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 1-7 and 9-17 are pending.
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 1-7 and 9-17 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 method (i.e., a process), claim 9 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine) and claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine or manufacture). 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:
receiving one or more types of information associated with designing a plastic recycling facility at a selected site, the information comprising carbon emission information and cost information;
determining, based on at least one of the one or more types of information, a plurality of modules each corresponding to one of a plurality of equipment or material components of the plastic recycling facility, wherein each module comprises correlated carbon emission information and cost information;
receiving a set of engineering rules, wherein each engineering rule is configured to implement a predetermined design decision for the plastic recycling facility, wherein at least one engineering rule is directed to carbon emission; and
automatically determining and outputting deliverables based on the set of engineering rules and the plurality of modules with the correlated carbon emission information and cost information, wherein the deliverables comprise:
a cost estimate for the plastic recycling facility,
a carbon emission estimate for the plastic recycling facility, and
a user-interactive design of the plastic recycling facility.
The abstract idea of claim 9 is:
store a plurality of modules, wherein each module comprises information for a selected equipment or material component of the plastic recycling facility, wherein the information in each module relates to carbon emission and cost related to the respective module;
a set of engineering rules, wherein each engineering rule is configured to implement a predetermined design decision of the plastic recycling facility, and wherein at least one engineering rule is directed to carbon emission,
automatically determine and output deliverables based on the set of engineering rules and the modules, wherein the generated deliverables comprise:
a cost estimate for the plastic recycling facility,
a carbon emission estimate for the plastic recycling facility, and
a user-interactive design of the plastic recycling facility.
The abstract idea of claim 16 is:
automatically determine and output deliverables using at least a set of engineering rules and a plurality of modules, wherein the deliverables comprise:
a cost estimate for a plastic recycling facility,
a carbon emission estimate for the plastic recycling facility, and
a user-interactive design of the plastic recycling facility,
wherein each module of the plurality of modules comprises information of a selected equipment or material component of the plastic recycling facility, the information comprising carbon emission and cost related to the respective module, and
wherein each engineering rule of the set of engineering rules is configured to implement a predetermined design decision relating to a design of the plastic recycling facility, at least one engineering rule being directed to carbon emission.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are those which could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. The steps describe, at a high level, the evaluation of engineering decisions in the process of the design of recycling facilities. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claims are directed to structuring engineering workflows for plastic recycling facility design, managing decision-making and collaboration, which constitutes a process that, under its BRI, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by paragraphs 0005 - 0006 of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, 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.
Step 2A, Prong 2: 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 9 recites the following additional elements: database; processor.
Claim 16 recites the following additional elements: A non-transitory computer readable medium; processor.
(Claim 1 does not recite any additional element).
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 [0030] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system.
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).
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).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. 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 2-7, 11-13, 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.
Claims 10 and 14-15 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including further additional elements: processor.
Accordingly, claims 1-7 and 9-17 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, 9, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rodatos (US 20130041832) in view of Wakelam (US 6859768).
Claim 1
Regarding claim 1, Rodatos discloses:
receiving one or more types of information associated with designing a plastic recycling facility at a selected site, the information comprising carbon emission information and cost information {Information tied to a selected site is received, including data on carbon emissions and costs associated with recycling operations. (paragraphs 0119, 0152, 0182-0183).}
determining, based on at least one of the one or more types of information, a plurality of modules each corresponding to one of a plurality of equipment or material components of the plastic recycling facility, wherein each module comprises correlated carbon emission information and cost information {The system builds a facilities dataset and, during the recycler search workflow, calculates and displays carbon emissions for different facility choices and sorts facilities by the rates they charge. Therefore, each chosen facility for a given material stream (i.e., module) is determined based on the input information and carries correlated emission and cost information (paragraphs 0119, 0152, 0182-0183, 0193).}
receiving a set of engineering rules, wherein each engineering rule is configured to implement a predetermined design decision for the plastic recycling facility, wherein at least one engineering rule is directed to carbon emission {The system receives a set of configurable rules from authorities (e.g., uploaded requirements, diversion thresholds). These rules are enforced during plan creation and thereby implement predetermined design decisions for how a recycling operation must be configured and run. The system is further configured to reduce carbon footprint by steering choices toward closer facilities and by determining options with the least carbon footprint impact based on calculated emissions (paragraphs 0119, 0182-0183, 0194-0197).}
automatically determining and outputting deliverables based on the set of engineering rules and the plurality of modules with the correlated carbon emission information and cost information, wherein the deliverables comprise {The system automatically determines results and outputs deliverables (e.g., diversion or compliance reports, color-coded charts and dashboards, prepopulated LEED forms), using uploaded rules and preloaded settings together with facilities modules tagged with carbon emissions and rates (paragraphs 0089, 0113, 0119, 0185-0186, 0194-0195, 0200-0201).}
a cost estimate for the plastic recycling facility {The system enables calculating a facility cost estimate by providing project inputs that include material types and amounts, and a Rate Finder that features candidates recycling facilities by the rates they charge to handle those materials (paragraphs 0087, 0106, 0119).}
a carbon emission estimate for the plastic recycling facility {The system calculates carbon emissions for different facilities based on project inputs and displays the resulting carbon footprint impact and even reports total carbon emissions (paragraphs 0119, 0182-0183).}
Rodatos does not teach:
A method of designing a plastic recycling facility at a selected site, comprising;
a user-interactive design of the plastic recycling facility.
However, Wakelam, in a similar field of endeavor directed to computer-aided design of buildings, teaches:
A method of designing a plastic recycling facility at a selected site, comprising {[T]here are two ways (i.e., methods) of running the DMES (building design and modeling and construction project cost estimating and scheduling) system. (col. 3, lines 12-13)} Examiner is interpreting "plastic" and/or "recycling" as mere labeling terms that don't further define the invention structurally and/or functionally, and therefore given little patentable weight. See MPEP 2111.05 and discussion regarding nonfunctional descriptive material.
a user-interactive design of the plastic recycling facility. {The building design process is interactive for the user, using dialog boxes, graphical interfaces, and manual placement of objects to configure design parameters. The system allows for the user to input requirements, modify structural and layout parameters, and dynamically watch the model assemble in 2D/3D with cost and schedule updates (col. 8, line 59 – col.9, line 4, col.12, lines 37-39, col. 15, lines 11-16).}
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 carbon footprint reduction in construction sites features of Rodatos, to include the computer-aided building design features of Wakelam to improve design accuracy, cost, and schedule responses for new building and renovation projects. (see col. 1, lines 13-16 of Wakelam).
Claim 9
Regarding claim 9, Rodatos discloses:
a database configured to store a plurality of modules, wherein each module comprises information for a selected equipment or material component of the plastic recycling facility, wherein the information in each module relates to carbon emission and cost related to the respective module; and {A database stores per-facility and per-material entries (i.e., modules for selected equipment components) containing attributes and data used to produce carbon emission and cost outputs for each facility. Each stored module (e.g., a facility handling plastic) carries carbon emission information and cost information (paragraphs 0119, 0152, 0182-0183, 0204).}
a processor programmed with a set of engineering rules, wherein each engineering rule is configured to implement a predetermined design decision of the plastic recycling facility,- and wherein at least one engineering rule is directed to carbon emission, {The system, which includes computers with a central processor, receives a set of configurable rules from authorities (e.g., uploaded requirements, diversion thresholds). These rules are enforced during plan creation and thereby implement predetermined design decisions for how a recycling operation must be configured and run. The system is further configured to reduce carbon footprint by steering choices toward closer facilities and by determining options with the least carbon footprint impact based on calculated emissions (paragraphs 0064, 0071, 0119, 0182-0183, 0194-0197).}
wherein the database is accessible by the processor, and wherein the processor is configured to automatically determine and output deliverables based on the set of engineering rules and the modules, wherein the generated deliverables comprise {The system, which includes computers with a central processor, can access a database of facilities and automatically determine results and outputs deliverables (e.g., diversion or compliance reports, color-coded charts and dashboards, prepopulated LEED forms), using uploaded rules and preloaded settings together with facilities modules tagged with carbon emissions and rates (paragraphs 0064-0065, 0071, 0089, 0113, 0119, 0152, 0185-0186, 0194-0195, 0200-0201).}
a cost estimate for the plastic recycling facility {The system enables calculating a facility cost estimate by providing project inputs that include material types and amounts, and a Rate Finder that features candidates recycling facilities by the rates they charge to handle those materials (paragraphs 0087, 0106, 0119).}
a carbon emission estimate for the plastic recycling facility {The system calculates carbon emissions for different facilities based on project inputs and displays the resulting carbon footprint impact and even reports total carbon emissions (paragraphs 0119, 0182-0183).}
Rodatos does not teach:
A system for designing a plastic recycling facility at a selected site, comprising;
a user-interactive design of the plastic recycling facility.
However, Wakelam, in a similar field of endeavor directed to computer-aided design of buildings, teaches:
A system for designing a plastic recycling facility at a selected site, comprising: (claim 9) {“One embodiment, accordingly, comprises a computer-implemented automated building design and modeling and construction project cost estimating and scheduling system ("DMES system").” (col. 1, lines 57-60)}
a user-interactive design of the plastic recycling facility. {The building design process is interactive for the user, using dialog boxes, graphical interfaces, and manual placement of objects to configure design parameters. The system allows for the user to input requirements, modify structural and layout parameters, and dynamically watch the model assemble in 2D/3D with cost and schedule updates (col. 8, line 59 – col.9, line 4, col.12, lines 37-39, col. 15, lines 11-16).}
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 carbon footprint reduction in construction sites features of Rodatos, to include the computer-aided building design features of Wakelam to improve design accuracy, cost, and schedule responses for new building and renovation projects. (see col. 1, lines 13-16 of Wakelam).
Claim 16
Regarding claim 16, Rodatos discloses:
automatically determine and output deliverables using at least a set of engineering rules and a plurality of modules, wherein the deliverables comprise {The system, which includes computers with a central processor, can access a database of facilities and automatically determine results and outputs deliverables (e.g., diversion or compliance reports, color-coded charts and dashboards, prepopulated LEED forms), using uploaded rules and preloaded settings together with facilities modules tagged with carbon emissions and rates (paragraphs 0064-0065, 0071, 0089, 0113, 0119, 0152, 0185-0186, 0194-0195, 0200-0201).}
a cost estimate for the plastic recycling facility {The system enables calculating a facility cost estimate by providing project inputs that include material types and amounts, and a Rate Finder that features candidates recycling facilities by the rates they charge to handle those materials (paragraphs 0087, 0106, 0119).}
a carbon emission estimate for the plastic recycling facility {The system calculates carbon emissions for different facilities based on project inputs and displays the resulting carbon footprint impact and even reports total carbon emissions (paragraphs 0119, 0182-0183).}
wherein each module of the plurality of modules comprises information of a selected equipment or material component of the plastic recycling facility, the information comprising carbon emission and cost related to the respective module {The system builds a facilities dataset and, during the recycler search workflow, calculates and displays carbon emissions for different facility choices and sorts facilities by the rates they charge. Therefore, each chosen facility for a given material stream (i.e., module) is determined based on the input information and carries correlated emission and cost information (paragraphs 0119, 0152, 0182-0183, 0193).}
wherein each engineering rule of the set of engineering rules is configured to implement a predetermined design decision relating to a design of the plastic recycling facility, at least one engineering rule being directed to carbon emission {The system receives a set of configurable rules from authorities (e.g., uploaded requirements, diversion thresholds). These rules are enforced during plan creation and thereby implement predetermined design decisions for how a recycling operation must be configured and run. The system is further configured to reduce carbon footprint by steering choices toward closer facilities and by determining options with the least carbon footprint impact based on calculated emissions (paragraphs 0119, 0182-0183, 0194-0197).}
Rodatos does not teach:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer-executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to;
a user-interactive design of the plastic recycling facility.
However, Wakelam, in a similar field of endeavor directed to computer-aided design of buildings, teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a computer-executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to: (claim 16) {The environment 100 may be implemented in one or more computers (e.g., laptop PC, desktop PC, or Unix workstation). “Software executable by a processor 102 for implementing a plurality of systems, including an object-oriented parametric building modeler ("OOPBM") system 108, a design, modeling, estimation, and scheduling ("DMES") system 110, a cost estimating system 112, and a scheduling system 114, is stored on a hard drive (not shown) of the computer 100.” (col.7, lines 27 - 43)}
a user-interactive design of the plastic recycling facility. {The building design process is interactive for the user, using dialog boxes, graphical interfaces, and manual placement of objects to configure design parameters. The system allows for the user to input requirements, modify structural and layout parameters, and dynamically watch the model assemble in 2D/3D with cost and schedule updates (col. 8, line 59 – col.9, line 4, col.12, lines 37-39, col. 15, lines 11-16).}
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 carbon footprint reduction in construction sites features of Rodatos, to include the computer-aided building design features of Wakelam to improve design accuracy, cost, and schedule responses for new building and renovation projects. (see col. 1, lines 13-16 of Wakelam).
Claim 17
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Rodatos and Wakelam teaches the limitations set forth above. Rodatos further discloses:
receiving a limit carbon emission for the plastic recycling facility, wherein the user- interactive design of the plastic recycling facility exhibits an overall carbon emission within the limit received. {The system receives plan requirements and preloads jurisdictional settings from authorities, which function as limits or thresholds for plan design. It then provides an interactive planning experience that calculates and displays carbon impacts and uses compliance gating and color-coded tracking so the design progress can be kept within received limits (e.g., when a carbon cap is part of the uploaded requirements) (paragraphs 0102, 0119, 0182-0183, 0194-0195, 0200-0201).}
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rodatos and Wakelam, in further view of Brier (US 20130061198).
Claim 2
Regarding claim 2, while the combination of Rodatos and Wakelam teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
receiving site specific information for the selected site;
receiving non-site specific information.
However, Brier, in a similar field of endeavor directed to performing computer-aided design on mobile devices, teaches:
receiving site specific information for the selected site {At the selected site, the user enters site-specific data into the mobile design automation software (paragraphs 0035, 0038, 0040).}
receiving non-site specific information {The mobile design automation software receives non-site specific information such as preloaded project requirements, metadata files, and authority having jurisdictions before or during the design process (i.e., inputs independent of the physical site data (paragraphs 0038, 0053-0054).}
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 Rodatos and Wakelam to include the design data automation in mobile devices features of Brier, to improve design times, and reduce costs and the likelihood of errors in the design process. (see paragraph 0007 of Brier).
Claim 10
Regarding claim 10, while the combination of Rodatos and Wakelam teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
the processor is further configured to generate the deliverables using site specific information.
However, Brier, in a similar field of endeavor directed to performing computer-aided design on mobile devices, teaches:
the processor is further configured to generate the deliverables using site specific information {“The input data (i.e., site-specific data. See also paragraph 0040) may be received in response to specific algorithms for process steps for a particular type of project. [T]he user may enter data at each process step, an algorithm operates on the input data and validates the process step, and when all the process steps are completed, the system generates a project output” (i.e., deliverables). (paragraph 0038).}
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 Rodatos and Wakelam to include the design data automation in mobile devices features of Brier, to improve design times, and reduce costs and the likelihood of errors in the design process. (see paragraph 0007 of Brier).
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rodatos and Wakelam, in further view of Christian (US 20110106501).
Claims 3 and 11
Regarding claims 3 and 11, while the combination of Rodatos and Wakelam, teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein the information defining carbon emissions comprises embodied carbon emissions and operational carbon emissions.
However, Christian, in a similar field of endeavor directed to automated design of infrastructure, teaches:
wherein the information defining carbon emissions comprises embodied carbon emissions and operational carbon emissions {“The sustainability criteria include power consumption for computing and cooling, operational and embedded carbon emissions.” (paragraph 0045)}
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 Rodatos and Wakelam, to include the sustainability and emissions control in building systems projects features of Christian to improve energy efficiency by assessing optimal design and operational decisions on a case-by-case basis. (see paragraph 0051 of Christian).
Claims 4-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rodatos and Wakelam in further view of Kinghorn (US 20120130914).
Claims 4 and 12
Regarding claims 4 and 12, while the combination of Rodatos and Wakelam teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach (claim 4 being representative):
wherein each module is defined by information relating to at least one of a physical definition and an operating definition.
However, Kinghorn, in a similar field of endeavor directed to construction project design technologies for jurisdiction compliance, teaches:
wherein each module is defined by information relating to at least one of a physical definition and an operating definition {“Project life-cycle optimization criteria can include various rules by which a project can be optimized according to different phases of the project from conception, design, engineering, procurement, construction (i.e., physical definition), operation, management, or even end-of-life.” (emphasis added) (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 Rodatos and Wakelam, to include the based-on-metrics integration optimization of construction objects into design projects features of Kinghorn to provide an integrated construction communication infrastructure among disparate design tools. (see paragraph 0018 of Kinghorn).
Claims 5 and 13
Regarding claims 5 and 13, while the combination of Rodatos and Wakelam, teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach (claim 5 being representative):
wherein the deliverables further comprise at least one of: a Material Take Off (MTO), a construction drawing, an overall layout drawing, a 2D drawing, and a 3D plan.
However, Kinghorn, in a similar field of endeavor directed to construction project design technologies for jurisdiction compliance, teaches:
wherein the deliverables further comprise at least one of: a Material Take Off (MTO), a construction drawing, an overall layout drawing, a 2D drawing, and a 3D plan {“The 3D model is used to generate one or more project deliverables needed to construct, operate and maintain the facility.” (paragraph 0003) Key engineering deliverables include engineering drawings. (paragraph 0049)}
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 Rodatos and Wakelam, to include the based-on-metrics integration optimization of construction objects into design projects features of Kinghorn to provide an integrated construction communication infrastructure among disparate design tools. (see paragraph 0018 of Kinghorn).
Claims 6 and 14
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the combination of Rodatos, Wakelam, and Kinghorn teaches the limitations set forth above:
Kinghorn further teaches:
revising at least one output deliverable, wherein the revising is performed via interactive engineering. {The system allows for real-time, interactive cooperation between design tools and a jurisdiction compliance engine which operates in real-time with the design engineer (i.e., interactive engineering), causing updates to downstream key engineering deliverables (paragraphs 0034-0036, 0039, 0049).}
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 Rodatos, Wakelam, and Kinghorn, to include the additional features of Kinghorn to provide an integrated construction communication infrastructure among disparate design tools. (see paragraph 0018 of Kinghorn).
Claim 7
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rodatos, Wakelam, and Kinghorn teaches the limitations set forth above:
Wakelam further teaches:
wherein, based on the at least one revised deliverable, changing at least one of: the cost estimate for the plastic recycling facility {The system is implemented via one or more computers (i.e., processor). (col. 7, lines 27-35) The cost data may be periodically updated automatically or manually. (col. 9, lines 19-22) A “process therefore allows for the accurate evaluation and comparison of cost estimate data associated with many different building models through dynamic iteration of one or more selected design parameters to determine the optimum design.” (col.18, lines 55-59)}
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 Rodatos, Wakelam, and Kinghorn, to include the additional features of Wakelam to improve design accuracy, cost, and schedule responses for new building and renovation projects. (see col. 1, lines 13-16 of Wakelam)
Rodatos further discloses:
wherein, based on the at least one revised deliverable, the processor is further configured to change at least one of: a carbon emission estimate for the plastic recycling facility. {A computer system which includes a processor executes the functions of the system. (paragraph 0079) The system calculates carbon emissions based on different parameters which can be manually inputted by the user and a comparison can be made based on the displayed report. (paragraph 0182)}
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rodatos, Wakelam, and Kinghorn in further view of Brier.
Claim 15
Regarding claim 15, while the combination of Rodatos, Wakelam, and Kinghorn teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is configured to update at least one additional deliverable based on the at least one revised deliverable.
However, Brier, in a similar field of endeavor directed to performing computer-aided design on mobile devices, teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to update at least one additional deliverable based on the at least one revised deliverable {“[D]esign automation input data is received from the user. The input data may be received in response to specific algorithms for process steps for a particular type of project.” (paragraph 0038) “Further, the system may perform checks on model 803 and custom template 804 (e.g., as they are modified) to determine if execution of the CAD functions corresponding to a user input action results in an engineering escalation.” (paragraph 0051)}
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 Rodatos, Wakelam, and Kinghorn, to include the design data automation in mobile devices features of Brier, to improve design times, and reduce costs and the likelihood of errors in the design process. (see paragraph 0007 of Brier).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/15/2025 have been carefully considered. The headings and page numbers below correspond to those used by applicant.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
On page 6, applicant offer remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101. While well taken, they are not persuasive.
Applicant offers on page 6:
The Office Action rejects claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. Nevertheless, claims 1, 9, and 16 have been amended. The pending claims are directed to patentable subject matter as they do not recite metal steps, are not directed merely to methods of organizing human activity, integrate the inventive concept into a practical application, and recite significantly more than a judicial exception. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
The recited steps of receiving information, determining modules, applying rules, and outputting deliverables amount to data collection analysis and presentation of results, which fall within the enumerated abstract ideas groupings. The amendments merely further describe the content of the information and the type of output produced, but do not provide a technical improvement to a computer, database, or processor. Instead, the claims use generic computer components to perform the abstract steps (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and the claim rejections under 35 USC §101 above for a more detailed explanation). Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
On pages 6-9, applicant offer remarks regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103. While well taken, they are not persuasive.
Applicant offers on pages 6-9:
The Office Action rejects claims 1, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0041832 to Rodatos ("Rodatos") in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,859,768 to Wakelam ("Wakelam"), and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No.
2020/0210638 to Cho ("Cho"). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Claims 1, 9, and 16, are directed to designing a "plastic recycling facility". In rejecting these claims, the Office Action relies primarily on Rodatos. Rodatos is directed to creating a waste management plan by tracking and reporting recycling by various service providers.
Rodatos teaches to a tool for contractors to use to effectively dispose of debris in accordance with local regulations. Rodatos provides no teaching or suggestion regarding designing a plastic recycling facility. The Office Action acknowledges this at page 8. Thus, reliance on Rodatos is misplaced and the rejection of the pending claims is improper.
The combination of the teachings of Wakelam and Cho to those of Rodatos do not cure the above deficiency. Nothing in Wakelam or Cho supports finding that one of ordinary skills in the art would turn to Rodatos and find the present claim obvious. Independent of the teachings of Wakelam and Cho, Rodatos remains nonanalogous art directed to a system that is wholly unrelated and materially distinct from the claimed invention.
Wakelam and Cho also do not render the pending claims obvious. Neither Wakelam nor Cho are directed to systems directed to "carbon emission" evaluation. Neither Wakelam nor Cho teach "modules each corresponding to one of a plurality of equipment or material components of the plastic recycling facility, wherein each module comprises correlated carbon emission information and cost information" as recited in claim 1 or as similarly recited in claims 9 and 16.
Wakelam and Cho also do not teach "at least one engineering rule is/being directed to carbon emission" as claimed. Thus, the combined teachings of Rodatos, Wakelam, and Cho in combination do not render claims 1, 9, and 16 obvious.
In view of the above, independent claims 1, 9, and 16 are patentable over Rodatos, Wakelam, and Cho. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
The Office Action rejects claims 2 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodatos, Wakelam, and Cho and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0061198 to Brier ("Brier"). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and claim 10 depends on claim 9 thus they respectively incorporate the limitations of claims 1 and 9. As discussed earlier, the combined teaching of Rodatos, Wakelam, and Cho fail to teach or suggest multiple features of claims 1 and 9. Brier does not cure these deficiencies. Brier is directed to designing a solar energy system and does not even mention carbon emission. Thus, even in further view of Brier, claims 1 and 9 are patentable. Consequently, claims 2 and 10 are also patentable at least for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 respectively.
In view of the above, independent claims 1 and 9, and dependent claims 2 and 10 are patentable over Rodatos, Wakelam, Cho, and Brier. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
The Office Action rejects claims 3 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodatos, Wakelam, and Cho and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2011/0106501 to Christian ("Christian"). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and claim 11 depends on claim 9 thus they respectively incorporate the limitations of claims 1 and 9. As discussed earlier, the combined teaching of Rodatos, Wakelam, and Cho fail to teach or suggest multiple features of claims 1 and 9.
Christian does not cure these deficiencies. Christian is directed to designing an IT infrastructure rather than a recycling facility. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Christian to achieve the claimed recitations. Even in further view of Christian, claims 1 and 9 are patentable. Consequently, claims 3 and 11 are also patentable at least for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 respectively.
In view of the above, independent claims 1 and 9, and dependent claims 3 and 11 are patentable over Rodatos, Wakelam, Cho, and Christian. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
The Office Action rejects claims 4-7 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodatos, Wakelam, and Cho and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0130914 to Kinghorn ("Kinghorn"). Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
Claims 4-7 depend on claim 1 and claims 12-14 depend on claim 9 thus they respectively incorporate the limitations of claims 1 and 9. As discussed earlier, the combined teaching of Rodatos, Wakelam, and Cho fail to teach or suggest multiple features of claims 1 and 9.
Kinghorn does not cure these deficiencies. Kinghorn is directed to a jurisdiction compliance engine and does not even mention carbon emission. Thus, even in further view of Kinghorn, claims 1 and 9 are patentable. Consequently, claims 4-7 and 12-14 are also patentable at least for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 respectively.
In view of the above, independent claims 1 and 9, and dependent claims 4-7 and 12-14 are patentable over Rodatos, Wakelam, Cho, and Kinghorn. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
The Office Action rejects claims 8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodatos, Wakelam, and Cho and in further view Kinghorn, and in further view of Brier.
Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection. Claim 8 has been cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer.
Claim 15 depends on claim 9 thus incorporates the limitations of claim 9. As discussed earlier, the combined teaching of Rodatos, Wakelam, and Cho fail to teach or suggest multiple features of claim 9. As further discussed earlier, neither Kinghorn nor Brier cure these deficiencies. Thus, even in further view of both Kinghorn and Brier, claim 9 is patentable.
Consequently, claim 15 is also patentable at least for the same reasons as claim 9 respectively.
In view of the above, independent claim 9, and dependent claim 15 are patentable over Rodatos, Wakelam, Cho, in further view of Kinghorn and Brier. Applicant, therefore, respectfully requests withdrawal of this rejection.
Newly added claim 17 depends from claim 1 and thus it is patentable over the cited references at least for the same reasons as claim 1.
The rejection properly relies on Rodatos for its teaching of a system that receives information related to recycling, applies compliance and design rules, and generates outputs (e.g., reports, plans, estimates), which are analogous to the claimed steps of receiving information, applying engineering rules, and outputting deliverables.
As set forth above, Wakelam teaches parametric modeling of components related to objects with associated attributes such as cost. It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to combine such teachings with Rodatos’ compliance and reporting system. The combination merely applies known techniques to a predictable result.
Each of these references is cited for discrete limitations, which would have been obvious to incorporate for the reasons discussed above. Applicant’s argument that these references “do not even mention carbon emissions” are unpersuasive, as the claims do not require detailed carbon emissions calculations but only modules and rules that include such information. The cited art collectively suggests using environmental and compliance attributes as additional module parameters.
Accordingly, the arguments presented do not overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections. The rejection is therefore maintained.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
/C.F.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/SARAH M MONFELDT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629