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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 3, 4, 7, 8 have been amended via preliminary amendments.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 10 – 17 have been added via preliminary amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “is” in “acquisition and transmission modules is configured to acquire” should be “are”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1
data acquisition unit is configured to acquire
averaging unit is configured to calculate
Claim 2
receiving unit configured to receive
Claim 3
analysis unit configured to generate
Claim 8
acquisition and transmission modules is configured to acquire…and transmit
calculation processing module is configured to execute the carbon emissions accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4
Claim 10
interactive analysis unit configured to generate
Claim 11
interactive analysis unit configured to generate
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 – 3, 8 – 11, 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations:
Claim 1
data acquisition unit is configured to acquire
averaging unit is configured to calculate
Claim 2
receiving unit configured to receive
Claim 3
analysis unit configured to generate
Claim 8
acquisition and transmission modules is configured to acquire…and transmit
calculation processing module is configured to execute the carbon emissions accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4
Claim 10
interactive analysis unit configured to generate
Claim 11
interactive analysis unit configured to generate
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Upon review of the specification, the Examiner asserts that only verbatim support has been provided and fails to disclose the corresponding structure of each generic placeholder responsible for carrying out the corresponding function. A review of the drawings has resulted that although there is support for each invocation, the drawings have only represented them as basic squares/rectangles that comprise the system while failing to show the specific structure that correspond to each invocation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 3, 8 – 11, 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, the Examiner asserts that the specification, as originally filed, fails to adequately disclose the corresponding structural elements that comprise the system:
Claim 1
data acquisition unit is configured to acquire
averaging unit is configured to calculate
Claim 2
receiving unit configured to receive
Claim 3
analysis unit configured to generate
Claim 8
acquisition and transmission modules is configured to acquire…and transmit
calculation processing module is configured to execute the carbon emissions accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4
Claim 10
interactive analysis unit configured to generate
Claim 11
interactive analysis unit configured to generate
Upon review of the specification, the Examiner asserts that the claims are directed to a device/system (apparatus) and recites the components (see above) that comprise the device/system. However, the claims and specification fail to disclose the corresponding structural elements that each of the placeholders are intended to represent in order to perform their respective functions. As a result, the structure of the device/system is unknown. Simply pointing or stating a result is insufficient to meet the written description requirement and has done nothing but provide a “black box” scenario, wherein information is received into this “black box” and an output is recited while failing to explain or disclose the structure that comprise the “black box” environment so as to achieve the corresponding functions and output.
Although one skilled in the art would have found the invention to be enabled because one skilled in the art could possibly come up with one way of configuring a device/system to be comprised of structural elements to perform the aforementioned functions, one skilled in the art would be unable to determine how the applicant has configured the device/system, i.e. the specific structural elements, for performing the recited functions and would, therefore, be unable to determine if the applicant had possession of the invention. To put it another way, one skilled in the art would be unable to make and use the invention in the manner intended by the applicant since the applicant has failed to provide sufficient working examples of how the analysis and solution are determined so as to cover the wide scope laid out by the claimed invention and, therefore, one skilled in the art would be unable to determine whether the applicant had possession of the genus since insufficient species have been provided. One skilled in the art would have found that the claimed invention and corresponding specification is attempting to claim all known and unknown possibilities structural configurations for performing the aforementioned functions without providing sufficient examples, in the specification, to allow one skilled in the art to determine whether the applicant had possession of such a wide scope of possibilities.
Finally, as a point of clarification, the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See AriadPharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Col., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F. 2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention.
Therefore, the test for determining whether or not the applicant’s claims meet the § 112(a) written description requirement is possession, not whether one skilled in the art is enabled to perform the invention. Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the case at hand, the Examiner concludes that the applicant’s disclosure fails to sufficiently disclose possession at the time of the invention. Furthermore, the applicants are attempting to claim any and all possible structural configurations and, consequently, attempting to claim the entire genus of configurations, however, the specification does not demonstrate a generic invention that achieves the claimed result because there is no disclosure of any species. As the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariad:
“generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds, and yet the question may still remain whether the specification, including original claim language, demonstrates that the Appellant has invented the species sufficient to support a claim to a genus. The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the Appellant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the Appellant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally- defined genus.”
Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 (emphasis added). While Ariad relates to chemical compounds, the legal principles are the same. By not providing any specific examples of how an indication of merit (which is “functional language”) could be calculated, the applicant has failed to provide disclosure and, therefore, possession of any species of the genus of structural elements intended to comprise the system to perform the recited functions, as claimed.
Furthermore, the applicant’s claim to such an open-ended genus of configurations is similar to the claims at issue in Ariad that "merely recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it.” Id. At 1353. Ariad further states that “Patents are not awarded for academic theories [and a] patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its conclusion.” Id. Therefore, Ariad requires that when the applicant claims a genus, sufficient materials must be disclosed to demonstrate that the genus has in fact been disclosed which the applicant has not.
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 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
Claim 1:
acquire periodically in a cycle, a plurality of sets of carbon emission data within a preset system boundary range on a production line at preset acquisition intervals, with each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data acquired at a respective one of the preset acquisition intervals; and
calculate an average carbon emission in the cycle according to a preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data
Claim 4:
acquiring periodically in a cycle, a plurality of sets of carbon emission data within a preset system boundary range on a production line at preset acquisition intervals, with each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data acquired at a respective one of the preset acquisition intervals; and
calculating an average carbon emission in the cycle according to a preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data
Claim 8:
acquire a plurality of sets of carbon emission data of the node to be tested and transmit the plurality of sets of carbon emission data to the calculation processing module; and
execute the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4 based on the plurality of sets of carbon emission data to realize carbon emission accounting
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of carbon emission tracking, which corresponds to “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., having a human collect information regarding the amount of carbon emissions that have been produced and performing the mathematical calculation of averaging to calculate the average carbon emission, which are steps that a human can perform in their mind and/or with the aid of pen and paper, while also being directed towards the obligation of reporting carbon emissions, where applicable.
The limitations of:
Claim 1:
acquire periodically in a cycle, a plurality of sets of carbon emission data within a preset system boundary range on a production line at preset acquisition intervals, with each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data acquired at a respective one of the preset acquisition intervals; and
calculate an average carbon emission in the cycle according to a preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data
Claim 4:
acquiring periodically in a cycle, a plurality of sets of carbon emission data within a preset system boundary range on a production line at preset acquisition intervals, with each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data acquired at a respective one of the preset acquisition intervals; and
calculating an average carbon emission in the cycle according to a preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data
Claim 8:
acquire a plurality of sets of carbon emission data of the node to be tested and transmit the plurality of sets of carbon emission data to the calculation processing module; and
execute the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4 based on the plurality of sets of carbon emission data to realize carbon emission accounting,
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic modules/units. That is, other than reciting generic modules/units nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic modules/units in the context of this claim encompasses having a human collect information regarding the amount of carbon emissions that have been produced and performing the mathematical calculation of averaging to calculate the average carbon emission. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic modules/units, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – generic modules/units to receive and transmit information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. calculating an average using the collected data. The generic modules/units in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic modules/units can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the generic modules/units are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic modules/units.
Accordingly, 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 claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic modules/units to perform the steps of:
Claim 1:
acquire periodically in a cycle, a plurality of sets of carbon emission data within a preset system boundary range on a production line at preset acquisition intervals, with each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data acquired at a respective one of the preset acquisition intervals; and
calculate an average carbon emission in the cycle according to a preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data
Claim 4:
acquiring periodically in a cycle, a plurality of sets of carbon emission data within a preset system boundary range on a production line at preset acquisition intervals, with each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data acquired at a respective one of the preset acquisition intervals; and
calculating an average carbon emission in the cycle according to a preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data
Claim 8:
acquire a plurality of sets of carbon emission data of the node to be tested and transmit the plurality of sets of carbon emission data to the calculation processing module; and
execute the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4 based on the plurality of sets of carbon emission data to realize carbon emission accounting,
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claim 2 is directed towards the extra-solution activity of receiving information and describing the information.
Claim 3 is directed towards the extra-solution activity of outputting (generating) and transmitting a report according to a mathematical calculation.
Claim 5 is directed towards the extra-solution activity of receiving information and describing the information.
Claim 6 is directed towards the extra-solution activity of outputting (generating) and transmitting a report.
Claim 7 recites subject matter already discussed in its corresponding independent claim and merely performing multiple times.
Claim 9 is directed toward reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is directed towards the extra-solution activity of outputting (generating) and transmitting a report according to a mathematical calculation.
Claim 11 is directed towards the extra-solution activity of receiving information and describing the information.
The remaining claims recite subject matter that has already been discussed above.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for calculating average carbon emissions. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeneboom (DE 112021005271 T5) in view of Melin (Analysis of the climate impact of lithium-ion batteries and how to measure it).
In regards to claim 1, Schoeneboom discloses a carbon emission accounting device for recycling of waste battery, comprising a data acquisition unit and an averaging unit, wherein
the data acquisition unit is configured to acquire periodically in a cycle, a plurality of sets of carbon emission data within a preset system boundary range on a production line at preset acquisition intervals, with each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data acquired at a respective one of the preset acquisition intervals (Page 3 ¶ 3; Page 5 last ¶; Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system receives periodic greenhouse emission data over certain periods of time for each process step); and
the averaging unit is configured to calculate an average carbon emission in the cycle according to a preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data (Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
Schoeneboom discloses a system and method for determining greenhouse emissions for processing a product, such as recycling of a product. Additionally, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Further still, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Although Schoenboom is not limited to any particular product type and for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has provided Melin to teach that batteries can be recycled and that associated emissions for their recycling are evaluated.
To be more specific, Schoeneboom fails to explicitly disclose:
a carbon emission accounting device for recycling of waste battery, comprising a data acquisition unit and an averaging unit.
Specifically, Melin, which is also directed towards establishing that it is known to evaluate emissions when recycling a product, further teaches that it is known in the art to perform such an evaluation on batteries. Melin teaches that it is not only beneficial to determine greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the manufacturing of batteries, but to also determine GHG emissions when disposing and/or recycling batteries as this process also contributes to more accurately determining the carbon footprint from batteries. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that what the product is intended to be, i.e. a battery, does not affect or alter the overarching concept of calculating GHG emissions that a product contributes during its lifecycle, such as, during recycling. That is to say, the same predictable result of calculating emissions for recycling a product is still being performed whether the product is a battery or some other product type. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Melin would have found it obvious that batteries, such as, EV batteries, are a relevant and important product type that requires an analysis on how its lifecycle impacts the environment and, accordingly, would have been motivated to include this product type into the emission/carbon footprint analysis system and method of Scheoneboom and still achieve the same predictable result of analyzing a product’s lifecycle to determine how it contributes to GHG emissions or impacts the environment.
(For support see: Page 9; Page 10, last ¶; Pages 11 – 12 “Traceability system”; Page 12, ¶ 1, 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of batteries, as taught by Melin, for the generic recyclable product disclosed by Schoeneboom.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting device for recycling of waste battery according to claim 1, further comprising an instruction receiving unit configured to receive an acquisition instruction sent by a user, wherein the acquisition instruction comprises an acquisition interval, a cycle length, and a system boundary range (Schoeneboom – Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting device for recycling of waste battery according to claim 1, further comprising an interactive analysis unit configured to generate an analysis report according to the average carbon emission and send the analysis report to the user (Schoeneboom – Page 3 ¶ 3 wherein a report is provided; Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 4, Schoeneboom discloses a carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery executed by the carbon emission accounting device for recycling of waste battery according to claim 1, comprising:
acquiring periodically in a cycle, a plurality of sets of carbon emission data within a preset system boundary range on a production line at preset acquisition intervals, with each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data acquired at a respective one of the preset acquisition intervals (Page 3 ¶ 3; Page 5 last ¶; Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system receives periodic greenhouse emission data over certain periods of time for each process step); and
calculating an average carbon emission in the cycle according to a preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data (Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
Schoeneboom discloses a system and method for determining greenhouse emissions for processing a product, such as recycling of a product. Additionally, a preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Further still, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Although Schoenboom is not limited to any particular product type and for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has provided Melin to teach that batteries can be recycled and that associated emissions for their recycling are evaluated.
To be more specific, Schoeneboom fails to explicitly disclose:
discloses a carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery executed by the carbon emission accounting device for recycling of waste battery according to claim 1.
Specifically, Melin, which is also directed towards establishing that it is known to evaluate emissions when recycling a product, further teaches that it is known in the art to perform such an evaluation on batteries. Melin teaches that it is not only beneficial to determine greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the manufacturing of batteries, but to also determine GHG emissions when disposing and/or recycling batteries as this process also contributes to more accurately determining the carbon footprint from batteries. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that what the product is intended to be, i.e. a battery, does not affect or alter the overarching concept of calculating GHG emissions that a product contributes during its lifecycle, such as, during recycling. That is to say, the same predictable result of calculating emissions for recycling a product is still being performed whether the product is a battery or some other product type. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Melin would have found it obvious that batteries, such as, EV batteries, are a relevant and important product type that requires an analysis on how its lifecycle impacts the environment and, accordingly, would have been motivated to include this product type into the emission/carbon footprint analysis system and method of Scheoneboom and still achieve the same predictable result of analyzing a product’s lifecycle to determine how it contributes to GHG emissions or impacts the environment.
(For support see: Page 9; Page 10, last ¶; Pages 11 – 12 “Traceability system”; Page 12, ¶ 1, 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of batteries, as taught by Melin, for the generic recyclable product disclosed by Schoeneboom.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4, further comprising: receiving an acquisition instruction sent by a user, wherein the acquisition instruction comprises an acquisition interval, a cycle length, and a system boundary range (Schoeneboom – Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 5, further comprising: generating an analysis report according to the average carbon emission and sending the analysis report to the user (Schoeneboom – Page 3 ¶ 3 wherein a report is provided; Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4, wherein calculating the average carbon emission in the cycle according to the preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data comprises:
according to a carbon emission calculation formula and each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data, calculating a respective one of a plurality of first carbon emissions corresponding to each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data, wherein the preset carbon emission calculation formula set comprises the carbon emission calculation formula and an averaging formula; and
calculating an average value of the plurality of first carbon emissions by the averaging formula, and taking the average value as the average carbon emission in the cycle corresponding to the plurality of sets of carbon emission data
(Schoeneboom – Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 8, Schoeneboom discloses a carbon emission accounting system for recycling of waste battery, comprising a plurality of acquisition and transmission modules and a calculation processing module that are in communication connection, wherein
each of the plurality of acquisition and transmission module is arranged on a respective one of a plurality of nodes to be tested on a production line, and each of the plurality of acquisition and transmission modules is configured to acquire a plurality of sets of carbon emission data of the node to be tested and transmit the plurality of sets of carbon emission data to the calculation processing module (Page 3 ¶ 3; Page 5 last ¶; Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system receives periodic greenhouse emission data over certain periods of time for each process step); and
the calculation processing module is configured to execute the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4 based on the plurality of sets of carbon emission data to realize carbon emission accounting (Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
Schoeneboom discloses a system and method for determining greenhouse emissions for processing a product, such as recycling of a product. Additionally, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Although Schoenboom is not limited to any particular product type and for the purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner has provided Melin to teach that batteries can be recycled and that associated emissions for their recycling are evaluated.
To be more specific, Schoeneboom fails to explicitly disclose:
a carbon emission accounting system for recycling of waste battery, comprising a plurality of acquisition and transmission modules and a calculation processing module that are in communication connection
the calculation processing module is configured to execute the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4 based on the plurality of sets of carbon emission data to realize carbon emission accounting
Specifically, Melin, which is also directed towards establishing that it is known to evaluate emissions when recycling a product, further teaches that it is known in the art to perform such an evaluation on batteries. Melin teaches that it is not only beneficial to determine greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the manufacturing of batteries, but to also determine GHG emissions when disposing and/or recycling batteries as this process also contributes to more accurately determining the carbon footprint from batteries. In other words, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that what the product is intended to be, i.e. a battery, does not affect or alter the overarching concept of calculating GHG emissions that a product contributes during its lifecycle, such as, during recycling. That is to say, the same predictable result of calculating emissions for recycling a product is still being performed whether the product is a battery or some other product type. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Melin would have found it obvious that batteries, such as, EV batteries, are a relevant and important product type that requires an analysis on how its lifecycle impacts the environment and, accordingly, would have been motivated to include this product type into the emission/carbon footprint analysis system and method of Scheoneboom and still achieve the same predictable result of analyzing a product’s lifecycle to determine how it contributes to GHG emissions or impacts the environment.
(For support see: Page 9; Page 10, last ¶; Pages 11 – 12 “Traceability system”; Page 12, ¶ 1, 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself-that is in the substitution of batteries, as taught by Melin, for the generic recyclable product disclosed by Schoeneboom.
Thus, the simply substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting system for recycling of waste battery according to claim 8, further comprising a user interaction module, wherein the user interaction module comprises a touchable/non-touchable display screen, an input keyboard, a virtual keyboard, an indicator light, a loudspeaker, a microphone, or a combination thereof (Schoeneboom – Page 13 last paragraph wherein the system includes, at least, a display; Abstract; Page 3 ¶ 3 wherein the invention is a computer-implemented system).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting device for recycling of waste battery according to claim 2, further comprising an interactive analysis unit configured to generate an analysis report according to the average carbon emission and send the analysis report to the user (Schoeneboom – Page 3 ¶ 3 wherein a report is provided; Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4, further comprising an instruction receiving unit configured to receive an acquisition instruction sent by a user, wherein the acquisition instruction comprises an acquisition interval, a cycle length, and a system boundary range (Schoeneboom – Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 4, further comprising an interactive analysis unit configured to generate an analysis report according to the average carbon emission and send the analysis report to the user (Schoeneboom – Page 3 ¶ 3 wherein a report is provided; Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 5, wherein calculating the average carbon emission in the cycle according to the preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data comprises:
according to a carbon emission calculation formula and each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data, calculating a respective one of a plurality of first carbon emissions corresponding to each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data, wherein the preset carbon emission calculation formula set comprises the carbon emission calculation formula and an averaging formula; and
calculating an average value of the plurality of first carbon emissions by the averaging formula, and taking the average value as the average carbon emission in the cycle corresponding to the plurality of sets of carbon emission data
(Schoeneboom – Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting method for recycling of waste battery according to claim 6, wherein calculating the average carbon emission in the cycle according to the preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data comprises:
according to a carbon emission calculation formula and each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data, calculating a respective one of a plurality of first carbon emissions corresponding to each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data, wherein the preset carbon emission calculation formula set comprises the carbon emission calculation formula and an averaging formula; and
calculating an average value of the plurality of first carbon emissions by the averaging formula, and taking the average value as the average carbon emission in the cycle corresponding to the plurality of sets of carbon emission data
(Schoeneboom – Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting system for recycling of waste battery according to claim 8, further comprising: receiving an acquisition instruction sent by a user, wherein the acquisition instruction comprises an acquisition interval, a cycle length, and a system boundary range (Schoeneboom – Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting system for recycling of waste battery according to claim 15, further comprising: generating an analysis report according to the average carbon emission and sending the analysis report to the user (Schoeneboom – Page 3 ¶ 3 wherein a report is provided; Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Schoeneboom and Melin discloses the carbon emission accounting system for recycling of waste battery according to claim 8, wherein calculating the average carbon emission in the cycle according to the preset carbon emission calculation formula set and the plurality of sets of carbon emission data comprises:
according to a carbon emission calculation formula and each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data, calculating a respective one of a plurality of first carbon emissions corresponding to each of the plurality of sets of carbon emission data, wherein the preset carbon emission calculation formula set comprises the carbon emission calculation formula and an averaging formula; and
calculating an average value of the plurality of first carbon emissions by the averaging formula, and taking the average value as the average carbon emission in the cycle corresponding to the plurality of sets of carbon emission data
(Schoeneboom – Page 9 ¶ 1; Page 10 ¶ 4; Page 11 ¶ 1, last ¶ wherein the system calculates an average of emissions using a formula (summation) and plurality of emission data).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Liang et al. (Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for greenhouse gas emissions); Dunn et al. (Impact of Recycling on Cradle-to-Gate Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Automotive Lithium-Ion Batteries); Amelang et al. (Green resources reuse and recycling are key to cleaner e-car batteries); Clark et al. (Environmental Effects of Battery Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles); Yu et al. (Evaluating environmental impacts and economic performance of remanufacturing electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries); Chen et al. ( Developing carbon footprint calculation software for display industry in Taiwan); Great Forest (Calculate Your GHG From Waste; Reduce Your Carbon Footprint) – which discuss analyzing the climate impact that batteries have
Zik (WO 2012/094373 1); Scaramellino et al. (WO 2010/019235 A1); Dert (US PGPub 2025/0131451 A1); Wollack et al. (US PGPub 2025/0104095 A1); Russo et al. (US PGPub 2023/0103187 A1); Xie et al. (US PGPub 2022/0108395 A1); Zik (US PGPub 2012/0173444 A1); Scaramellino et al. (US PGPub 2010/0042453 A1); Gotthelf et al. (US PGPub 2008/0228664 A1); Wu et al. (ID P202303699 A); Peng et al. (CN 114730184 B); Yu et al. (CN 114004375 B) – which disclose systems and methods for determining, tracking, and calculating carbon emissions
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 3/9/2026