DETAILED ACTION
Claims 16-28 are pending in the present application after a preliminary amendment filed on 7/22/2024 and are under examination on the merits. This communication is the first action on the merits (FAOM).
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 .
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 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Here, under considerations of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, Examiner finds that the Applicant invented a method and system for controlling a production process of a product produced from a plurality of pre-products. Examiner formulates an abstract idea analysis, following the framework described in the MPEP as follows:
Step 1: The claims are directed to a statutory category, namely a "method" (claims 24-27) and "apparatus" (claims 16-23 and 28).
Step 2A - Prong 1: The claims are found to recite limitations that set forth the abstract idea(s), namely, regarding claim 1:
…providing expected production data indicative of the pre-products and of production parameters expected for the production of the product
… receiving for each expected pre-product preproduction data from a plurality of independent production entities wherein the pre-production data is indicative of pre-production parameters for the production of the respective pre-product by a respective independent production entity adapted to produce the pre-product
… determining an optimized production of the product with respect to a predetermined goal related to one or more pre-production parameters based on the production data and the pre-production data
… providing control signals for controlling the production of the product based on the determined optimized production wherein … determine whether and to what extend the predetermined goal is fulfilled for pre-production parameters in the determined optimized production and to distribute optimization tokens based on this determination to production entities contributing to the production of the product wherein the optimization tokens are a quantification of whether or not a production entity fulfils the predetermined goal and to what extent the predetermined goal is fulfilled wherein distribution of the optimization tokens to the contributing pre-production entities involved in the production of the product comprises adding optimization tokens to a respective optimization token score of a production entity if the predetermine goal has been fulfilled and removing optimization tokens from a respective optimization token score of a production entity if the predetermined goal has not been fulfilled wherein … optimize the production of the physical product by optimizing the optimization token score of each contributing production entity wherein … select a production entity for each pre-product for producing the respective pre-product based on the determined optimized production
Independent claim 24 recites substantially similar claim language.
Dependent claims 17-23 and 25-28 recite the same or similar abstract idea(s) as independent claims 16, and 24 with merely a further narrowing of the abstract idea(s) to particular data characterization and/or additional data analyses performed as part of the abstract idea.
The limitations in claims 16-28 above falling well-within the groupings of subject matter identified by the courts as being abstract concepts, specifically the claims are found to correspond to the category of:
"Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)" as the limitations identified above are directed to controlling a production process of a product produced from a plurality of pre-products and thus is a method of organizing human activity including at least commercial or business interactions or relations and/or a management of user personal behavior.
Step 2A - Prong 2: Claims 16-28 are found to clearly be directed to the abstract idea identified above because the claims, as a whole, fail to integrate the claimed judicial exception into a practical application, specifically the claims recite the additional elements of:
"An apparatus for controlling a production process of a product produced from a plurality of pre-products, wherein each of the pre-products is produced by an independent production entity, wherein the apparatus comprises… a product production data providing unit… a pre-production data receiving unit… an optimization unit … a production control unit…and to provide control signals indicating to the selected production entities the production of the pre-products." (claims 16 and 24) “a universal unique identifier (UUID) generation unit” (claim 17) “a component tree generation unit” (claim 18), “A system for controlling a production process of a product from a plurality of pre-products, wherein the system comprises a plurality of production entities, wherein each production entity comprises an apparatus of claim 16, wherein the apparatus further comprises a communication unit for communicating between the different independent production entities production data and pre-production data,” (claim 20) “A computer program product for controlling a production process of a product from a plurality of pre-products, wherein the computer program product comprises program code means to execute the method of claim 24,” (claim 28) however the aforementioned elements merely amount to generic components of a general purpose computer used to "apply" the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.0S(f)) and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, furthermore the high-level recitation of receiving and processing data using a generic "apparatus" is at most an attempt to limit the abstract to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.0S(h), e.g.: "For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).") and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (MPE 2106.05(g)) and thus further fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application;
"and to provide control signals indicating to the selected production entities the production of the pre-products" (claims 16 and 24), however the receiving of data from various sources is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering, and/or merely an attempt at limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use and thus fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. MPEP 2106.0S(h): "Examiners should keep in mind that this consideration overlaps with other considerations, particularly insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05{g)). For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie lndem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017} (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags).");
Step 2B: Claims 16-28 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2 merely amount to a general purpose computer that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment (MPEP 2106.0S(f)), including merely limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use of controlling a production process of a product produced from a plurality of pre-products via an "apparatus", as explained above, and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering or output, (MPEP 2106.0S(g)), as identified above, which is further found under step 2B to be merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.0S(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser's back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to controlling a production process of a product produced from a plurality of pre-products.
Claims 16-28 are accordingly rejected under 35 USC§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Note: The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. As such, the presentment of any claim otherwise styled as a machine or manufacture, for example, would be subject to the same analysis
For further authority and guidance, see:
MPEP § 2106
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
Additionally, claims 16-23 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed towards system or apparatus claims but they do not recite structural features but rather recite features such as “a product production data providing unit… a pre-production data receiving unit… an optimization unit… a production control unit” etc. which are primarily software terms per se. Therefore, these claims appear to be directed towards software per se and software is not a statutory category of patentable subject matter. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required. The Office recommends amending the claims so that more structural features are recited in the bodies of these claims
Subject Matter Overcoming Prior Art
Claims 16-28 are found to overcome the prior art rejection. The claims would be found to be allowable over the prior art of record if they overcame the 35 USC 101 rejections.
Reasons for Overcoming the Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of overcoming the prior art rejection:
The following limitations of claim 1,
…
a production control unit for providing control signals for controlling the production of the product based on the determined optimized production, wherein the optimization unit further comprises an optimization token distribution unit, wherein the optimization token distribution unit is adapted to determine whether and to what extend the predetermined goal is fulfilled for pre-production parameters in the determined optimized production and to distribute optimization tokens based on this determination to production entities contributing to the production of the product, wherein the optimization tokens are a quantification of whether or not a production entity fulfils the predetermined goal and to what extent the predetermined goal is fulfilled, wherein distribution of the optimization tokens to the contributing pre-production entities involved in the production of the product comprises adding optimization tokens to a respective optimization token score of a production entity if the predetermine goal has been fulfilled and removing optimization tokens from a respective optimization token score of a production entity if the predetermined goal has not been fulfilled, wherein the optimization unit is adapted to optimize the production of the physical product by optimizing the optimization token score of each contributing production entity, and wherein the production control unit is adapted to select a production entity for each pre-product for producing the respective pre-product based on the determined optimized production and to provide control signals indicating to the selected production entities the production of the pre- products.
in combination with the remainder of the claim limitations are neither taught nor suggested, singularly or in combination, by the prior art of record. Furthermore, neither the prior art, the nature of the problem, nor knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art provides for any predictable or reasonable rationale to combine prior art teachings. Independent claim 24, and dependent claims 17-23 and 25-28 likewise overcome the art of record.
The closest prior art of record is described as follows:
Ruggieri (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0012641) - The abstract provides for the following: In a method of scheduling of processes at distributed and interacting manufacturing sites, a potential availability of predictive pairings of materials and work machines processing the materials over a predetermined period of time is determined for a plurality of manufacturing sites. The potential availability data of the predictive pairings is recorded. The method senses what materials and work machines are available in real-time, and records the real-time availability data of sensed materials and work machines. The real-time availability data is compared with the potential availability data of predictive pairings. In case of a discrepancy, the method determines for each manufacturing site local pairings of materials and work machines processing the materials, and processes the local pairings.
Colson et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0094953) - The abstract provides for the following: A distributed manufacturing platform and related techniques connect designers, manufacturers (e.g., 3D printer owners and other traditional manufacturers), shippers, and other entities and simplifies the process of manufacturing and supplying new and existing products. A distributed ledger or blockchain may be used to record transactions, execute smart contracts, and perform other operations to increase transparency and integrity of supply chain. Blockchain enabled packaging can be used to track movement and conditions of packages from manufacture, through transit, to delivery.
Chapman et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0307640) - The abstract provides for the following: The technology disclosed relates to granular analysis of design data used to prepare chip designs for manufacturing and to identification of similarities and differences among parts of design data files. In particular, it relates to parsing data and organizing into canonical forms, digesting the canonical forms, and comparing digests of design data from different sources, such as designs and libraries of design templates. Organizing the design data into canonical forms generally reduces the sensitivity of data analysis to variations in data that have no functional impact on the design. The details of the granular analysis vary among design languages used to represent aspects of a design. For various design languages, granular analysis includes partitioning design files by header/cell portions, by separate handling of comments, by functionally significant/non-significant data, by whitespace/non-whitespace, and by layer within a unit of design data. The similarities and differences of interest depend on the purpose of the granular analysis. The comparisons are useful in many ways.
Walker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0274612) - The abstract provides for the following: An industrial control system is provided. The system includes a processor to analyze one or more sustainability factors and a scoring component to assign a weight to the sustainability factors. An optimizer automatically adjusts a production process in view of the sustainability factors, the weight, and at least one of a recycling requirement, a carbon footprint, a procurement process, a shipping process, or a regulatory requirement.
Cella et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0236552) - The abstract provides for the following: An information technology system for a distributed manufacturing network includes an additive manufacturing platform configured to manage workflows for a set of distributed manufacturing network entities associated with the distributed manufacturing network. The information technology system includes a set of digital twins generated by the additive manufacturing platform. The information technology system includes an artificial intelligence system configured to be executed by a data processing system in communication with the additive manufacturing platform. The artificial intelligence system is trained to generate process parameters for the workflows managed by the additive manufacturing platform using data collected from the set of distributed manufacturing network entities. The information technology system includes a control system configured to adjust the process parameters during an additive manufacturing process performed by at least one of the set of distributed manufacturing network entities.
Martin Ostgathe et al. “System for product-based control of production processes” The abstract provides for the following: The control of manufacturing systems is becoming increasingly complex, because of growing requirements with respect to flexibility and productivity as well as a decreasing predictability of processes. Despite the changing general conditions, the delivery reliability to the customer, as one of the logistic key performance indicators, is of growing relevance. The performance and flexibility of manufacturing systems for small batch and customized production is therefore increasingly dependent on the adequate supply of up-to-date information related to their control. The paper presents a system for product based control of production processes. Information concerning the product with regard to the configuration, the current state and the respective working processes are directly stored at the workpiece. A knowledge-based system allows the identification of product-related faults and the derivation of feasible actions. The hybrid control architecture integrates the product as an additional element of control and enables the consideration of product-specific data during order processing. A simulation study reveals the feasibility and benefit of the developed system by comparing logistic key performance indicators with a conventional job control.
Mildner et al. (WO Patent Application Publication Number WO 2018/083270) - The abstract provides for the following: The invention relates to a method for controlling the automated manufacture of products, wherein an assembly (3) (or a final product) is manufactured from complementary components of at least two component types (1, 2) which are produced in independent production processes and each of the individual components of which vary at least with respect to the specification of its features. The data for specifying all of the component features which are relevant to the manufacture of the assembly (3) is detected automatically during the production of the component. For each component, the data detected via the specification process of the features is stored in an allocated manner to an identifier in storage means of a control unit which is operatively connected to devices for producing the respective component. The data is transmitted from said control unit to a control unit which is operatively connected to devices for producing the assembly (3) and which actuates the devices for producing the assembly (3) such that the components of the at least two component types (1, 2) are not freely selected but rather are combined on the basis of specification deviations, which compensate for one another at least in a functionally and/or qualitatively neutral manner, of the complementary features of the components with respect to a specification defined as the target specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW H. DIVELBISS whose telephone number is (571) 270-0166. The fax phone number is 571-483-7110. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th, 7:00 - 5:00. 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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787.
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.
/MATTHEW H DIVELBISS/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights