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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
Granting unit – server, Specification paragraph [0197]
determination unit – processor, Specification paragraphs [0062], [0085]
in claims 8-13.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 10-12 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. Reasons for allowance will be provided in the event the application is in condition for allowance.
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, 2, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over iScrap App (copy provided, see PTO-892) in view of Okazaki et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2023/0388434).
Regarding claim 1, iScrap App (copy provided, see PTO-892) discloses:
A control method for a management device, the method causing a processor of the management device to function as a unit configured to:
grant a privilege of a first amount to a user who performed a collecting action for collecting in a first period (page 4, the user is provided a real time reward for a particular scrap material at a given time awarded by a scrap yard); and
grant the privilege of a second amount different from the first amount to the user who performed the collecting action in a second period different from the first period (pages 4-5, the price of particular scrap varies dynamically and the user is awarded a different amount depending on when it the scrap is turned in)
iScrap App does not explicitly disclose:
Wherein the management device manages a 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 management device manages a 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 to a user (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 iScrap App 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 Okazuki et al. reference).
Regarding claim 2, the combination iScrap App and Okazuki discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 1).
As previously noted, Okazuki discloses:
Wherein the item is a consumable item (paragraph [0058], a user offers a used ink cartridge for collection to the recycling company),
iScrap App additionally discloses:
further causing the processor of the management device to function as a determination unit configured to determine the first amount and the second amount according to a predicted amount of demand (pages 4-5, the app displays real time changes in the market for particular materials; these amounts change over time)
Regarding claim 8, arguments analogous to claim 1 are applicable. The hardware configuration of management system with granting unit is explicitly taught by Okazuki (see paragraph [0035]). The “reusable specific member” is a more generic version of the “storage container that stores a consumable item used in a printing apparatus”. See the rejection of claim 1 for more detail.
Regarding claim 9, arguments analogous to claim 2 are applicable. The hardware configuration of management system with granting unit is explicitly taught by Okazuki (see paragraph [0035]). The “reusable specific member” is a more generic version of the “storage container that stores a consumable item used in a printing apparatus”. See the rejection of claim 1 for more detail.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over iScrap App in view of Okazuki in further view of Peacemaker et al. (U.S.P.G. Pub. No. 2021/0272074).
Regarding claim 6, the combination iScrap App and Okazuki discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 1)
The combination of iScrap App and Okazuki does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the granting unit manages history information concerning a history of the collecting action by the user, and determines, based on the history information, an amount of the privilege granted to the user.
Peacemaker et al. additionally discloses:
wherein the granting unit manages history information concerning a history of the collecting action by the user, and determines, based on the history information, an amount of the privilege 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)
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 Peacemaker et al. with the combination of iScrap App and Okazuki such that the granting unit manages history information concerning a history of the collecting action by the user, and determines, based on the history information, an amount of the privilege granted to the user as described in Peacemaker. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “removing or reducing the hassle and time (i.e., the ‘friction’) of recycling” (paragraph [0018] of the Peacemaker reference).
Regarding claim 7, the combination iScrap App and Okazuki discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 1)
The combination of iScrap App and Okazuki does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the collecting action is an action of bringing the storage container into collection equipment for collecting the storage container, and 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.
Peacemaker additionally discloses:
wherein the collecting action is an action of bringing the storage container into collection equipment for collecting the storage container, and 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)
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 Peacemaker et al. with the combination of iScrap App and Okazuki such that 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 as described in Peacemaker. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “removing or reducing the hassle and time (i.e., the ‘friction’) of recycling” (paragraph [0018] of the Peacemaker reference).
Regarding claim 13, 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
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
Prosecution Insights