraphs 052 and 054 disclose the use of a profile, that includes the wavelength data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Alon with the ability to also store a wavelength profile for the taggants that are sensed and that data is being stored for in Alon. Alon teaches the use of a spectrometer to sense the chemical tag, and teaches the storage of the information about the chemical tag (taggant) and the material product, etc., in a database. While the express use of a wavelength profile is not taught by Alon, in view of the fact that Alon is using a spectrometer to sense the taggant that can be an XRF marker as is claimed, it would have been obvious to store the wavelength profile as stored data as taught by Tang. This would provide the predictable and desirable result of allowing Alon to store the wavelength data obtained from the spectrometer (as is disclosed in paragraphs 039, 041 of Alon) as wavelength profile data.
For claims 5, 16, the claim recites that two or more tags are “attachable” to the raw material step or the intermediate step. This is reciting the ability to add more than one chemical tag to a plastic material. This ability is fully present in Alon. If one wanted to, they can attach two chemical tags to the plastic. All of the tags mentioned in Alon are “attachable”. See paragraph 029 where it is disclosed that similar or different markers (different tags) can be used. This satisfies what is claimed.
For claims 9, 20, Alon discloses that a greenhouse gas emission credit (carbon credit) can be provided to a manufacturer. This requires a calculation of a reduction amount for the credit that relates to the recycled plastic material. This satisfies what is claimed. Calling the credit a carbon dioxide emission reduction credit is satisfied by Alon teaching a greenhouse gas emission credit.
For claim 11, Alon teaches a computer implemented system and method for adding taggants (a chemical tag) to a plastic article that is to be manufactured. The addition of chemical tags to plastic allows for tracking of the plastic to occur during the lifecycle of the plastic and allows for stored information about the taggants to be used in determining how to recycle or further process the plastic, see paragraph 011.
Alon teaches that the addition of taggants (a chemical tag) can occur in the initial production of a product or in intermediate steps of making a product, see paragraph 011. Alon discloses that during the manufacturing stage taggants are added to the raw materials, see paragraphs 012-014, 20 as examples. This satisfies the claimed plastic article with a chemical tag attached. Alon discloses in paragraph 013 that XRF markers are used as marker materials, and that an XRF reader is used to read the chemical tags. Readers such as an XRF spectrometer is used to read and detect the identity of the markers (the chemical tags). See paragraphs 013, 030. This satisfies the claimed automatically acquiring a chemical tag that is attached to the plastic article of a product, and that is detected by using an XRF reader. The use of the XRF reader results in a wavelength being determined as claimed. In paragraphs 012 it is disclosed that information from the taggant can be read by using a spectrometer, which is done by allowing a product to decompose. A spectrometer is used to measure spectral data such as wavelengths. The claimed retrieving of the product information (can be any information) that is related to the recycling of the product is disclosed in paragraph 41 where Alon teaches that a database record is stored for the plastic and the markers (chemical tags), and that includes information on how to further process or recycle the plastic. Disclosed is that the information is stored such that when one wants to further process the plastic (can be raw material or an intermediate form), information can be retrieved from the database to assist, see paragraph 011. This satisfies the claimed retrieving of the product information and the generation and display of information that is used for separating the plastic into one or more compositions. The monitoring system and database of Alon allow for a user to detect a chemical tag and retrieve stored information on how to further process the plastic, such as performing waste segregation or recycling of the plastic (inherently is separating the plastic into one or more compositions). Alon teaches chemical recycling and/or mechanical recycling, see figure 6 for example. Chemical recycling separates plastic into one or more compositions as claimed. The returned data from the server/monitoring system is made available to a user and this requires a display of the data to the user via a terminal. With respect to the portion of the claim that is reciting that the tag information comprises a raw material operation and one or more intermediate manufacturing operations, in paragraphs 125-129 it is disclosed that the readers are used multiple times to detect the taggant materials and to record updated data in the monitoring system, which is storing the updated information (the tag information) in the database. Upon receipt of plastic materials that already contain a chemical tag (taggant), it is disclosed that upon further processing the monitoring system is updated with new information regarding the plastic and its further processing. Paragraph 068 discloses that taggants can be added to the plastic and that the information is updated for storage, such as by using the cloud. This satisfies the claimed tag information as including information from a raw material operation (the first creation of the plastic with a chemical tag) and an intermediate operation (adding further additives and chemical tags to the plastic).
Not disclosed by Alon is that the generation step includes generating tag information that is associated with the wavelength spectral profile. Alon does not teach the use of a spectral profile for wavelengths although Alon does teach the use of XRF markers and readers to detect the tags using a spectrometer.
Tang teaches a system and method for detecting taggants in a material and comparing the detected light emission (wavelength) with a store profile, see paragraph 004. Tang teaches the use of a taggant profile that includes wavelength range information and information obtained from analyzing the taggants. See paragraph 051 where the use of a spectrometer is disclosed to detect wavelength. Paragraphs 052 and 054 disclose the use of a profile, that includes the wavelength data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Alon with the ability to also store a wavelength profile for the taggants that are sensed and that data is being stored for in Alon. Alon teaches the use of a spectrometer to sense the chemical tag, and teaches the storage of the information about the chemical tag (taggant) and the material product, etc., in a database. While the express use of a wavelength profile is not taught by Alon, in view of the fact that Alon is using a spectrometer to sense the taggant that can be an XRF marker as is claimed, it would have been obvious to store the wavelength profile as stored data as taught by Tang. This would provide the predictable and desirable result of allowing Alon to store the wavelength data obtained from the spectrometer (as is disclosed in paragraphs 039, 041 of Alon) as wavelength profile data.
Claims 10, 21-24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alon et al. (20240109227) in view of Tang (20100149531) and further in view of Herbert et al. (20080139342). Alon in view of Tang teaches the invention substantially as claimed.
For claim 10, not disclosed by Alon is that the chemical tag is a micro-tag silica.
Herbert teaches the use of micro-tags that are added to a material. Herbert teaches micro-tags in paragraph 022 and teaches in paragraph 051 that this includes silica.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Alon with the use of micro-tag silica as a choice for the chemical tag, as taught by Herbert. The choice of what chemical tag to use is something that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and is a choice that will be made from the finite types of tags that are available to choose from, with silica being one of them. All silica is porous because having pores is an inherent aspect to silica, it inherently contains microscopic pores.
With respect to claims 21-24, the applicant is claiming the pore sizes, the particle sizes, and concentration for porous silica. The examiner notes that Herbert teaches in paragraph 022 that the particle sizes for the porous silica ranges from less than 20 micros to greater than 60 microns. This satisfies the limitation reciting that the average pore size is 10-150 microns for claim 23.
However, the micro-tag of Herbert that has been provided to Alon does not teach that the porous silica has pore sizes as claimed in terms of nanometers (claims 21, 22), and that the concentration is from 2-6000ppm (claim 24).
The examiner notes that the specification does not attribute any criticality to the pore sizes or the concertation of the porous silica that is being used as long as it can be read by a spectrometer. The specification in paragraph 160 discloses that the chemical tag is not particularly limited as long as it has a wavelength that can be identified. There is no criticality for claiming any specific pore sizes or concentrations as it does not have any affect on the claimed invention that is just reading the data using a reader and then registering the data for later use. The act of detecting the chemical tag using the reader and the act of registering the information is not dependent on the chemical tag and the pore sizes and/or the concentration or the particle sizes. The porous silica in Herbert inherently has pores with sizes and the chemical tags are present in a concentration when added to a plastic material.
For the claimed pore sizes recited in claims 21, 22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Alon with porous silica in the pore sizes that are in the claimed range. There is no criticality for the pore sizes and one of ordinary skill in the art can select porous silica with any pore size, as long as the chemical tag can be read. The pore sizes do not have anything to do with the claimed invention that is obtaining information by use of an XRF reader and that is storing information about the chemical tags for future use.
The range for the claimed concentration is from 2-6000ppm as is recited in claim 24. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Alon with a concentration of at least 2ppm because this is a very low concentration and one of ordinary skill in the art wants to make sure that there is a concentration of silica that can be detected by the readers. The claimed range for the concentration is from a very low 2ppm to a relatively high level of 6000ppm. This range is something that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because one has to provide some amount of silica so that it can be detected.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On page 7 of the reply the applicant argues that the claims are directed to generating information, a recycling method, or an information generation device that provide an inventive concept to the field of plastic recycling that integrates the mental process into a practical application and that is reciting significantly more. This is not persuasive. The abstract idea category was stated as being a certain method of organizing human activities, not a mental process as has been argued. The comments about the claims not being practically performed by a person is not persuasive as the claimed steps/functions can be performed by people manually and the certain method of organizing human activities does not contain a practicality requirement such as was expressly set forth for a mental process type of abstract idea. People can obtain information; people can generate information and people can register information to it can be looked up later. The argument that the claimed steps of the abstract idea cannot be performed mentally is not persuasive. As to the claims providing an inventive concept due to providing access to product information across manufacturing operations and allowing for more reliable and accurate product tracking, this is not persuasive because the claims do not result in an improvement to technology or a technical field. Obtaining information about a chemical tag and storing it (registering it) so that it can be used at a later time is not improving technology. For claim 1 as an example, the claim simply results in tag information being registered so that it can be used later in a subsequent operation. That does not improve anything in terms of recycling because none is even occurring in the claims. There is no recycling occurring in the claims, all that is being done is to register information in claims 1 and 12. The result of the claim also does not serve to improve the claimed terminals or the server that is used to register the information and that is the source for the information obtained by the terminals. Registering tag information so that it can be looked up later does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more because this is the abstract idea itself. The result of the claim is not improving technology in any manner so relying upon DDR and arguing technology is being improved is not persuasive.
The applicant alleges that the claimed invention is not well understood, routine, and conventional because it recites a specific and complex approach to plastic recycling by registering tag information such that it can be used later. What has been argued is the abstract idea itself, which is not persuasive to show that there are additional elements being claimed that render the claims eligible. There is no recycling occurring in the claims and the registering of tag information is what defines the abstract idea, so the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims and is arguing the abstract idea. Also, the issue of the claimed invention being well understood, routine, and conventional is not relevant to the issues at hand because examiners do not need to prove that a claimed invention is well understood, routine, and conventional in a given field. The general allegation that the claimed invention is not well understood, routine, and conventional is not persuasive. The examiner notes that a lack of a prior art rejection does not equate to eligibility as a rule and does not amount to integration into a practical application or significantly more. The arguments are not persuasive and the 35 USC 101 rejection is being maintained.
The traversal of the prior art rejection is not persuasive. The rejection of record addresses the amended claims and moots the arguments from the applicant. Alon does teach that the tag information is updated as claimed at a number of different times, such as when a plastic raw material is first made and for subsequent operations that are performed with the plastic. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive. The system of Alon is used to monitor plastic material through its lifecycle and tag information (stored information) is being updated as claimed each time a subsequent manufacturing operation is performed. The argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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