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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Species II in the reply filed on 7/1/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I presents claims directed to a method for monitoring a food processing system and Group II presents claims directed to a food processing system specifically designed for implementing the method of Group I.
This is not found persuasive because group I does not require any food processing and encompasses post production and/or providing the information for identification. Group I does not include any control food processing units and thus lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature of food processing or food production. In addition, Group I and II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature of a system comprising a processor and memory storing instruction to produce a food product of Group II, where Group I “data processing apparatus” encompasses a remote data processing apparatus and does not require the special technical feature of food processing units.
In addition though applicant urges a same technical feature, the groups lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of data type, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of X reference 20130096727 of the Internation search report.
With respect to applicants urging of determining "[w]hether or not [the] particular technical feature makes a 'contribution' over the prior art, and therefore constitutes a 'special technical feature,' should be considered with respect to novelty and inventive step." It is noted the analysis is not limited to such. In the instant case the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical features of being directed to individual states of operation specific to a recovery tank, a CIP state, and a close down state, states of the food processing units directed to environmental impacts determined by specific meter coverage and the food processing system further comprising “meters provided”, and packaging and method steps of packaging as opposed to states of operation and/or a “meters provided”. Each Species requires individual search which do not overlap.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-10, 12-15 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/1/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 11 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brandt et al. (20130096727).
Brandt teaches a computer-implemented method (par. 0036) for monitoring a food processing system (par. 0071), arranged to produce a food product (par. 0071), using a data processing apparatus (par. 0036), said method comprising:
receiving process traceability data related to the food product (par. 0046 specific product, product batch, par. 0071), wherein the process traceability data comprises information about which food processing units of the food processing system that were involved in processing the food product (par. 0046, fig. 8 equipment) as well as during which time slots the food processing units were involved for processing the food product (par. 0046; fig. 8 duration),
receiving process event data related to the food processing units of the food production system (par. 0046; fig. 8), wherein the process event data comprises information about state changes of the food production units (fig. 8 different equipment, duration, part of production schedule; real time) that occurred during processing of the food product as well as points of time when the state changes occurred (fig. 8 different equipment, duration, part of production schedule; par. 0041 fig. 3 time/with attribute),
receiving settings of the processing units associated with different states (fig. 8 different equipment, duration, part of production schedule),
determining the settings used for the food production units during different time slots by combining the process event data (par. 0046 fig. 8) and the settings of the processing units associated with the different states (par. 0046 fig. 8),
determining the settings of the food production units used for processing the food product by combining the process traceability data (par. 0046; product energy consumption) and the settings used for the food production units during the different time slots (par. 0046 per phase energy measurements), and
providing the settings of the food production units used for processing the food product (par. 0046 last 3 lines; par. 0071 last 4 lines; par. 0072 optimize/mitigate energy usage).
Claim 2, receiving environmental impact data (par. 0035) associated with different settings for different food production units (par. 0035 historical production, data collected through the energy of the object, production schedule) and determining an environmental impact measure (par. 0035 forecast) of the food product by combining the settings of the food production units used for processing the food product (par. 0035 historical) with the environmental impact data (par. 0035).
Claim 3, retrieving meter coverage data (par. 0040 last 6 lines measurements; par. 0045 where it is noted “meter” is taken per applicants specification, sensor; par. 0055), wherein the meter coverage data comprises links between the food processing units of the food processing system and meters provided in the food processing system (par. 0040, par. 0055),
combining the process traceability data (par. 0046 specific product, product batch, par. 0071) and the meter coverage data (par. 0055 pressure and flow) to identify a first type of meters (par. 0055 pressure) and a second type of meters (par. 0055 flow meter), wherein the first type of meters is related to single food processing units used for processing the food product (par. 0055) and the second type of meters are related to multiple food processing units of which at least a sub-set is used for processing the food product (par. 0057 aggregate energy usage; individual combined),
retrieving first type utility consumption data for the first type meters for the time slots the food processing units linked to the first type meters were used for processing the food product (par. 0057 individual fig. 3 ref. 344),
retrieving second type utility consumption data for the second type meters for the time slots (par. 0057 aggregate of individual) the sub-set of the food processing units linked to the second type meters were used for processing the food product, (par. 0057 aggregate fig. 3 ref. 3344)
retrieving distribution keys (par. 0056 energy usage calculation) for the second type utility consumption data (par. 0057),
assigning a part of the second type utility consumption data to the sub-set of the food processing units by using the distribution keys (par. 0057 aggregate energy usage),
aggregating the first type utility consumption data and the part of the second type utility consumption data into a total utility consumption data for the food product (par. 0057), and
transforming the total utility consumption data into the environmental impact measure (par. 0066; par. 0035 resulting in lower costs; par. 0040 energy quality, 0067).
Claim 4, wherein at least one of the first or second utility consumption data comprises at least one of water usage (par. 0040 last 5 lines water), electricity usage (par. 0039).
Claim 5, further comprising:
receiving electricity production data for the different time slots (par. 0029) from an electricity generation plant (par. 0066 type used) placed on a food production site together with the food processing system (par. 0066 machine type),
and adjusting the environmental impact measure (par. 0066) by combining the electricity usage of at least one of the first utility consumption data (par. 0029, 0066) or second utility consumption data (par. 0029, 0066) and the electricity production data for the different time slots (par. 0029 time reference parameter).
Claim 11, receiving food product raw material environmental impact measure linked to food raw material (par. 0069 emissions, 0067 carbon footprint),
wherein the determining the environmental impact measure further comprises adding the food product raw material environmental impact measure (par. 0069, 0067).
Claim 16, wherein the environmental impact measure comprises a carbon footprint (par. 0067).
Claim 17, comparing the environmental impact measure to a threshold measurement (par. 0067 range), and
responsive to determining that the environmental impact measure fails to meet the threshold measurement (par. 0067 not within acceptable range):
determining which of the settings of the food production units used for processing the food product associated with the environmental impact measure fail to meet threshold setting measurements (par. 0067 manufacturing method), and
updating the settings of the food production units used for processing the food product that failed to meet the threshold setting measurements (par. 0067 automatically modify to acceptable range).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (20130096727).
Claim 6, Brandt teaches
receiving weather forecast data (par. 0035),
forecasting the electricity production data for the different time slots based on the weather forecast data (par. 0035 forecast period) and identifying a suggested production scheme (par. 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify a suggested production scheme as taught by Brandt, including start and stop points of time, such as resulting from production steps of a production sequence (par. 0046) based on forecasted alternatives for the different time slots (par. 0068 automatically adjusted) in combination with estimated electricity usage of at least one of the first utility consumption data or second utility consumption data for a coming food processing of the food product (par. 0068) and providing the suggested production scheme (par. 0035) as taught. Thus achieving a same art recognized planning and controlling production schedules the motivation being resulting in efficiencies in the form of the lower energy costs as taught by Brandt (par. 0035).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
20190271963, 20190009940, 20090302102 directed to food processing system efficiency.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Leff whose telephone number is (571) 272-6527. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEVEN N LEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights