DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s “AMENDMENT AND REPLY UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 1.111” filed on February 25, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant amended Claims 1, 6 and 10; and cancelled Claims 4-5 and 9. Therefore, Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 are currently pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 1, 6 and 10 are independent claims.
The present application (U.S. App. No. 18/812,232), which claims foreign priority to a Taiwanese patent application filed in 2024 as well as domestic benefit to a U.S. provisional application filed in 2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ) since all applications were filed after March 16, 2013.
Examiner notes that this application (U.S. Patent App. No. 18/812,232) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0069090 of LIN et al. (hereinafter “Lin”).
Priority/Benefit Claim
This U.S. patent application (filed August 22, 2024) claims foreign priority to Taiwanese Patent Application No. 113123793, which was filed on June 26, 2024 (published as TW 202509819 A). On 9/04/2024, the USPTO electronically received a certification document for Taiwanese Patent Application No. 113123793. See MPEP § 215 for “a copy of the original foreign application with a certification by the patent office of the foreign country in which it was filed”. No English translation has been received regarding this Taiwanese Patent Application.
This U.S. patent application (filed August 22, 2024) claims domestic benefit to U.S. provisional application 63/534,410 (not in English language). No English translation has been received regarding this U.S. provisional application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Examiner notes that no information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed in this case (U.S. App. No. 18/812,232). 37 CFR 1.51(d) states “Applicants are encouraged to file an information disclosure statement in nonprovisional applications.” In addition, Applicant is notified of 37 C.F.R. 1.56, which states that each inventor named in the application has a duty to disclose information material to patentability.
Examiner notes other applications, such as Taiwanese Patent Application No. 113123793, that are related to this patent application. Applicant is notified of MPEP § 2001.06(b): “prior art references from one application must be made of record in another subsequent application if such prior art references are ‘material to patentability’ of the subsequent application”.
CPC Classification Notes
Examiner notes the following CPC classifications as being related to this case:
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/08 • Logistics, e.g. warehousing, loading or distribution;
G06Q 10/087 •• Inventory or stock management, e.g. order filling, procurement or balancing against orders
G06Q 10/0875 ••• Itemization or classification of parts, supplies or services, e.g. bill of materials
G06Q 10/0877 ••• by inventory control or reporting using inventory tracking or counting
_________________________________________________________________________
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/08 • Logistics, e.g. warehousing, loading or distribution;
G06Q 10/083 •• Shipping
G06Q 10/0833 ••• Tracking
_________________________________________________________________________
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/30 • Administration of product recycling or disposal
G06Q 30/18 • Certifying business or products
_________________________________________________________________________
B67D 1/0878 •• Safety, warning or controlling devices
B67D 1/0882 ••• Devices for controlling the dispensing conditions
B67D 1/0887 ••• Sanitary protection means for dispensing nozzles or taps, e.g. outlet closures
B67D 1/0801 •• of beverage containers, e.g. casks, kegs
B67D 2001/0811 ••• provided with coded information
_________________________________________________________________________
Y02P 90/84 •• Greenhouse gas [GHG] management systems
Y02P 90/845 ••• Inventory and reporting systems for greenhouse gases [GHG]
Y02P 90/90 • Financial instruments for climate change mitigation, e.g. environmental taxes, subsidies or…
Y02P 90/95 •• CO2 emission certificates or credits trading
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment introduces new rejections to Claims 6-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA ; therefore, the Examiner submits § 112(b) rejections to Claims 6-8 and 10, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes rejections to Claims 4-5 and 9 (cancelled) under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 101 rejections to Claims 4-5 and 9 (cancelled). However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome the rejections to Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the AIA ; therefore, the Examiner maintains/asserts § 101 rejections to Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes prior art rejections to Claims 4-5 and 9 (cancelled) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the AIA ; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 103 rejections to Claims 4-5 and 9 . However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome prior art rejections to Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of the AIA ; therefore, the Examiner maintains/asserts § 103 rejections to Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(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.
Claims 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. “A claim is indefinite when it contains words or phrases whose meaning is unclear” (MPEP § 2173.05(e)).
Regarding independent Claim 6, since it is unclear as to what the phrase “after completing the processing task by the processing machine” serves to limit in Claim 6, independent Claim 6 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “after completing the processing task by the processing machine”:
(1) serves to limit only recited “obtain the processing data”;
(2) serves to limit only recited “package the object inside a carrier”;
(3) serves to limit only recited “set a second electronic tag”;
(4) serves to limit all three phrases “obtain the processing data”, “package the object inside a carrier” and “set a second electronic tag” recited in Claim 6; or
(5) serves to limit some sub-combination thereof, such as, for example:
(1) and (3) but not (2), or (2) and (3) but not (1).
As currently presented, what the phrase “after completing the processing task by the processing machine” modifies is amenable to multiple plausible constructions and, therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine what the Applicant does and does not regard as the invention. Therefore, independent Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Claims 7 and 8 depend from Claim 6, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of independent Claim 6; therefore, Claims 7 and 8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA .
Regarding independent Claim 10, since it is unclear as to what the phrase “the used mark” (bolding added by Examiner) makes antecedent reference to in Claim 10, independent Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the used mark” within the context of Claim 10. Consequently, independent Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the used mark”: attempts to reference a used mark that is not specifically/positively recited in Claim 10; references recited “a read count”, which may or may not include a used mark; or references something else recited in Claim 10. Hence, independent Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Furthermore regarding Claim 10, since it is unclear as to what the phrase “the processing proof” (bolding added by Examiner) makes antecedent reference to in Claim 10, independent Claim 10 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the processing proof” within the context of Claim 10. Therefore, independent Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite. For example, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the processing proof”: attempts to reference a processing proof that is not specifically/positively recited in Claim 10; references recited “a read count”, which may or may not include a processing proof; references recited “used mark”; or references something else recited in Claim 10. Consequently, independent Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA as being indefinite. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification” (MPEP § 2111). In view of this standard and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Step 2A: Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under § 101 because Applicant’s claimed subject matter is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The rationale for this finding is that Applicant’s claims recite management of carbon credits (recited “a carbon credit feedback value”) associated with a company (e.g., a manufacturer of reusable products) by tracking/monitoring a status (e.g., a “used” status, “recycled” status if identified a 2nd time (or more) per Lin at ¶ [0063], etc.) of objects (e.g., reusable products, such as reusable cups) that correspond to (e.g., are manufactured by) the company — see Applicant’s published specification at ¶¶ [0003]–[0004] and [0064] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0069090 (“Lin”), which corresponds to this application, for: “Conducting a carbon inventory is a crucial part of a company's carbon management” per specification” (Lin at ¶ [0003] with bolding and underlining emphases added by Examiner); see “a carbon footprint tracking mechanism for the recycling process” (Lin at ¶ [0004] with bolding and underlining emphases added by Examiner) in the context of “carbon credit feedback value statistics and quantifying the environmental protection effect” (Lin at ¶ [0064] with bolding and underlining emphases added by Examiner) — as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements):
an object (e.g., a cup);
an electronic tag (e.g., RFID tag) disposed on the object;
a reading device (e.g., a scanner) configured to read (e.g., to scan) the electronic tag;
a communication device electrically connected to the reading device to send and to receive signals;
an authorization signal;
a cloud host communicably connected to the communication device;
performing a processing task by a processing machine communicably connected to the cloud host and generating processing data;
obtaining the data by a packaging machine communicably connected to the processing machine;
packaging the object inside a carrier by the packaging machine;
setting a second electronic tag on an outside of the carrier;
each of Applicant’s recited steps/operations of reading, sending, searching a database, obtaining a stored record in the database, setting the stored record, registering in the stored record; and
(only Claims 2 and 7) the electronic tag being a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag.
However, management of carbon credits (recited “a carbon credit feedback value”) associated with a company (e.g., a manufacturer of reusable products) by tracking/monitoring a status (e.g., a “used” status, “recycled” status if identified a 2nd time (or more) per Lin at ¶ [0063], etc.) of objects (e.g., reusable products, such as reusable cups) that correspond to (e.g., are manufactured by) the company, as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; (ii) commercial interaction (including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); and/or (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships/interactions between people. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) provides examples of “fundamental economic principles or practices” and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) provides additional discussion and examples of commercial or legal interactions. This judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea exception) is not integrated into a practical application because each claim as a whole, having the combination of additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception and, therefore, the pending claims are “directed to” a judicial exception under USPTO Step 2A. More specifically, each claim as a whole does not appear to reflect the combination of additional elements as: (1) improving the functioning of a computer itself or improving another technology or technical field, (2) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine/manufacture that is integral to the claim, (3) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (4) 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. Instead, any improvement is to the underlying abstract idea of tracking/monitoring a status (e.g., a “used” status, a “recycled” status if identified a 2nd time (or more) per Lin at ¶ [0063], etc.) of objects (e.g., reusable products, such as reusable cups) corresponding to (e.g., manufactured by) a company (e.g., a manufacturer of reusable cups) to manage the company’s carbon credits (recited “a carbon credit feedback value”). SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract realm.”). Applicant’s additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not appear to be integrated into a practical application since they embody mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or mere use of a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, do no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer network in network communication with servers 40, 50, and with a communication device 20 (“any hardware device that complies with wired or wireless communication standards” per Lin at ¶ [0029]) that is connected to a reading device/scanner 10, such as illustrated Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of reading, sending, searching a database, obtaining a stored record in the database, setting the stored record, registering in the stored record, as further explained below. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2B: Under Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), Applicant’s instant claims do not recite limitations, taken individually and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because Applicant’s claims do not recite, as further explained in detail below, an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself, an application with or by a particular machine, a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, unconventional steps confining the claim to a particular useful application, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in Applicant’s pending claims are performed by the generically recited “reading device”, “communication device”, “cloud host”, “processing machine” and “packaging machine”, these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic computer/machine to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {e.g., a computer network in network communication with servers 40, 50, and with a communication device 20 (“any hardware device that complies with wired or wireless communication standards” per Lin at ¶ [0029]) that is connected to a reading device/scanner 10, such as illustrated Figure 1 of Applicant’s drawings}, and no more than a combination of the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of reading, sending, searching a database, obtaining a stored record in the database, setting the stored record, registering in the stored record, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include:
an object (e.g., a cup);
an electronic tag (e.g., RFID tag) disposed on the object;
a reading device (e.g., a scanner) configured to read (e.g., to scan) the electronic tag;
a communication device electrically connected to the reading device to send and to receive signals;
an authorization signal;
a cloud host communicably connected to the communication device;
performing a processing task by a processing machine communicably connected to the cloud host and generating processing data;
obtaining the data by a packaging machine communicably connected to the processing machine;
packaging the object inside a carrier by the packaging machine;
setting a second electronic tag on an outside of the carrier;
each of Applicant’s recited steps/operations of reading, sending, searching a database, obtaining a stored record in the database, setting the stored record, registering in the stored record; and
(only Claims 2 and 7) the electronic tag being a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag.
However, each of these components/machines is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of reading, sending, searching a database, obtaining a stored record in a database, setting a stored record, registering in a stored record — there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology since the additional elements taken individually and collectively merely provide generic computer implementations known to the industry. Furthermore, Examiner notes that none of the processes/steps recited in the pending claims taken individually and in combination impose a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope since none of recited processes/steps taken individually and in combination involve activity that amounts to more than generic computer/machine functions or activity. The steps/processes of reading, sending, searching a database, obtaining a stored record in a database, setting a stored record, registering in a stored record, as currently recited individually and in combination in Applicant’s claims, are considered to be generic computer functions since they involve having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity, and generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use previously known to the industry — each of the recited steps of reading and obtaining a stored record in a database encompasses a data input/loading or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)}; each of the recited steps of searching a database and obtaining a stored record in the database encompasses a data recognition/inquiry function or retrieving function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data recognition); each of the recited steps of “setting” a stored record (e.g., in a database) and “registering” in a stored record encompasses a data saving, data storing or depositing function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360; Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Cyberfone”; and Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014), hereinafter “Content Extraction”, for data storage}; and each of the recited steps of sending, setting and registering encompasses a data output/transmittal function performed by virtually all general purpose computers {see Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716‐17; see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and see Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., 558 Fed. Appx. 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2014)}. In addition, Examiner notes that Applicant’s disclosure mentions that “the first communication device 20 may be… any hardware device that complies with wired or wireless communication standards” (Lin at ¶ [0029] with bolding emphasis added by Examiner). Examiner notes it may be worth being mindful of the “July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” document, at page 7, second and sixth bullet points (July 30, 2015) regarding various well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer. Employing well-known computer functions individually and in combination to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the computer-implemented abstract idea in Flook (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978)) to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. For the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s pending claims do not satisfy Step 2B enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Consequently, based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. For information regarding 35 U.S.C. 101, please see Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instructional materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes guidance, memoranda, and updates regarding SME under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (AIA ) 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 of this title, 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 1-3, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the AIA as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0342487 of Greenberger (hereinafter “Greenberger”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0261750 of NGUYEN et al. (hereinafter “NGUYEN”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0171975 of McConnell et al. (hereinafter “McConnell”).
Regarding Claim 1, Greenberger discloses a method comprising:
reading, by a reading device, an electronic tag disposed on an object to obtain an identification code, wherein the identification code corresponds to a company
(e.g., “a reusable container includes… unique identifying information affixed to the container where the unique identifying information is scannable by a scanner…” —Greenberger at ¶ [0003]; “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” —Greenberger at ¶ [0004]; “readable or scannable unique identifying information… incorporated as part of the reusable container. The merchant confirms use of the reusable container by reading this information” —Greenberger at ¶ [0033]; “unique codes are supplied… to a reusable container manufacturer and the manufacturer incorporates the codes into reusable containers…. the reusable container manufacturer is also the supplier of the unique identifying codes” —Greenberger at ¶ [0046]; “unique… codes may be generated by a 3rd party and provided to participating corporate entities…. and each entity's will only have access to its own codes” —Greenberger at ¶ [0045]; “reusable container is taken into inventory of the merchant for reprocessing” —Greenberger at ¶ [0040]; “environmental benefits of using reusable…beverage and storage and transport containers such as reusable cups, bottles, shopping bags, boxes and the like… are well understood” —Greenberger at ¶ [0030]; and “keeping track of associations between reusable containers and customers allows a merchant to track additional data” such as “track usage and environmental impact” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0088] and [0025]);
sending, by a communication device electrically connected to the reading device, the identification code to a cloud host (e.g., “Scanner 13 is coupled to a computing device controlled by the merchant such as point of sale (POS) terminal 19” and “reusable container is scanned and the unique identifying information from the reusable container is obtained” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0063] and [0066]; “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” and “is scannable by a scanner…” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0004] and [0003]; “receives the unique identifying information from scan 34 and queries a database stored on a server owned or controlled by the merchant, such as remote servers 21 or 22” —Greenberger at ¶ [0067]; Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “unique identifying information obtained during the scan step 58 is compared with stored information about reusable containers maintained by the merchant…. query a remote database that stores information regarding unique identifying information for reusable containers” —Greenberger at ¶ [0083]; and “query and communicate with the central server as part of transactions, to obtain association data and to inform the central system what associations should be made or broken. Maintaining a central database of associations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0123]);
searching, by the cloud host, a database according to the identification code to obtain/update a stored record corresponding to the identification code (e.g., “receives the unique identifying information from scan 34 and queries a database stored on a server owned or controlled by the merchant, such as remote servers 21 or 22, to see if any association has previously been made between container 17 and a customer” —Greenberger at ¶ [0067]; “unique identifying information obtained during the scan step 58 is compared with stored information about reusable containers maintained by the merchant…. query a remote database that stores information regarding unique identifying information for reusable containers” —Greenberger at ¶ [0083]; “query and communicate with the central server as part of transactions, to obtain association data and to inform the central system what associations should be made or broken. Maintaining a central database of associations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0123]; “determines if the reusable container presented… is new or used…. determining if the reusable container is new or used… could be incorporated into scanning step 34 and… database query 35, as the merchant POS systems and databases track use of reusable containers and would be able to tell if a container had been used…or not” —Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “centralized system maintains records of all qualifying transactions at all participating corporate entity locations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0121]; “keeping track of associations between reusable containers and customers allows a merchant to track additional data” such as “track usage and environmental impact” and “record in a database maintained or controlled by the merchant is updated with the reusable container unique identifying information, to form an association” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0088], [0025] and [0034]; and “the unique identifying information is uploaded … record is maintained on…database” and “databases track use of reusable containers”—Greenberger at ¶¶ [0034] and [0066]); and
sending, by the cloud host, an authorization signal to the communication device and setting a used mark on the stored record in the database (e.g., “Reusable containers are reprocessed so they can be reused to fulfill new orders…. Reprocessing may involve washing or cleaning” and “reusable container is provided to a new customer after the used reusable container has been reprocessed (washed/cleaned…)” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0038] and [0039]; “Reprocessing can… be done offsite by a 3rd party. Reprocessing of reusable containers involves cleaning the containers so that they can be reused by a merchant…. Reprocessing may involve washing or cleaning” —Greenberger at ¶ [0038]; “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” and “…communicate with participating loyalty program servers and request that customer associations be broken if they still exist…. units…are reprocessed as needed (washed/cleaned). In step 94, units are sorted by participating corporate entity. For example… Starbucks, McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts reusable containers separated from each other. In step 95, reprocessed reusable containers are packaged for shipping…. [and] are shipped to participating corporate entity facilities” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0004] and [0105]; “determining if the reusable container is new or used… could be incorporated into scanning step 34 and… database query 35, as the merchant POS systems and databases track use of reusable containers and would be able to tell if a container had been used…or not” —Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “merchant POS systems and databases… able to tell if a container had been used…or not” which allows “a new reusable container [to be] flagged so appropriate charges for the reusable container (if any) can be made [to the customer] at checkout” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0066] and [0073]; “track usage” and “record in a database ….is updated with the reusable container unique identifying information, to form an association” and “Association information is reviewed at checkout 63 …so… dollars can only be used by a customer authorized to use them” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0025], [0034] and [0087]; as well as “merchants are associated with different corporate entities; …. reprocessing the reusable containers… involves washing or cleaning…; sorting… according to corporate entity, and shipping sorted and reprocessed reusable containers to facilities associated with the different corporate entities” based on “a database of… codes provided to each participating corporate entity” and “associations are maintained in a central database maintained on a central server” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0011], [0047] and [0123]); wherein the method further comprises: after sending the authorization signal to the communication device by the cloud host, reading, by the reading device, the electronic tag disposed on the object again to obtain the identification code (e.g., “a reusable container includes… unique identifying information affixed to the container where the unique identifying information is scannable by a scanner…” —Greenberger at ¶ [0003]; “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” —Greenberger at ¶ [0004]; “readable or scannable unique identifying information… incorporated as part of the reusable container. The merchant confirms use of the reusable container by reading this information” —Greenberger at ¶ [0033]; “unique codes are supplied… to a reusable container manufacturer and the manufacturer incorporates the codes into reusable containers…. the reusable container manufacturer is also the supplier of the unique identifying codes” —Greenberger at ¶ [0046]; “unique… codes may be generated by a 3rd party and provided to participating corporate entities…. and each entity's will only have access to its own codes” —Greenberger at ¶ [0045]; “reusable container is taken into inventory of the merchant for reprocessing” —Greenberger at ¶ [0040]; “environmental benefits of using reusable…beverage and storage and transport containers such as reusable cups, bottles, shopping bags, boxes and the like… are well understood” —Greenberger at ¶ [0030]; and “keeping track of associations between reusable containers and customers allows a merchant to track additional data” such as “track usage and environmental impact” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0088] and [0025]);
sending, by the communication device, the identification code to the cloud host again (e.g., “Scanner 13 is coupled to a computing device controlled by the merchant such as point of sale (POS) terminal 19” and “reusable container is scanned and the unique identifying information from the reusable container is obtained” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0063] and [0066]; “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” and “is scannable by a scanner…” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0004] and [0003]; “receives the unique identifying information from scan 34 and queries a database stored on a server owned or controlled by the merchant, such as remote servers 21 or 22” —Greenberger at ¶ [0067]; Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “unique identifying information obtained during the scan step 58 is compared with stored information about reusable containers maintained by the merchant…. query a remote database that stores information regarding unique identifying information for reusable containers” —Greenberger at ¶ [0083]; and “query and communicate with the central server as part of transactions, to obtain association data and to inform the central system what associations should be made or broken. Maintaining a central database of associations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0123]);
searching, by the cloud host, the database according to the identification code again to obtain the stored record corresponding to the identification code (e.g.,
“queries a database stored on a server owned or controlled by the merchant, such as remote servers 21 or 22, to see if any association has previously been made” —Greenberger at ¶ [0067]; “unique identifying information obtained during the scan step 58 is compared with stored information about reusable containers maintained by the merchant…. query a remote database that stores information regarding unique identifying information for reusable containers” —Greenberger at ¶ [0083]; “query and communicate with the central server as part of transactions, to obtain association data and to inform the central system what associations should be made or broken. Maintaining a central database of associations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0123]; “determines if the reusable container presented… is new or used…. determining if the reusable container is new or used… could be incorporated into scanning step 34 and… database query 35, as the merchant POS systems and databases track use of reusable containers and would be able to tell if a container had been used…or not” —Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “centralized system maintains records of all qualifying transactions at all participating corporate entity locations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0121]; “keeping track of associations between reusable containers and customers allows a merchant to track additional data” such as “track usage and environmental impact” and “record in a database maintained or controlled by the merchant is updated with the reusable container unique identifying information, to form an association” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0088], [0025] and [0034]; and “the unique identifying information is uploaded … record is maintained on…database” and “databases track use of reusable containers”—Greenberger at ¶¶ [0034] and [0066]); and
when the stored record is confirmed to have the used mark, sending, by the cloud host, a to-be-processed signal to the communication device (e.g., “Reusable containers are reprocessed so they can be reused to fulfill new orders…. Reprocessing may involve washing or cleaning” and “reusable container is provided to a new customer after the used reusable container has been reprocessed (washed/cleaned…)” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0038] and [0039]; “Reprocessing can… be done offsite by a 3rd party. Reprocessing of reusable containers involves cleaning the containers so that they can be reused by a merchant…. Reprocessing may involve washing or cleaning” —Greenberger at ¶ [0038]; “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” and “…communicate with participating loyalty program servers and request that customer associations be broken if they still exist…. units…are reprocessed as needed (washed/cleaned). In step 94, units are sorted by participating corporate entity. For example… Starbucks, McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts reusable containers separated from each other. In step 95, reprocessed reusable containers are packaged for shipping…. [and] are shipped to participating corporate entity facilities” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0004] and [0105]; “determining if the reusable container is new or used… could be incorporated into scanning step 34 and… database query 35, as the merchant POS systems and databases track use of reusable containers and would be able to tell if a container had been used…or not” —Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “merchant POS systems and databases… able to tell if a container had been used…or not” which allows “a new reusable container [to be] flagged so appropriate charges for the reusable container (if any) can be made [to the customer] at checkout” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0066] and [0073]; “track usage” and “record in a database ….is updated with the reusable container unique identifying information, to form an association” and “Association information is reviewed at checkout 63 …so… dollars can only be used by a customer authorized to use them” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0025], [0034] and [0087]; as well as “merchants are associated with different corporate entities; …. reprocessing the reusable containers… involves washing or cleaning…; sorting… according to corporate entity, and shipping sorted and reprocessed reusable containers to facilities associated with the different corporate entities” based on “a database of… codes provided to each participating corporate entity” and “associations are maintained in a central database maintained on a central server” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0011], [0047] and [0123]),
wherein the electronic tag is a first electronic tag, the identification code is a first identification code, the communication device is a first communication device (e.g., “a reusable container includes… unique identifying information affixed to the container where the unique identifying information is scannable by a scanner…” —Greenberger at ¶ [0003]; “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” —Greenberger at ¶ [0004]; “readable or scannable unique identifying information… incorporated as part of the reusable container. The merchant confirms use of the reusable container by reading this information” —Greenberger at ¶ [0033]; “unique codes are supplied… to a reusable container manufacturer and the manufacturer incorporates the codes into reusable containers…. the reusable container manufacturer is also the supplier of the unique identifying codes” —Greenberger at ¶ [0046]; “unique… codes may be generated by a 3rd party and provided to participating corporate entities…. and each entity's will only have access to its own codes” —Greenberger at ¶ [0045]; “reusable container is taken into inventory of the merchant for reprocessing” —Greenberger at ¶ [0040]; “environmental benefits of using reusable…beverage and storage and transport containers such as reusable cups, bottles, shopping bags, boxes and the like… are well understood” —Greenberger at ¶ [0030]; and “keeping track of associations between reusable containers and customers allows a merchant to track additional data” such as “track usage and environmental impact” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0088] and [0025]), and the method further comprises: after sending the to-be-processed signal to the communication device by the cloud host, performing a processing task on the object by a processing machine communicably connected to the cloud host and generating processing data, wherein the processing data comprises the first identification code (e.g., “Scanner 13 is coupled to a computing device controlled by the merchant such as point of sale (POS) terminal 19” and “reusable container is scanned and the unique identifying information from the reusable container is obtained” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0063] and [0066]; “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” and “is scannable by a scanner…” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0004] and [0003]; “receives the unique identifying information from scan 34 and queries a database stored on a server owned or controlled by the merchant, such as remote servers 21 or 22” —Greenberger at ¶ [0067]; Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “unique identifying information obtained during the scan step 58 is compared with stored information about reusable containers maintained by the merchant…. query a remote database that stores information regarding unique identifying information for reusable containers” —Greenberger at ¶ [0083]; and “query and communicate with the central server as part of transactions, to obtain association data and to inform the central system what associations should be made or broken. Maintaining a central database of associations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0123]);
after completing the processing task by the processing machine, obtaining the processing data by a packaging machine communicably connected to the processing machine (e.g., “reusable container is scanned and the unique identifying information from the reusable container is obtained” —Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “…reprocessed reusable containers are packaged for shipping. The packaging should effectively seal units so that they are ready for use at merchant locations…. [and] are shipped to participating corporate entity facilities” —Greenberger at ¶ [0105]; “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” and “is scannable by a scanner…” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0004] and [0003]; “receives the unique identifying information from scan 34 and queries a database stored on a server owned or controlled by the merchant, such as remote servers 21 or 22” —Greenberger at ¶ [0067]; Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “unique identifying information obtained during the scan step 58 is compared with stored information about reusable containers maintained by the merchant…. query a remote database that stores information regarding unique identifying information for reusable containers” —Greenberger at ¶ [0083]; and “query and communicate with the central server as part of transactions, to obtain association data and to inform the central system what associations should be made or broken. Maintaining a central database of associations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0123]);
packaging the object inside a carrier by the packaging machine and setting a second electronic tag on an outside of the carrier, wherein the second electronic tag comprises a second identification code representing the carrier (e.g., “containers…such as…boxes and the like” and “other reusable containers such as boxes” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0001] and [0107]; “tracking usage of, reusable container and carry products such as reusable…boxes…” and “environmental benefits of using reusable…storage and transport containers such as reusable…boxes and the like, which are used to carry beverages… are well understood” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0025] and [0030]; “…reprocessed reusable containers are packaged for shipping. The packaging should effectively seal units so that they are ready for use at merchant locations…. [and] are shipped to participating corporate entity facilities” —Greenberger at ¶ [0105]; “query and communicate with the central server as part of transactions, to obtain association data and to inform the central system what associations should be made or broken. Maintaining a central database of associations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0123]);
sending, by a second communication device electrically connected to the packaging machine, the second identification code and the processing data to the cloud host (e.g., “Scanner 13 is coupled to a computing device controlled by the merchant such as point of sale (POS) terminal 19” and “reusable container is scanned and the unique identifying information from the reusable container is obtained” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0063] and [0066]; “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” and “is scannable by a scanner…” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0004] and [0003]; “receives the unique identifying information from scan 34 and queries a database stored on a server owned or controlled by the merchant, such as remote servers 21 or 22” —Greenberger at ¶ [0067]; Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “unique identifying information obtained during the scan step 58 is compared with stored information about reusable containers maintained by the merchant…. query a remote database that stores information regarding unique identifying information for reusable containers” —Greenberger at ¶ [0083]; and “query and communicate with the central server as part of transactions, to obtain association data and to inform the central system what associations should be made or broken. Maintaining a central database of associations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0123]); and
searching, by the cloud host, the database according to the first identification code to obtain the stored record corresponding to the first identification code (e.g.,
“receives the unique identifying information from scan 34 and queries a database stored on a server owned or controlled by the merchant, such as remote servers 21 or 22, to see if any association has previously been made between container 17 and a customer” —Greenberger at ¶ [0067]; “unique identifying information obtained during the scan step 58 is compared with stored information about reusable containers maintained by the merchant…. query a remote database that stores information regarding unique identifying information for reusable containers” —Greenberger at ¶ [0083]; “query and communicate with the central server as part of transactions, to obtain association data and to inform the central system what associations should be made or broken. Maintaining a central database of associations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0123]; “determines if the reusable container presented… is new or used…. determining if the reusable container is new or used… could be incorporated into scanning step 34 and… database query 35, as the merchant POS systems and databases track use of reusable containers and would be able to tell if a container had been used…or not” —Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “centralized system maintains records of all qualifying transactions at all participating corporate entity locations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0121]; “keeping track of associations between reusable containers and customers allows a merchant to track additional data” such as “track usage and environmental impact” and “record in a database maintained or controlled by the merchant is updated with the reusable container unique identifying information, to form an association” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0088], [0025] and [0034]; and “the unique identifying information is uploaded … record is maintained on…database” and “databases track use of reusable containers”—Greenberger at ¶¶ [0034] and [0066])), but Greenberger fails to explicitly disclose: the setting occurring when the stored record is confirmed to have a processing proof; registering, by the cloud host, a carbon credit feedback value of the company in the stored record, wherein the carbon credit feedback value is associated with a type of the object; as well as setting, by the cloud host, the processing proof in the stored record in the database according to the processing data. However, NGUYEN teaches “food container[s]” and “each of the containers comprises a…RFID or the like comprising the unique permanent identification” (e.g., NGUYEN at ¶¶ [0013] and [0012]), returned containers being refurbished/cleaned/washed by a container supplier prior to the containers being received by a container user (e.g., NGUYEN at ¶ [0007]; “prior to use, assets 18 are prepared for use…for example by cleaning or the like” —NGUYEN at ¶ [0030]; and “containers 58 … prepare them for use, for example by washing the containers 58” —NGUYEN at ¶ [0036]); setting a used mark on a stored record in a database when the stored record is confirmed to have a processing proof (e.g., “containers 58 … prepare them for use, for example by washing the containers 58…database 12 is updated such that the entry associated with the containers 58 is ready for use 70” —NGUYEN at ¶ [0036]; and “prior to use, assets 18 are prepared for use…, for example by cleaning or the like. The assets are subsequently indicated as ready for use within the asset database 12, for example by scanning the unique permanent identification 20 of the prepared asset 18 with a ‘ready for use’ scanner 34” —NGUYEN at ¶ [0030]); as well as setting, by a cloud host, a processing proof in a stored record in a database according to processing data (e.g., “containers 58 … prepare them for use, for example by washing the containers 58…database 12 is updated such that the entry associated with the containers 58 is ready for use 70” —NGUYEN at ¶ [0036]; and “prior to use, assets 18 are prepared for use…, for example by cleaning or the like. The assets are subsequently indicated as ready for use within the asset database 12, for example by scanning the unique permanent identification 20 of the prepared asset 18 with a ‘ready for use’ scanner 34” —NGUYEN at ¶ [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the setting occurring when the stored record is confirmed to have a processing proof and setting, by the cloud host, the processing proof in the stored record in the database according to the processing data, as taught by NGUYEN, into the method/system disclosed by Greenberger, which is directed toward “incentivizing use of reusable containers” (Greenberger at ¶ [0006]) and “keeping track of associations between reusable containers and customers… allows a merchant to track…data” and “track usage and environmental impact” (Greenberger at ¶¶ [0088] and [0025]) in the context of “environmental benefits of using reusable…beverage and storage and transport containers such as reusable cups, bottles, shopping bags, boxes and the like… are well understood” (Greenberger at ¶ [0030]) and “environmental benefits of re-using packaging are well known and understood” (Greenberger at ¶ [0001]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143). Greenberger in view of NGUYEN fails to teach registering, by the cloud host, a carbon credit feedback value of the company in the stored record, wherein the carbon credit feedback value is associated with a type of the object. However, McConnell teaches registering, by a cloud host, a carbon credit feedback value of a company in a stored record, wherein the carbon credit feedback value is associated with a type of object (e.g., “a company can reduce its GHG emissions or carbon-based materials, gain carbon valuation units as a result of the reduction, and then sell those credits in the open market” —McConnell at ¶ [0005]; “reduction in such environmentally damaging gases or materials …result in the creation of …carbon credits…. "carbon reduction," "carbon reduction activity," or "carbon reduction project" is intended to mean any such activity that reduces GHG emissions, GHG levels, CO2 equivalent emissions, CO2 equivalent materials, or any other emissions or materials that are environmentally damaging” —McConnell at ¶ [0039]; “calculate the credit amount (the number of credits earned as a result of the activity)” —McConnell at ¶ [0046]; “a network-based carbon credit tracking system…. store carbon credit information, including… carbon reduction information relating to each carbon credit or a portion thereof…. carbon credit calculation software is configured to calculate a total number of carbon credits based on a carbon reduction activity, and the identification software is configured to assign a unique identification to each carbon credit or portion thereof. Further, the report software is configured to generate a report relating to the carbon credit information” —McConnell at ¶ [0007]; “tracking and/or managing any type of carbon valuation… "carbon credit" is intended to mean any tradable carbon unit or tradable commodity that assigns a value to CO2 equivalents or GHG emissions or a reduction thereof.” —McConnell at ¶ [0016]; and McConnell at ¶¶ [0019] and [0033]–[0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate registering, by the cloud host, a carbon credit feedback value of the company in the stored record, wherein the carbon credit feedback value is associated with a type of the object, as taught by McConnell, into the method/system taught by Greenberger in view of NGUYEN, which is directed toward “incentivizing use of reusable containers” (Greenberger at ¶ [0006]) and “keeping track of associations between reusable containers and customers… allows a merchant to track…data” and “track usage and environmental impact” (Greenberger at ¶¶ [0088] and [0025]) in the context of “environmental benefits of using reusable…beverage and storage and transport containers such as reusable cups, bottles, shopping bags, boxes and the like… are well understood” (Greenberger at ¶ [0030]) and “environmental benefits of re-using packaging are well known and understood” (Greenberger at ¶ [0001]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberger in view of NGUYEN and McConnell as applied to Claim 1 above and Greenberger teaching wherein the electronic tag is a radio frequency identification tag, and the identification code comprises a GS1 code representing the company (e.g., “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” and “receives the unique identifying information from scan 34 and queries a database stored on a server owned or controlled by the merchant” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0004] and [0067]; “unique codes are supplied… to a reusable container manufacturer and the manufacturer incorporates the codes into reusable containers…. the reusable container manufacturer is also the supplier of the unique identifying codes” —Greenberger at ¶ [0046]; “unique… codes may be generated by a 3rd party and provided to participating corporate entities…. and each entity's will only have access to its own codes” —Greenberger at ¶ [0045]; “receives the unique identifying information from scan 34 and queries a database stored on a server owned or controlled by the merchant” and “The association is maintained in a database…integral to… the merchant” —Greenberger at ¶ ¶ [0067] and [0037]; “the reusable container manufacturer is also the supplier of the unique identifying codes” —Greenberger at ¶ [0046]; “unique… codes may be generated… and provided to participating corporate entities” with “merchants… associated with different corporate entities…. sorting the reprocessed reusable containers according to corporate entity” Greenberger at ¶¶ [0045] and [0011]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberger in view of NGUYEN and McConnell as applied to Claim 1 above and Greenberger teaching wherein the electronic tag is a first electronic tag, and the method further comprises: before reading the first electronic tag disposed on the object to obtain the identification code by the reading device, reading, by the reading device, a second electronic tag disposed on a carrier to obtain processed data, wherein the carrier is configured to carry the object, and the processed data comprises the identification code (e.g., “re-use of containers…such as…boxes and the like” and “other reusable containers such as boxes” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0001] and [0107]; “tracking usage of, reusable container and carry products such as reusable…boxes…” and “environmental benefits of using reusable…storage and transport containers such as reusable…boxes and the like, which are used to carry beverages… are well understood” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0025] and [0030]; “…reprocessed reusable containers are packaged for shipping. The packaging should effectively seal units so that they are ready for use at merchant locations…. [and] are shipped to participating corporate entity facilities” —Greenberger at ¶ [0105]; “query and communicate with the central server as part of transactions, to obtain association data and to inform the central system what associations should be made or broken. Maintaining a central database of associations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0123]); and
sending, by the communication device, the processed data to the cloud host (e.g., “reusable container is scanned and the unique identifying information from the reusable container is obtained” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0063] and [0066]; “The unique identifying information is stored as part of an RFID tag” and “is scannable by a scanner…” —Greenberger at ¶¶ [0004] and [0003]; “receives the unique identifying information from scan 34 and queries a database stored on a server owned or controlled by the merchant” —Greenberger at ¶ [0067]; Greenberger at ¶ [0066]; “unique identifying information obtained during the scan step 58 is compared with stored information about reusable containers maintained by the merchant…. query a remote database that stores information regarding unique identifying information for reusable containers” —Greenberger at ¶ [0083]; and “query and communicate with the central server as part of transactions, to obtain association data and to inform the central system what associations should be made or broken. Maintaining a central database of associations” —Greenberger at ¶ [0123]), but Greenberger fails to explicitly teach setting, by the cloud host, the processing proof in the stored record in the database according to the processed data. However, NGUYEN teaches “food container[s]” and “each of the containers comprises a…RFID or the like comprising the unique permanent identification” (e.g., NGUYEN at ¶¶ [0013] and [0012]), returned containers being refurbished/cleaned/washed by a container supplier prior to the containers being received by a container user (e.g., NGUYEN at ¶ [0007]; “prior to use, assets 18 are prepared for use…for example by cleaning or the like” —NGUYEN at ¶ [0030]; and “containers 58 … prepare them for use, for example by washing the containers 58” —NGUYEN at ¶ [0036]) as well as setting, by a cloud host, a processing proof in a stored record in a database according to processed data (e.g., “containers 58 … prepare them for use, for example by washing the containers 58…database 12 is updated such that the entry associated with the containers 58 is ready for use 70” —NGUYEN at ¶ [0036]; and “prior to use, assets 18 are prepared for use…, for example by cleaning or the like. The assets are subsequently indicated as ready for use within the asset database 12, for example by scanning the unique permanent identification 20 of the prepared asset 18 with a ‘ready for use’ scanner 34” —NGUYEN at ¶ [0030]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate setting, by a cloud host, a processing proof in a stored record in a database according to processed data, as taught by NGUYEN, into the method/system taught by Greenberger in view of NGUYEN and McConnell, which is directed toward “incentivizing use of reusable containers” (Greenberger at ¶ [0006]) and “keeping track of associations between reusable containers and customers… allows a merchant to track…data” and “track usage and environmental impact” (Greenberger at ¶¶ [0088] and [0025]) in the context of “environmental benefits of using reusable…beverage and storage and transport containers such as reusable cups, bottles, shopping bags, boxes and the like… are well understood” (Greenberger at ¶ [0030]) and “environmental benefits of re-using packaging are well known and understood” (Greenberger at ¶ [0001]), because such incorporation would be applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (see MPEP § 2143).
Independent Claim 6 recites a system with substantially similar subject matter to that of Claim 1 and, therefore, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Claims 7-8 recite substantially similar subject matter to that of respective Claims 2-3 and, therefore, Claims 7-8 are rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above to Claims 2-3, respectively.
Independent Claim 10 recites substantially similar subject matter to that of Claim 1 and, therefore, Claim 10 is rejected on the same basis(es) as applied above with respect to Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on February 25, 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes citations above to U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2020/0342487 (“Greenberger”) and 2022/0261750 (“NGUYEN”) in an effort to assist Applicant given Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 7-9) Applicant asserts that the independent claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Applicant asserts that independent Claims 1, 6 and 10, as currently amended, are patentable over a combination of U.S. Patent Application Publication Nos. 2020/0342487 (“Greenberger”), 2022/0261750 (“NGUYEN”) and 2009/0171975 (“McConnell”).
Examiner’s Response to Applicant's Arguments
Please see updated/modified § 101 rejections above regarding examined claims being drawn to ineligible subject matter in view of considering all relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole including amended portions of the independent claims. Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-9 of the February 2026 amendment, Examiner respectfully disagrees in view of MPEP § 2173.05(q), “[a]lthough a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In rePrater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim.” For example, none of Applicant’s claims recite any cleaning or “cleaning machine” as argued on pages 7-8 of the February 2026 amendment. Applicant's alleged improvements are no more than a desired or intended result that are not required to be performed or achieved based on the language currently recited in each of Applicant’s pending claims. In summary, Applicant's arguments constitute no more than a general allegation that the pending claims support a patentable invention under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Applicant's arguments in view of Greenberger, NGUYEN and McConnell are generic and non-specific to the rejections set forth in the Office action dated December 9, 2025. For example, Applicant's argument regarding what Greenberger, NGUYEN and McConnell fail to teach constitutes no more than a general allegation that the pending claims define a patentable invention over Greenberger in view of NGUYEN and McConnell because the arguments do not address the purpose of what each reference was relied on to teach in the prior art rejections set forth in the previous Office action. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b): “The reply …must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action” and “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims…patentable over any applied references”. Please see citations to prior art references of Greenberger, NGUYEN and McConnell in the § 103 rejections above regarding Applicant’s claims. Examiner notes that during patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation”. In view of this standard, Examiner asserts § 103 rejections to Applicant’s amended claims, as noted above under § 103. In addition, Examiner notes that patent documents are relevant as prior art for all they contain and that “[a] reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments” —MPEP § 2123.
Conclusion
The following references are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and are being made of record albeit the references are not relied upon as a basis for rejection in this Office action:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0002209 of STENERHAG et al. (hereinafter “Stenerhag”) for “a plurality of reusable and portable beverage containers where each of the plurality of beverage containers carries a unique identification tag” —Stenerhag at ¶ [0004]; “beverage dispensing station adapted to support … beverage containers, and connect to the beverage container such that beverage can be dispensed from the container, said beverage dispensing station comprising an identity tag reader …to read the identity tag of a beverage container…” —Stenerhag at ¶ [0006]; “beverage dispensing station has dispensing prevention … which prevents a user from dispensing beverage from the dispenser” —Stenerhag at ¶ [0007]; “the system further comprising a server in communication with the beverage dispensing station, said server having stored a dataset comprising the identities of each of the plurality of beverage containers, wherein a beverage container can be flagged, in the dataset, for activation of the be dispensing prevention means, and the system is configured to, when a beverage container is flagged for activation of the beverage dispensing prevention means, activate the dispensing prevention means of the dispensing station.” —Stenerhag at ¶ [0008].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0364284 of Sperry et al.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0343448 of Gnanasundram et al. (hereinafter “Gnanasundram”) for “send reusable medical device unique identification information, reusable medical device reprocessing information from a high level disinfection reprocessing device, reusable medical device usage information, patient and/or procedure identification information and time and date information to a centralized application that aggregates, processes and presents back evidence based track and traceability information related to the hygiene practices of reusable medical devices” —Gnanasundram at ¶ [0040]; and “Unique reusable medical device identification comprising RFID, barcode or other numbering system” —Gnanasundram at ¶ [0041].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0289715 of Cheryl Schnitzer (hereinafter “Schnitzer”) for “…TRACKING OF REUSABLE ITEM” —Title of Schnitzer; and “after a reusable container is returned to circulation… second user has checked out the reusable container after they scan the unique codes applied to the reusable container” —Abstract of Schnitzer; “Provides reports on measured reduced environmental impact for institutions and businesses” —Schnitzer at ¶ [0016]; “a thousand (1000) reusable beverage containers that they want to track the use, return and reuse thereof” —Schnitzer at ¶ [0040];
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0357880 of Chen et al. (“Chen”) for “facilitating generation of a carbon offset based on processing of a recyclable item. … generating…a net CO2 offset associated with the …recyclable item based on the carbon value…. storing…the net CO2 offset associated with the …recyclable item in a distributed ledger” —Abstract of Chen.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0259509 of Laurence B. Sperry (hereinafter “Sperry ‘509”) for “A reusable food or beverage container washing system and method of operation automates tracking, returning, washing, and outputting of reusable food or beverage containers. A reusable food or beverage container has an identification device associated therewith. The reusable food or beverage container is used to supply a food or beverage to a customer and associated with a customer identifier. When the customer is done using the reusable food or beverage container, it is returned to a receptacle of the system, and automatically transported to a washing system where it is washed, sanitized, and dried” —Abstract of Sperry ‘509.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0241238 of Laurence B. Sperry (hereinafter “Sperry”) for “FIG. 7 is a flow diagram of a reusable beverage container system process 140 in operation that links a unique identification of a reusable beverage container 108 to a customer order such that the system 100 tracks, using the tracking subsystem 160, when that same reusable beverage container 108 is returned to the retailer, or any other retailer using the same system 100 and at a point of receipt…. The automated washing subsystem 112 washes, sanitizes, and dries the reusable beverage container 108 and/or lid 110 (step 156). An instance of a reader 128 disposed at the automated washing subsystem 112 can again read the identification device 126 and optionally record the reusable beverage container 108 and/or lid 110 as being in a washing status (step 157). The cleaned reusable beverage container 108 and/or lid 110 exits the automated washing subsystem 112 and using an organizing and outputting subsystem 118 is stacked or otherwise arranged and stored ready for use (step 158). An instance of a reader 128 disposed at the organizing and outputting subsystem 118 can again read the identification device 126 and optionally record the reusable beverage container 108 and/or lid 110 as being in a ready status (step 159).” — Sperry at ¶ [0040].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0260592 of Nguyen et al. (hereinafter “Nguyen”) for “serialization of products and the recording of the transaction history thereof as transferred within and between the participant vendors, including consumers, of a supply chain” —Nguyen at ¶ [0013].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0251522 of Ted Leslie Wallis (hereinafter “Wallis”) for “distributing reusable …beverage related products, such as food containers, through a communicative process between consumers, vendors and designated return stations, also referred to herein as “drop stations.” …. Consumers may operate… a mobile application to scan or “checkout” a container at the time of purchase…. Containers may be scanned by a scanning device prior to being provided to a vendor, which scan identifies the type of container being checked out to the vendor” —Abstract of Wallis.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0005507 OF RODONI et al. (hereinafter “Rodoni”) for “registering, verifying, and accounting for an amount of…waste diverted… to a recycling facility…. determine a baseline carbon footprint based on the information and the protocol, and to determine a reduced carbon footprint resulting from content diversion” —Abstract of Rodoni; and “a management system implementing a … carbon exchange” —Rodoni at ¶ [0001].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0061350 of Smith et al. (hereinafter “Smith”) for “Tracking Containers” —Title of Smith
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0375984 of Martin Arcand (hereinafter “Arcand”) “ongoing inventory tracking in real time, allowing for improved inventory management and optimizing the supply chain which both reduces costs and advantageously reduces the use of non-renewable energy” and “Users will select products to fill their containers themselves within the store. The containers, sold in the store, will be equipped with a unique RFID tag” —Arcand at ¶¶ [0040] and [0042].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0222938 of Rose, JR. et al. (hereinafter “Rose”) for “a vendor controlled reader for RFID or bar codes secured to the bottles and incorporating a Unique Identification Number (UID) acceptable only to that bottler's product bottles for the amount paid when first purchased” and “receiving used bottles for cleaning and reuse” —Rose at ¶¶ [0018] and [0096].
WO 2024182887 A1 of Irwin Cody (hereinafter “Cody”) for “CONTAINER LENDING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND METHOD” —Title of Cody.
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 extension fee 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 Mathew Syrowik whose telephone number is 313-446-4862. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM (Eastern Time). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf, can be reached at telephone number 517-270-3948. 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 Patent Center. Status information of published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information of unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, please contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) or by email at EBC@uspto.gov. Examiner interviews are available via telephone or video conference using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, please email Mathew.Syrowik@USPTO.gov or applicant may use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. For additional information or questions, please contact the Inventors Assistance Center at 1-800-786-9199 (toll free), 571-272-1000 (local), or 1-800-877-8339 (TDD/TTY).
/Mathew Syrowik/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621