DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Amended independent claims: 1, 19 and 20,
Amended dep. Claims: 3, 4, 8-13, 16, and 21-23.
Canceled claims: 14-15 and 17-18.
Canceled claims previously: 2, and 6-7.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-5 and 8-23 are pending. The pending claims comprising of 3 groups:
1) Apparatus1: 1, 3-5, 8-18, and
2) Method1: 19, 21 and 22, and
3) System1: 20 and 23.
As of 01/12/26, independent claim 19 is as followed:
19. (Currently Amended) A method for circulating a product, the method comprising:
[1] imaging a product with a camera of a hand-held apparatus to collect image data including at least one of: shape data of the product or color data of the product;
[2] identifying and classifying, with a trained machine learning model at the hand-held apparatus, the, at least one of: the product, one or more parts of the product, one or more materials of the product, or one or more characteristics of the product based on data associated with the scanning of the product, including the image data using a circularity database;
[3] obtaining, from the circularity database, one or more circularity maps associated with the identified and classified at least one of: product, one or more parts of the product, one or more materials of the product, or one or more characteristics of the product, wherein each respective circularity map includes a respective circularity protocol;
[4] determining, based on the one or more circularity maps, one or more costs and one or more benefits associated with the one or more circularity protocols, wherein the determining includes determining a circularity cost, a carbon footprint, a market value associated with the one or more circularity protocols:
[5] comparing, based on the determination, the one or more costs and the one or more benefits associated with the one or more circularity protocols;
[6] selecting, based on the comparison, one or more recommended circularity protocols from the one or more circularity protocols,
[7] displaying the one or more recommended circularity protocols and a circularity marketplace at a user interface of the hand-held apparatus; and [8] executing the one or more recommended circularity protocols, wherein the executing includes:
[8a] accessing, with a network interface of the hand-held apparatus, a circularity marketplace via a network;
[8b] listing, in the circularity marketplace, for sale, exchange, disposal, or service the identified and classified at least one of: the product, the one or more parts of the product, or the one or more materials of the product based on the recommended one or more circularity protocols; and
[8c] obtaining one or more circularity points based on at least one of: the listing, sale, exchange, disposal, or service.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[5] are added to the beginning of each element.
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, 3-5, 8-13, 16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
(1) law of nature,
(2) natural phenomenon, and
(3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(i) a method of organizing human activities,
(2i) an idea of itself, or
(3i) a mathematical relationship or formula.
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 16 and 19-23:
Claim categories:
System1: 1, 3-5, 8-13, and 16, and
Method1: 19, 21-22,
System2: 20 and 23.
Analysis:
Apparatus: claims 1 and 20 are directed to a system comprising: (1) a sensor, and (2) a processor is configured to carry out a method for managing product circularity by recycling a product or a component of a product in a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan by (1) imaging a product to obtain product data, (2) identifying a characteristic of the product using a circularity database, (3) obtaining a circularity protocol associated with the identified product, (4) determining a cost, benefit, carbon footprint, or market value, associated with the obtained protocol, (5) comparing the cost or benefit associated with the obtained protocol, (6) selecting a recommended circularity protocol, (7) displaying the recommended circularity protocol and the circularity marketplace, (8) executing the recommended circularity protocol by (8a) accessing a circularity marketplace, (8b) listing the identified / classified product or its components for sale, exchange, disposal or service, and (8c) obtaining circularity points based on one of listing, sale, exchange, disposal, or service. (Step 1:Yes).
Method: claims 19, and 21-22 are directed to a method for managing product circularity by recycling a product or a component of a product in a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan by (1) imaging a product to obtain product data, (2) identifying a characteristic of the product using a circularity database, (3) obtaining a circularity protocol associated with the identified product, (4) determining a cost, benefit, carbon footprint, or market value, associated with the obtained protocol, (5) comparing the cost or benefit associated with the obtained protocol, (6) selecting a recommended circularity protocol, (7) displaying the recommended circularity protocol and the circularity marketplace, (8) executing the recommended circularity protocol by (8a) accessing a circularity marketplace, (8b) listing the identified / classified product or its components for sale, exchange, disposal or service, and (8c) obtaining circularity points based on one of listing, sale, exchange, disposal, or service. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Actual Analysis:
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 (apparatus) and respective 19 (method), as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of a method for managing a product in a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan (model) by carrying the cited steps above. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Alternatively, the recited limitations also fall within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to a managing a product in a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan (model) to maximize reuse, refurbish and recycle while minimize disposal of products by carrying out the cited steps above. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
As for independent claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it deals with a method for circulating a product by managing a product in a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan (model) to maximize reuse, refurbish and recycle while minimize disposal of products. This is carried out by (1) imaging a product to obtain product data, (2) identifying a characteristic of the product using a circularity database, (3) obtaining a circularity protocol associated with the identified product, (4) determining a cost, benefit, carbon footprint, or market value, associated with the obtained protocol, (5) comparing the cost or benefit associated with the obtained protocol, (6) selecting a recommended circularity protocol, (7) displaying the recommended circularity protocol and the circularity marketplace, (8) executing the recommended circularity protocol by (8a) accessing a circularity marketplace, (8b) listing the identified / classified product or its components for sale, exchange, disposal or service, and (8c) obtaining circularity points based on one of listing, sale, exchange, disposal, or service.
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] collect an image product (data) Data gathering, insignificant extra-solution activity (IE-SA) step.
[2] identify a product feature (data)…. Data gathering, IE-SA.
[3] obtain product/characteristics (data) Data gathering, IE-SA.
[4] determine cost or benefits… Mental/evaluate/determining a value.
[5] compare cost /benefits of protocols. Mental/evaluate/determining a value.
[6] selecting a recom. protocol (data). Mental/evaluate/selecting a recommendation.
[7] display protocol and market place. Data displaying, IE-SA.
[8] executing a recom. protocol. Business activity.
[8a] access a circulatory market place. Obtain data, IE-SA.
[8b] Display/list the recommendation Data displaying, IE-SA.
[8c] Obtain points via recom action. Business activity.
Steps [1], [2], [3], [7], [8a] and [8b] are data gathering, data displaying and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [4]-[6], [8] and [8c] are mental step for analysis of product related information using a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan (model).
Steps [7]-[8, 8a, 8b, 8c are also well known business activities for accessing a business shopping, listing items for sale, and obtain credit points.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a processor for carrying out the analysis steps. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice of a well known business practice for managing a product in a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan (model) to maximize reuse, refurbish and recycle while minimize disposal of products) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[8] above.
Steps [1], [2], [3], [7], [8a] and [8b] are data gathering, data displaying and data transmitting which are considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Steps [4]-[6], [8] and [8c] are mental step for analysis of product related information using a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan (model).
Steps [7]-[8, 8a, 8b, 8c are also well known business activities for accessing a business shopping, listing items for sale, and obtain credit points.
The means to carry out these steps appear to be generic computer device with generic software elements.
The additional elements do not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. The generic computer components, processor, sensors, machine learning type model, and a user interface merely perform generic computer functions: scanning image data, analyzing data, identifying model, obtain data (circulatory maps) and receiving information, and displaying data.
Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software application for carrying out a well known business practice for managing a product in a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan (model) to maximize reuse, refurbish and recycle while minimize disposal of products) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., managing a product in a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan (model) to maximize reuse, refurbish and recycle while minimize disposal of products), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system or article claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, i.e. a processor, a memory to store a set of instructions. The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer network devices, i.e. a software for carrying out the managing a product in a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan (model), are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claim 3 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the data scanning and analyzing features, these further limit the abstract idea of the data acquisition and analyzing, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 3 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of data scanning and analyzing features, these further limit the abstract idea of the data acquisition and analyzing, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 4 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”. The use of a trained machine learning model appears generic model for achieving conventional result.
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of database, includes data about a product, this further limits the abstract idea of the data acquisition and analyzing, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 5 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 8-11 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the data scanning and analyzing features, these further limit the abstract idea of the data acquisition and analyzing, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 8-11 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 12-13 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the data analyzing features, these further limit the abstract idea of the data acquisition and analyzing, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 12-14 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 16 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the data analyzing features, these further limit the abstract idea of the data acquisition and analyzing, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 16 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 16 and 19-23 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Claims 19, 22 (method1) and respective 1, 4-5, 8-18 (method2) and respectively 20 (apparatus1) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over:
Names Publications:
(1) KAYARA US 2020/0.143.334, and
(2) BETTHAUSER ET AL. US 2023/0.409.581, and
(3) CN 117.853.100 A.
As for independent method claim 19, KAYARA discloses a method for circulating a product, the method comprising:
{See [0002 … computer-implemented processes … facilitating recycling or repair of finished goods and their components…”,]. The recycling a product or their components reads over “circulating a product.”
[1] imaging a product with a camera of a hand-held apparatus to collect image data including at least one of: a shape data of the product for recycling (or color data of the product);
{See Fig. 3, 305 “Scanning technology” and respective
[0032 … at the recycling stage, …, machine vision (MV) technology or sensors with lasers can be used to discover the recycling product code by capturing a machine vision image or scanning and matching features to graphics …],
[0037 “At step 305, scanning technology … past a barcode scanner as it travels through a recycling center, … to identify at step 306 whether the recycling product code…,” and
[0083 .. A “computer,” …laptop, personal data assistant (PDA), wireless e-mail device, …, smart phone, mobile phone, electronic tablet, cellular phone, pager, fax machine, scanner, …],
[0038 … checking for one or more dependent recycling product codes for components of the finished product at step 308. For example, with reference to Fig. A, the case 4 of the computer system 2 may be opened to reveal a child recycling product codes imprinted on the mainboard 16… In one embodiment, machine vision (MV) identification can be used to identify children recycling product codes, such as by a process that captures component dimensions using lasers and matches those captured parameters against shapes and dimensions stored in one of the databases 214, 220, 222, 224 to identify the components, for example.”]
PNG
media_image1.png
520
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[2] identifying and classifying, with a trained model at the hand-held apparatus, the, at least one of: the product, one or more parts of the product, one or more materials of the product, or one or more characteristics of the product based on data associated with the scanning of the product, including the image data using a circularity database;
{See Fig. 1 and
[0038 … checking for one or more dependent recycling product codes for components of the finished product at step 308. For example, with reference to Fig. A, the case 4 of the computer system 2 may be opened to reveal a child recycling product codes imprinted on the mainboard 16… In one embodiment, machine vision identification can be used to identify children recycling product codes, such as by a process that captures component dimensions using lasers and matches those captured parameters against shapes and dimensions stored in one of the databases 214, 220, 222, 224 to identify the components, for example.”]
[0039 If the parent recycling product code can be determined at step 306, then a determination can be made at step 314 whether to fix or disassemble the finished product… for performing a repair or refurbishing process at step 316…]
{see [0008 … reading of … product codes and to facilitate queries to the different databases…”} The scanned product code is sent to the at least one processor/database for querying purpose.
[3] obtaining, from the circularity database, one or more circularity maps associated with the identified and classified at least one of: product, one or more parts of the product, one or more materials of the product, or one or more characteristics of the product, wherein each respective circularity map includes a respective circularity protocol;
[0039 If the parent recycling product code can be determined at step 306, then a determination can be made at step 314 whether to fix or disassemble the finished product… for performing a repair or refurbishing process at step 316…]
{see [0008 … reading of … product codes and to facilitate queries to the different databases…”} The scanned product code is sent to the at least one processor/database for querying purpose.
[4] determining, based on the one or more circularity maps, one or more costs and one or more benefits associated with the one or more circularity protocols, wherein the determining includes determining a circularity cost, a carbon footprint, a market value associated with the one or more circularity protocols:
[0039 If the parent recycling product code can be determined at step 306, then a determination can be made at step 314 whether to fix or disassemble the finished product… for performing a repair or refurbishing process at step 316… In one embodiment, the inventory database 224 may include cost or price data associated with a given product, and such data can be used in the determination made at step 314 whether to repair or refurbish the product at step 316, for example …. However, …, then a disassembly process can be engaged in step 318]
[5] comparing, based on the determination, the one or more costs and the one or more benefits associated with the one or more circularity protocols;
{See Fig. 14A, “Inventory Table for R0001 “Bob Recycling,”, Fig. 14 B “Inventory Table for R0001 (Jim Recycling), wherein the recycled parts or products are compared and evaluated for cost and benefits.}
PNG
media_image2.png
196
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
174
454
media_image3.png
Greyscale
{see also Fig. 3, step “314 Is product worth fixing?”, “No”, step 318 “Disassembly Process,” and “YES,” step 316 “Repair or Refurbish Processing,” and respective par. [0039] which teaches the carrying out of steps 316 and 318, and [0040 … cost or price information accessed from the inventory database 224 can be used to determine extent of the recycling to be performed.]}
[6] selecting, based on the comparison, one or more recommended circularity protocols from the one or more circularity protocols,
{see also Fig. 3, step “314 Is product worth fixing?”, “No”, step 318 “Disassembly Process,” and “YES,” step 316 “Repair or Refurbish Processing,” and respective par. [0039] which teaches the carrying out of steps 316 and 318. The selecting of the recommended protocol is shown in Fig. 3, step 234 “Product sold with externally visible recycling product code.”}
[7] displaying the one or more recommended circularity protocols and a circularity marketplace at a user interface of the hand-held apparatus; and
{see Fig. 19, shows companies that make a system product that use that component (such as Factory F0001).
PNG
media_image4.png
356
738
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note that KAYARA teaches on [0032 … at the recycling stage, …, machine vision (MV) technology or sensors with lasers can be used to discover the recycling product code by capturing a machine vision image or scanning and matching features to graphics …] and [0083 .. A “computer,” …laptop, personal data assistant (PDA), wireless e-mail device, …, smart phone, mobile phone, electronic tablet, cellular phone, pager, fax machine, scanner, …]. The displaying of the recommended result at a user interface of the hand-held apparatus would have been obvious in view of the image capturing device and the computer is a wireless tablet or device or smart mobile phone that can display images such as Fig. 14A or Fig. 19.
As shown above, KAYARA teaches the identifying of a relationship of one or more dependent recycling product codes for components of the finished product which reads over item (a) the product or (b) parts of the product or (d) data about a characteristic of the product.
[8] executing the one or more recommended circularity protocols, wherein the executing includes:
{see Fig. 3, step (314) “Is product worth fixing?”, “No” then proceeds with step (318) “Disassembly process,” if “Yes,” then proceeds with step (316) “Repair or Refurbish processing”, and Fig. 4 with teaches the “Disassembly Process.” The carrying out of one of this option is within the skill of the artisan based on the result of the step (314).
[8a] accessing, with a network interface of the hand-held apparatus, a circularity marketplace via a network;
PNG
media_image5.png
424
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
[8b] listing, in the circularity marketplace, for sale, exchange, disposal, or service the identified and classified at least one of: the product, the one or more parts of the product, or the one or more materials of the product based on the recommended one or more circularity protocols; and
{see Fig. 14B, Fig. 15, and Fig. 17, above, for different circularity marketplaces, Jim Recycling, Bob Recycling, Distributor Warehouse, etc.}
KAYARA fairly teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly discloses (1) a trained machine learning model in the identifying step, (2) the step of obtaining circularity points based on one of the step listing or sale or disposal or service.
BETTHAUSER ET AL. is cited to teach the analyzing of the data using a trained machine learning (ML) model and identifying a feature of the product using the result of the trained ML model, see Fig. 5, 530, and respective [0003].
PNG
media_image6.png
138
533
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
265
596
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the circulating product system of KAYARA by analyzing of the data using a trained machine learning (ML) model and identifying a feature of the product using the result of the trained ML model as taught by BETTHAUSER ET AL. for identifying various features about a set of data, see [0003]. Rational G/TSM, combine. Alternatively, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
KAYARA /BETTHAUSER ET AL. fairly teaches the claimed invention except for explicitly discloses (2) the step of obtaining circularity points based on one of the step listing or sale or disposal or service.
CN 117.853.100 A teaches the method of promoting the reduction and reuse of the product (garbage) obtains great market value and economic benefits or circularity points based on at least one of the recycle step.
PNG
media_image8.png
178
624
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product recycling process of KAYARA / BETTHAUSER ET AL. by including the result of obtaining great market value and economic benefits or circularity points as taught by CN 117.853.100 A, see description (4) based on at least one of the recycle step. The selection of a specific value, i.e. points, would have been obvious in view of the teaching of obtaining great market value (monetary or points) and economic benefits (monetary or points).
As for the independent claim 1 which is an apparatus to be hand-held to carry out the method of claim 19, KAYARA discloses on [0032 … at the recycling stage, …, machine vision (MV) technology or sensors with lasers can be used to discover the recycling product code by capturing a machine vision image or scanning and matching features to graphics …] and [0083 .. A “computer,” …laptop, personal data assistant (PDA), wireless e-mail device, …, smart phone, mobile phone, electronic tablet, cellular phone, pager, fax machine, scanner, …]. The combination of a wireless (hand-held) apparatus with camera to capture image of the product to collect information is inherently included in the teachings of [0032] and [0083] above.
As for dep. claims 4-5 (part of 1 above) which deal with the analysis of the collected data by checking with a database containing association of data to at least one of the product, these are taught in Fig. 2, databases 214, 220, and respective [0037-0038] which teaches the query of related recycling product codes in the databases for matching.
PNG
media_image9.png
509
711
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
402
500
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As for dep. claims 8-9 (part of 1 above) which deal with the identification of the product and parts of the product, etc., these are taught in KAYARA par. [0047 … data such as recycling product code data, component data, and other information. ] which describes collected product characteristics such as composition (degradable or fragile nature of the product). Also, in Fig. 2, element (218) which teaches other product characteristics: “Update component Specifications” such as “Graphics, weights, composition, etc.” As for the use of the trained ML model, this is taught in BETTHAUSER ET AL. par, [0003] cited above.
As for dep. claims 10-11 (part of 1 above) which deal with the identification of the product with respect to the material of the product, and characteristic of the product based on the analysis of data, these are taught in KAYARA par. [0047 … data such as recycling product code data, component data, and other information. ] which describes collected product characteristics such as composition (degradable or fragile nature of the product). Also, in Fig. 2, element (218) which teaches other product characteristics: “Update component Specifications” such as “Graphics, weights, composition, etc.”. The selection of other product similar characteristics such as color, location data, etc., would have been obvious as mere routine experimentations. As for the use of the trained ML model, this is taught in BETTHAUSER ET AL. par, [0003] cited above.
As for dep. claim 12 (part of 1 above) which deals a processor configured to identify the one or more item, a circulatory maps, comprises one of (d) instructions for disassembling a product or part, this is taught in KAYARA Fig. 4, 318 “Disassembly Process,” and respective [0040].
PNG
media_image11.png
192
476
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
506
647
media_image12.png
Greyscale
As for dep. claim 13 (part of 12 above) which deals with use of the circulatory protocol for at least one of dissembling or reusing/recycling, this is taught in KAYARA Fig. 1, “Recycling”, element 302, Fig. 4, “Recycling” 214.
As for dep. claim 22 (part of 19 above) which deals with the feature of the circulatory database, remote database accessed via a network interface of the handheld user device, this is taught in KAYARA Fig. 2, remote database 214, 220, 222 and 224 and [0032 … at the recycling stage, …, machine vision (MV) technology or sensors with lasers can be used to discover the recycling product code by capturing a machine vision image or scanning and matching features to graphics …] and [0083 .. A “computer,” …laptop, personal data assistant (PDA), wireless e-mail device, …, smart phone, mobile phone, electronic tablet, cellular phone, pager, fax machine, scanner, …].
As for independent claim 20, it’s the combination of independent claim 1, claim 4, 12 and 14, it’s rejected for the combination of the rejections of claims 1, claim 4, 12 and 14. As for the term “handheld user device” comprising at least one sensor configured to scan a product, this is taught in KAYARA [0083 .. A “computer,” …laptop, personal data assistant (PDA), wireless e-mail device, …, smart phone, mobile phone, electronic tablet, cellular phone, pager, fax machine, scanner, …].
Dependent claims 3 (part of 1 above) and respective 21 (part of 19 above) and respective 23 (part of 20 above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KAYARA / BETTHAUSER ET AL. / CN 117.853.100 A as applied to claims 1, 19 and 20 above, and further in view of (4) KAMPF ET AL., US 2005/0.127.285.
KAMPF ET AL. teaches the analysis of a recycled product composition using a mass spectrometer, see [0020].
PNG
media_image13.png
272
606
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the parent and dependent recycling product codes tracking for products of KAYARA / BETTHAUSER ET AL. /CN 117.853.100 A by using a sensor including a spectrometer for analyzing the composition of the recycled product in a recycling plant as taught by KAMPF ET AL., see [0020]. Rational G/TSM, combine.
Responses to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 Rejections: (1) Applicant’s comments on pages 10-11 are not persuasive. The scope of the claimed invention, as shown in independent claims 19, 20 and 1, are managing a product in a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan (model) by (1) scanning a product to obtain product data, (2) transmit the scanned data to a processor, (3) inputting the transmitted data into a model, (4) identifying other product information, (5) obtain circulatory maps to at least one of the product, and (6) display the circulatory maps on a user interface. The claims merely deal with collection information, analyzing information using a model to determine various circulatory (reusing or recycling product) options, and displaying the results. This is similar to the Electric Power Group Case which has been determined to be ineligible subject matter. The cited additional elements: a camera, hand-held device, one processor, input the data to a trained machine learning model, a user interface configured to display maps (information), sensors, a circulatory marketplace, etc., are considered as generic computer devices to perform generic computer functions.
PNG
media_image14.png
142
678
media_image14.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the determination of circularity points and being display on a GUI are used to assist user in making a decision (choice) with respect to the product. The step to “assist user in making a decision or choice of use the product” is a mental process for evaluating the financial value of a product for future action.
Applicant’s comment on page 13 that the amended claims are directed to a practical application, helping a user knows how to circulate a product at the product end-of-life is noted, however, this is not persuasive because the claimed invention does not produce: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea of managing a product in a circular (reusable or recyclable) economy plan (model) to a particular technological environment.
112 (b) rejections: withdrawn due to claim amendment.
103 Rejections: Applicant’s comments with respect to the amended features are noted, however, new references and citations have been used to address the amended features.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(1) US 2022/0.358.673, by PATEL ET AL. teaches the provision of instructions for disassembly of computer device or computer component and/or instructions for installing the component in the modular computer, see [0054… instructions … depicting disassembly of a demonstration computing device… removal of a second modular computer component from ….] and [0025 … instructions for installing the component in the modular computer system;…].
WO 2022/065264 teaches the input of data to a trained machine learning (ML) model and identifying at least a related product using the trained ML model.
PNG
media_image15.png
252
688
media_image15.png
Greyscale
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights