DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 14 January 2026.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 18 have been amended.
Claim 16 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-15 and 17-18 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner notes that in order to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims must be directed towards a patent eligible concept, which, the instant claims are not directed. Applicant’ argues that the claims are a practical application however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the claims are not directed to a practical application of the concept. The claims do not result in improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. They do not effect a particular treatment for a disease. They are not applied with or by a particular machine. They do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. And they are not applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception (i.e., generating new state data for a product based upon sub-products and/or manufacturing operations) to a particular technological environment (i.e., with the use of generic computers or computing components). Here, again as noted in the previous rejections, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept - MPEP 2016.05(f). The claims, at best, are performing some of the most basic functions of a computer i.e. electronic data query, storage and retrieval. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible. As such, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection not withdrawn.
Applicant argues that the claims are similar to those found Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc. wherein the claim operates differently than it otherwise could; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the claims operate exactly how they should as the computing components and RFID tags operate and are arranged exactly how they were intended to operate in any sort of manufacturing or inventory environment (as shown in the prior art rejections below). As such, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection not overcome.
Next, Applicant argues that the claims are an improvement; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial note, the arguments are not compliant under 37 CFR 1.111(b) as they amount to a mere allegation of patent eligibility based upon a bare assertion of improvement. The Examiner respectfully does not find the assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the Examiner does not find any evidence that the claimed aspects are any improvement over conventional systems. As such, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection not withdrawn.
In response to Applicants’ arguments that the claims inventive concept may arise "in the ordered combination of the limitations" similar to those found in Bascom; the Examiner respectfully disagrees and this case is unlike Bascom, where, “[o]n [a] limited record” and when viewed in favor of the patentee, the claims alleged a “technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering [Internet] content.” 827 F.3d at 1350. The patent in Bascom did not merely move existing content filtering technology from local computers to the Internet, which “would not contain an inventive concept,” but “overc[a]me[] existing problems with other Internet filtering systems”—i.e., it solved the problem of “inflexible one-size-fits-all” remote filtering schemes (caused by simply moving filtering technology to the Internet) by enabling individualized filtering at the ISP server. Id at 1350–51. In other words, the patent in Bascom did not purport to improve the Internet itself by introducing prior art filtering technology to the Internet. Rather, the Bascom patent fixed a problem presented by combining the two. The key fact in Bascom was the presence of a structural change in “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350. The instant claims have no analogous structural benefit. In particular, the specification does not indicate that invention recites any improvement to conventional monitoring/tracking of manufacturing of a product and state/status thereof, nor do the claims solve any problem associated with situating such manufacturing data across the Internet, nor is there any structural benefit which would make the instant claims analogous. The Examiner also notes that this was considered an improvement to computing technology at the time of Bascom’s relatively early filing date/date of invention The present claims different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools (i.e. electronic data storage, query and retrieval, some of the most basic functions of a computer). In the case of the instant invention, the Examiner asserts that the specification lacks any disclosure of evidence to demonstrate that the invention is seeking to improve upon the existing technology or, more specifically, that the claimed invention is directed towards addressing and improving upon an issue that arose from the technology, but merely demonstrating that the claimed invention is directed towards the abstract idea and merely applying or utilizing generic computing devices performing their generic functions to carry out the well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the technical field of manufacturing data management (basic data management as it relates to manufacturing such as inventory, status etc.) due to the benefits that computing devices provided, i.e. faster, more efficient, and etc. The courts further stated "The Supreme Court has not established a definitive rule to determine what constitutes an "abstract idea" sufficient to satisfy the first step of the Mayo/Alice inquiry. See id. at 2357. Rather, both this court and the Supreme Court have found it sufficient to compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous cases. "[The Court] need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the 'abstract ideas' category in this case. It is enough to recognize that there is no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of intermediated settlement at issue here." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357; see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362. For instance, fundamental economic and conventional business practices are often found to be abstract ideas, even if performed on a computer. See, e.g., OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63."The claims, considered individually or as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s) as the claimed structures and components are all only used generically to apply the abstract idea(s). At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea. As such, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection not withdrawn.
These arguments also appear to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency integrates the claims into a practical application and results in an improvement; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). As such, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejection not withdrawn.
In response to Applicant's argument that Bolander does not include certain features of Applicant's invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e. entire paragraphs of the specification) are not stated in the claims. It is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications (nor the arguments) that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Applicant argues that the Bolander reference only tracks count increments at each station; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, and as noted in all previous rejections, Bolander uses potentially plurality of tags for a plurality of assemblies, subassembly, components as the item passes through various stages of the manufacturing process, not only tracking the counts (as Applicant correctly asserts) but also specific item data and even calibration data “Assuming the track count has not been reached, the routine proceeds to the RFID tag's transmitting its ID, specific item data and track count immediately, as indicated in the block 28 in FIG. 1. The specific item data can include calibration data for an item such as an electronic component or a glucose test strip, for example. This step confirms the data is on the tag, and can confirm accuracy of values of the data, by communication with the earlier manufacturing step where the item was tested and its calibration was written to the tag. Note that the ID on the tag could carry the calibration data in it. The reader looks to see that it was able to read an ID from the tag, as noted in the decision block 30, and if not, an error has occurred and again nothing further is done and the tag is allowed to discharge, at 26. At this point an error message will be generated to alert the process operator that a read error has occurred (Bolander ¶22).” One of ordinary skill in the art would interpret this portion of Bolander to disclose the ability to have multiple RFIDs for multiple sub-products (i.e. assembly, subassembly, components) throughout the manufacturing process, such as a test result and data thereof stored in the RFID, thus including specific required steps and/or intangible operations (such as test data as described in the specification [0036]). Bolander, again, is also able to test the accuracy of the data, which is comparing the data stored in the tag as compared to the test or calibration data obtained previously and stored at another location. As such, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection not withdrawn.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are substantially similar to those filed previously. In response to applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As such, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection not withdrawn.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite the newly amended limitation “separating the new state data into two separated new state data and associating each separated new state data to a RFID identifier of the at least two RFID tags” however there is no discussion, throughout the entirety of the specification and drawings, how the new state data is separated into separated new states. While different states and changes thereof are described in the specification, there is no mention or discussion as to how a new state is separated into two separated new states. As such, the Examiner asserts this as evidence that the newly amended claims are new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) generating new state data for a product based upon sub-products and/or manufacturing operations which is an abstract idea of a mental process as well as the abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The limitations of “generating new state data from reorganization operations between the overall read current state data; separating the new state data into two separated new state data and associating each separated new state data to a RFID identifier of the at least two RFID tags repeating the previous steps until the last manufacturing operation to obtain the end product said method further comprising at the last manufacturing operation: generating a final identifier associated to the end product, wherein the centralized storage device is configured to store the RFID identifiers of all RFID tags, the separated new state data of the last manufacturing operation, and the final identifier,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “being associated with an RFID tag,” (or “A system…comprising…a generator” in claim 9 or “A computer program product comprising program instructions that are exploitable by a system” in claim 12) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “being associated with an RFID tag,” (or “A system…comprising…a generator” in claim 9 or “A computer program product comprising program instructions that are exploitable by a system” in claim 12) language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user performing a mental observation and judgement upon the current state or status of a product during manufacturing based upon the observed parts and operations which is a mental process/judgement as well as business relation/fundamental economic practice of monitoring products during a manufacturing process. However, if possible, the Examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations which may be performed in the mind, while some of the limitations are also considered organizing human activities, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). The “RFID tag” “receiving/receiver,” “local computer,” and “transmitter/transmitter” are simply receiving the state data and “wherein the local machines are configured to read the at least two RFID tags; wherein the local machines are further configured to extract data on the manufacturing state of the product from the at least two RFID tags, and wherein the local machines are further configured to write new data on the manufacturing state of the product to the at least two RFID tags” which are an insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities. Next, the claims do not recite any additional structure beyond the RFID tags and thus can only be directed towards the abstract idea. Next, claims 9 and 12 recite a system and “generator” to perform the generating steps. The system and generator in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic system software element performing a generic computer function of electronic data storage, query, and retrieval) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using a system and generator to perform the generating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in step 2B, the “RFID tag” “local computer,” “receiving/receiver,” “transmitter/transmitter” in the steps and “wherein the local machines are configured to read the at least two RFID tags; wherein the local machines are further configured to extract data on the manufacturing state of the product from the at least two RFID tags, and wherein the local machines are further configured to write new data on the manufacturing state of the product to the at least two RFID tags” step(s) which are insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here). Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2-4, 6, and 13-15 recite the additional limitations further limiting the data and how the data is aggregated and stored which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 9, 12, and 18, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 5, 7-8, 10-11, and 17 recite the additional limitations further limiting the data environment (encrypted/centralized/blockchain) which is only generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(h). Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1, 9, 12, and 18, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-15 and 17-18 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-10, 12-14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolander et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0023429) and further in view of Taulbee et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0308042).
As per claims 1, 9, 12, and 18, Bolander discloses a method and computer program product for sharing manufacturing data during a manufacturing of an end product to be manufactured during different manufacturing operations from an assembly of various sub-products or from realization of intangible operations,, each sub-product or intangible operation being associated with a RFID tag (Radio Frequency Identification tag) each RFID tag comprising a RFID identifier identifying the sub-product or the intangible operation and comprising state data on the manufacturing of the end product, said method comprising at each manufacturing operation, (routine carried out by the system, Bolander ¶19; RFID tags of very small size are embedded in products or components of products in a manufacturing process. The system employs different read and write modes to enable auto-tracking of material, subassembly, assembly and component items through various stages of the manufacturing process. As each item passes special predetermined points in the manufacturing process, the embedded tag is activated and placed in track mode. The tag transmits its ID and a track count representing the number of stations passed. The tag's track count is incremented and the updated track count is stored in non-volatile memory in the tag. The tags can be programmed so that once the count exceeds a predetermined count, a status bit is set in the tag's memory indicating that the item to which the tag is attached has been completely through the manufacturing process. Thus, the system can determine whether an item or product has been completed, ¶4):
reading current state data from each of at least two RFID tags involved in an assembly of sub-products or in a realization of an intangible operation for said manufacturing operation (RFID tags of very small size are embedded in products or components of products in a manufacturing process. The system employs different read and write modes to enable auto-tracking of material, subassembly, assembly and component items through various stages of the manufacturing process. As each item passes special predetermined points in the manufacturing process, the embedded tag is activated and placed in track mode. The tag transmits its ID and a track count representing the number of stations passed. The tag's track count is incremented and the updated track count is stored in non-volatile memory in the tag. The tags can be programmed so that once the count exceeds a predetermined count, a status bit is set in the tag's memory indicating that the item to which the tag is attached has been completely through the manufacturing process. Thus, the system can determine whether an item or product has been completed, Bolander ¶4; wherein RFID tags are embedded in or carried on products or components, and the tags have read and write count capability, carrying data in each tag as to progress in the manufacturing procedure, which data can be downloaded by the system to determine status, ¶16; After it is confirmed that the tag contains its ID, the tag enters track mode as indicated in the block 22. Next, the decision block 24 inquires whether a pre-programmed maximum track count for this process has been reached. If so, nothing further is done with this tag and the tag is allowed to discharge, as at 26. The component or product to which the tag is attached is then directed to the correct location, such as an area for completed items, ¶21; Assuming the track count has not been reached, the routine proceeds to the RFID tag's transmitting its ID, specific item data and track count immediately, as indicated in the block 28 in FIG. 1. The specific item data can include calibration data for an item such as an electronic component or a glucose test strip, for example. This step confirms the data is on the tag, and can confirm accuracy of values of the data, by communication with the earlier manufacturing step where the item was tested and its calibration was written to the tag. Note that the ID on the tag could carry the calibration data in it. The reader looks to see that it was able to read an ID from the tag, as noted in the decision block 30, and if not, an error has occurred and again nothing further is done and the tag is allowed to discharge, at 26. At this point an error message will be generated to alert the process operator that a read error has occurred, ¶22; readers, ¶19-¶20) (Examiner notes the tracking of the RFID for parts or components throughout a manufacturing process for the number of stations passed as the equivalent to the different manufacturing states of the product; Examiner also notes that the readers able to write to the RFID tags as the equivalent to having the generators and transmitters);
generating new state data from reorganization operations between the overall read current state data (The next decision block 16 checks to see whether the RFID tag has had its ID programmed, to be sure the tag is not defective in this way. If not, the tag goes through the corrective process of having the ID written to the tag, as indicated in the block 18, then the loop 20 returns back to the decision block 16 as indicated. Each reader 10 in the system can write an ID or other necessary data to a tag, Bolander ¶20; The item goes through step 1 and its RFID tag increases its track count to 1. The same thing occurs at steps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. At step 6 as indicated in FIG. 2 the process has been completed, and the RFID tag, when powered up, can determine this by querying itself. It can also be queried by any subsequent reader with the rapid power ramp-up, and all items proceeding off the assembly line could be queried in this way in succession, to flag any item going through the system that has not had all operations performed. The status of the item as finished is indicated in the block 42, ¶26);
separating the new state data into two separated new state data and associating each separated new state data to a RFID identifier of the at least two RFID tags (Calibration is important for a number of products that inevitably vary somewhat during manufacturing, and thus need a calibration number for proper use by the customer. One example is electronic components; another is dry reagent testing strips (such as glucose test strips), which have variation and need to carry a calibration indication. The calibration number or code (which can be attached to the tag ID) enables a reader to determine the specific characteristics of the test strip, as well as where the strip came from, the expiration date of the strip, whether this is the correct strip for the test to be conducted, etc. This is important for accuracy and automatic calibration in post-manufacturing use. The objective is that the dry reagent test strip carry all critical information directly on the strip, to enable to automatic calibration, tracking, checking and tracing of these strips, thus eliminating human error. The same tag, pursuant to the invention, can be used for tracking during the manufacturing process, to be sure that each test strip has all operations performed and has had its calibration encoded on the tag, Bolander ¶15) (Examiner interprets the post test process as being split or separated as there will be test data states and calibration data states);
transmitting each separated new state data to each of the at least two RFID tags to replace the current state data of each of the at least two RFID tags (After it is confirmed that the tag contains its ID, the tag enters track mode as indicated in the block 22. Next, the decision block 24 inquires whether a pre-programmed maximum track count for this process has been reached. If so, nothing further is done with this tag and the tag is allowed to discharge, as at 26. The component or product to which the tag is attached is then directed to the correct location, such as an area for completed items. Assuming the track count has not been reached, the routine proceeds to the RFID tag's transmitting its ID, specific item data and track count immediately, as indicated in the block 28 in FIG. 1. The specific item data can include calibration data for an item such as an electronic component or a glucose test strip, for example. This step confirms the data is on the tag, and can confirm accuracy of values of the data, by communication with the earlier manufacturing step where the item was tested and its calibration was written to the tag. Note that the ID on the tag could carry the calibration data in it. The reader looks to see that it was able to read an ID from the tag, as noted in the decision block 30, and if not, an error has occurred and again nothing further is done and the tag is allowed to discharge, at 26. At this point an error message will be generated to alert the process operator that a read error has occurred, Bolander ¶21-¶22; the tags have read and write count capability, carrying data in each tag as to progress in the manufacturing procedure, which data can be downloaded by the system to determine status, ¶16) (Examiner notes that the new updated status of the component or product as the equivalent to new state data which replaces the current state data);
repeating the previous steps until the last manufacturing operation to obtain the end product (discharge at correct location or unable to read prior to discharge, Bolander ¶21-¶22 and ¶24; The item goes through step 1 and its RFID tag increases its track count to 1. The same thing occurs at steps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. At step 6 as indicated in FIG. 2 the process has been completed, and the RFID tag, when powered up, can determine this by querying itself. It can also be queried by any subsequent reader with the rapid power ramp-up, and all items proceeding off the assembly line could be queried in this way in succession, to flag any item going through the system that has not had all operations performed. The status of the item as finished is indicated in the block 42, ¶26; the RFID tags according to the invention have important use in monitoring and auditing manufacture, through the track count procedure described, and also in post-manufactured use. Calibration data, as well as accompanying expiration date, origin of manufacture, type of component, etc., are automatically used by equipment downstream. If the calibrated item is a reagent test strip, a machine performing a test will automatically read the tag and determine the calibration data and other important data as noted above, then adjust the test parameters to allow for the item's specific calibration. In addition, the RFID tag can be used in the more conventional ways for inventory control, tracking of the post-manufactured items and theft prevention, for example, ¶27);
wherein the local machines are configured to read the at least two RFID tags; wherein the local machines are further configured to extract data on the manufacturing state of the product from the at least two RFID tags, and wherein the local machines are further configured to write new data on the manufacturing state of the product to the at least two RFID tags (The system employs different read and write modes to enable auto-tracking of material, subassembly, assembly and component items through various stages of the manufacturing process. As each item passes special predetermined points in the manufacturing process, the embedded tag is activated and placed in track mode. The tag transmits its ID and a track count representing the number of stations passed, Bolander ¶4; In the drawings, FIG. 1 shows in simplified form a routine that is carried out by the system of the invention, in the manufacturing or assembly process, to ensure that all parts or components are subjected to all required steps. FIG. 2 shows a very simple example of the manufacturing process with multiple steps, as components proceed through these steps with an RFID tag attached to or embedded in each component. In the block 10 in FIG. 1 a special point reader is indicated, situated at a particular step in the manufacturing process. The reader 10 is at high power, such as to power up the tag on the item or component of manufacture at a very rapid ramp rate, such as about 1/10 of the normal time for powering up. This is to signify that the tag is not to proceed through a normal read process but is to proceed in track mode. The decision block 12 queries whether the ramp rate was the prescribed rapid rate, and if not, the tag would go into a normal read process, without track mode, for the usual purposes in other situations of inventory control, theft control, item authentication, etc. This is indicated at 14, but if the reader at the block 10 is a special point reader, functioning correctly, the normal read process 14 will not occur. The next decision block 16 checks to see whether the RFID tag has had its ID programmed, to be sure the tag is not defective in this way. If not, the tag goes through the corrective process of having the ID written to the tag, as indicated in the block 18, then the loop 20 returns back to the decision block 16 as indicated. Each reader 10 in the system can write an ID or other necessary data to a tag, ¶19-¶20; The item goes through step 1 and its RFID tag increases its track count to 1. The same thing occurs at steps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. At step 6 as indicated in FIG. 2 the process has been completed, and the RFID tag, when powered up, can determine this by querying itself. It can also be queried by any subsequent reader with the rapid power ramp-up, and all items proceeding off the assembly line could be queried in this way in succession, to flag any item going through the system that has not had all operations performed. The status of the item as finished is indicated in the block 42, ¶26; the RFID tags according to the invention have important use in monitoring and auditing manufacture, through the track count procedure described, and also in post-manufactured use. Calibration data, as well as accompanying expiration date, origin of manufacture, type of component, etc., are automatically used by equipment downstream. If the calibrated item is a reagent test strip, a machine performing a test will automatically read the tag and determine the calibration data and other important data as noted above, then adjust the test parameters to allow for the item's specific calibration. In addition, the RFID tag can be used in the more conventional ways for inventory control, tracking of the post-manufactured items and theft prevention, for example, ¶27) (Examiner interprets the assembly line having predetermined points in the manufacturing process to interact with the RFID as the local machines)
wherein manufacturing data on the manufacturing state of the product is saved to a storage device and the manufacturing data containing a history of a manufacturing of the product; and wherein the storage device is assessable by individuals to review various manufacturing operations of the product (The item goes through step 1 and its RFID tag increases its track count to 1. The same thing occurs at steps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. At step 6 as indicated in FIG. 2 the process has been completed, and the RFID tag, when powered up, can determine this by querying itself. It can also be queried by any subsequent reader with the rapid power ramp-up, and all items proceeding off the assembly line could be queried in this way in succession, to flag any item going through the system that has not had all operations performed. The status of the item as finished is indicated in the block 42, Bolander ¶26; the RFID tags according to the invention have important use in monitoring and auditing manufacture, through the track count procedure described, and also in post-manufactured use. Calibration data, as well as accompanying expiration date, origin of manufacture, type of component, etc., are automatically used by equipment downstream. If the calibrated item is a reagent test strip, a machine performing a test will automatically read the tag and determine the calibration data and other important data as noted above, then adjust the test parameters to allow for the item's specific calibration. In addition, the RFID tag can be used in the more conventional ways for inventory control, tracking of the post-manufactured items and theft prevention, for example, ¶27);
said method further comprising at the last manufacturing operation: generating a final identifier associated to the end product, wherein the centralized storage device is configured to store the RFID identifiers of all RFID tags, the separated new state data of the last manufacturing operation, and the final identifier (As described above, the RFID tags according to the invention have important use in monitoring and auditing manufacture, through the track count procedure described, and also in post-manufactured use. Calibration data, as well as accompanying expiration date, origin of manufacture, type of component, etc., are automatically used by equipment downstream. If the calibrated item is a reagent test strip, a machine performing a test will automatically read the tag and determine the calibration data and other important data as noted above, then adjust the test parameters to allow for the item's specific calibration. In addition, the RFID tag can be used in the more conventional ways for inventory control, tracking of the post-manufactured items and theft prevention, Bolander ¶27).
Bolander does not expressly disclose at a local computer coupled to a local machine able to allow assembly of sub-products or realization of an intangible operation for said each manufacturing operation, to verify whether the state data are identical or compatible with one another; storing the separated new state data at a centralized storage device, with the RFID identifier of the at least two respective RFID tag and with an operation identifier corresponding to said manufacturing operation.
However, Taulbee teaches
at a local computer coupled to a local machine able to allow assembly of sub-products or realization of an intangible operation for said each manufacturing operation, to verify whether the state data are identical or compatible with one another (control circuit operably couples to a memory, can be local, Taulbee ¶20-¶22);
storing the separated new state data at a centralized storage device, with the RFID identifier of the at least two respective RFID tag and with an operation identifier corresponding to said manufacturing operation (inventory management database within hardware, Taulbee ¶22 and Fig. 2) (Examiner interprets the inventory management database as the centralized storage device).
Both the Bolander and the Taulbee references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with manufacturing data tracking. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Taulbee’s ability to track products in Bolander’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a manufacturing data system that is more secure.
he motivation being that there is a need to eliminate or minimize RFID tags failing to be scanned (Taulbee ¶11).
Furthermore, the limitation " wherein the storage device is accessible by individuals to review various manufacturing operations of the product " merely recite the intended use or result of a method step positively claimed and are not considered positive method steps or system elements.
As per claim 2, Bolander and Taulbee disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Bolander further discloses wherein the generating step further comprises a step of aggregating the current state data of the at least two RFID tags, a step of splitting said current state data, and a step of merging the split data to form new state data on the manufacturing state of the product (The item goes through step 1 and its RFID tag increases its track count to 1. The same thing occurs at steps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. At step 6 as indicated in FIG. 2 the process has been completed, and the RFID tag, when powered up, can determine this by querying itself. It can also be queried by any subsequent reader with the rapid power ramp-up, and all items proceeding off the assembly line could be queried in this way in succession, to flag any item going through the system that has not had all operations performed. The status of the item as finished is indicated in the block 42, Bolander ¶26; the RFID tags according to the invention have important use in monitoring and auditing manufacture, through the track count procedure described, and also in post-manufactured use. Calibration data, as well as accompanying expiration date, origin of manufacture, type of component, etc., are automatically used by equipment downstream. If the calibrated item is a reagent test strip, a machine performing a test will automatically read the tag and determine the calibration data and other important data as noted above, then adjust the test parameters to allow for the item's specific calibration. In addition, the RFID tag can be used in the more conventional ways for inventory control, tracking of the post-manufactured items and theft prevention, for example, ¶27) (Examiner notes the incremental tracking as the ability to aggregate the data, and the calibration and other important data for the product as the splitting and merging of state data throughout the manufacturing process).
As per claim 3, Bolander and Taulbee disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. Bolander further discloses wherein the new state data on the manufacturing state of the product are distributed between the at least two RFID tags (Specifically the invention applies or embeds miniature RFID tags to or into components or products in a manufacturing process, to track the progress of manufacturing, to assure that all operations have been performed on each item and also to provide useful data to the end user of the item, Bolander ¶1; RFID tags of very small size are embedded in products or components of products in a manufacturing process. The system employs different read and write modes to enable auto-tracking of material, subassembly, assembly and component items through various stages of the manufacturing process, ¶4).
As per claim 4, Bolander and Taulbee disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Bolander further discloses wherein the state data on the manufacturing state of the product stored on the at least two RFID tags comprises data selected from: one or more plans; one or more certificates of conformity; one or more instruction sheets; and/or one or more manufacturing results (The item goes through step 1 and its RFID tag increases its track count to 1. The same thing occurs at steps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. At step 6 as indicated in FIG. 2 the process has been completed, and the RFID tag, when powered up, can determine this by querying itself. It can also be queried by any subsequent reader with the rapid power ramp-up, and all items proceeding off the assembly line could be queried in this way in succession, to flag any item going through the system that has not had all operations performed. The status of the item as finished is indicated in the block 42, Bolander ¶26; the RFID tags according to the invention have important use in monitoring and auditing manufacture, through the track count procedure described, and also in post-manufactured use. Calibration data, as well as accompanying expiration date, origin of manufacture, type of component, etc., are automatically used by equipment downstream. If the calibrated item is a reagent test strip, a machine performing a test will automatically read the tag and determine the calibration data and other important data as noted above, then adjust the test parameters to allow for the item's specific calibration. In addition, the RFID tag can be used in the more conventional ways for inventory control, tracking of the post-manufactured items and theft prevention, for example, ¶27).
As per claim 6, Bolander and Taulbee disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Bolander further discloses wherein said method comprises a step of verifying the received state data, by checking compliance between the state data received from each of the at least two RFID tags, and stopping a manufacturing process in case of non-compliance (verify article has been through operations or plurality of stations, Bolander Claims 11 and 13; The reader looks to see that it was able to read an ID from the tag, as noted in the decision block 30, and if not, an error has occurred and again nothing further is done and the tag is allowed to discharge, at 26. At this point an error message will be generated to alert the process operator that a read error has occurred, ¶22) (Examiner interprets the error, nothing further being done and the not allowing of the discharge as the ability to stop manufacturing process in a case of non-compliance).
Furthermore, the limitation " stopping a manufacturing process in case of non-compliance " merely recite the intended use or result of a method step positively claimed and are not considered positive method steps or system elements.
As per claim 7, Bolander and Taulbee disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Taulbee further teaches wherein the new state data are stored in a centralized state- data storage device and wherein the centralized state-data storage device is accessible by individuals to review the manufacturing of the product. (database, Taulbee ¶16, ¶22, and Fig. 2).
Furthermore, the limitations "wherein the centralized state-data storage device is assessable by individuals to review the manufacturing of the product " merely recite the intended use or result of a method step positively claimed and are not considered positive method steps or system elements.
As per claim 10, Bolander discloses as shown above with respect to claim 9. Bolander does not expressly disclose wherein said system comprises the centralized state-data storage device for storing new state data; and wherein the centralized state-data storage device is accessible by individuals to review manufacturing of the product.
However, Taulbee teaches wherein the new state data are stored in a centralized state- data storage device and wherein the centralized state-data storage device is accessible by individuals to review the manufacturing of the product. (database, Taulbee ¶16, ¶22, and Fig. 2).
Furthermore, the limitations "wherein said system comprises a centralized state-data storage device for storing new state data; and wherein the centralized state-data storage device is accessible by individuals to review manufacturing of the product" merely recite the intended use or result of a method step positively claimed and are not considered positive method steps or system elements.
Both the Bolander and the Taulbee references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with manufacturing data tracking. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Taulbee’s ability to track products in Bolander’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a manufacturing data system that is more secure.
The motivation being that there is a need to eliminate or minimize RFID tags failing to be scanned (Taulbee ¶11).
As per claim 13, Bolander and Taulbee disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Bolander further discloses wherein the step of transmitting the new state data on the manufacturing state of the product further comprises writing the new state data on the manufacturing state of the product to the at least two RFID tags (the tags have read and write count capability, carrying data in each tag as to progress in the manufacturing procedure, which data can be downloaded by the system to determine status, Bolander ¶16).
As per claim 14, Bolander and Taulbee disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Bolander further discloses wherein manufacturing data on the manufacturing state of the product is saved to a storage device and the manufacturing data contains a history of a manufacturing of the product; and wherein the storage device is accessible by individuals to review manufacturing of the product (The item goes through step 1 and its RFID tag increases its track count to 1. The same thing occurs at steps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. At step 6 as indicated in FIG. 2 the process has been completed, and the RFID tag, when powered up, can determine this by querying itself. It can also be queried by any subsequent reader with the rapid power ramp-up, and all items proceeding off the assembly line could be queried in this way in succession, to flag any item going through the system that has not had all operations performed. The status of the item as finished is indicated in the block 42, Bolander ¶26; the RFID tags according to the invention have important use in monitoring and auditing manufacture, through the track count procedure described, and also in post-manufactured use. Calibration data, as well as accompanying expiration date, origin of manufacture, type of component, etc., are automatically used by equipment downstream. If the calibrated item is a reagent test strip, a machine performing a test will automatically read the tag and determine the calibration data and other important data as noted above, then adjust the test parameters to allow for the item's specific calibration. In addition, the RFID tag can be used in the more conventional ways for inventory control, tracking of the post-manufactured items and theft prevention, for example, ¶27).
As per claim 17, Bolander and Taulbee disclose as shown above with respect to claim 9. Bolander further discloses further comprising a storage device, wherein manufacturing data on the manufacturing state of the product is saved to the storage device and the manufacturing data contains a history of a manufacturing of the product; and wherein the storage device is accessible by individuals to review manufacturing of the product (The item goes through step 1 and its RFID tag increases its track count to 1. The same thing occurs at steps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. At step 6 as indicated in FIG. 2 the process has been completed, and the RFID tag, when powered up, can determine this by querying itself. It can also be queried by any subsequent reader with the rapid power ramp-up, and all items proceeding off the assembly line could be queried in this way in succession, to flag any item going through the system that has not had all operations performed. The status of the item as finished is indicated in the block 42, Bolander ¶26; the RFID tags according to the invention have important use in monitoring and auditing manufacture, through the track count procedure described, and also in post-manufactured use. Calibration data, as well as accompanying expiration date, origin of manufacture, type of component, etc., are automatically used by equipment downstream. If the calibrated item is a reagent test strip, a machine performing a test will automatically read the tag and determine the calibration data and other important data as noted above, then adjust the test parameters to allow for the item's specific calibration. In addition, the RFID tag can be used in the more conventional ways for inventory control, tracking of the post-manufactured items and theft prevention, for example, ¶27).
Furthermore, the limitations " wherein the storage device is accessible by individuals to review manufacturing of the product " merely recite the intended use or result of a method step positively claimed and are not considered positive method steps or system elements.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolander et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0023429) and Taulbee et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0308042) further in view of Levy et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0074388).
As per claim 5, Bolander and Taulbee disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. The combination of Bolander and Taulbee does not expressly disclose wherein said method comprises, prior to the step of transmitting the new state data, a step of encrypting said new state data.
However, Levy teaches wherein said method comprises, prior to the step of transmitting the new state data, a step of encrypting said new state data (encrypted, Levy ¶44).
The Bolander, Taulbee and the Levy references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with manufacturing data tracking Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Levy’s ability to track products in Taulbee and Bolander’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a manufacturing data system that is more secure.
The motivation being that a more secure, reliable, and distributed technology for tracking and authentication of products and product transactions is needed (Levy ¶6).
As per claim 8, Bolander and Taulbee disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. The combination of Bolander and Taulbee does not expressly disclose wherein the new state data are stored in a blockchain and wherein the blockchain is accessible by individuals to review manufacturing of the product.
However, Levy teaches wherein the new state data are stored in a blockchain and wherein the blockchain is accessible by individuals to review manufacturing of the product (distributed ledgers, blockchain, Levy ¶51).
The Bolander, Taulbee and the Levy references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with manufacturing data tracking Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Levy’s ability to track products in Taulbee and Bolander’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a manufacturing data system that is more secure.
The motivation being that a more secure, reliable, and distributed technology for tracking and authentication of products and product transactions is needed (Levy ¶6).
Furthermore, the limitations "wherein the blockchain is assessable by individuals to review manufacturing of the product. " merely recite the intended use or result of a method step positively claimed and are not considered positive method steps or system elements.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolander et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0023429) further in view of Levy et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0074388).
As per claim 11, Bolander discloses as shown above with respect to claim 1. Bolander does not expressly disclose wherein said system comprises a blockchain for storing the new state data; and wherein the blockchain is accessible by individuals to review manufacturing of the product.
However, Levy teaches wherein said system comprises a blockchain for storing the new state data; and wherein the blockchain is accessible by individuals to review manufacturing of the product (distributed ledgers, blockchain, Levy ¶51).
The Bolander and Levy references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with manufacturing data tracking Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Levy’s ability to track products in Bolander’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a manufacturing data system that is more secure.
The motivation being that a more secure, reliable, and distributed technology for tracking and authentication of products and product transactions is needed (Levy ¶6).
Furthermore, the limitations "wherein the blockchain is accessible by individuals to review manufacturing of the product. " merely recite the intended use or result of a method step positively claimed and are not considered positive method steps or system elements.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bolander et al. (US PG Pub. 2010/0023429) and Taulbee et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0308042) further in view of Erickson et al. (US PG Pub. 2007/0198113).
As per claim 15, Bolander and Taulbee disclose as shown above with respect to claim 2. Bolander further discloses wherein the step of splitting said state data comprises dividing the state data to form split data and merging the split data to form new data on the manufacturing state of the product; and wherein the step of merging the split data comprises uniting distinct elements of the state data to form the merged data (The item goes through step 1 and its RFID tag increases its track count to 1. The same thing occurs at steps 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. At step 6 as indicated in FIG. 2 the process has been completed, and the RFID tag, when powered up, can determine this by querying itself. It can also be queried by any subsequent reader with the rapid power ramp-up, and all items proceeding off the assembly line could be queried in this way in succession, to flag any item going through the system that has not had all operations performed. The status of the item as finished is indicated in the block 42, Bolander ¶26; the RFID tags according to the invention have important use in monitoring and auditing manufacture, through the track count procedure described, and also in post-manufactured use. Calibration data, as well as accompanying expiration date, origin of manufacture, type of component, etc., are automatically used by equipment downstream. If the calibrated item is a reagent test strip, a machine performing a test will automatically read the tag and determine the calibration data and other important data as noted above, then adjust the test parameters to allow for the item's specific calibration. In addition, the RFID tag can be used in the more conventional ways for inventory control, tracking of the post-manufactured items and theft prevention, for example, ¶27).
Bolander and Taulbee do not expressly disclose wherein the step of aggregating the current state data of the at least two RFID tags comprises uniting distinct elements of the state data and concatenating the state data so as to identify all aggregated elements.
However, Erickson teaches wherein the step of aggregating the current state data of the at least two RFID tags comprises uniting distinct elements of the state data and concatenating the state data so as to identify all aggregated elements (FIG. 8 shows a method 800 for storing an "as built history." If the RFID tag is a new tag being placed on a new first assembly (step 810=yes) then the initial vendor information and assembly information is stored on the RFID tag attached to the assembly (step 820). The RFID tag need not be directly attached to the assembly but is associated with the assembly, such as attached to the packaging. If the RFID tag is not a new tag (step 810=no) then the complete as built history stored on the RFID tag is read into the RFID reader (step 830). The new manufacturing event is concatenated with the as built history read from the RFID tag (step 840) and the concatenated as built history is stored to the RFID tag attached to the assembly (step 850), Erickson ¶27).
The Bolander, Taulbee and the Erickson references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with manufacturing data tracking. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Erickson’s ability to concatenate manufacturing events and trace build history in Taulbee and Bolander’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a manufacturing data system has more traceability.
The motivation being that without a way to manage the history of a manufactured assembly through the lifecycle of the assembly in a complex supply chain, manufacturers will continue to bear the high costs of maintaining data from multiple vendors and other costs associated with re-configuring product assemblies (Erickson ¶5).
Conclusion
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 ANDREW B WHITAKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7563. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached on (571) 272-6782. 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 for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-
automated- interview-request-air-form
/ANDREW B WHITAKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629