DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, see the citation of the Reliable Recycling reference in the rejection that follows. However, regarding applicant’s argument that “[t]he current record lacks any apparent reason, suggestion, or expectation of success for combining the patents to create Applicant’s unique arrangement….” (See Arguments at 10), the Examiner notes that the non-final rejection did provide such a motivation: “The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of encouraging "environmental protection and ecology [through the] reuse of consumables such as the ink cartridges" (Non-Final Rejection at page 5, citing paragraph [0056] of Okazaki). Consequently, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive in this regard.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5-7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peacemaker et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0272074) in view of Okazaki et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0388434) in further view of Reliable Recycling (“Pricing”, copy provided, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Peacemaker et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0272074) discloses:
A control method for a management device that manages a storage container that stores a consumable item (Figures 1, 2, paragraph [0022], container 110 such as plastic/glass bottle, aluminum can) the method causing a processor of the management device to function as a granting unit configured to:
grant a first amount of points to a user when the user brought in a first number of storage containers in a collecting action of bringing the storage container into collection equipment for collecting the storage container (paragraph [0023], points get redeemed at 1 point to 1 cent for a hypothetical user that deposited a number of containers equating to less than 10,000 points); and
grant a second amount of points to the user when the user brought in a second number of storage containers more than the first number of storage containers in the collecting action (paragraph [0023], points get redeemed at a 1 point to 1.5 cents for a second hypothetical user that has deposited a second, larger number of containers equating to more than 10,000 points and is redeeming those points), wherein
Peacemaker et al. does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the storage container that stores a consumable item is used in a printing apparatus
Okazaki et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0388434) discloses:
Wherein the storage container that stores a consumable item used in a printing apparatus (paragraph [0058], a user offers a used ink cartridge for collection to the recycling company),
granting unit configured to: grant a privilege of a first amount to a user when the user brought in a first number of storage containers in a collecting action of bringing the storage container into collection equipment for collecting the storage container (paragraph [0058], a particular number of reward points is awarded to the user in exchange; see also paragraph [0082])
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Okazaki et al. with the system of Peacemaker et al. such that the storage container that stores a consumable item was used in a printing apparatus as described in Okazaki. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of encouraging "environmental protection and ecology [through the] reuse of consumables such as the ink cartridges" (paragraph [0056] of the Okazaki et al. reference).
The combination of Peacemaker and Okazaki does not explicitly disclose:
a value obtained by dividing the second amount by the second number is larger than a value obtained by dividing the first amount by the first number
Reliable Recycling (“Pricing”, copy provided, see PTO-892) discloses:
a value obtained by dividing the second amount by the second number is larger than a value obtained by dividing the first amount by the first number (page 2, the price per pound awarded is higher for aluminum cans when over 100 pounds is redeemed than when under 100 pounds is redeemed)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Reliable Recycling with the combination of Peacemaker et al. and Okazaki such that a higher points reward per item was granted for higher volumes as described in Reliable Recycling. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to further the goal of having “consumers…further incentivized to recycle…[with] immediate economic benefit” (paragraph [0034] of Peacemaker) by further rewarding those that manage to bring in large volumes of recyclables.
Regarding claim 5, Peacemaker et al. additionally discloses:
further causing the processor of the management device to function as a user management unit configured to manage history information relating to a history of the collecting action by the user, wherein the granting unit determines, based on the history information, an amount of points granted to the user (paragraphs [0023], users recycling history is tracked via rewards account with current point balance allowing for a specific amount of reward redemption)
Regarding claim 6, Peacemaker additionally discloses:
wherein the collection equipment is capable of collecting the storage container in both of a case in which the consumable item does not remain in the storage container and a case in which the consumable item remains in the storage container (Figure 2, paragraph [0022], vessel 104 can collect/contain plastic bottles, cans, etc. regardless of whether they have drink/food remaining in them)
Regarding claim 7, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The hardware configuration of management system with granting unit is explicitly taught by Peacemaker (see paragraphs [0020] detailing the recycling facilitation distributed system) and Okazuki (see paragraph [0035]). See the rejection of claim 1 for more detail.
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to claim 6 are applicable. The hardware configuration of management system with granting unit and user management unit is explicitly taught by Peacemaker (see paragraphs [0020] detailing the recycling facilitation distributed system) and Okazuki (see paragraph [0035]). See the rejection of claim 6 for more detail.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
