DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “[…] according to the remanufacture server information handling system automated commands generated […]” when it appears to be read “[…] according to the remanufacture server information handling system’s automated commands generated […]”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-10 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 claims contain 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “wherein the first robotic tool, second robotic tool, first manual labor resource and second manual labor resource each remanufacture an information handling system according to the remanufacture server information handling system automated commands generated in response to a comparison of the lifecycle information against predetermined lifecycle constraints”.
The specification does not disclose any predetermined lifecycle constraints, any comparison of lifecycle information to such constraints, or any automated command generation that occurs because of such a comparison. Although the disclosure describes collecting lifecycle information and using it for scheduling and optimization, it provides no description of evaluation based on constraints or command generation logic.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine) and claim 11 to a method (i.e., a process). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claim 1 is:
a first manual labor resource;
a second manual labor resource;
capture of lifecycle information for one or more components during operational use of each of the geographically distributed information handling systems;
track a lifecycle of the plural components included in each of the plural distributed information handling systems based upon communications of the lifecycle information;
automatically commanding micro manufacturing center resources to repair the plural distributed information handling systems and to harvest the components from the plural distributed information handling systems to reuse at a selected of the plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers in remanufactured information handling systems, the resources including the robotic tools and the manual labor resources, scheduling repairs and harvesting to maintain a predetermined allocation between the robotic tools and manual labor resources to perform the repairs and harvesting;
remanufacture an information handling system according to the remanufacture server information handling system automated commands generated in response to a comparison of the lifecycle information against predetermined lifecycle constraints.
The abstract idea of claim 11 is:
distributing plural micro manufacturing centers geographically, each having robotic tools and manual labor resources;
tracking lifecycle information of the components when the components are used in the information handling systems at each of plural distributed locations;
automatically commanding repairs for plural of the distributed information handling systems when component lifecycle information is within a predetermined threshold of component lifecycle;
commanding one or more of the plural micro manufacturing centers to repair the plural of the plural distributed information handling systems and to harvest the components from the plural distributed information handling systems to reuse at a selected of the plural distributed micro manufacturing centers in remanufactured information handling systems, the commanding allocating work to be performed by robotic tools and manual labor resources based upon the lifecycle information;
harvesting the plural components to remanufacture a first information handling system with a first robotic tool of a first micro manufacturing center according to the commanding;
harvesting the plural components to remanufacture a second information handling system with a first manual labor resource of the first micro manufacturing center according to the commanding;
harvesting the plural components to remanufacture a third information handling system with a second robotic tool of a second micro manufacturing center according to the commanding; and
harvesting the plural components to remanufacture a first information handling system with a second manual resource of a second micro manufacturing center according to the commanding.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are directed to coordinating labor and resource allocation in decentralized repair facilities, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by paragraph 0004 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to coordinating operational management of manufacturing activities and transportation logistics, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers business relations. This is further supported by 0005 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, including contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Commercial or Legal Interactions grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP §2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: plural [first of the, second of the] geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers; a first robotic tool; a second robotic tool; plural geographically distributed information handling systems, each having one or more processing resources and one or more non-transient memories, the one or more non-transient memories storing a lifecycle agent that when executed on the processing resources; a lifecycle server information handling system interfaced through a network with the plural distributed information handling systems; plural distributed information handling systems through the network to the lifecycle server information handling system; a remanufacture server information handling system interfaced with the lifecycle server information handling system; first robotic tool, second robotic tool, first manual labor resource.
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements: an agent stored in non-transitory memory and executing on a processing resource during normal operational use of each distributed information handling system.
With respect to: plural [first of the, second of the] geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers, examiner notes that applicant has merely linked the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Per MPEP 2106.05(h), however, “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.”
With respect to the rest of the additional elements identified, Examiner notes that these elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in paragraph [0104] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system, described in the context of a particular field of use or technological environment.
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP §2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §2106.05(f), (h).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f), and/or generally link to a particular technological environment or field of use, as described in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system, described in the context of a particular field of use or technological environment. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-8, 12-15, and 17, applicant further narrows the abstract idea with additional step(s). There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, similar to above, is also not patent eligible. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 6 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: a power source server information handling system interfaced through the network and operable to communicate types of energy associated with the plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers; remanufacture server information handling system (highlighted above). With respect to the former, examiner notes that applicant has merely linked the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Per MPEP 2106.05(h), however, “limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” With respect to the latter, examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f), (h).
Claims 9 and 16 further narrow the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: keyboard having plural keys and a liquid detection sensor. Examiner notes that these are examples of “apply it” and are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 10 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: a motherboard having a CPU. Examiner notes that these are examples of “apply it” and are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 18 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: non-transient memory of the motherboard. Examiner notes that these are examples of “apply it” and are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 19 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: solid state drive. Examiner notes that these are examples of “apply it” and are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 20 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: speaker. Examiner notes that these are examples of “apply it” and are simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonds (US 20020095491) in view of Kayara (US 20200143334) in further view of Gettings (US 20150367513) in further view of Johnson (US 20090222826) in further view of El Haloui (US 20210309384).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Edmonds discloses:
A system for information handling system manufacture {This invention generally relates to a product order, delivery, management (ODM) system and, more particularly, to a system and related methods for remotely monitoring a production line using the Web in such an ODM system. (paragraph 0001) In addition, such companies often contract with various partners to have products manufactured at OEM partner facilities. (paragraph 0002) For instance, FIG. 6 shows another example of an interactive Web page 600 with query output results 602 that are exemplary of a system 100 which is used to monitor production facilities processing notebook computers, i.e. an “information handling system.” (paragraph 0040)}, the system comprising:
plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers {Returning now to FIG. 1, OEM production lines typically have associated product centers, such as refurbishment, service, and shipping or distribution centers. These product centers may be collocated within an OEM production facility 112, where 112(N) of FIG. demonstrates a “plurality of geographically distributed manufacturing centers.” (paragraph 0031) Examiner notes that “micro” is a labeling term that doesn’t functionally and/or structurally distinguish and given little patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 and discussions on nonfunctional descriptive material.}
a first robotic tool at a first of the plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers; {The system includes multiple remotely operated OEM production facilities (paragraphs 0025, 0031). The OEM production line computer directs operations on the production line (i.e., a robotic or automated manufacturing tool under BRI) (paragraphs 0033-0034).}
a second robotic tool at a second of the plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers; {The system includes multiple remotely operated OEM production facilities (paragraphs 0025, 0031) and includes individual production line computers at each facility, each configured to control and monitor production lines independently. The system describes a plurality of production line monitors and facility computers (e.g., 114(1), 114(N)) (i.e., a second production center) (paragraphs 0031-0034)}.
a first manual labor resource at the first of the plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers; {The system includes multiple remotely operated OEM production facilities (paragraphs 0025, 0031). These facilities include associated product centers for refurbishment, service, and shipping (i.e., manual labor resource) (paragraphs 0031, 0035).}
a second manual labor resource at the second of the plural geographically distributed manufacturing centers; {The system includes a second OEM production facility (112(2)) that includes remotely located service and refurbishment centers. These centers perform repair and upgrade functions (i.e., manual labor resource) (paragraphs 0031, 0035).}
a lifecycle server information handling system interfaced through a network with the plural distributed information handling systems to track a lifecycle of the plural components included in each of the plural distributed information handling systems based upon communications of the lifecycle information from the plural distributed information handling systems through the network to the lifecycle server information handling system {In a more realistic example, the system 100 of FIG. 1 is likely to include a production database 116 containing data far more extensive than that indicated by the sample database table 400 of FIG. 4. For instance, FIG. 6 shows another example of an interactive Web page 600 with query output results 602 that are exemplary of a system 100 which is used to monitor production facilities processing notebook computers, i.e. “information handling systems.” In this production environment, the system 100 provides a user with access to up to date production information including hard disk drive (HDD) size, liquid crystal display (LCD) size, software identification (SWID), and CPU type, i.e. “plural components.” (paragraph 0040). Examiner notes that “lifecycle server information handling system interfaced through a network” demonstrated via OEM computer 300 storing product data into the production database 116 and responding to queries received from the host server 106. (paragraph 0034) Examiner further notes that “track a lifecycle” demonstrated via product identification and tracking data gathered from service databases 124 on failed products returned to service centers, which includes product serial numbers and "born-on" dates. (paragraph 0043)} a remanufacture server information handling system interfaced with the lifecycle server information handling system {Similarly, in the refurbishment computer 302, i.e. a “remanufacture server information handling system interfaced with the lifecycle server information handling system,” the monitor/collect module 326 executes on processor(s) 308, directing the refurbishment computer 302 to continually monitor and collect data on products that are returned to the refurbishment center and products that are upgraded at the center. (paragraph 0035).}
wherein the first robotic tool, second robotic tool, first manual labor resource and second manual labor resource each remanufacture an information handling system according to the remanufacture server information handling system {Production and service centers at different locations repair and upgrade products based on instructions from a central host server (paragraphs 0032, 0035, 0050). These actions involve manual labor and automated tools. All actions follow commands issued (i.e., schedule) by the host server.}
Edmonds doesn’t explicitly disclose:
plural geographically distributed information handling systems, each having one or more processing resources and one or more non-transient memories, the one or more non-transient memories storing a lifecycle agent that when executed on the processing resources causes capture of lifecycle information for one or more components during operational use of each of the geographically distributed information handling systems;
automatically commanding micro manufacturing center resources to repair the plural distributed information handling systems and to harvest the components from the plural distributed information handling systems to reuse at a selected of the plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers in remanufactured information handling systems, the resources including the robotic tools and the manual labor resources, the remanufacture server information handling system scheduling repairs and harvesting to maintain a predetermined allocation between the robotic tools and manual labor resources to perform the repairs and harvesting;
automated commands generated in response to a comparison of the lifecycle information against predetermined lifecycle constraints.
However, Kayara, in a similar field of endeavor directed to parent and child product recycling codes for finished products, teaches:
automatically commanding micro manufacturing center resources to repair the plural distributed information handling systems and to harvest the components from the plural distributed information handling systems {If the parent recycling product code can be determined at step 306, then a determination can be made at step 314 whether to fix or disassemble the finished product, i.e. system directs “micro manufacturing center resources to repair the plural distributed information handling systems.” (paragraph 0039) At step 408, various components of the finished product, including physical parts, chemical and biological materials, and other components can be reclaimed from the finished product for storage in appropriate containers at step 410, i.e. “harvest the components from the plural distributed information handling systems.” (paragraph 0040) Examiner notes that “plural distributed information systems” also described with respect to FIG. 1A, which illustrates an example of a computer system 2 that has been disposed of and is now a potential candidate for refurbishment, repair or recycling. (paragraph 0004)}
to reuse at a selected of the plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers in remanufactured information handling systems {The manufacturing recycling product code data in databases 214, 220, 222, 224 can be made available to the entities 208, 210, 212 when they make their own purchases of sub-components from sub-component makers and others commercially downstream in the production process from the manufacturer 202, i.e. “reuse at a selected of the plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers in remanufactured information handling systems.” (paragraph 0033)}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production management system of Edmonds to include the features of Kayara, in order to facilitate processing a significant volume of disposed items, capturing and communicating essential information about finished products and their components and materials, and making consistent repair or recycle determinations. (see paragraph 0005 of Kayara)
The combination of Edmonds and Kayara does not explicitly teach:
the resources including the robotic tools and the manual labor resources, the remanufacture server information handling system scheduling repairs and harvesting to maintain a predetermined allocation between the robotic tools and manual labor resources to perform the repairs and harvesting.
However, Gettings, in a similar field of endeavor directed to the collection, processing, and utilization of robotic and/or human resources across the infrastructure of an organization, teaches:
the resources including the robotic tools and the manual labor resources, the remanufacture server information handling system scheduling repairs and harvesting to maintain a predetermined allocation between the robotic tools and manual labor resources to perform the repairs and harvesting {A server-based resource management system is disclosed. It allocates tasks between robotic tools and human labor, optimizing workloads, task completion times, and resource consumption. It explicitly states that the server or robots allocate resources and manage tasks, including dividing workloads across multiple robots and/or humans. Additionally, it describes optimizing resource use and balancing task distribution. (paragraph 0028)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds and Kayara to include the features of Gettings, in order to optimize resources, prioritize tasks, and allocate routes (possibly in real-time) while performing operational tasks, maintenance tasks, security tasks, safety tasks, and/or any other suitable tasks effectively. (see paragraph 0003 of Gettings)
The combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings does not explicitly teach:
plural geographically distributed information handling systems, each having one or more processing resources and one or more non-transient memories, the one or more non-transient memories storing a lifecycle agent that when executed on the processing resources causes capture of lifecycle information for one or more components during operational use of each of the geographically distributed information handling systems;
automated commands generated in response to a comparison of the lifecycle information against predetermined lifecycle constraints.
However, Johnson, in a similar field of endeavor directed to automated deployment of a deployment container on an information handling system, teaches:
plural geographically distributed information handling systems, each having one or more processing resources and one or more non-transient memories, the one or more non-transient memories storing a lifecycle agent that when executed on the processing resources causes capture of lifecycle information for one or more components during operational use of each of the geographically distributed information handling systems {The system includes a plurality of information handling systems (e.g., 102a-c), each including a processor and non-transient memory storing software components (paragraphs 0028, 0031-0035, 0057-0062). Geographic profile fields indicate that these systems may be distributed across different regions (paragraphs 0037, 0071). Deployment application 114 is executed and it monitors and records operational data regarding system tasks (i.e., lifecycle information for components of each system) (paragraphs 0078-0086, 0091-0098).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings to include the lifecycle information management features of Johnson, to provide for decreased complexity and increased management capability over traditional deployment techniques. (See paragraph 0004 of Johnson).
The combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, and Johnson does not explicitly teach:
automated commands generated in response to a comparison of the lifecycle information against predetermined lifecycle constraints.
However, El Haloui, in a similar field of endeavor directed to automated deployment of a deployment container on an information handling system, teaches:
automated commands generated in response to a comparison of the lifecycle information against predetermined lifecycle constraints {Fatigue life consumption is calculated and compared to approved service lifetimes or preset thresholds. When those comparisons indicate that a component is approaching or exceeding its allowable range, the system initiates maintenance scheduling (paragraphs 0040-0042, 0047, 0052).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, and Johnson to include the part lifecycle tracking features of El Haloui, to provide a system which can monitor the health of parts more accurately to assess whether maintenance or replacement may be required. (See paragraph 0006 of El Haloui).
Claim 8
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui teaches the limitations set forth above.
Kayara further teaches:
wherein the predetermined cost includes at least a type of repair for the distributed information handling systems, the type of repair associated with the manual labor. {In one embodiment, the inventory database 224 may include cost or price data associated with fixing a given product, and such data can be used in the determination made at step 314 whether to repair or refurbish the product at step 316, for example. (paragraph 0039)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui to include the additional features of Kayara, in order to facilitate processing a significant volume of disposed items, capturing and communicating essential information about finished products and their components and materials, and making consistent repair or recycle determinations. (see paragraph 0005 of Kayara).
Claims 2-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui, in further view of Dambman (US 20220266445) in further view of Wetzer (US 20040254764).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui teaches the limitations set forth above.
Kayara further teaches:
each of the geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers includes one or more portable robotic tools {Robotic technology and bar code scanners may be employed to allow for quick reading of manufacturing recycling product codes in high volumes of heterogeneous products involved in recycling, repair or disposal streams, and to facilitate queries to the different databases. (paragraph 0028)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui to include the additional features of Kayara, in order to facilitate processing a significant volume of disposed items, capturing and communicating essential information about finished products and their components and materials, and making consistent repair or recycle determinations. (see paragraph 0005 of Kayara)
The combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui does not teach:
each of the geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers includes a variable quantity of manual labor;
the remanufacture server allocates repairs to the geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers in part to manage the quantity of manual labor.
However, Dambman, in a similar field of endeavor directed to robotics and performance of robot-based processes, teaches:
each of the geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers includes a variable quantity of manual labor {A workcell system is shown where the output data 180 instructs the pooling of mobile robots 106 with human workers, dynamically adjusting labor allocation. It further describes adjusting 185 scheduling information and redistributing workload within a workcell 102 based on task requirements. (paragraph 0043)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui to include the features of Dambman, in order to optimize the integration of multiple instruments at multiple locations, and identify and schedule optimal timing of workcells, or robot movement along the multiple paths which activity occurs for carrying out a sophisticated workflow. (see paragraph 0005 of Dambman)
The combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, El Haloui, and Dambman does not explicitly teach:
the remanufacture server allocates repairs to the geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers in part to manage the quantity of manual labor.
However, Wetzer, in a similar field of endeavor directed to managing the maintenance an item of equipment in accordance with a maintenance plan, teaches:
the remanufacture server allocates repairs to the geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers in part to manage the quantity of manual labor {The art teaches data processing system that facilitates integration of maintenance activities, including resource planning, which involves allocating human resources and components for maintenance (i.e., repairs) within a defined geographic location and time frame. It also teaches resource planning (i.e., managing the quantity of manual labor). (paragraph 0026)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, El Haloui, and Dambman to include the features of Wetzer, in order to promote the maintenance of accurate records on equipment-related work with ready access to maintenance, overhaul and repair personnel. (see paragraph 0006 of Wetzer).
Claim 3
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, El Haloui, Dambman, and Wetzer teaches the limitations set forth above.
Wetzer further teaches:
wherein the remanufacture server selects a micro manufacturing center location and quantity of manual labor to perform repairs based upon prediction of repairs of the plural distributed information handling systems to repair by reference to the lifecycle information of the plural distributed information handling systems. {The longevity estimator 62 includes a probability of failure predictor 64, providing a predictive maintenance requirement based on longevity estimates (i.e., lifecycle information). (paragraph 0031) This data is then used to calculate probability of failure data “on a component or an item of equipment to the scheduler 60.” (paragraph 0032) Then “the scheduler 60 outputs scheduling data or a maintenance plan to the resources planner 14. In turn, the resource planner 14 may output the maintenance plan”. (paragraph 0034) “The resource planner 14 refers to a data processing component for planning the availability of the at least one of the following items for a time interval at a geographic location to facilitate maintenance, repair or overhaul activity: (1) one or more workers, (2) a facility, (3) infrastructure, (4) test equipment, (5) a tool, (6) one or more components, and (7) a resource.” The location selection of the “manufacturing center” based upon more than one factor. (paragraph 0023)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, El Haloui, Dambman, and Wetzer to include the additional features of Wetzer, in order to promote the maintenance of accurate records on equipment-related work with ready access to maintenance, overhaul and repair personnel. (see paragraph 0006 of Wetzer).
Claim 5
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, El Haloui, Dambman, and Wetzer teaches the limitations set forth above.
Wetzer further teaches:
wherein the remanufacture server selectively moves a geographical location of one or more of the micro manufacturing centers based upon an anticipated quantity of manual labor to repair and harvest the distributed information handling systems. {The storage device dynamically allocates maintenance resources based on predictive maintenance requirements and resource availability. (paragraph 0024) A resource planner manages workers, tools, and facilities at geographic locations. (paragraph 0023) Availability of workers, infrastructure, and tools at defined geographic locations to facilitate maintenance is managed by a module. (paragraph 0036) Examiner notes that “moving a geographical location” demonstrated via the equipment being mobile or portable with geographic locations that change over time during normal use of the equipment (e.g., where the equipment represents a passenger airplane). (paragraph 0120)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, El Haloui, Dambman, and Wetzer to include the additional features of Wetzer, in order to promote the maintenance of accurate records on equipment-related work with ready access to maintenance, overhaul and repair personnel. (see paragraph 0006 of Wetzer).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui, Dambman, and Wetzer, in further view of Miwa (US 20090259507).
Claim 4
Regarding claim 4, while the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui, Dambman, and Wetzer teaches the features set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein the remanufacture server selects a micro manufacturing center location and quantity of manual labor to perform repairs based upon prediction of types of harvested components from the information handling systems repaired at the micro manufacturing center location.
However, Miwa, in a similar field of endeavor directed to a working machine maintenance work management system for construction machinery or the like, teaches:
wherein the remanufacture server selects a micro manufacturing center location and quantity of manual labor to perform repairs based upon prediction of types of harvested components from the information handling systems repaired at the micro manufacturing center location. {The system predicts service life for individual components using multiple parameters. (paragraph 0047) Removed components are inspected, and their results are used to refine future service life predictions. (paragraph 0047) The system collects wear and damage data from disassembled components and updates maintenance schedules accordingly. (paragraph 0066) An overhaul (abbreviated in the figures as "O/H") order setting unit 320 selects that one of the first predicted service life and the second predicted service life from the service life prediction units 311 and 312 which is the shorter, and sets a priority order in which overhaul tasks are to be performed. (paragraph 0060) And, based upon the order which has been set, an overhaul schedule table generation unit 330 creates a schedule table D1 which shows which construction machine is to be overhauled and when. (paragraph 0061)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui, Dambman, and Wetzer to include the features of Miwa, in order to be able to improve the service life prediction accuracy, thereby maintaining a balance on work personnel at any given time. (see paragraphs 0007 and 0008 of Miwa).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui, in further view of Pai (US 20110172838).
Claim 6
Regarding claim 6, while the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
a power source server information handling system interfaced through the network and operable to communicate types of energy associated with the plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers;
wherein the remanufacture server information handling system further selects the micro manufacturing center based in part on a carbon footprint.
However, Pai, in a similar field of endeavor directed to industrial control of power and energy, teaches:
a power source server information handling system interfaced through the network and operable to communicate types of energy associated with the plural geographically distributed micro manufacturing centers {“The system 100 includes a plurality of consuming or producing energy sources 110 (also referred to as energy resources) that are monitored by various controllers 120, where such controllers 120 can include components or modules that report to supervisory controllers or computer-based applications.” (paragraph 0021) “It is noted that components associated with the system 100 and controllers 120 can include various computer or network components such as servers.” (paragraph 0031) “In general, the energy objects 130 enable energy in all its forms to be managed automatically across industrial communication networks,” i.e., “communicate types of energy.” (paragraph 0023) The energy object 130 can include an identifier for associating a process with an energy source. The energy object 130 can specify the type of energy consumed such as water, air, gas, electricity and steam, for example. (paragraph 0024)}
wherein the remanufacture server information handling system further selects the micro manufacturing center based in part on a carbon footprint {Sustainability factors, such as carbon emissions, are monitored. If the current production methods exceed an acceptable range, adjustments are made, including altering manufacturing locations to achieve the desired carbon footprint levels. (paragraph 0052)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui to include the features of Pai, in order to facilitate efficiently managing power and energy within a plant or across a set of plants and an associated supply chain, where such management spans a wide geography. (see paragraph 0004 of Pai).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, El Haloui, and Pai, in further view of Cella (US 20230098602).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, while the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, El Haloui, and Pai teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein the carbon footprint includes both a transportation carbon footprint associated with transportation of the information handling system and a manufacture carbon footprint associated with operations of the selected micro manufacturing center.
However, Cella, in a similar field of endeavor directed to enterprise management platforms, teaches:
wherein the carbon footprint includes both a transportation carbon footprint associated with transportation of the information handling system and a manufacture carbon footprint associated with operations of the selected micro manufacturing center {Examples of logistics factors may include, but are not limited to the type(s) of products being produced/farmed/shipped, features of those products (e.g., dimensions, weights, shipping requirements, shelf life, etc.), locations of manufacturing sites, locations of distribution facilities, locations of warehouses, locations of customer bases, market penetration in certain areas, expansion locations, supply chain features (e.g., required parts/supplies/resources, suppliers, supplier locations, buyers, buyer locations), and/or the like) and may determine one or more design recommendations based on the factors. (paragraph 0618) Examples of optimizations include increased production throughput, reduced production costs, reduced shipping costs, decreased shipping times, reduced carbon footprint, and combinations thereof (paragraphs 0618)}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, El Haloui, and Pai to include the features of Cella, in order to reduce costs, improve logistical efficiencies, reduce the overall shipment time, reduce carbon emissions, or the like. (see paragraph 2156 of Cella).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui, in further view of Yokote (US 20080094232).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, while the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein the component comprises a keyboard having plural keys and a liquid detection sensor, the keyboard lifecycle information including a total number of key presses at the keyboard and detection of a liquid event.
However, Yokote, in a similar field of endeavor directed to detecting and mitigating liquid damage in portable computers, teaches:
wherein the component comprises a keyboard having plural keys and a liquid detection sensor, the keyboard lifecycle information including a total number of key presses at the keyboard and detection of a liquid event {A keyboard with multiple keys and equipped with a liquid sensor is disclosed. (paragraph 0020) There is an embedded keyboard controller which manages keyboard input and is always powered, even when the computer is off, indicating key press tracking capabilities. (paragraph 0031) When liquid contacts the sensor, an interrupt signal is sent to the CPU, which the displays a warning message to the user. (paragraphs 0039-0040)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, and El Haloui to include the features of Yokote, in order to more effectively detect liquid damage in systems. (see paragraph 0050 of Yokote).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, El Haloui, and Yokote teach the limitations set forth above.
Yokote further teaches:
wherein the component further comprises a motherboard having a CPU and requiring a visual check for liquid damage before reuse. {A portable computer system configuration, including a CPU, a hard disk drive (HDD) (i.e., non-transient memory), and other components such as a BIOS-ROM, is described. (paragraph 0025) When liquid contacts the sensor, an interrupt signal is sent to the CPU, which the displays a warning message to the user. (paragraphs 0039-0040) Examiner notes that given the disclosed liquid detection system aimed to the importance of such exposure, someone with common knowledge in the art would be led by the alert that the system provides to inspect the physical element before reuse.}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Johnson, El Haloui, and Yokote to include the additional features of Yokote, in order to more effectively detect liquid damage in systems. (see paragraph 0050 of Yokote).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Edmonds (US 20020095491) in view of Kayara (US 20200143334) in further view of Gettings (US 20150367513).
Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Edmonds discloses:
A method of automated reuse of components used in distributed information handling systems comprising {This invention generally relates to a product order, delivery, management (ODM) system and, more particularly, to a system and related methods for remotely monitoring a production line using the Web in such an ODM system. (paragraph 0001) In addition, such companies often contract with various partners to have products manufactured at OEM partner facilities. (paragraph 0002) For instance, FIG. 6 shows another example of an interactive Web page 600 with query output results 602 that are exemplary of a system 100 which is used to monitor production facilities processing notebook computers, i.e. “information handling systems.” (paragraph 0040) In this production environment, the system 100 provides a user with access to up to date production information including hard disk drive (HDD) size, liquid crystal display (LCD) size, software identification (SWID), and CPU type, i.e. “components.” (paragraph 0040).}
distributing plural micro manufacturing centers geographically {Returning now to FIG. 1, OEM production lines typically have associated product centers, such as refurbishment, service, and shipping or distribution centers. These product centers may be collocated within an OEM production facility 112, where 112(N) of FIG. demonstrates a “distributing plural micro manufacturing centers geographically.” (paragraph 0031) Examiner notes that “micro” is a labeling term that doesn’t functionally and/or structurally distinguish and given little patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 and discussions on nonfunctional descriptive material.}
tracking lifecycle information of the components when the components are used in the information handling systems at each of plural distributed locations with an agent stored in non-transitory memory and executing on a processing resource during normal operational use of each distributed information handling system {The system places OEM production, refurbishment, and service computers at multiple remote facilities (paragraphs 0031, 0033). Each machine runs monitor or collect modules from local memory to capture operational data as equipment is processed or services (paragraphs 0034-0036). These modules gather configuration, tracking, failure, service, and upgrade information during ordinary use at each site (paragraphs 0041, 0043). The master application later pulls and consolidates this information from all facilities to form a system wide record (paragraphs 0042-0043, 0047-0051).}
harvesting the plural components to remanufacture a first information handling system with a first robotic tool of a first micro manufacturing center according to the commanding {The OEM production line computer collects product data and processes product orders received from the host server. The server sends instructions directing production activity, and the production line handles components to fulfill these orders (paragraphs 0032, 0034, 0036, 0050-0051).}
harvesting the plural components to remanufacture a second information handling system with a first manual labor resource of the first micro manufacturing center according to the commanding {The system includes the refurbishment and service centers at the first OEM facility that handle returned products and perform upgrades and repairs. The activities are carried under the direction of the host server, which sends queries and order instructions (paragraphs 0032, 0035, 0050-0051).}
harvesting the plural components to remanufacture a third information handling system with a second robotic tool of a second micro manufacturing center according to the commanding {The system includes a second OEM production facility with a production line computer configured to receive instructions from the host server and process product orders. The production line computer monitors and controls production activities, which includes handling components for product remanufacture (paragraphs 0031, 0033-0034, 0036, 0050).}
harvesting the plural components to remanufacture a first information handling system with a second manual resource of a second micro manufacturing center according to the commanding {The system includes a second OEM facility with service and refurbishment centers that process returned products through repairs and upgrades. The activities are carried under the direction of the host server, which sends queries and order instructions (paragraphs 0031-0032, 0035, 0050-0051).}
Edmonds doesn’t explicitly disclose:
each having robotic tools and manual labor resources;
automatically commanding repairs for plural of the distributed information handling systems when component lifecycle information is within a predetermined threshold of component lifecycle;
commanding one or more of the plural micro manufacturing centers to repair the plural of the plural distributed information handling systems and to harvest the components from the plural distributed information handling systems to reuse at a selected of the plural distributed micro manufacturing centers in remanufactured information handling systems, the commanding allocating work to be performed by robotic tools and manual labor resources based upon the lifecycle information.
However, Kayara, in a similar field of endeavor directed to parent and child product recycling codes for finished products, teaches:
automatically commanding repairs for plural of the distributed information handling systems when component lifecycle information is within a predetermined threshold of component lifecycle {The operations management system receives sensor data for each product, compares that data to expected performance levels using recycling code linked component information, identifies sub-optimal or failing components, and checks the repair database for troubleshooting and part replacement instructions. Further, repair personnel can be assigned with replacement parts based on this analysis (paragraphs 0049-0050).}
commanding one or more of the plural micro manufacturing centers to repair the plural of the plural distributed information handling systems and to harvest the components from the plural distributed information handling systems {If the parent recycling product code can be determined at step 306, then a determination can be made at step 314 whether to fix or disassemble the finished product, i.e. system “directs one or more of the plural micro manufacturing centers to repair the plural distributed information handling systems.” (paragraph 0039) At step 408, various components of the finished product, including physical parts, chemical and biological materials, and other components can be reclaimed from the finished product for storage in appropriate containers at step 410, i.e. “harvest the components from the plural distributed information handling systems to reuse at a selected of the plural distributed micro manufacturing centers in remanufactured information handling systems.” (paragraph 0040) Examiner notes that “plural distributed information systems” described with respect to FIG. 1A, which illustrates an example of a computer system 2 that has been disposed of and is now a potential candidate for refurbishment, repair or recycling. (paragraph 0004)} to reuse at a selected of the plural distributed micro manufacturing centers in remanufactured information handling systems, the commanding allocating work to be performed by robotic tools and manual labor resources based upon the lifecycle information {The manufacturing recycling product code data in databases 214, 220, 222, 224 can be made available to the entities 208, 210, 212 when they make their own purchases of sub-components from sub-component makers and others commercially downstream in the production process from the manufacturer 202 (paragraph 0033)}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production management system of Edmonds to include the features of Kayara, in order to facilitate processing a significant volume of disposed items, capturing and communicating essential information about finished products and their components and materials, and making consistent repair or recycle determinations. (see paragraph 0005 of Kayara).
The combination of Edmonds and Kayara does not explicitly disclose:
each having robotic tools and manual labor;
the commanding allocating work to be performed by robotic tools and manual labor resources based upon the lifecycle information.
However, Gettings, in a similar field of endeavor directed to the collection, processing, and utilization of robotic and/or human resources across the infrastructure of an organization, teaches:
each having robotic tools and manual labor {System is described herein that can collect and process data and utilize robotic and/or human resources by scheduling priorities of robot and/or human tasks, allocating the use of robot and/or human resources, and optimizing robot and/or human routes across the infrastructure of an organization, i.e. having “robotic tools and manual labor.” (paragraph 0004) Self directed outfitting can be performed by the robot itself, and similarly, automatic outfitting can be performed as a robot interacts with another system, such as a battery changer, or an automatic module changing device. Service modules can include tools or features adapted for specific tasks. (paragraph 0034)}
the commanding allocating work to be performed by robotic tools and manual labor resources based upon the lifecycle information {A server-based resource management system is disclosed. It allocates tasks between robotic tools and human labor, optimizing workloads, task completion times, and resource consumption. It explicitly states that the server or robots allocate resources and manage tasks, including dividing workloads across multiple robots and/or humans. Additionally, it describes optimizing resource use and balancing task distribution. (paragraph 0028)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds and Kayara to include the features of Gettings, in order to optimize resources, prioritize tasks, and allocate routes (possibly in real-time) while performing operational tasks, maintenance tasks, security tasks, safety tasks, and/or any other suitable tasks effectively. (see paragraph 0003 of Gettings).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings, in further view of Wetzer (US 20040254764).
Claim 12
Regarding claim 12, while the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
analyzing the life cycle information to predict geographical locations of repairs of the distributed information handling systems;
moving one or more of the micro manufacturing centers to different geographical locations based upon the predicted geographical locations and to maintain the allocation of work performed by robotic tools and manual labor.
However, Wetzer, in a similar field of endeavor directed to managing the maintenance an item of equipment in accordance with a maintenance plan, teaches:
analyzing the life cycle information to predict geographical locations of repairs of the distributed information handling systems {The resource planner determines maintenance locations by integrating predictive maintenance data, resource availability, and location-based planning. (paragraph 0023) The predictive maintenance controller estimates failures and schedules repairs based on performance data (paragraph 0061), while the resource availability module tracks the availability of labor and parts at different locations. (paragraph 0036) }
moving one or more of the micro manufacturing centers to different geographical locations based upon the predicted geographical locations and to maintain the allocation of work performed by robotic tools and manual labor. {The system dynamically relocates maintenance resources based on predicted repair locations. The resource planner (paragraph 0023) and scheduler (paragraph 0068) adjust maintenance activities and allocate resources accordingly. The resource allocation system (paragraph 0110) coordinates the movement of equipment and personnel. The resource allocation system facilitates the continuity of maintenance and repairs “without disruption from the unavailability of a qualified worker, a suitable facility, a requisite tool, a requisite component, a requisite consumable or any other information.” (paragraph 0115) Examiner notes that “moving a geographical location” demonstrated via the equipment being mobile or portable with geographic locations that change over time during normal use of the equipment (e.g., where the equipment represents a passenger airplane). (paragraph 0120)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings, to include the features of Wetzer, in order to promote the maintenance of accurate records on equipment-related work with ready access to maintenance, overhaul and repair personnel. (see paragraph 0006 of Wetzer).
Claim 13
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, and Wetzer teaches the limitations set forth above.
Wetzer further teaches:
selecting a geographical location to move the one or more micro manufacturing centers based upon prediction of location of harvested components from the repaired information handling systems and an allocation for harvesting between robotic tools and manual labor. {The system selects geographical locations for maintenance activities based on component availability and workforce allocation. The resource planner (paragraph 0023) and scheduler (paragraph 0068) predict where components will be needed based on historical maintenance data and failure analysis. The resource availability module (paragraph 0036) performs the allocation of tools, and machine and manual labor for component harvesting. “A tool may refer to any device that assists a worker in performing or conducting a maintenance activity on equipment.” (paragraph 0056)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, and Wetzer, to include the additional features of Wetzer, in order to promote the maintenance of accurate records on equipment-related work with ready access to maintenance, overhaul and repair personnel. (see paragraph 0006 of Wetzer).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings, in further view of Pai (US 20110172838).
Claim 14
Regarding claim 14, while the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
monitoring energy type in use at each of the plural micro manufacturing centers; and
selecting a micro manufacturing center to repair an information handling system based in part on a carbon footprint.
However, Pai, in a similar field of endeavor directed to industrial control of power and energy, teaches:
monitoring energy type in use at each of the plural micro manufacturing centers {The energy object includes an identifier specifying the type of energy consumed (e.g., water, air, gas, electricity, steam) which allows for real-time measurement and aggregation of energy data across distributed facilities. (paragraph 0024)}
selecting a micro manufacturing center to repair an information handling system based in part on a carbon footprint {Sustainability factors, such as carbon emissions, are monitored. If the current production methods exceed an acceptable range, adjustments are made, including altering manufacturing locations to achieve the desired carbon footprint levels. (paragraph 0052)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings to include the features of Pai, in order to efficiently manage power and energy within a plant or across a set of plants and an associated supply chain, where such management spans a wide geography. (see paragraph 0004 of Pai).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings, and Pai, in further view of Cella (US 20230098602).
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, while the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, and Pai teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
selecting the micro manufacturing center based in part on a carbon footprint of transportation of the information handling system to the micro manufacturing center.
However, Cella, in a similar field of endeavor directed to enterprise management platforms, teaches:
selecting the micro manufacturing center based in part on a carbon footprint of transportation of the information handling system to the micro manufacturing center. {Examples of logistics factors may include, but are not limited to the type(s) of products being produced/farmed/shipped, features of those products (e.g., dimensions, weights, shipping requirements, shelf life, etc.), locations of manufacturing sites, locations of distribution facilities, locations of warehouses, locations of customer bases, market penetration in certain areas, expansion locations, supply chain features (e.g., required parts/supplies/resources, suppliers, supplier locations, buyers, buyer locations), and/or the like) and may determine one or more design recommendations based on the factors. (paragraph 0618) Examples of optimizations include increased production throughput, reduced production costs, reduced shipping costs, decreased shipping times, reduced carbon footprint, and combinations thereof (paragraphs 0618).}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, and Pai to include the features of Cella, in order to reduce costs, improve logistical efficiencies, reduce the overall shipment time, reduce carbon emissions, or the like. (see paragraph 2156 of Cella).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings, in further view of Yokote (US 20080094232).
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, while the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein the component comprises a keyboard having plural keys and a liquid detection sensor and the lifecycle information comprises a total number of key presses at the keyboard and a liquid detection event.
However, Yokote, in a similar field of endeavor directed to detecting and mitigating liquid damage in portable computers, teaches:
wherein the component comprises a keyboard having plural keys and a liquid detection sensor and the lifecycle information comprises a total number of key presses at the keyboard and a liquid detection event. {A keyboard with multiple keys and equipped with a liquid sensor is disclosed. (paragraph 0020) There is an embedded keyboard controller which manages keyboard input and is always powered, even when the computer is off, indicating key press tracking capabilities. (paragraph 0031) When liquid contacts the sensor, an interrupt signal is sent to the CPU, which the displays a warning message to the user. (paragraphs 0039-0040)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings to include the features of Yokote, in order to more effectively detect liquid damage in systems. (see paragraph 0050 of Yokote).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, and Gettings, and Yokote, in further view of Dambman (US 20220266445).
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, while the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, and Yokote teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein the directing adjusts allocation of work performed based upon estimated robotic and manual labor associated with the type of component having a failure to repair.
However, Dambman, in a similar field of endeavor directed to robotics and performance of robot-based processes, teaches:
wherein the directing adjusts allocation of work performed based upon estimated robotic and manual labor associated with the type of component having a failure to repair. {A rules engine models input data to determine workcell configurations and pathway topologies for optimal deployment of resources for different workflow steps. (paragraph 0040)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, and Yokote to include the features of Dambman, in order to optimize the integration of multiple instruments at multiple locations, and identify and schedule optimal timing of workcells, or robot movement along the multiple paths which activity occurs for carrying out a sophisticated workflow. (see paragraph 0005 of Dambman).
Claim 18
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Yokote, and Dambman teaches the limitations set forth above.
Yokote further teaches:
wherein the component comprises a motherboard having a CPU, the method further comprising storing a liquid detection event of the keyboard on a non-transient memory of the motherboard. {The main unit comprises, in part, a keyboard. (paragraph 0022) A portable computer system configuration, including a CPU, a hard disk drive (HDD) (i.e., non-transient memory), and other components such as a BIOS-ROM, is described. (paragraph 0025) When liquid contacts the sensor, an interrupt signal is sent to the CPU, which the displays a warning message to the user. (paragraphs 0039-0040)} Examiner notes that, because the liquid detection data is processed by the CPU, this data can be logged in the HDD.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Yokote, and Dambman to include the additional features of Yokote, in order to more effectively detect liquid damage in systems. (see paragraph 0050 of Yokote)
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Yokote, and Dambman, in further view of Dawkins (US 20220179702).
Claim 19
Regarding claim 19, while the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Yokote, and Dambman teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein the component comprises a solid state drive and the lifecycle information includes temperatures sensed at the solid state drive.
However, Dawkins, in a similar field of endeavor directed to maintaining composed systems, teaches:
wherein the component comprises a solid state drive and the lifecycle information includes temperatures sensed at the solid state drive. {The storage, which “may store data structures including, for example, composed information handling system data (314), a resource map (316), and a computing resources health repository (318)” (paragraph 0129), may be a solid-state disk drive (paragraph 0127) “The computing resource health repository (318) may specify operation errors, health state information, temperature, and/or other types of information indicative of the health of hardware devices.” (paragraph 0138)}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Yokote, and Dambman to include the features of Dawkins, in order to increase the utilization rate of computing resources by automatically remediating when required. (see paragraph 0023 of Dawkins).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Yokote, and Dambman in further view of Ariel (US 20160366148).
Claim 20
Regarding claim 20, while the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Yokote, and Dambman teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein the component comprises a speaker and the lifecycle information comprises vibrations related to sounds played by the speaker.
However, Ariel, in a similar field of endeavor directed to lifecycle management of electronic and electrical appliances, teaches:
wherein the component comprises a speaker and the lifecycle information comprises vibrations related to sounds played by the speaker. {The system tracks appliance lifecycle information, including usage data of appliances with speakers. (paragraph 0042) The system further collects and stores operational data from appliances. (paragraph 0054)} Examiner notes that the normal operation of a speaker produces sounds through vibratory motion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Edmonds, Kayara, Gettings, Yokote, and Dambman to include the features of Ariel, in order to more efficiently control the lifecycle of components remotely. (see paragraphs 0003 and 0004 of Ariel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/21/2025 have been carefully considered.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Claims 1 and 11 remain directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. Under the BRI, the claims recite coordinating remanufacturing activities across distributed facilities by directing manual labor resources and tools based on evaluated lifecycle information. This is a certain method of organizing human activity as previously established.
Applicant’s arguments that the claims do not manage “behaviors”, “relationships”, or “interactions between people” is not persuasive. The claims expressly involve manual labor resources performing tasks according to centrally generated commands. Directing human labor in response to analyzed information constitutes managing interactions between people, irrespective of emotional or social considerations.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited elements are described at a high level, does nothing more than apply the technology to carry out the abstract idea, and do not recite a specific technical improvement.
Accordingly, the rejections under § 101 are maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Edmonds expressly discloses continuous monitoring and collection of product data from production lines, refurbishment centers, and service centers, with the data centrally stored and queried via a host server (paragraphs 0032-0035). The collected data includes product identification, tracking configuration, failure, as well as information enabling determination of time to failure and product use history (paragraphs 0035, 0043), which constitutes lifecycle related data.
Edmonds further discloses processing this centrally aggregated data to generate metrics and feedback that are transferred back to production, refurbishment, and service centers to inform operational decisions (paragraphs 0042-0045, 0053). Therefore, Examiner’s reliance on Edmonds is supported by the disclosure, not speculation.
In summary, examiner has responded to all arguments and found them unpersuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (additional pertinent references can be found on attached form PTO-892):
US 20220179474, which teaches: An information handling system for composing composed information handling systems includes managed devices and a system control processor, of a composed information handling system of the composed information handling systems. The system control processor, during a restart of the composed information handling system: obtains an inventory of all hardware devices utilized by the composed information handling system, calculates, based on a subset of the hardware devices specified by the inventory, a power envelope for the information handling system, makes a determination that the power envelope does not exceed a power capacity of the managed devices; and, based on the determination and following the restart, provides computer implemented services using the hardware devices while operating the managed devices based on the power envelope.
“Analyzing the environmental impacts of laptop enclosures using screening-level life cycle assessment to support sustainable consumer electronics” (NPL attached), which teaches: The market growth of consumer electronics makes it essential for industries and policy-makers to work together to develop sustainable products. The objective of this study is to better understand how to promote environmentally sustainable consumer electronics by examining the use of various materials in laptop enclosures (excluding mounting hardware, internal components, and insulation) using screening level life cycle assessment. The baseline material, is a fossil plastic blend of polycarbonate-acrylonitrile butadiene styrene. Alternative materials include polylactic acid, bamboo, aluminum, and various combinations of these materials known to be currently used or being considered for use in laptops. The flame retardants considered in this study are bisphenol A bis(diphenyl phosphate), triphenyl phosphate, 9,10dihydro-9-oxa-10-phosphaphenanthrene-10-oxide, and borax-boric acid-phosphorous acid. The Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts v2.1 was used for the assessment of impacts related to climate change, human and ecological health, and resource use. The assessment demonstrates that plastics, relative to the other materials, are currently some of the better performing materials in terms of having the lowest potential environmental impact for a greater number of impact categories based on product life cycle models developed in this study. For fossil plastics, the material performance increases with increasing post-consumer recycled content. To best characterize and improve the environmental sustainability of bio-based materials like polylactic acid, it will be necessary to better model end-of-life options for this application. The impacts of using pressed bamboo materials in laptop enclosures can be lessened by improving key sub-processes, such as strip gluing. The final issue highlighted by this study is the need to develop more sustainable alternatives for flame retardants and fillers because they can represent a significant portion of the cradle-to-grave life cycle impacts, even though they often constitute a small portion of the weight of the final product.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629