DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed 9/15/2025. Claims 1 and 10 are currently amended. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
3.1. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because while the claims (1) are to a statutory category (i.e., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, the claims (2A1) recite an abstract idea (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon); (2A2) do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and (2B) are not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In regards to (1), the claims are to a statutory category (i.e., statutory categories including a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). In particular, independent claims 1 and 10, and their respective dependent claims are directed to a system and method for managing an environmental load caused by remanufacturing a product.
In regards to (2A1), the claims, as a whole, recite and are directed to an abstract idea because the claims include one or more limitations that correspond to an abstract idea including mental processes and/or certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. For example, independent claims 1 and 10, as a whole, are directed to managing an environmental load caused by remanufacturing a product by, in part, accumulating and storing information associated with recycling, designating a part type to be analyzed, extracting information from the processing information to derive a processing pattern for each processing purpose, prioritizing the processing pattern based on a representative value of the environmental load for each processing purpose, and presenting the analysis which are human activities and/or interactions and therefore, certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. The dependent claims include all of the limitations of their respective independent claims and thus are directed to the same abstract idea identified for the independent claims but further describe the elements and/or recite field of use limitations.
Furthermore, assuming arguendo, the claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activities, the claims, nevertheless, are directed to an abstract idea because the claims, except for certain limitations (* identified below in bold), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. That is, other than reciting the certain additional elements, nothing in the claims precludes the limitations from being practically performed in the mind and/or with pen and paper.
CLAIM 1:
An environmental load information cooperation system for supporting management on an environmental load caused when remanufacturing a recycled product using a recyclable part through one or more processes, the environmental load information cooperation system comprising:
a memory; and
a processor, wherein
the memory
stores processing information that is accumulated by associating information indicating recycling processing performed in each of the processes for recycling the recyclable part, information indicating a processing purpose corresponding to the recycling processing, and information indicating an environmental load caused by the recycling processing, acquired when remanufacturing the recycled product, with a recycling identifier for individually identifying remanufacturing of the recycled product and a part type of the recyclable part, and
the processor
receives designation of a target part type that is a part type to be analyzed, characterized in that the processor
extracts record in which part type matches designated part type from processing information,
groups the extracted record by recycling identifier,
calculates a total value of environmental loads caused in recycling processing of records grouped into each recycling identifier,
if the total value of environmental loads for all the recycling identifiers is equal to or smaller than the environmental load total threshold,
the processor presents the user with analysis result information to that effect on a display screen,
if the total value of the environmental loads for any one of the recycling identifiers exceeds the environmental load total threshold,
the processor
extracts, from the processing information, a permutation of one or more types of recycling processing performed consecutively on the recyclable part corresponding to the target part type in remanufacturing the recycled product, as a processing pattern for each processing purpose,
gives a priority to the processing pattern based on a representative value of the environmental load for each processing purpose, and
presents analysis result information how much an environmental load is improved by adopting the processing pattern based on the priority for the processing pattern, on the display screen.
CLAIM 2:
The environmental load information cooperation system according to claim 1, wherein
when there is a processing pattern in which a variance of the environmental load caused when performing the recycling processing in the permutation is larger than a predetermined variance threshold among the extracted processing patterns, regarding the processing pattern, if a relation between the processing pattern and an adjacent processing pattern that is a processing pattern adjacent before or after the processing pattern is strong to a certain level or higher, the processor creates a new processing pattern by combining the processing pattern and the adjacent processing pattern.
CLAIM 3:
The environmental load information cooperation system according to claim 2, wherein
regarding the processing pattern in which the variance of the environmental load caused when performing the recycling processing in the permutation is larger than the variance threshold, if a variance of an environmental load when the processing pattern and the adjacent processing pattern are combined is equal to or smaller than the variance threshold, the processor combines the processing pattern and the adjacent processing pattern assuming that the relation is strong to the certain level or higher.
CLAIM 4:
The environmental load information cooperation system according to claim 1, wherein
information indicating entities that perform the recycling processing in the processes is further registered in the processing information, and
the processor
allows each of the entities to browse a portion of the processing information related to the recycling processing performed by its own entity, and
when the processing pattern is extracted or created, allows each entity that performs the recycling processing included in the processing pattern to browse a portion of the processing information related to the recycling processing performed by other entities included in the processing pattern.
CLAIM 5:
The environmental load information cooperation system according to claim 1, wherein
the processor
gives a higher priority to the processing pattern as the representative value of the environmental load is smaller, and
presents, as analysis result information, processing patterns whose priorities are within a predetermined upper order.
CLAIM 6:
The environmental load information cooperation system according to claim 1, wherein
information indicating a cost required for performing the recycling processing on the recyclable part is further registered in the processing information, and
the processor gives the priority to the processing pattern using an index value based on the representative value of the environmental load and a representative value of the cost required for the recycling processing.
CLAIM 7:
The environmental load information cooperation system according to claim 1, wherein
the environmental load registered in the processing information includes an environmental load caused by transporting the recyclable part between geographical locations where the processes are carried out.
CLAIM 8:
The environmental load information cooperation system according to claim 1, wherein
the processor
calculates, for each recycling identifier, a total value of environmental loads caused by the recycling processing performed on the recyclable part of the target part type, and
starts analysis on the environmental load for each processing pattern when the total value for any recycling identifier exceeds a predetermined environmental load total threshold.
CLAIM 9:
The environmental load information cooperation system according to claim 1, wherein the representative value is a median value.
CLAIM 10:
An environmental load information cooperation method for causing a computer including a memory and a processor to support management on an environmental load caused when remanufacturing a recycled product using a recyclable part through one or more processes, the environmental load information cooperation method comprising:
storing, by the memory, processing information that is accumulated by associating information indicating recycling processing performed in each of the processes for recycling the recyclable part, information indicating a processing purpose corresponding to the recycling processing, and information indicating an environmental load caused by the recycling processing, acquired when remanufacturing the recycled product, with a recycling identifier for individually identifying remanufacturing of the recycled product and a part type of the recyclable part; and
by the processor,
receiving designation of a target part type that is a part type to be analyzed, characterized in that the processor
extracts record in which part type matches designated part type from processing information,
groups extracted record by recycling identifier,
calculates a total value of environmental loads caused in recycling processing of records grouped into each recycling identifier,
if the total value of environmental loads for all the recycling identifiers is equal to or smaller than the environmental load total threshold,
the processor presenting the user with analysis result information to that effect on a display screen,
if the total value of the environmental loads for any one of the recycling identifiers exceeds the environmental load total threshold,
the processor
extracting, from the processing information, a permutation of one or more types of recycling processing performed consecutively on the recyclable part corresponding to the target part type in remanufacturing the recycled product, as a processing pattern for each processing purpose,
giving a priority to the processing pattern from a viewpoint of reducing the environmental load for each processing purpose based on a representative value of the environmental load for each processing purpose, and
presenting analysis result information how much an environmental load is improved by adopting the processing pattern based on the priority for the processing pattern, on the display screen.
* The limitations that are in bold are considered “additional elements” that are further analyzed below in subsequent steps of the 101 analysis. The limitations that are not in bold are abstract and/or can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen paper.
In regards to (2A2), the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in the claims (i.e., * identified above in bold) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea; merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and/or simply append technologies and functions, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract idea (i.e., the additional elements do not amount to more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer).
Here, the additional elements (e.g., processor, computer, memory, etc.) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technologies. Moreover, the claims recite “by the processor”, etc. devoid of any meaningful technological improvement details and thus, further evidence the additional elements are merely being used to leverage generic technologies to automate what otherwise could be done manually. Accordingly, the 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.
Furthermore, the additional elements do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition—there is no actual administration of a particular treatment; the additional elements do not recite applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine—the additional elements merely recite general purpose computer technology; the additional elements do not recite limitations effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing—the additional elements do not recite transformation such as a rubber mold process; the additional elements do not recite applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment—the additional elements merely leverage general purpose computer technology to link the abstract idea to a technological environment.
In regards to (2B), the claims, individually, as a whole and in combination with one another, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of (A) a generic computer structure(s) that serves to perform computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., computers); and/or (B) functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Here, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer technologies. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer technologies cannot provide an inventive concept.
Moreover, paragraphs [0056]-[0057] of applicant's specification (US 2025/0013993) recites that the system/method is implemented using an information processing device such as a computer, server, and the like, which are well-known general purpose or generic-type computers and/or technologies. The use of generic computer components recited at a high level of generality to process information through an unspecified processor/computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Furthermore, the additional elements are merely well-known general purpose computers, components and/or technologies that receive, transmit, store, display, generate and otherwise process information which are akin to functions that courts consider well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry, such as, performing repetitive calculations; receiving or transmitting data over a network; electronic recordkeeping; retrieving and storing information in memory; and sorting information (See, for example, MPEP § 2106).
Therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 9/15/2025.
4.1. Applicant argues, on pages 7-10 of the response, that the claims include patentable subject matter because (1) the claims do not recite a judicial exception; and (2) the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In regard to (1), it is noted that the claims are directed to a system and method for supporting management on an environmental load caused when manufacturing a recycled product using a recyclable part. The system includes, inter alia, a reception unit for receiving an operation input by a user and after processing the inputs presents the user with an analysis result. Supporting management and providing users with information in support of remanufacturing recycled products are human/business activities and thus, properly categorized under the abstract grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity which encompasses both certain activity of a single person, certain activity that involves multiple people, and certain activity between a person and a computer. Assuming arguendo that claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activities, the claims, nevertheless, are directed to an abstract idea because the claims, except for certain limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, can be reasonably and practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen and paper using observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion. For example, nothing precludes a human from reasonably and practically performing the following in the their mind and/or with pen and paper: processing information, receiving designation of a target part, extracting records, grouping the extracted record by recycling identifier, calculating a total value of environmental loads, presenting analysis result information, extracting a permutation of one or more types of recycling processing, giving a priority to the processing pattern, presenting analysis result information how much an environmental load is improved by adopting the processing pattern, etc.
In regard to (2), the additional elements (e.g., processor, computer, memory, display, etc.) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer technologies. Moreover, the claims recite “by the processor”, etc. devoid of any meaningful technological improvement details and thus, further evidence the additional elements are merely being used to leverage generic technologies to automate what otherwise could be done manually. In other words, the focus of the pending claims is not on an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Accordingly, the 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 or providing a technological improvement that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
As such, it is respectfully submitted that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself; and therefore, the claims are not patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
5. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Tomaszewski whose telephone number is (313)446-4863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/MICHAEL TOMASZEWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681