DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s “RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION” filed on March 31, 2026 (hereinafter “Amendment”). In the Amendment, Applicant replaced drawing FIGS. 1a, 1b and 1c; amended Claims 16-18, 20 and 22-30, cancelled Claims 19 and 21; and added Claims 31-35. Claims 1-15 were previously cancelled. Therefore, Claims 16-18, 20 and 22-35 are currently pending and presented for examination. Of the pending claims, Claims 16 and 26 are independent claims.
The present application (i.e., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/860,215) is a U.S. national stage application (35 U.S.C. § 371 application) filed on October 25, 2024. The present application corresponds international application number PCT/CH2023/050010 filed on 4/14/2023 (“Parent Application”); and to foreign Switzerland Application CH000498/2022 filed on 4/28/2022, all of which were filed after March 16, 2013, and, therefore, the present application (i.e., App. No. 18/860,215) is being examined under the first inventor to file (FITF) provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Original Claims 16-30 were originally presented by Applicant and, therefore, have been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits per MPEP § 819 and MPEP § 821.03.
Examiner notes 37 CFR 1.57(c), “ ‘Essential material’ may be incorporated by reference, but only by way of an incorporation by reference to a U.S. patent or U.S. patent application publication, which patent or patent application publication does not itself incorporate such essential material by reference” (emphasis added). See 37 CFR 1.57(c).
Examiner notes that this case (i.e., U.S. App. No. 18/860,215) has published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0348853 of KOLVENBACH et al. (hereinafter “Kolvenbach”).
Priority/Benefit Claim
No U.S. domestic benefit claim has been made in this application.
Foreign priority has been claimed in this application to PCT application PCT/CH2023/050010 filed on 4/14/2023 (“Parent Application”) via claiming priority to Switzerland Application CH000498/2022 filed on 4/28/2022. A certified copy of the Swiss priority document was received electronically at the USPTO on October 25, 2024.
Response to Amendments
A Summary of the Response to Applicant’s Amendment:
Applicant’s Amendment submitting replacement FIGS. 1a, 1b and 1c overcomes Examiner’s drawing objections; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the drawing objections.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes Examiner’s objections to Claims 16 and 26; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the objections to Claims 16 and 26.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes the rejections to Claims 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 112(b) rejections to Claims 19 and 21. However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 16-18, 20 and 22-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) of the AIA ; therefore, the Examiner maintains/asserts § 112(b) rejections to Claims 16-18, 20 and 22-35, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes the rejections to Claims 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 101 rejections to Claims 19 and 21. However, Applicant’s Amendment does not overcome rejections to Claims 16-18, 20 and 22-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains/asserts § 101 rejections to Claims 16-18, 20 and 22-35, as provided below.
Applicant’s Amendment overcomes previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the § 102 rejections. However, Applicant’s Amendment introduces new prior art rejections to Claims 16-18, 20 and 22-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103; therefore, the Examiner asserts the new § 103 rejections to Claims 16-18, 20 and 22-35, as provided below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see Examiner’s “Response to Arguments” provided below.
CPC Classification Notes
Examiner notes the following CPC classifications as being related to this case:
Y02W CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION TECHNOLOGIES RELATED TO…WASTE MANAGEMENT
Y02W 30/00 Technologies for solid waste management
Y02W 30/50 •Reuse, recycling or recovery technologies
_________________________________________________________________________
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…
G06Q 10/0875 ••• Itemization or classification of parts, supplies or services,…
G06Q 10/0877 ••• by inventory control or reporting using inventory tracking…
_________________________________________________________________________
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/08 • Logistics, e.g. warehousing, loading or distribution; Inventory or stock management
G06Q 10/083 •• Shipping
G06Q 10/0833 ••• Tracking
_________________________________________________________________________
G06Q 10/00 Administration; Management
G06Q 10/30 •Administration of product recycling or disposal
_________________________________________________________________________
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
Claim Interpretations
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the America Invents Act (AIA ):
(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.
Claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of Applicant’s specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the AIA is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, a claim limitation that meets the following three-prong test will be interpreted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation recites the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Although not recited in Applicant’s currently pending claims, it may be worth being mindful that use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Like in this U.S. patent application, absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (en banc).
Claim limitations in this application that recite the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application (i.e., U.S. App. No. 18/860,215) includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the AIA because each of these claim limitations uses a generic placeholder (e.g., “…unit”) 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 limitations are: “a detecting and certification unit” (Claim 26), “a subsequent detecting and certification unit” (Claims 16 and 22), “a computational unit” (Claim 16), “a storage and display unit” (Claim 16), “a software-controlled storage and display unit” (Claim 26), and “an extraction unit” (Claim 27), as correspondingly recited in pending Claims 16, 22 and 26-27. See Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (en banc). Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the AIA , they are being interpreted to cover corresponding structure described (if available) in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the AIA .
Any disagreement(s) with any statement(s) above must be addressed by Applicant in the next response to this Office action.
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 16-18, 20 and 22-35 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)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA , as being indefinite because it is unclear as to what the phrase “extracting the waste items effect connected to the electronics” means in the context of Claims 16-17. As currently presented, “extracting the waste items effect connected to the electronics” 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. Thus, Claim 17 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Claims 16-18, 20 and 22-35 are indefinite under § 112(b) because "unit" elements recited in Claims 16, 22 and 26-27 encompass a claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) of the AIA because the “unit” claim elements recite function in Claims 16, 22 and 26-27, but fail to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function in accordance with MPEP § 2181. More specifically, the "unit" elements recited in Claims 16, 22 and 26-27 are being used as a substitute for “means” as a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; some of the generic placeholders (i.e., “a detecting and certification unit” (Claim 26), “a subsequent detecting and certification unit” (Claims 16 and 22), “a storage and display unit” (Claim 16)) being modified by functional language (e.g., “for detecting and certifying”, “identifying and certifying”, saved), and each of the generic placeholders (i.e., “a detecting and certification unit” (Claim 26), “a subsequent detecting and certification unit” (Claims 16 and 22), “a computational unit” (Claim 16), “a storage and display unit” (Claim 16), “a software-controlled storage and display unit” (Claim 26), and “an extraction unit” (Claim 27)) is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. See MPEP § 2181 and Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (en banc). “Claiming a processor to perform a specialized function without disclosing the internal structure of the processor in the form of an algorithm, results in claims that exhibit the ‘overbreadth inherent in open-ended functional claims’” as the Federal Circuit stated in Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 85 USPQ2d 1654, (Fed. Cir. 2008). Examiner has rebutted the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked since each of the generic placeholders {i.e., “a detecting and certification unit” (Claim 26), “a subsequent detecting and certification unit” (Claims 16 and 22), “a computational unit” (Claim 16), “a storage and display unit” (Claim 16), “a software-controlled storage and display unit” (Claim 26), and “an extraction unit” (Claim 27)} fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform a function as required under MPEP § 2181. Consequently, Claims 16, 22 and 26-27 invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) are indefinite and rejected under § 112(b) of the AIA . See Default Proof Credit Card System, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 75 USPQ2d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“The inquiry under [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2, does not turn on whether a patentee has ‘incorporated by reference’ material into the specification relating to structure, but instead asks first ‘whether structure is described in the specification, and, if so, whether one skilled in the art would identify the structure from that description.’ ”). Appropriate corrections/clarifications are required.
Claims 17-18, 20, 22-25 and 31-32 depend from independent Claim 16, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 17-18, 20, 22-25 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Similarly, Claims 27-30 and 33-35 depend from independent Claim 26, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of independent Claim 26; therefore, Claims 27-30 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of the AIA .
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 16-18, 20 and 22-35 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 16-18, 20 and 22-35 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 16-18, 20, 22-25 and 31-32 satisfy Step 1 enunciated in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) based on independent Claim 16 reciting “A…station, the…station comprising: a transport unit formed as a conveyor belt configured for transport…” (bolding emphasis added) in view of Applicant’s disclosure {e.g., “…conveyor belt 1 moves the waste items W through a detection area D” per Kolvenbach at ¶ [0029] of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0348853 (“Kolvenbach”), which corresponds to this application}. Therefore, Examiner understand that the station (subject matter of Claim 16) comprises a conveyor belt that does not encompass software per se. In addition, Examiner notes that Claims 26-30 and 33-35 satisfy Step 1 as being drawn to a “process” as understood within the context of § 101 SME analysis.
Step 2A: Claims 16-18, 20 and 22-35 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 classification of input materials (“waste items”) based on analyzing information about the input materials (“waste items are identifiable by the images…”) and certifying the input materials (“waste items” being “assigned to” a “unique identifier”) for identifying a status (“certified”) of the input materials (“certified waste item”), such as “for…verifying legitimacy of a collection and recycling process” or “for…tracing of waste material” (recited in the preamble of independent Claim 16), as more particularly recited in Applicant’s pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): “a waste analysis and certification station” comprising a transport unit formed as a conveyor belt for transport and automated with electronics; “a subsequent connected sensing unit” having a sensor formed as a camera configured for recording images, wherein the camera is fixedly mounted relative to the transport unit and configured for viewing a detection area of the conveyor belt through which the conveyor belt moves waste items; “a subsequent detecting and certification unit” effect connected to a computational unit of the electronics and configured for detecting and certifying”; “a storage and display unit” where data is saved and made securely online accessible in a cloud-based online database; wherein the sensing unit, the detecting and certification unit, and the storage and display unit are each connected to the electronics or are mapped in a cloud network; (only Claim 17) an extraction unit configured for extracting the waste items effect connected to the electronics, wherein the extraction unit is a robotic system having at least one actuator; (only Claim 18) wherein the camera is configured for working in the visual spectrum; (only Claim 20) wherein the sensing unit further comprises at least one of an infrared sensor, a spectrometer, and a depth sensor; (only Claim 22) wherein the detecting and certification unit further comprises at least one neural network configured for generating; (only Claim 25) storage on a blockchain or used to generate blockchain-based tokens; (only Claim 26) each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of: placing waste items on a transport unit formed as a conveyor belt configured for transport of the waste items, recording image data with a sensing unit having a camera in a detection area on the conveyor belt, wherein the camera is fixedly mounted to view the detection area through which the conveyor belt moves the waste items, assigning locally or remotely in a cloud network, and saving data as image data and making the data securely online accessible in a cloud-based online database via a software-controlled storage and display unit locally or remotely in the cloud network; (only Claim 28) the storage and display unit is a local computer system or a blockchain or blockchain-based token technology; (only Claim 29) publishing online; (only Claim 30) connecting; (only Claim 31) the actuator is a robotic arm or a conveyor belt; and (only Claim 35) transferring or informing.
However, classification of input materials (“waste items”) based on analyzing information about the input materials (“waste items are identifiable by the images…”) and certifying the input materials (“waste items” being assigned to a “unique identifier”) for identifying a status (“certified”) of the input materials (“certified waste item”), such as “for…verifying legitimacy of a collection and recycling process” or “for…tracing of waste material” (recited in the preamble of independent Claim 16), as currently recited in Applicant’s pending claims and further explained below {also see Applicant’s specification regarding Applicant’s “invention…allows us to monitor waste items at all value chain stages” (Kolvenbach at ¶ [0012]) as well as Applicant’s “tracking of individually identified waste items collected” (Kolvenbach at ¶ [0023])}, is within a certain method of organizing human activity — (i) fundamental economic principle or practice; and/or (ii) commercial interaction (including sales activities or behaviors; business relations). 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 identifying a status (“certified”) of input materials (“waste item”), such as “for…verifying legitimacy of a collection and recycling process” or “for…tracing of waste material” (recited in the preamble of independent Claim 16), based on classification of the input materials (“waste items”) based on analyzing information about the input materials (“waste items are identifiable by the images…”) and certifying the input materials (“waste items” being assigned to a “unique identifier”). 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.”). Examiner notes that Applicant's recited use of “software algorithms” and recited “combining [information] in a cryptographic hash” in independent Claims 16 and 26; however, each appears as a high-level black box with no detail about any software algorithm(s) itself or any software logic processes, such as how Applicant's software algorithms operate on input data to produce an output(s). In addition, Examiner notes that no detail of any software algorithm(s) or cryptographic logic appears to be mentioned in Applicant's disclosure and, therefore, no specific way of using software algorithms and no specific way of combining information “in a cryptographic hash” appears to exist within Applicant's recited use of software algorithms and “combining [information] in a cryptographic hash” as currently recited independent Claims 16 and 26. Consequently, Applicant's mere recitation to "software algorithms” and “combining [information] in a cryptographic hash” is not sufficient to amount to a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis. In addition, although the claims require “unique identifier is assigned” and “combining [information] in a cryptographic hash”, these techniques encompasses mathematical concepts in the form of formulas, equations, and calculations which also have been determined to constitute abstract ideas. See Memorandum, "Grouping of Abstract Ideas" and cases cited in footnote 12, such as enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (84 Fed. Reg. 50). As noted on page 4 of the “October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility” issued by the USPTO, Examiner notes that a claim does not have to recite the word “calculating” in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of “determining” a variable or number using mathematical methods may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim, in light of the specification, encompasses one or more mathematical calculations. 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 {a network of computerized components including a camera to capture images of recyclable waste items on a conveyor belt for processing the recyclable waste items, as shown in Figures 1a–2c of Applicant’s drawings}, and amount to no more than combining the abstract idea with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s operations/processes of: placing waste items on a conveyor belt, recording images/data, assigning/storing in a cloud network, and saving data in a cloud-based online database. 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 notes that each of Claims 26-30 and 33-35 is drawn to a method; however, the method steps do not recite, require, or indicate implementation by a particular machine since none of limitations recited in Applicant’s method claims are performed by any computer or processing device since recited use of a computing device encompasses a situation where the computing device does no more than assist/help a person perform such steps/processes or thoughts when the person is using the computing device. Even if a computer/machine was implied, Applicant’s claim limitations taken individually and in combination would be merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and would require no more than generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {a network of computerized components including a camera to capture images of recyclable waste items on a conveyor belt for processing the recyclable waste items, as shown in Figures 1a–2c of Applicant’s drawings}, and having the abstract idea combined with insignificant extra-solution activity including each of Applicant’s recited operations/processes of placing waste items on a conveyor belt, recording images/data, assigning/storing in a cloud network, and saving data in a cloud-based online database, as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in Claims 16-18, 20, 22-25 and 31 are performed by the generically recited “unit” elements (i.e., a transport unit formed as a conveyor belt for transport, “a subsequent connected sensing unit” having a sensor formed as a camera…for recording images, “a subsequent detecting and certification unit”, “a computational unit” and “a storage and display unit”), these claim limitations taken individually and in combination are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer with a generic camera and generic conveyor belt system and require no more than a generic computer to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use {a network of computerized components including a camera to capture images of recyclable waste items on a conveyor belt for processing the recyclable waste items, as shown in Figures 1a–2c 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 placing waste items on a conveyor belt, recording images/data, assigning/storing in a cloud network, and saving data in a cloud-based online database, as further explained below. As mentioned above, the claim elements in addition to the abstract idea arguably include: “a waste analysis and certification station” comprising a transport unit formed as a conveyor belt for transport and automated with electronics; “a subsequent connected sensing unit” having a sensor formed as a camera configured for recording images, wherein the camera is fixedly mounted relative to the transport unit and configured for viewing a detection area of the conveyor belt through which the conveyor belt moves waste items; “a subsequent detecting and certification unit” effect connected to a computational unit of the electronics and configured for detecting and certifying”; “a storage and display unit” where data is saved and made securely online accessible in a cloud-based online database; wherein the sensing unit, the detecting and certification unit, and the storage and display unit are each connected to the electronics or are mapped in a cloud network; (only Claim 17) an extraction unit configured for extracting the waste items effect connected to the electronics, wherein the extraction unit is a robotic system having at least one actuator; (only Claim 18) wherein the camera is configured for working in the visual spectrum; (only Claim 20) wherein the sensing unit further comprises at least one of an infrared sensor, a spectrometer, and a depth sensor; (only Claim 22) wherein the detecting and certification unit further comprises at least one neural network configured for generating; (only Claim 25) storage on a blockchain or used to generate blockchain-based tokens; (only Claim 26) each of Applicant’s recited steps/processes of: placing waste items on a transport unit formed as a conveyor belt configured for transport of the waste items, recording image data with a sensing unit having a camera in a detection area on the conveyor belt, wherein the camera is fixedly mounted to view the detection area through which the conveyor belt moves the waste items, assigning locally or remotely in a cloud network, and saving data as image data and making the data securely online accessible in a cloud-based online database via a software-controlled storage and display unit locally or remotely in the cloud network; (only Claim 28) the storage and display unit is a local computer system or a blockchain or blockchain-based token technology; (only Claim 29) publishing online; (only Claim 30) connecting; (only Claim 31) the actuator is a robotic arm or a conveyor belt; and (only Claim 35) transferring or informing. However, each of these components is recited at a high level of generality that taken individually and in combination perform corresponding generic computer functions of placing waste items on a conveyor belt, recording images/data, assigning/storing in a cloud network, and saving data in a cloud-based online database — 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 functions/activity. The steps/processes of placing waste items on a conveyor belt, recording images/data, assigning/storing in a cloud network, and saving data in a cloud-based online database, 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 steps of recording data, data storage, assigning in a cloud network, and saving of data in a cloud-based online database encompasses a data saving 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}; each of Applicant’s recited steps of sensing, detecting and identifying 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). Also see 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. Examiner notes that it may be worth being mindful that 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 16-18, 20 and 22-35 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 16-18, 20, 22-26 and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the America Invents Act (AIA ) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0005002 of Phillippe Graf von Stauffenberg (hereinafter “Stauffenberg”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0299706 of Filler et al. (hereinafter “Filler”).
Regarding Claim 16, Stauffenberg discloses a waste analysis and certification station for at least one of verifying legitimacy of a collection and recycling process and tracing of waste material, wherein different units are controlled by electronics, the station comprising:
a transport unit formed as a conveyor belt configured for transport of waste items and automated with the electronics (e.g., “collector deposits a number of items on a conveyor belt” and “items of material that comprise …materials to be recycled” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0195] and [0020]–[0021]; “ ‘mining’ of plastics, i.e. the diversion of plastic packaging from landfill or oceans” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0188]; “counting and recognition of individual pieces of plastic” and “Collected plastic is then linked to a database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0196] and [0197]; and “allows the identification and documentation of materials collected… and tracking their progress through a ‘Closed Loop value chain.’ ” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]),
a subsequent connected sensing unit having a sensor, formed as a camera configured for recording images of the waste items for further processing (e.g., “…item property capturing device such as…a camera …. capture an image of the item or items that will enable identification” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0067]; “sorting … may comprise determining at least one property of an item…. item recognition… include extracting features form a captured image…. capturing an image of… items of material using an image capturing device such as a camera” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0065]; “cameras” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0147]; “counting and recognition of individual pieces of plastic” and “Collected plastic is then linked to a database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0196] and [0197]; and “allows the identification and documentation of materials collected… and tracking their progress through a ‘Closed Loop value chain.’ ” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]),
a subsequent detecting and certification unit effect connected to a computational unit of the electronics and configured for detecting and certifying the waste items, wherein the waste items are identifiable by the images and at least one associated unique identifier is assigned to each of the waste items via software algorithms, wherein the at least one associated unique identifier is generated by combining the images and meta-information of each of the waste items in a cryptographic hash to form a tamper-proof digital recovery-proof for each individual certified waste item (e.g., “Determining at least one property of an item may comprise performing software assisted item recognition…. Software assisted item recognition may include extracting features form a captured image. The sorting step may comprise capturing an image of …items of material using an image capturing device such as a camera” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0065]; “camera …. capture an image of the item or items that will enable identification” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0067]; “machine learning algorithms for image recognition…items will be identified… for purposes of machine recognition” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]; “counting and recognition of individual pieces of plastic” and “Collected plastic is then linked to a database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0196] and [0197]; “Certification of recycled content” and “use of … blockchain technology with a ‘trustless’ verification system, tied to immutable recording of collected plastic waste can create an ecosystem…. in which there is full accountability” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0029] and [0026]; “the ‘identity’ of an item refers to the identification of a unique item based on an identifier such as a tag or other features that are specific (“unique item”), or pseudo-specific to said individual item…. for example its Stock Keeping Unit SKU…. the individual item can be traced throughout the closed loop based on its identity” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0036]; “unique digital signature” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0199]; “identity, brand, type, as well as other unique identifiers held in a packaging database…. reporting the above information to a centralized database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0052] and [0053]; “create an accountability… mechanism…. in a system that is public and transparent…” and “Every token ‘mined’ will be allocated to a specific delivery of plastic and will trace its journey through the closed loop, documenting the full extent of the plastic waste caused and recovered…. By this virtue, there will be a means of accountability” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0056] and [0213]; “identification and documentation of materials collected… and tracking their progress through a ‘Closed Loop value chain.’ ” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]; Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0068], [0083], [0097], [0108] and [0199]; as well as Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0065], [0094], [0096], [0098], [0196]–[0199] and [0220]), and
a storage and display unit in which certified data of each collected individual certified waste item in a form of the images and the at least one associated unique identifier is saved and made securely online accessible in an online database and wherein each collected individual certified waste item is subsequently fed into a waste treatment process for recycling or destruction (e.g., “identity, brand, type, as well as other unique identifiers held in a… database…. reporting the above information to a centralized database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0052] and [0053]; “individual pieces of plastic…. is then linked to a database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0196]–[0197]; identification and documentation of materials collected… and tracking their progress through a ‘Closed Loop value chain’ ” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]; “the ‘identity’ of an item refers to the identification of a unique item based on an identifier… that are specific (“unique item”) …. the individual item can be traced throughout the closed loop based on its identity” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0036]; “supports a voluntary EPR methodology by incorporating… blockchain technology (e.g. distributed ledger technology, smart contracts)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0055]; “Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0002]; “Data will be stored on a decentral data storage entity. Hashes of metadata and certain other transaction data will be recorded on the blockchain” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0220]; “create an accountability and financing mechanism…. Blockchain can secure transactions and document process chains… in a system that is public and transparent…” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0056]; “system allows for the transparency needed to make sorted material available to recyclers. Recyclers can access the information stored in the blockchain…. the blockchain is configured to execute smart contracts to facilitate easy and cost-effective transfers of sorted material from sorters to recyclers” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0231]; and “database may be accessible to the participants in the system via computer networks, e.g. the internet” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0063]),
wherein the sensing unit, the detecting and certification unit, and the storage and display unit are each connected to the electronics or are mapped in a network (e.g., “distributed peer to peer network…. Each participant may run at least one node of the network of nodes that maintains the blockchain” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0083]; “system allows the identification and documentation of materials collected, enabling easy manual sorting, and tracking their progress through a ‘Closed Loop value chain’ ” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]; “system… supports a voluntary EPR methodology by incorporating… blockchain technology (e.g. distributed ledger technology, smart contracts), and highly specific tokenomics. The system needs to predict, locate, and react to the events that occur throughout various stages of the Closed Loop” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0055]; “database may be accessible to the participants in the system via computer networks, e.g. the internet” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0063]; and Stauffenberg at ¶ [0070]), but Stauffenberg arguably fails to explicitly disclose wherein the camera is fixedly mounted relative to the transport unit and configured for viewing a detection area of the conveyor belt through which the conveyor belt moves the waste items, the online database including a cloud-based online database and the network including a cloud network. However, Filler teaches a waste recovery facility in which items are transported for sorting on a conveyor belt and cameras capture images of items on the belt (e.g., Filler at ¶ [0008]); utilizing machine vision in waste sorting systems (e.g., Filler at ¶ [0041]; and Figures 1 and 21 of Filler) and wherein a camera is fixedly mounted relative to a transport unit moving waste items and configured for viewing a detection area of a conveyor belt through which the conveyor belt moves the waste items (e.g., Filler at ¶¶ [0042] and [0106]; and Figures 1 and 21 of Filler); an online database including a cloud-based online database (e.g., Filler at ¶¶ [0191], [0304]–[0305] and [0345]); and the network including a cloud network (e.g., Filler at ¶¶ [0191], [0304]–[0305] and [0345]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the camera is fixedly mounted relative to the transport unit and configured for viewing a detection area of the conveyor belt through which the conveyor belt moves the waste items, the online database including a cloud-based online database and the network including a cloud network, as taught by Filler, into the method/system disclosed by Stauffenberg, which is directed toward using a camera to capture images of items to enable identification (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶ [0067]), 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 16 above and Stauffenberg teaching an extraction unit configured for extracting the waste items effect connected to the electronics, wherein the extraction unit is a robotic system having at least one actuator (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0048], [0059] and [0195]; also see “(e.g., a robotic arm) that sorts the item from the waste stream” —Filler at ¶ [0251]; “waste stream conveyors…with accurate diversion of identified… by…robotic arms” —Filler at ¶ [0296]; and “use robotic arms to pick items from a material…. These and other separation and sorting mechanisms are known to the artisan” —Filler at ¶ [0319]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 16 above and Stauffenberg teaching wherein the camera is configured for working in the visual spectrum (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0065], [0067], [0081], [0095], [0106]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 16 above and Stauffenberg teaching wherein the sensing unit further comprises at least one of an infrared sensor, a spectrometer, and a depth sensor (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0067], [0081], [0095] and [0106]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 16 above and Stauffenberg teaching wherein the detecting and certification unit further comprises at least one neural network configured for generating the at least one associated unique identifier and the meta-information of each of the waste items, wherein the at least one associated unique identifier and the meta-information are saved in the detection and certification unit locally or remotely in the network (e.g., “software may include artificial intelligence such as machine learning algorithms for image recognition” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0035]; and Stauffenberg at ¶ [0066]; also see “neural network” in Filler at ¶¶ [0010]–[0011], [0064], [0212], [0219], [0224], [0234], [0237], [0243], [0245], [0247], [0251], [0254], [0296], [0301], [0303] and [0309]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 22 above and Stauffenberg teaching wherein the meta-information is at least one of type of waste, brand information, producer information, product label, material, volume, weight, date/time of extraction, foodgrade, and location of recovery of the waste items (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0065], [0094], [0096], [0098], [0196]–[0199] and [0220]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 22 above and Stauffenberg teaching wherein certified data of the waste items such as the images, the at least one associated unique identifier, and the meta-information are the recovery-proof and are used for issuing a certificate, which is publicly retrievable, wherein authenticity is traceable and the certified data is unchangeable from outside of the station and therefore is securely billable (e.g., “Certification of recycled content” and “use of … blockchain technology with a ‘trustless’ verification system, tied to immutable recording of collected plastic waste can create an ecosystem…. in which there is full accountability” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0029] and [0026]; “supports a voluntary EPR methodology by incorporating… blockchain technology (e.g. distributed ledger technology, smart contracts), and highly specific tokenomics” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0055]; “Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0002]; “Data will be stored on a decentral data storage entity. Hashes of metadata and certain other transaction data will be recorded on the blockchain” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0220]; “create an accountability and financing mechanism…. Blockchain can secure transactions and document process chains… in a system that is public and transparent…” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0056]; “system allows for the transparency needed to make sorted material available to recyclers. Recyclers can access the information stored in the blockchain…. the blockchain is configured to execute smart contracts to facilitate easy and cost-effective transfers of sorted material from sorters to recyclers” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0231]; “blockchain block containing the hash value serves as an external means for proofing integrity of the database” —Stauffenberg at each of ¶¶ [0068], [0083], [0090], [0097], [0108], [0149] and [0157]; and “…token…may also function for validation as a Proof of Work reward” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0214]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 24 above and Stauffenberg teaching wherein the certificates of the waste items are stored on a blockchain or are used to generate blockchain-based tokens (e.g., Stauffenberg at each of ¶¶ [0026], [0058], [0061], [0069], [0084], [0098], [0109], [0150], [0158], [0173] and [0214]).
Regarding Claim 26, Stauffenberg discloses an automated method for waste analysis and certification, the method comprising:
placing waste items on a transport unit formed as a conveyor belt configured for transport of the waste items (e.g., “deposits a number of items on a conveyor belt” and “a… process for recycling material comprising…. collecting… items of material that comprise …materials to be recycled” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0195] and [0020]–[0021]; “ ‘mining’ of plastics, i.e. the diversion of plastic packaging from landfill or oceans” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0188]; “counting and recognition of individual pieces of plastic” and “Collected plastic is then linked to a database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0196] and [0197]; and “allows the identification and documentation of materials collected… and tracking their progress through a ‘Closed Loop value chain.’ ” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]),
recording image data of the waste items with a sensing unit having a camera in a detection area on the conveyor belt (e.g., “…item property capturing device such as…a camera …. capture an image of the item or items that will enable identification” of “items on a conveyor belt” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0067] and [0195]; “sorting … may comprise determining at least one property of an item…. item recognition… include extracting features form a captured image…. capturing an image of… items of material using an image capturing device such as a camera” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0065]; “cameras” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0147]; Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0196] and [0197]; and “tracking their progress through a ‘Closed Loop value chain.’ ” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]),
identifying and certifying the image data of the waste items via software algorithms in a detecting and certification unit (e.g., “Determining at least one property of an item may comprise performing software assisted item recognition…. Software assisted item recognition may include extracting features form a captured image. The sorting step may comprise capturing an image of …items of material using an image capturing device such as a camera” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0065]; “camera …. capture an image of the item or items that will enable identification” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0067]; “machine learning algorithms for image recognition…items will be identified… for purposes of machine recognition” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]; “counting and recognition of individual pieces of plastic” and “Collected plastic is then linked to a database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0196] and [0197]; “Certification of recycled content” and “use of … blockchain technology with a ‘trustless’ verification system, tied to immutable recording of collected plastic waste can create an ecosystem…. in which there is full accountability” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0029] and [0026]; “the ‘identity’ of an item refers to the identification of a unique item based on an identifier such as a tag or other features that are specific (“unique item”), or pseudo-specific to said individual item…. for example its Stock Keeping Unit SKU…. the individual item can be traced throughout the closed loop based on its identity” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0036]; “unique digital signature” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0199]; “identity, brand, type, as well as other unique identifiers held in a packaging database…. reporting the above information to a centralized database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0052] and [0053];“create an accountability… mechanism…. in a system that is public and transparent…” and “Every token ‘mined’ will be allocated to a specific delivery of plastic and will trace its journey through the closed loop, documenting the full extent of the plastic waste caused and recovered…. By this virtue, there will be a means of accountability” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0056] and [0213]; as well as “identification and documentation of materials collected… and tracking their progress through a ‘Closed Loop value chain.’ ” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]),
assigning at least one associated unique identifier locally or remotely in a network, wherein the unique identifier is generated by combining the image data and meta-information of each of the waste items in a cryptographic hash to form a tamper-proof digital recovery-proof for each of the waste items resulting in certified data for each of the waste items recovered (e.g., “identity, brand, type, as well as other unique identifiers held in a… database…. reporting the above information to a centralized database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0052] and [0053]; “unique digital signature” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0199]; “individual pieces of plastic…. is then linked to a database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0196]–[0197]; identification and documentation of materials collected… and tracking their progress through a ‘Closed Loop value chain’ ” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]; “the ‘identity’ of an item refers to the identification of a unique item based on an identifier… that are specific (“unique item”) …. the individual item can be traced throughout the closed loop based on its identity” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0036]; “supports a voluntary EPR methodology by incorporating… blockchain technology (e.g. distributed ledger technology, smart contracts)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0055]; “Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0002]; “Data will be stored on a decentral data storage entity. Hashes of metadata and certain other transaction data will be recorded on the blockchain” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0220]; “create an accountability and financing mechanism…. Blockchain can secure transactions and document process chains… in a system that is public and transparent…” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0056]; “system allows for the transparency needed to make sorted material available to recyclers. Recyclers can access the information stored in the blockchain…. the blockchain is configured to execute smart contracts to facilitate easy and cost-effective transfers of sorted material from sorters to recyclers” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0231]; “database may be accessible to the participants in the system via computer networks, e.g. the internet” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0063]; Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0068], [0083], [0097], [0108] and [0199]; as well as Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0065], [0094], [0096], [0098], [0196]–[0199] and [0220]),
saving the certified data of each of the waste items recovered as the image data and the at least one associated unique identifier and making the certified data securely online accessible in an online database via a software-controlled storage and display unit locally or remotely in the network, before the waste items are fed into a waste treatment process for recycling or destruction (e.g., “identity, brand, type, as well as other unique identifiers held in a… database…. reporting the above information to a centralized database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0052] and [0053]; “individual pieces of plastic…. is then linked to a database” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0196]–[0197]; identification and documentation of materials collected… and tracking their progress through a ‘Closed Loop value chain’ ” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]; “the ‘identity’ of an item refers to the identification of a unique item based on an identifier… that are specific (“unique item”) …. the individual item can be traced throughout the closed loop based on its identity” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0036]; “supports a voluntary EPR methodology by incorporating… blockchain technology (e.g. distributed ledger technology, smart contracts)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0055]; “Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0002]; “Data will be stored on a decentral data storage entity. Hashes of metadata and certain other transaction data will be recorded on the blockchain” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0220]; “create an accountability and financing mechanism…. Blockchain can secure transactions and document process chains… in a system that is public and transparent…” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0056]; “system allows for the transparency needed to make sorted material available to recyclers. Recyclers can access the information stored in the blockchain…. the blockchain is configured to execute smart contracts to facilitate easy and cost-effective transfers of sorted material from sorters to recyclers” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0231]; “database may be accessible to the participants in the system via computer networks, e.g. the internet” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0063]; and Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0068], [0083], [0097], [0108] and [0199]), but Stauffenberg arguably fails to explicitly disclose wherein the camera is fixedly mounted to view the detection area through which the conveyor belt moves the waste items, the online database including a cloud-based online database and the network including a cloud network. However, Filler teaches a waste recovery facility in which items are transported for sorting on a conveyor belt and cameras capture images of items on the belt (e.g., Filler at ¶ [0008]); utilizing machine vision in waste sorting systems (e.g., Filler at ¶ [0041]; and Figures 1 and 21 of Filler) and wherein a camera is fixedly mounted to view a detection area through which the conveyor belt moves the waste items (e.g., Filler at ¶¶ [0042] and [0106]; and Figures 1 and 21 of Filler); an online database including a cloud-based online database (e.g., Filler at ¶¶ [0191], [0304]–[0305] and [0345]); and the network including a cloud network (e.g., Filler at ¶¶ [0191], [0304]–[0305] and [0345]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the camera is fixedly mounted to view the detection area through which the conveyor belt moves the waste items, the online database including a cloud-based online database and the network including a cloud network, as taught by Filler, into the method/system disclosed by Stauffenberg, which is directed toward using a camera to capture images of items to enable identification (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶ [0067]), 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 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 26 above and Stauffenberg teaching wherein the storage and display unit is a local computer system or a blockchain or blockchain-based token technology for making secured data accessible (e.g., “Certification of recycled content” and “use of … blockchain technology with a ‘trustless’ verification system, tied to immutable recording of collected plastic waste can create an ecosystem…. in which there is full accountability” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0029] and [0026]; “supports a voluntary EPR methodology by incorporating… blockchain technology (e.g. distributed ledger technology, smart contracts), and highly specific tokenomics” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0055]; “Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0002]; “Data will be stored on a decentral data storage entity. Hashes of metadata and certain other transaction data will be recorded on the blockchain” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0220]; “create an accountability and financing mechanism…. Blockchain can secure transactions and document process chains… in a system that is public and transparent…” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0056]; “system allows for the transparency needed to make sorted material available to recyclers. Recyclers can access the information stored in the blockchain…. the blockchain is configured to execute smart contracts to facilitate easy and cost-effective transfers of sorted material from sorters to recyclers” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0231]; “blockchain block containing the hash value serves as an external means for proofing integrity of the database” —Stauffenberg at each of ¶¶ [0068], [0083], [0090], [0097], [0108], [0149] and [0157]; and “…token…may also function for validation as a Proof of Work reward” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0214]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 26 above and Stauffenberg teaching determining type of waste from the certified data collected and publishing the type online (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0065], [0094], [0096], [0098], [0196]–[0199] and [0220]).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 26 above and Stauffenberg teaching connecting the certified data collected to an EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) scheme or to an implementation partner, whereby the partner is informed about composition of retrieved waste meta-information, wherein the meta-information is at least one of type of waste, brand information, producer information, product label, material, volume, weight, date/time of extraction, foodgrade, and location of recovery of the waste items (e.g., “supports a voluntary EPR methodology by incorporating… blockchain technology (e.g. distributed ledger technology, smart contracts)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0055]; “Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0002]; “Data will be stored on a decentral data storage entity. Hashes of metadata and certain other transaction data will be recorded on the blockchain” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0220]; “create an accountability and financing mechanism…. Blockchain can secure transactions and document process chains… in a system that is public and transparent…” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0056]; “system allows for the transparency needed to make sorted material available to recyclers. Recyclers can access the information stored in the blockchain…. the blockchain is configured to execute smart contracts to facilitate easy and cost-effective transfers of sorted material from sorters to recyclers” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0231]; “database may be accessible to the participants in the system via computer networks, e.g. the internet” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0063]; and Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0065], [0094], [0096], [0098], [0196]–[0199] and [0220]).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 17 above and Stauffenberg teaching wherein the actuator is a robotic arm or a conveyor belt (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0048], [0059] and [0195]; also see “a diverter (e.g., a robotic arm) that sorts the item from the waste stream” —Filler at ¶ [0251]; “waste stream conveyors…with accurate diversion of identified… by…robotic arms” —Filler at ¶ [0296]; and “use robotic arms to pick items from a material…. These and other separation and sorting mechanisms are known to the artisan” —Filler at ¶ [0319]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 24 above and Stauffenberg teaching wherein ownership of the tamper-proof digital recovery-proof and the certificate is transferable to a customer or is used to inform an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) agency of a recovery or a recycling operation (e.g., “Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0002]; Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0068], [0083], [0097], [0108] and [0199]; and Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0065], [0094], [0096], [0098], [0196]–[0199] and [0220]).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 28 above and Stauffenberg teaching wherein the blockchain-based token technology is Non-Fungible Tokens (e.g., Stauffenberg at each of ¶¶ [0026], [0169], [0199]–[0201] and [0214]).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 29 above and Stauffenberg teaching determining possible savings in CO2 emissions for issuing CO2 certificates (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0015], [0027], [0163] and [0214]).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 26 above and Stauffenberg teaching transferring ownership of the recovery-proof to a customer or informing an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) agency of a recovery or a recycling operation (e.g., “Extended Producer Responsibility (“EPR”)” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0002]; “create an accountability… mechanism…. in a system that is public and transparent…” and “Every token ‘mined’ will be allocated to a specific delivery of plastic and will trace its journey through the closed loop, documenting the full extent of the plastic waste caused and recovered…. By this virtue, there will be a means of accountability” —Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0056] and [0213]; as well as “identification and documentation of materials collected… and tracking their progress through a ‘Closed Loop value chain.’ ” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0025]; and Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0065], [0094], [0096], [0098], [0196]–[0199], [0214] and [0220]).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the America Invents Act (AIA ) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0005002 (“Stauffenberg”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0299706 (“Filler”), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0343145 of Rodolfo Villalobos Davila (“Villalobos Davila”).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stauffenberg in view of Filler as applied to Claim 26 above and Stauffenberg teaching recovering the waste items via an extraction unit (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0048], [0059] and [0195]; also see “a diverter (e.g., a robotic arm) that sorts the item from the waste stream” —Filler at ¶ [0251]; “waste stream conveyors…with accurate diversion of identified… by…robotic arms” —Filler at ¶ [0296]; and “use robotic arms to pick items from a material…. These and other separation and sorting mechanisms are known to the artisan” —Filler at ¶ [0319]), but Stauffenberg arguably fails to explicitly disclose manually adding the waste items via a hopper onto the transport unit. However, Villalobos Davila teaches manually adding waste items via a hopper onto a conveyor transport unit (e.g., Villalobos Davila at ¶¶ [0110] and [0115]; and Figure 1 of Villalobos Davila). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate manually adding the waste items via a hopper onto the transport unit, as taught by Villalobos Davila, into the method/system taught by Stauffenberg in view of Filler, which is directed toward collecting and sorting of items of material to be recycled (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶ [0046], [0054] and [0060]–[0061]), 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in the Amendment filed on March 31, 2026, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Examiner notes further recitation above to U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0005002 (“Stauffenberg”) in an effort to assist Applicant given Applicant’s amendments and arguments in “Amendment”.
Applicant's Arguments in the Amendment
(Pages 11-13) Applicant asserts that the pending claims, as currently amended, are drawn to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
(Pages 13-15) Applicant asserts that the independent claims, as currently amended, are not anticipated by Stauffenberg.
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 § 102, Applicant's arguments are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection(s) necessitated by Applicant’s Amendment. The new grounds of rejection(s) in this Office action relies on U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0299706 (“Filler”), as cited above with respect to claim language added to each of Applicant’s independent claims.
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. 2024/0312201 of Gsellmann et al. (hereinafter “Gsellmann”) for “recycling feedstock identification… comprising the steps of: Identifying (S1) a delivery portion of a recycling feedstock by providing at least one delivery identifier for delivery identification; Recording (S2) at least one image of at least one portion of the delivery portion of the recycling feedstock; Annotating (S3) at least one data identifier on the recorded… image, the data identifier identifying an impurity of the at least one portion of the delivery portion of the recycling feedstock; Evaluating (S4) a quality level of the at least one portion of the delivery portion of the recycling feedstock based on the recorded at least one image and the at least one annotated data identifier; and Deciding (S5) an acceptance of the delivery portion of the recycling feedstock based on the evaluated quality level of the at least one portion of the delivery portion of the recycling feedstock.” —Abstract of Gsellmann.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0289747 of SCHWARBER et al. (hereinafter “Schwarber”) for “A vessel is assigned a unique vessel identifier (620). Before or after the vessel is filled, the vessel identifier is encoded into a machine-readable code that is printed or etched onto the vessel (630; 640). The code may have the property that it can be quickly read by a scanner from a variety of different angles and vessel orientations. When the vessel is sold to a user, the user may scan the machine-readable code (or a different code placed on a label associated with the vessel) using a smartphone (710), and the unique vessel identifier is linked to a user account associated with the user (740). Later, when the user places the empty vessel in the recycling stream, a scanner or camera placed in the recycling facility scans or captures the machine-readable code on the vessel and extracts the vessel identifier from the code (810; 820)” —Abstract of Schwarber.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0048270 of Zavesky et al. (hereinafter “Zavesky”) for “generate a unique fingerprint for subsequent analysis. In one specific example, items can each be assigned a score based on some determined returned value (recyclability as one example). In one specific example, each unique ID can be scanned and tied to a new blockchain entry (see, e.g., mechanism 202 of FIG. 2A) which can include location and time of creation, assigned value of object, weight of object empty and full, 3D model of object design, and other metadata. In one specific example, a child node in the block chain can be created upon departure of object including metadata on delivery location. In one specific example, there can be standardization of unique ID placement” —Zavesky at ¶ [0031]; “incorporation of a unique identifier (see, e.g., mechanism 252 of FIG. 2B) at all points of lifecycle. In one example, a mechanism can be provided for registration of branding images and fingerprints for multiple parts of the product (e.g., image, text, QR, etc.). In one example, a mechanism can facilitate responsibility tracking and analytics—deriving new accountability metrics” —Zavesky at ¶ [0039]; and “register the product visuals for recycling type for recognition on the line; embed shape of object (e.g., bottle)—focus on design of object for category determination and sorting; and/or mandate of shape/materials.” —Zavesky at ¶ [0076].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0339682 of MIDDLETON et al. (“Middleton”) for flat panel display (FPD) and 1“FPD is provided with a visible unique identifier on an external surface of the FPD and the characterisation station comprises a visible identifier reader, comprising a camera or scanner” —Claim 18 of Middleton; and “a first robot arm for manipulating the end-of-life FPD into appropriate cutting orientations during the cutting process” —Middleton at ¶ [0027].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0322592 of Tero Rinne (hereinafter “Rinne”) for “recyclable devices are fed to a conveyor belt” —Rinne at ¶ [0301]; and “For classification and/or profiling a real-time operating 2D or 3D scanning device may be installed at a conveyor belt … for conveying the objects to the system, at a cassette feeding device 33 or equipment, at a robot arm” —Rinne at ¶ [0277].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0274895 of Luke MCCONELL (hereinafter “McConell”) for “conveyor belt for manual, mechanized or robotic sorting” —McConell at ¶ [0312].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0325914 of MITSCH et al. (hereinafter “Mitsch”) for “Visually encoded unique identifiers such as barcodes or Quick Response codes (QR codes) are also suitable identifiers which are for example able to be captured using a camera of a mobile terminal and decoded by the processor of the terminal. In a factory it is possible, for example, for a reading device such as a camera or an RFID reader to be placed at an exit or on a conveyor belt in order to detect a large quantity of consumables (gas containers in transport cages or on pallets) in data records of the evaluation arrangement in an automated manner” —Mitsch at ¶ [0008].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0011364 of Whitman et al. (hereinafter “Whitman”) for “Readers 112 for extracting information from the identifying labels 108 may be located in a plurality of locations, such as … attached to a … conveyor system,…or other facility for handling, moving or processing the material; and the like. Readers 112 may comprise…image sensors and associated image processing such as optical character recognition… cameras… and the like” —Whitman at ¶ [0169].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0078414 of Rathore et al. (hereinafter “Rathore”) for “Solid waste identification system 300 may also include a conveyor belt. Trays including solid waste items may be placed on the conveyor belt and/or solid waste items may be directly placed on the conveyor belt. The conveyor belt may extend into image capturing module 120 so that each of the solid waste items may be captured by image capturing module 120. Robotic arm 310 may then discard each solid waste item that is positioned on the conveyor belt into each appropriate solid waste receptacle 110a through 110n.” — Rathore at ¶ [0088].
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0029232 of Cowling et al. (hereinafter “Cowling”) for “Classifying Objects In A Waste Stream” —Title of Cowling; and “discriminate between different material types as well as identify different material classes in a mixed household waste stream, and eject objects of a pre-determined material-type for recycling. The system 100 comprises a hyperspectral camera 102, and conventional broadband camera, the output of which is connected to a processor 108. Monitoring and control of the system 100 is carried out…. The system 100 … comprises a conveyor belt 112, … a waste stream on the conveyor belt 112 and passing them to corresponding receptacles 119, 121, 123…. The hyperspectral camera 102 images” —Cowling at ¶ [0039].
U.S. Patent No. 11,905,111 issued to Stanislav Kulyk.
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
Prosecution Insights