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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received June 03, 2026.
Claims 7, 8, 13, 19, and 20 are canceled. Claims 1, 9, and 14 are amended. Clams 1-6, 9-12 and 14-18 pending and have been examined.
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 1-6, 9-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
Claims 1, 9, and 14, which are similar in scope, recite the following abstract idea:
A method comprising: determining a raw material environmental footprint profile for one or more raw materials to be used in a feed formulation for an animal product; determining, an animal feed environmental footprint profile, wherein the animal feed environmental footprint profile is determined based on the feed formulation comprising the one or more raw materials; determining, an animal production and processing environmental footprint profile for producing and processing the animal product; determining, an overall environmental footprint profile by combining the raw material environmental footprint profile, the animal feed environmental footprint profile, and the animal production and processing environmental footprint profile; and adjusting, the feed formulation based on the overall environmental footprint profile to achieve a target emission value, wherein adjusting the feed formulation comprises changing an inclusion rate of at least one of the one or more raw materials in the feed formulation or replacing at least one of the one or more raw materials in the feed formulation with another raw material.
The steps above recite an abstract idea that is a mental process of collecting, comparing, and then performing a step which could also be a mental process of decision-making. The steps up to the adjusting steps are collecting and comparing steps. The adjusting step under a broadest reasonable interpretation is also a mental process of making a decision as there is nothing physical occurring outside of, see below, the applied processor or equivalent computer apply it elements. Here, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the feed formulation could be on paper and the inclusion rate change or the replacing in the feed formulation could be changes to instructions. This is very similar to USPTO guidance from October 2019, “Appendix 1 to the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility Life Sciences & Data Processing Examples,” example 46, claim 1 Pages 31-34. This is available here: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_app1.pdf
This is similar to claim 1 in these Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) examples. Like claim 1, information about animals is collected and results are determined. The differences between the steps are not pertinent to the 101 analysis as both claim 1 of the SME example and Applicant’s independent claims are taking information about animals and making determinations. Note that sending signals to computers/display steps, etc, would be more similar to claim 1 than claim 2 in the SME example, which is distinguished by a feed dispenser as well as sending signals automatically to the dispenser are required elements and combinations of elements to overcome the 101 rejection.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Applicant has recited generic computing components in the independent claims and the combination of these elements amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), Alice, Versata.
The additional elements are:
Claim 1:
by a processor executing computer-readable instructions stored on a memory,
Claim 9:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions stored thereon that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to:
Claim 14:
A system comprising: a memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon; and a processor that executes the computer-executable instructions to:
Therefore these additional elements amount to no more than instructions to apply a computer to the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because for the same reasons as explained in the practical application section, instructions to apply an abstract idea to a computer (or vice versa) are not significantly more than the abstract idea. The reasoning from above is carried over and applied here, and therefore the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-6, 9-12, and 15-18 further define the abstract idea with collecting and comparing information steps and therefore further describe the abstract idea.
Therefore, for these reasons, claims 1-6, 9-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9-12 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heidari et al., “Proposing a Framework for sustainable feed formulation for laying hens: A systematic review of recent developments and future directions,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 233 (2021) 125585, pages 1-21, available online December 17, 2020 (“Heidari”), in view of Burghardi et al., US PGPUB 20080154568 A1 (“Burghardi”).
Per claims 1, 9, and 14, which are similar in scope, Heidari teaches determine a raw material environmental footprint profile for one or more raw materials to be used in a feed formulation for an animal product in Table 2 where the first column Ingredient Type teaches a raw material, such as Fat, or Energy, or Protein, and then the columns Data Source, Impact Assessment Method, and Remarks teach environmental footprint profile because they describe how things have global warming potential or climate change. Further taught in page 2, “Life cycle assessment: Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a formalized framework for quantitative estimation and assessment of the inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts attributable to the life cycle of a product system (Guinee et al., 2002). The environmental burdens considered by LCA cover a wide range of impacts on the environment, such as consumption of different
types of resources, emissions of hazardous or otherwise potentially problematic chemicals, and other environmental changes.” See also “The challenge, however, is to effectively integrate information from LCA research of feed input supply chains with the nutrition and cost data that is traditionally considered in feed formulation.”
Heidari then teaches determine an animal feed environmental footprint profile, wherein the animal feed environmental footprint profile is determined based on the feed formulation comprising the one or more raw materials in table 2 where the animal feed is taught in the case study column, “Corn” which comprises the raw material of Energy, or the Carinata and camelina which comprises fat. The environmental footprint profile is taught by the impact categories, Global warming potential, aquatic ecotoxicity (LCA of pulse systems).
Heidari then teaches determine an animal production and processing environmental footprint profile for producing and processing the animal product in page 15 where under the header Processing, the energy sources and fuel type most determine the environmental footprint for a feed process.
Heidari then teaches determine an overall environmental footprint profile by combining the raw material environmental footprint profile, the animal feed environmental footprint profile, and the animal production and processing environmental footprint profile in page 16, where least cost feed formulation and weighting methods are applied to “each impact type” which teaches for raw material … animal feed environmental … and animal production and processing: “The first approach is to apply equal weights to each impact type (Mackenzie et al., 2016; Moe et al., 2014). The second involves converting impact category results to a common unit and subsequently aggregating to a single score, as is common in “end point” modelling in LCA (Gephart et al., 2016; Soares et al., 2006) (Review Question 3b).”
Heidari then teaches and adjust the feed formulation based on the overall environmental footprint profile to achieve a target emission value on page 17, item 5, Apply LCIA methods using regionally resolved characterization factors (IMPACT World) and Item 6 integrate regionalized LCIA results for feed inputs into feed formulation tool. See column 2 on page 17, “environmental objectives by advancing the right weighting methods.” See page 2 for GHG emissions being defined as a part of the environment. See also table 2 remarks for feed with certain emissions data. See also page 11: “Broiler feed containing less dietary crude protein but a better balance in amino acid composition results in a better feed conversion ratio and less nitrogen emissions from manure.”
Heidari further teaches wherein adjusting the feed formulation comprising replacing at least one of the one or more raw materials in the feed formulation with another raw material in page 15: “The impacts characteristic of specific raw materials also vary by raw material type. Taking into account the quantity of each ingredient in a feed formulation, canola, corn, and soybean accounted for the largest share of both mass and environmental impacts in several reported formulations (Pacheco et al., 2018; Pelletier, 2006). However, on an equivalent mass basis and taking into account feed input type, animal fats and meals typically have the highest environmental impacts, while energy crops such as corn have proportionately lower environmental impacts (Ellingsen and Aanondsen, 2006; Pelletier, 2008; Pelletier et al., 2008) (Review Question 2a). For example, poultry fat (11–35 times), poultry by-product meal (6.5–18.5 times), and fishmeal (1.4–3.5 times) have higher environmental impacts compared to crop ingredients (Papatryphon et al., 2004; Pelletier, 2008; Silva et al., 2018).” Animal fats and meals are substituted for energy crops.
Heidari further teaches wherein adjusting the feed formulation comprises changing an inclusion rate of at least one of the one or more raw materials in the feed formulation on page 17, item 5, Apply LCIA methods using regionally resolved characterization factors (IMPACT World) and Item 6 integrate regionalized LCIA results for feed inputs into feed formulation tool, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation teaches changing percentages.
Heidari does not teach that steps are performed by a processor executing computer-readable instructions stored on a memory (claim 1), A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions stored thereon that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (claim 9). A system comprising: a memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon; and a processor that executes the computer-executable instructions to (claim 14).
Burghardi teaches a system for generating animal feed formulation. See abstract.
Burghardi teaches by a processor executing computer-readable instructions stored on a memory (claim 1), A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising computer-executable instructions stored thereon that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to (claim 9). A system comprising: a memory having computer-executable instructions stored thereon; and a processor that executes the computer-executable instructions to (claim 14) in pars 022-025 where the system is described with multiple computers which makes these elements obvious.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feed optimization for environmental impact teaching of Heidari with the using computers to carry out steps teaching of Burghardi because one would be motivated to use computers to perform data collection and comparison as these speed up the processes that one would formerly do by hand or with other devices. As this would make data collection and comparison more efficient, one would be motivated to modify Heidari with Burghardi.
Per claims 2, 10, and 15, which are similar in scope, Heidari and Burghardi teach the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 14, above. Heidari further teaches receive a plurality of inputs related to the raw material in pages 11 and 14 where x_j are the inputs.
Heidari then teaches determine a value of one or more environmental indicators for each of the plurality of inputs in page 15 where weights (w_i,k) teach environmental indicators.
Heidari then teaches and create the raw material environmental footprint profile for the raw material based on the value of the one or more environmental indicators in page 15 where the F is minimized which teaches the raw material environmental footprint profile.
Heidari does not teach by the processor or other generic computing components.
Burghardi teaches by the processor and other generic computing components in pars 022-025 where the system is described with multiple computers which makes these elements obvious.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feed optimization for environmental impact teaching of Heidari with the using computers to carry out steps teaching of Burghardi because one would be motivated to use computers to perform data collection and comparison as these speed up the processes that one would formerly do by hand or with other devices. As this would make data collection and comparison more efficient, one would be motivated to modify Heidari with Burghardi.
Per claims 3 and 16, which are similar in scope, Heidari and Burghardi teach the limitations of claims 2 and 15, above. Heidari further teaches wherein the plurality of inputs comprise at least one of a supplier input, a species input, a country of origin input, or a transportation input in page 15 where transportation is taught.
Per claims 4, 11, and 17, which are similar in scope, Heidari and Burghardi teach the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 14, above. Heidari further teaches wherein the feed formulation comprises a percentage of each of the one or more raw materials used in the feed formulation, and wherein determining the animal feed environmental footprint profile comprises computing a product of the percentage of each of the one or more raw materials with a value of an environmental indicator for the each of the one or more raw materials, wherein the value is determined based on the raw material environmental footprint profile in page 18 where assessment methods are taught which teaches LCA studies of feed input supply chains.
Heidari does not teach by the processor.
Burghardi teaches by the processor and other generic computing components in pars 022-025 where the system is described with multiple computers which makes these elements obvious.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feed optimization for environmental impact teaching of Heidari with the using computers to carry out steps teaching of Burghardi because one would be motivated to use computers to perform data collection and comparison as these speed up the processes that one would formerly do by hand or with other devices. As this would make data collection and comparison more efficient, one would be motivated to modify Heidari with Burghardi.
Per claims 5, 12, and 18, which are similar in scope, Heidari and Burghardi teach the limitations of claims 1, 12, and 14, above. Heidari further teaches wherein determining the animal production and processing environmental footprint profile further comprises: receiving a plurality of inputs in pages 11 and 14 where x_j are the inputs.
Heidari then teaches determining a value of one or more environmental indicators based for each of the plurality of inputs in page 15 where weights (w_i,k) teach environmental indicators.
Heidari then teaches and creating the animal production and processing environmental footprint profile based on the value of the one or more environmental indicators in page 15 where the F is minimized which teaches the animal production and processing environmental footprint profile footprint profile.
Heidari does not teach by the processor or other generic computing components.
Burghardi teaches by the processor and other generic computing components in pars 022-025 where the system is described with multiple computers which makes these elements obvious.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feed optimization for environmental impact teaching of Heidari with the using computers to carry out steps teaching of Burghardi because one would be motivated to use computers to perform data collection and comparison as these speed up the processes that one would formerly do by hand or with other devices. As this would make data collection and comparison more efficient, one would be motivated to modify Heidari with Burghardi.
Per claim 6, Heidari and Burghardi teach the limitations of claim 5, above. Heidari further teaches wherein the plurality of inputs comprise at least one of a chemical input, a transportation input, an energy input, a facilities input, a life stage input, or a parasite input in page 15 where transportation is taught.
Therefore, claims 1-6, 9-12 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Claims 1-20 were rejected because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
As amended, independent claims 1, 9, and 14 recite that adjusting the feed formulation comprises "changing an inclusion rate of at least one of the one or more raw materials in the feed formulation or replacing at least one of the one or more raw materials in the feed formulation with another raw material."
The Office Action characterizes the prior "adjusting" limitation as a mental process. Office Action, p. 3. Under the Office's interpretation, "there is nothing physical occurring" and the adjustment "could be a change of a plan in feeding." Id.
Applicant respectfully submits that the Office's characterization of the claims is incorrect. The Office Action treats the "adjusting" step in isolation and overlooks the claimed ordered combination as a whole. The claims are not directed merely to collecting information and making a generic decision. Rather, the claims require a processor-implemented determination of multiple environmental footprint profiles, combination of those profiles into an overall environmental footprint profile, and use of that overall environmental footprint profile to make a specific feed- formulation change.
The specification confirms that this is not merely a mental plan or abstract recommendation, but a computer-implemented feed formulation process in which the environmental footprint prediction application adjusts the feed formulation system based on the overall environmental footprint profile, including by increasing or decreasing an inclusion rate or replacing one raw material with another. Specification [0067], [0096].
The application describes an environmental footprint prediction application that may be part of a "computer aided design or electronic design automation software suite" used to "monitor and optimize the full process of collecting and processing information about the environmental impact of the animal production process." Id, [0026]. The specification further explains that the computing system may "continue the cycle of adjusting the feed formulation system until the overall emissions were below the predetermined threshold." Id, [0067]. The specific amended adjustment is also directly supported: paragraph [0096] explains that the raw material parameter may include an "inclusion rate," that the application may increase or decrease the inclusion rate of one or more raw materials, and that the application may replace one raw material with another.
Thus, the amended claims apply the environmental-footprint analysis in a practical feed- formulation workflow, and the § 101 rejection should be withdrawn.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice/Mayo framework, the claims as a whole integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. A claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application when the claim applies, relies on, or uses the exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. MPEP § 2106.04(d).
Here, the claimed process is tied to a particular computer-implemented feed formulation workflow that uses environmental footprint data from raw materials, feed, and animal production/processing to modify a feed-formulation parameter to achieve a target emission value. The claims therefore do more than merely gather information, compare data, or present a result. They use the computed overall environmental footprint profile to modify a specific feed- formulation parameter-an inclusion rate or raw-material selection-within the computer- implemented feed formulation workflow described in the Specification.
This is a meaningful limitation under MPEP § 2106.05(e), because the claimed adjustment applies the environmental-footprint analysis in a particular feed-formulation workflow, rather than
generally linking the analysis to a technological field. Nor do the claims merely instruct a user to "apply" an abstract idea on a generic computer under MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claims recite how the environmental-footprint information is used: the raw material, animal feed, and animal production and processing environmental footprint profiles are combined into an overall environmental footprint profile, and that profile is used to adjust the feed formulation by changing an inclusion rate or replacing a raw material.
Accordingly, the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and are patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two. Even if the Office proceeds to Step 2B, the same ordered combination provides meaningful limitations beyond the alleged abstract idea and is not merely generic environmental analysis performed on a computer.
Claims 7, 8, 13, 19, and 20 are cancelled.
Claims 2-6, 10-12, and 15-18 depend from one of claims 1, 9, or 14. The dependent claims are patent eligible for at least the same reasons.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-6, 9-12, and 14-18 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
Withdrawal of the § 101 rejection is respectfully requested.
Examiner response:
Examiner has carefully considered these arguments. Based on the arguments Examiner is correct in maintaining the rejection. This is because these arguments describe an invention no physical implementation, barring processor and related generic computing components (handled by much precedent see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) as the sole physical factor and that then, eventually, this decisionmaking would have a physical impact down the road, outside the claim scope.
To be clear, the interpretation of what Applicant has argued is:
“processor-implemented determination of multiple environmental footprint profiles, combination of those profiles into an overall environmental footprint profile, and use of that overall environmental footprint profile to make a specific feed- formulation change.”
processor-implemented determination “do it on a computer” apply it MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
of multiple environmental footprint profiles, - information
combination of those profiles into an overall environmental footprint profile, - information
and use of that overall environmental footprint profile to make a specific feed- formulation change – the change is a decision, which is a judgment see mental process.
The application describes an environmental footprint prediction application the claim language is followed but under a broadest reasonable interpretation this amounts to performing the described mental process steps on a computer, as an application is equivalent to software.
that may be part of a "computer aided design or electronic design automation software suite" the CAD or automation software suite is not explicitly claimed and the use of “may” is optional language suggesting how something unclaimed would use the steps.
used to "monitor and optimize the full process of collecting and processing information about the environmental impact of the animal production process." Id, [0026]. Intended use.
The specification further explains that the computing system may "continue the cycle of adjusting the feed formulation system until the overall emissions were below the predetermined threshold." No physical feed dispenser or similar is claimed and under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification ie what is here presented is that the system is the processor—the apply it element.
The specific amended adjustment is also directly supported: paragraph [0096] explains that the raw material parameter may include an "inclusion rate," that the application may increase or decrease the inclusion rate of one or more raw materials, and that the application may replace one raw material with another. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation as detailed above, what is being further limited is the “application” (and fairly reading what Applicant has put here) wherein the application is the software process. As detailed above, there is no positive claiming of the physical feed or the physical machines performing the feeding, which as detailed in the Example cited by Examiner was sufficient to overcome a 101 rejection for a substantially similar claim in the guidance.
Processors are apply it elements that are understood by following guidance that, while physical, do not, and have not since at least Alice, given eligibility to abstract ideas.
However Applicant wishes to characterize the claims, they are still information collection, analysis, and presenting the results of the analysis. See Electric Power Group.
Workflow is defined as: “the sequence of steps involved in moving from the beginning to the end of a working process” See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/workflow . Essentially, it is another word for process. Here, the process does not rise above the information elements claimed and for this reason arguing workflow is not persuasive.
Applicant’s meaningful limit argument and any similar argument (MPEP 2106.05(d)) is unpersuasive as nearly the entirety of the claim is properly identified as an abstract idea, the so-called workflow (read: decision making – information) is not an additional element that would meaningfully limit identified abstract idea.
Likewise, the step 2B argument is unpersuasive as the fundamental element of it is that the additional elements are apply it elements. Therefore, for these reasons the 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim(s) 1-20 were rejected as being unpatentable over Heidari et al. ("Proposing a Framework for sustainable feed formulation for laying hens: A systematic review of recent developments and future directions," Journal of Cleaner Production, 233 (2021) 125585, pages 1- 21, available online December 17, 2020; hereinafter "Heidari") in view of Burghardi et al. (US20080154568; hereinafter "Burghardi"). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
As amended, independent claims 1, 9, and 14 require that the feed formulation is adjusted based on the overall environmental footprint profile to achieve a target emission value, and that the adjustment comprises "changing an inclusion rate of at least one of the one or more raw materials in the feed formulation or replacing at least one of the one or more raw materials in the feed formulation with another raw material."
The cited portions of Heidari do not teach or suggest this amended limitation. The Office Action relies on Heidari page 17, items 5 and 6, to teach "apply LCIA methods using regionally9
resolved characterization factors" and "integrate regionalized LCIA results for feed inputs into feed formulation tool. Office Action, pp. 6-7.
At most, those cited passages describe using environmental assessment information in connection with feed formulation. They do not teach using a computed overall environmental footprint profile to change an inclusion rate or replace a raw material in the feed formulation to achieve a target emission value. Specifically, they do not teach using an environmental footprint profile formed by combining raw material, animal feed, and animal production/processing environmental footprint profiles to change the inclusion rate or replace the raw material in the feed formulation.
The Office Action also relies on Heidari page 15 for the proposition that raw materials have different environmental impacts, including the statement that "animal fats and meals typically have the highest environmental impacts, while energy crops such as corn have proportionately lower environmental impacts." Office Action, p. 12.
However, recognizing that ingredients differ in environmental impact is not the same as the claimed adjustment. The amended claims require a defined formulation change driven by the overall environmental footprint profile and tied to achieving a target emission value. A general comparison of ingredient impacts does not teach or suggest that ordered workflow.
Examiner responds:
Examiner disagrees. The “claimed adjustment” in the plans is described above on page 16.
The Office Action also cites Heidari page 16 for applying weighting methods to "each impact type." Office Action, pp. 6-7. But applying weighting methods to environmental impact categories in feed formulation is not the claimed combination of three distinct profiles. The claims require an overall environmental footprint profile formed by combining a raw material environmental footprint profile, an animal feed environmental footprint profile, and an animal production and processing environmental footprint profile. The cited Heidari discussion does not teach that animal production and processing profile, and therefore does not teach the claimed overall environmental footprint profile used for the amended feed-formulation adjustment.
Examiner again disagrees, what is taught in page 16 is that all of the impacts are weighted in the decision (the workflow) process for feed formulation.
Further, although the Office Action also cited Heidari against former dependent claims 7, 8, 13, 19, and 20, those mappings do not cure the deficiency. The cited passages at most discuss environmental differences among feed ingredients or the potential integration of LCIA results into a feed formulation tool. They do not teach adjusting the feed formulation based on an overall environmental footprint profile formed by combining the raw material environmental footprint profile, the animal feed environmental footprint profile, and the animal production and
processing environmental footprint profile. Thus, even when the subject matter of former claims 7, 8, 13, 19, and 20 is considered, Heidari still does not teach or suggest the amended ordered combination.
Examiner disagrees as explained in the rejection above, both Heidari and instant claims teach workflow, changing raw materials (workflow), and rate/percentage change.
Burghardi does not cure that deficiency. The Office Action relies on Burghardi for generic computer implementation, citing paragraphs [0022]-[0025]. Office Action, p. 8. Burghardi paragraphs [0022]-[0025] generally describe a computer-based animal production optimization system in which a CPU executes stored instructions and system components, including an enterprise supervisor, simulator, ingredient engine, and formulator, may be implemented on one or more networked computing systems.
Burghardi paragraph [0025] also explains that the system analyzes whether changing
variable inputs would increase animal productivity or satisfy another optimization criterion, with productivity potentially accounting for positive and negative production outputs, including harmful gaseous emissions.
These passages therefore relate to generic computer implementation and animal production optimization. They do not describe the claimed workflow of combining raw-material, feed, and production/processing environmental footprint profiles into an overall environmental footprint profile and then using that profile to change a raw-material inclusion rate or replace a raw material in a feed formulation.
Therefore, Burghardi does not teach the claimed environmental-footprint profile
combination, and it does not teach changing an inclusion rate or replacing a raw material based on that overall environmental footprint profile to achieve a target emission value.
Burghardi teaches the computer implementation of changing animal feed and therefore teaches the limitations. For some reason characterized as “generic computer implementation” by Applicant, no matter, for this covers the scope of Applicant’s claims, using processors to perform the steps.
The stated rationale for the combination is also insufficient. The Office Action states that it would have been obvious to use computers to perform data collection and comparison because doing so would "speed up the processes" and make "data collection and comparison more efficient." Office Action, p. 8. However, the amended claims are not directed merely to faster data collection or comparison. They require using the computed overall environmental footprint profile to make a particular feed-formulation change. MPEP § 2141, subsection III, explains that Office personnel must explain why the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious, and MPEP § 2143 similarly states that "the key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the11
claimed invention would have been obvious." The rationale in the Office Action does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Heidari with Burghardi to arrive at the specific amended feed-formulation adjustment workflow.
Accordingly, the combination of Heidari and Burghardi does not teach or suggest all limitations of amended independent claims 1, 9, and 14.
Claims 7, 8, 13, 19, and 20 have been cancelled.
Claims 2-6, 10-12, and 15-18 depend from those independent claims and are patentable for at least the same reasons.
Withdrawal of the § 103 rejection is respectfully requested.
This argument is unpersuasive. Applicant states that the “amended claims are not directed merely to faster data collection or comparison. They require using the computed overall environmental footprint profile to make a particular feed-formulation change.” Heidari, Examiner asserts, teaches the workflow aspect of Applicant’s claims, but as it is an academic paper, does not teach the implementation “on a processor.” Burghardi teaches an animal production system with in particular, an ingredient engine and formulator (same Assignee as instant application), therefore to one ordinarily skilled, this is both in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. MPEP 2141(2). Therefore one ordinarily skilled would be motivated to find the art. The motivation to combine is the second aspect. Applicant argues that the instant claims are trying to do x and Burghardi’s motivation to combine, that the taught processors would speed up Heidari’s teachings, is “different.” This argument is unpersuasive though because the rationale to combine can be different from Applicant’s rationale. See MPEP 2144(IV):
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below).
Therefore, though Applicant has cited some paragraphs that attempted to suggest that the motivation to combine was improper, they are not persuasive as there would be motivation in the prior art for one ordinarily skilled in the art (processors – faster speed) and this would solve a problem, albeit a different problem than what Applicant has put forth in arguments, namely, that the workflow would happen more quickly. Further, this was “clearly articulated” to Applicant, evidently, because Applicant recited it back in the arguments. Further, when Applicant argues that “Office personnel must explain why the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention would have been obvious” is the rationale to combine, see MPEP 2141(III). And, although Applicant is arguing that one ordinarily skilled in the art would not be motivated to use a computer, Applicant has no support for this and Examiner provided sufficient rationale. Therefore, the motivation to combine is maintained.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights