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 1-11 are pending.
Claims 1-11 are rejected below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 states that a second prediction algorithm is used to determine a quantity of direct emission of carbon dioxide, a quantity of indirect emissions of carbon dioxide, repair carbon footprint for each predicted defect. However, there is no place in the original disclosure how this is accomplished Paragraphs [0062, 0075] state that it occurs but give no teaching whatsoever on how this is done. Just that it is done with a prediction algorithm. One of ordinary skill in the art could not make this invention with original disclosure. Similarly, the third prediction algorithm states that a cost of producing the series of parts with at least one defect of the each predicted defect that is predicted, a cost of repairing the series of parts with the at least one defect that is predicted, a cost of modifying specifications of the series of parts to avoid the at least one defect that is predicted is determine, but the specification and drawing do not teach how this is accomplished. Again, it is just stated that an algorithm does this. Claims 7 and 11 have the same issues and are rejected for the same reasons. The dependent claims are rejected as well for the same reasons.
Claim 5 states wherein the predicting … an expected location of a defect part in a factory, a position of the at least one defect of the defect part, a probability of repair. There does not seem to be teachings in the original disclosure on how to accomplish this by one of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 9 has the same issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 states that a determination is made by the second algorithm direct and indirect emission. It is unclear how to define these. Applicant has given a couple examples but does not provide any detailed definition. Also, this algorithm determines a repair carbon footprint for each predicted defect, however, the claims does not describe and defects prior to this. It is unclear what the defects are or how they are defined or determined.
Claim 1 determining a set of scenarios. It is unclear what these scenarios are or how they link with the rest of the claim. This seems fairly important and it is unclear what the scenarios are, what they contain, or the relationship with the rest of the claim. The dependent claims do not remedy these issues and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 2 seems to be comparing something, but it states that it can be singular (at least one) it is unclear how 1 scenario can be compared to nothing.
Claims 7 and 11 have the same issues as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons. The dependent claims do not remedy these issues and are rejected for the same reason.
Other Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lee (U.S. PG Pub. 2025/0231540) teaches manufacturing line equipment that can be controlled to have net zero energy consumption.
Kotriwala (U.S. PG Pub. 2024/0168467) teaches determining carbon dioxide per product unit.
Teuber (U.S. PG Pub. 2025/0342913) teaches determining a product carbon footprint (PCF) and displaying to a user.
Schoeneboom (U.S. PG Pub. 2025/0131457) teaches determining the carbon footprint of a product in production processes of a production plant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN L LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1042. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/NATHAN L LAUGHLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights