DETAILED ACTION
Status
This communication is in response to Applicant’s U.S. national stage application (35 U.S.C. § 371 application) and in response to Applicant’s “PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT” (hereinafter “Amendment”), both of which were concurrently filed on October 25, 2024. In the Amendment, Applicant amended the abstract, cancelled Claims 1-15; and added Claims 16-30. Therefore, Claims 16-30 are currently pending and presented for examination.
The present application (i.e., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/860,215) is 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 ).
Claims 16-30 are 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.
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
Drawing Objections
Applicant’s drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(L), fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3), and fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), as explained below.
The drawings are objected under 37 CFR 1.84(L) because every line, number and letter illustrated in Figures 1a, 1b and 1c of Applicant’s drawings is not sufficiently clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined to permit adequate reproduction.
Applicant’s drawings are objected under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because not all characters/numerals depicted in Figures 1a, 1b and 1c of Applicant’s drawings measure at least 0.32 cm (1/8 inch) in height.
Furthermore, Applicant’s drawings are objected under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) because characters/numerals depicted in Figures 1b and 1c of Applicant’s drawings have been placed upon shaded surfaces, which is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3).
Applicant’s drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign mentioned in the description: “C”. 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) states that a reference character(s) mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings. Applicant’s specification indicates “camera C” at, for instance, paragraph [0031] of 2025/0348853 of KOLVENBACH et al. (hereinafter “Kolvenbach”); however, reference character “C” does not appear in the drawings. Therefore, Applicant’s drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5).
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The above-identified errors are provided by way of example and may not be inclusive of all errors present in the drawings.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: lack of antecedent basis/ grammatical errors. More specifically, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrases “the legitimacy” and “the cloud” recited in independent Claim 16 (bolding emphases added by Examiner). Consequently, Claim 16 is objected to for lack of antecedent basis/grammatical errors. In addition, Claim 16 is objected to because of a spelling/grammatical error regarding the phrase “an electronics” (bolding emphases added), which examiner understands to be simply “electrics” (plural without the article “an” associated with a singular noun). Therefore, Claim 16 is also objected to a spelling/grammatical error. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: lack of antecedent basis/ grammatical error. More specifically, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrases “the software controlled storage” recited in Claim 26 (bolding emphasis added by Examiner). Therefore, Claim 26 is objected to for improper antecedent basis/grammar. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
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 one or more 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 the claim limitation(s) 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 subsequent connected sensing unit”, “a subsequent detecting and certification unit”, “a computational unit”, and “a storage and display unit”, as correspondingly recited in Applicant’s Claims 16-22, 24 and 26-28. 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 .
Examiner notes MPEP § 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language (“for example,” “such as”) regarding claim language reciting “examples or preferences” set forth in claims. Examiner notes that Applicant’s pending claims recite “Exemplary Claim Language” (e.g., “most preferred a camera” in Claim 16, “which is preferably part of the electronics” in Claim 16, “preferred a robotic arm or a further conveyor belt, effect-connected to the electronics” in Claim 17, “can be carried out locally or remote in the cloud”, and “can be a local computer system”). However, the “examples or preferences” set forth in Applicant’s claims do not appear to render Applicant’s pending claims indefinite since it is clear to Examiner that such “examples or preferences”, as set forth in Applicant’s pending claims (e.g., “most preferred a camera” in Claim 16, “which is preferably part of the electronics” in Claim 16, “preferred a robotic arm or a further conveyor belt, effect-connected to the electronics” in Claim 17, “can be carried out locally or remote in the cloud”, and “can be a local computer system”), are exemplary in view of a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of Applicant’s pending claims (“During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art” per MPEP § 2173.01) and; therefore, Applicant’s recited “examples or preferences” (e.g., “most preferred a camera” in Claim 16, “which is preferably part of the electronics” in Claim 16, “preferred a robotic arm or a further conveyor belt, effect-connected to the electronics” in Claim 17, “can be carried out locally or remote in the cloud”, and “can be a local computer system”) are
not narrowing the “metes and bounds” of Applicant’s pending claims. However, Examiner notes that “[d]escription of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims” per MPEP § 2173.05(d) and Examiner encourages Applicant to remove all language of “examples or preferences” from Applicant’s pending claims.
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 16-30 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)).
Claims 16-22, 24 and 26-28 are indefinite under § 112(b) because "unit" elements recited in Claims 16-22, 24 and 26-28 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, 24 and 26-28, 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, 24 and 26-28 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; each of the generic placeholders (i.e., “a subsequent connected sensing unit”, “a subsequent detecting and certification unit”, “a computational unit” and “a storage and display unit”) is modified by functional language (e.g., records, effect/identifies, saved), and each of the generic placeholders (i.e., “a subsequent connected sensing unit”, “a subsequent detecting and certification unit”, “a computational unit” and “a storage and display unit”) 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 subsequent connected sensing unit”, “a subsequent detecting and certification unit”, “a computational unit” and “a storage and display unit”) fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform a function as required under MPEP § 2181. Consequently, Claims 16-22, 24 and 26-28 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.
Regarding independent Claim 16, since it is unclear as to what the phrase “the image” (singular) makes antecedent reference to in independent Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the phrase “the image” in the phrase “wherein waste items are identifiable by the image…”. More specifically, it is unclear as to whether the phrase “the image” references only one of the “images of waster items” (singular), references all of the “images of waster items” (plural), “an image” that is not specifically/positively recited in the independent Claim 16, or references some combination thereof. Therefore, independent Claim 16 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. For purposes of this Office action, “the image”, as recited in independent Claim 16, is understood to be “an image”. Appropriate correction(s) is required.
Claim 26 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention because, as MPEP § 2173.05(p) II explains, “[a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)”. In an effort to assist Applicant, it is suggested that Claim 26 be rewritten in independent form to include all the non-method limitations as recited in independent Claim 16. Alternatively, Applicant may cancel the claim(s) or amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form.
Claims 17-26 depend from independent Claim 16, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore, Claims 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Similarly, Claims 27-30 depend directly from Claim 26, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of Claim 26; therefore, Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 16-30 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 16-30 are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 16-30 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 in form of a conveyor belt 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. Similarly, Examiner notes each of Claims 17-30 depends on Claim 16 (either directly or indirectly) with Claims 17-25 including all the limitations of independent Claim 16.
Step 2A: Claims 16-30 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 image…”) and certifying the input materials (“waste items” being associated with a “unique identifier”) for identifying a status (“certified”) of the input materials (“certified waste item”), such as “for verifying the legitimacy of a collection and recycling process” (recited in the preamble of Claim 16), as more particularly recited in the pending claims save for recited (non-abstract claim elements): a waste analysis and certification station comprising a transport unit in form of a conveyor belt for transport, automated with the electronics; “a subsequent connected sensing unit with a sensor, most preferred a camera, [that] records images; “a subsequent detecting and certification unit effect connected to a computational unit, which is preferably part of the electronics”; “a storage and display unit” where data is finally saved and made securely online accessible in an online database; wherein the sensing unit, detecting and certification unit and/or storage and display unit are each connected to the electronics or are mapped in the cloud; (only Claim 17) extraction unit is a robotic system comprising at least one actuator, preferred a robotic arm or a further conveyor belt, effect-connected to the electronics; (only Claim 18) wherein the sensing unit respectively the camera of the sensing unit is fixed in position relative to the transport unit, working in the visual spectrum; (only Claim 19) wherein the conveyor belt moves the waste items through a detection area, observed by the fixed sensing unit; (only Claim 20) an infrared type sensor, a spectrometer or at least a depth sensor forms the sensor of the sensing unit; (only Claim 21) the cloud; (only Claim 22) at least one neural network is used and data are saved in the detection and certification unit locally or remote in the cloud; (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 the transport unit in form of a conveyor belt, recording of image data with the sensing unit in a detection area on the conveyor belt, assigning locally or remote in the cloud, and saving of data and making securely online accessible in an online database via the software controlled storage and display unit locally or remote in the cloud; (only Claim 28) wherein the storage and display unit can be a local computer system or the storage could be a blockchain or blockchain-based token technology, like for example Non-Fungible Tokens, to make secured data accessible; and (only Claim 29) published online. However, classification of input materials (“waste items”) based on analyzing information about the input materials (“waste items are identifiable by the image…”) and certifying the input materials (“waste items” being associated with a “unique identifier”) for identifying a status (“certified”) of the input materials (“certified waste item”), such as “for verifying the legitimacy of a collection and recycling process”, 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 the legitimacy of a collection and recycling process” (recited in the preamble of 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 image…”) and certifying the input materials (“waste items” being associated with 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” in Claims 16 and 26, each appears as a high-level black box with no detail about the 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) appears to be mentioned in Applicant's disclosure and, therefore, no specific way of using software algorithms exists within Applicant's recited use of software algorithms. Consequently, Applicant's mere recitation to " software algorithms” 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 [being] assigned”, this technique 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 and a conveyor belt for processing 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, recording data, assigning/storing in a cloud, and saving of data in an 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 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 and a conveyor belt for processing 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, recording data, assigning/storing in a cloud, and saving of data in an online database, as further explained below. Examiner also notes that albeit limitations recited in Claims 16-25 are performed by the generically recited “unit” elements (i.e., a transport unit in form of a conveyor belt for transport, “a subsequent connected sensing unit”, “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 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 elements and a conveyor belt for processing 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, recording data, assigning/storing in a cloud, and saving of data in an 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 in form of a conveyor belt for transport, automated with the electronics; “a subsequent connected sensing unit with a sensor, most preferred a camera, [that] records images; “a subsequent detecting and certification unit effect connected to a computational unit, which is preferably part of the electronics”; “a storage and display unit” where data is finally saved and made securely online accessible in an online database; wherein the sensing unit, detecting and certification unit and/or storage and display unit are each connected to the electronics or are mapped in the cloud; (only Claim 17) extraction unit is a robotic system comprising at least one actuator, preferred a robotic arm or a further conveyor belt, effect-connected to the electronics; (only Claim 18) wherein the sensing unit respectively the camera of the sensing unit is fixed in position relative to the transport unit, working in the visual spectrum; (only Claim 19) wherein the conveyor belt moves the waste items through a detection area, observed by the fixed sensing unit; (only Claim 20) an infrared type sensor, a spectrometer or at least a depth sensor forms the sensor of the sensing unit; (only Claim 21) the cloud; (only Claim 22) at least one neural network is used and data are saved in the detection and certification unit locally or remote in the cloud; (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 the transport unit in form of a conveyor belt, recording of image data with the sensing unit in a detection area on the conveyor belt, assigning locally or remote in the cloud, and saving of data and making securely online accessible in an online database via the software controlled storage and display unit locally or remote in the cloud; (only Claim 28) wherein the storage and display unit can be a local computer system or the storage could be a blockchain or blockchain-based token technology, like for example Non-Fungible Tokens, to make secured data accessible; and (only Claim 29) published online. 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, recording data, data storage, assigning in a cloud, and saving of data in an 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, recording data, data storage, assigning in a cloud, and saving of data in an 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, and saving of data in an 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 16-30 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraph(s) of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form(s) the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under America Invents Act (AIA ) 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0005002 of Phillippe Graf von Stauffenberg (hereinafter “Stauffenberg”).
Regarding Claim 16, Stauffenberg discloses a waste analysis and certification station for verifying the legitimacy of a collection and recycling process and/or tracing of waste material wherein different units are controlled by an electronics, the waste analysis and certification station comprising:
a transport unit in form of a conveyor belt for transport, 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 with a sensor, most preferred a camera, records images of 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, which is preferably part of the electronics, wherein waste items are identifiable by the image and at least one associated unique identifier are assigned via software algorithms (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]),
a storage and display unit where certified data of each collected certified waste item in form of the images and the at least one associated unique identifier is finally saved and made securely online accessible in an online database and subsequent feeding of certified waste items to 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, detecting and certification unit and/or storage and display unit are each connected to the electronics or are mapped in the cloud (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]).
Regarding Claim 17, Stauffenberg discloses the station according to claim 16, wherein the extraction unit is a robotic system comprising at least one actuator, preferred a robotic arm or a further conveyor belt, effect-connected to the electronics (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0048], [0059] and [0195]).
Regarding Claim 18, Stauffenberg discloses the station according to claim 16, wherein the sensing unit respectively the camera of the sensing unit is fixed in position relative to the transport unit, working in the visual spectrum (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0065], [0067], [0081], [0095], [0106]).
Regarding Claim 19, Stauffenberg discloses the station according to claim 18, wherein the conveyor belt moves the waste items through a detection area, observed by the fixed sensing unit (e.g., “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]; and Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0065], [0067], [0081], [0095], [0106]).
Regarding Claim 20, Stauffenberg discloses the station according to claim 16, wherein instead or in addition to a visible light camera an infrared type sensor, a spectrometer or at least a depth sensor forms the sensor of the sensing unit (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0067], [0081], [0095] and [0106]).
Regarding Claim 21, Stauffenberg discloses the station according to claim 16, wherein data analysis of images and assignment of associated unique identifier is automatically achieved in the detecting and certification unit by detecting algorithm creating cryptographic hashs and can be carried out locally or remote in the cloud (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0068], [0083], [0097], [0108] and [0199]).
Regarding Claim 22, Stauffenberg discloses the station according to claim 21, wherein at least one neural network is used in the detecting and certification unit for achieving the unique identifier and additional meta-information of the waste items, wherein such data are saved in the detection and certification unit locally or remote in the cloud (e.g., “software may include artificial intelligence such as machine learning algorithms for image recognition” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0035]; and Stauffenberg at ¶ [0066]).
Regarding Claim 23, Stauffenberg discloses the station according to claim 22, 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 analyzed waste items (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0065], [0094], [0096], [0098], [0196]–[0199] and [0220]).
Regarding Claim 24, Stauffenberg discloses the station according to claim 22, wherein by the detecting and certification unit the gathered certified data of certified waste items like image, unique identifier and meta-information are the digital recovery-proof and are used for issuing a certificate, which is publicly retrievable, wherein authenticity is traceable and the certified data is unchangeable from the outside and therefore 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]).
Regarding Claim 25, Stauffenberg discloses the station according to claim 24, wherein the certificates of certified waste items are stored on a blockchain or used to generate blockchain-based tokens (e.g., Stauffenberg at each of ¶¶ [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 the transport unit of the station according to claim 16, wherein the transport unit is in form of a conveyor belt (e.g., “collector 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 of image data of waste items with the sensing unit 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]),
subsequent identification and certification of images, resulting in certified data of each recovered 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]; 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 via software algorithms in the detecting and certification unit locally or remote in the cloud (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]; and “database may be accessible to the participants in the system via computer networks, e.g. the internet” —Stauffenberg at ¶ [0063]),
saving of certified data of each collected certified waste item in form of the images and/or their at least one associated unique identifier and making securely online accessible in an online database via the software controlled storage and display unit locally or remote in the cloud, before collected certified waste items are fed to 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]).
Regarding Claim 27, Stauffenberg discloses the method according to claim 26, wherein waste items are recovered by an extraction unit, which comprises manual adding of waste items via a hopper onto the transport unit (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶ [0048]).
Regarding Claim 28, Stauffenberg discloses the method according to claim 26, wherein the storage and display unit can be a local computer system or the storage could be a blockchain or blockchain-based token technology, like for example Non-Fungible Tokens, to make 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]).
Regarding Claim 29, Stauffenberg discloses the method according to claim 26, wherein from the certified data collected determination of types of waste takes place, which is published online and/or possible savings in CO2 emissions will be determined for additional issuing CO2 certificates (e.g., Stauffenberg at ¶¶ [0015], [0027], [0163] and [0214]).
Regarding Claim 30, Stauffenberg discloses the method according to claim 26, wherein the certified data collected is connected to an EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) scheme or implementation partner, whereby the partner is informed about the composition of the 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 analyzed 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]).
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 No. 11,905,111 issued to Stanislav Kulyk.
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