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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 28, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 12, 14, 18 have been amended.
Claim 8 has been cancelled.
Claim 19 has been added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 19 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.
With regards to claim 1, 11, the claim recites, “generating, based on the identified at least one influencing factor the controlling measure or intervention…” However, the preceding limitation recites, “determining, from the at least one influencing factor, a controlling measure or intervention within product, a production network or a production step…” The preceding limitation only requires determining one of the three options and, consequently, if one were to select “a production network” or “a production step” then one would be unable to perform the following limitation because it is not based on either of these options. If “controlling measure or intervention within production” is a required element to make an use the invention, then it should not be an optional feature.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 371, which claims priority to EP Patent Application No. 22382319.6, filed April 4, 2022 is acknowledged.
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, 9 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
receiving PCF-related data for a first and a second point in time, wherein the PCF-related data comprise energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step, and determining the energy consumption and/or greenhouse gas release transfer their data to the ERP system from which the energy data are received;
calculating a first PCF of the product at the first point in time and a second PCF of the product at the second point in time based on the PCF-related data;
determining whether the first PCF and the second PCF of the product differ from each other;
in response to determining that the first PCF and the second PCF differ, calculating at least a first PCF of an intermediate of the product at a first point in time and a second PCF of the intermediate at a second point in time based on the PCF-related data, and identifying at least one influencing factor within the production process for a change in value between the first and second PCF of the product based on the first and second PCF of the intermediate;
controlling the production process by:
determining, from the identified at least one influencing factor, a controlling measure or intervention within the production, a production network, or a production step, that affects the PCF of the product;
generating, based on the identified at least one influencing factor and the controlling measure or intervention, a control signal that modifies data within production; and
providing the control signal to modify at least one production process parameter of a process step the production process as executed in a production plant, wherein the at least one production process parameter comprises at least one of: (i) an energy used for the process step, (ii) production equipment used for the process step, or (iii) a physical or chemical influence on an input material of the process step
(Claim 14) outputting the identified at least one influencing factor
(Claim 19) the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the PCF-related data comprise energy data obtained from a production plant, and wherein sensors for determining energy consumption and/or greenhouse gas release transfer their data to the enterprise resource planning system from which the energy data are obtained
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of determining the carbon footprint for a product and its corresponding supply chain, as well as influencing factors that affect a carbon footprint, which corresponds to “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts”, as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, e.g., having humans in a supply chain collect, tabulate, and provide their respective carbon footprint impact, summing up each respective carbon footprint to calculate the overall carbon footprint for the production of a product, identifying influencing factors that affect and correspond to a carbon footprint, wherein the process can be performed by humans communicating (talking) to one another and/or writing down the information, and reciting, at a high level of generality, to modify, in some way, a production process based on an influencing factor and controlling measure or intervention. Additionally, the claimed invention encompasses a human contacting another human to modify a business agreement/transaction, e.g., a buyer of raw materials calling a first supplier of raw material to cancel their transactional agreement and the buyer calling a second supplier of raw material and entering into a transactional agreement with them or a user changing their order size. The claimed invention is an idea of a solution because the claimed invention attempts to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The same rationale applies to “action”, as recited in the claimed invention.
Additionally, the specification and claimed invention fail to define what a “product control system” is intended to encompass and, accordingly, the Examiner asserts that, in the broadest reasonable interpretation and plain meaning of the terms, a “product control system” is a system (i.e. an organized set of ideas or theories or a particular way of doing something, for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/system); an organized or established procedure (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system)) for product production, thereby resulting in the claimed invention being directed towards a workflow whose inputs and outputs are being evaluated, e.g., by mentally thinking about or referring to written information, to determine what changes could be made in the business workflow (see the examples provided above).
Further still, when reviewing claims 1, 14 in light of the specification, one would have to interpret that the modification is to a process step itself or any one of the aforementioned examples, which, consequently, results in one questioning that if “product control system” were an apparatus or directed to structure and not an organized set of ideas or theories or a particular way of doing something, for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials, then what is the structure that comprises the product control system? What is the modification that is being made to technology? How can modifying a batch size not be interpreted to encompass a particular way of doing something or procedure? How is changing data to then modify a process step and improvement to technology when the claimed invention and specification is not only broad, but encompasses activities that can be performed by a human, e.g., a human modifying a supply chain to substitute one supplier for another and modifying the production process to employ the new supplier or modifying data that states an order of 100 widgets? What is meant by “controlling” when the scope of the claim encompasses a human simply writing down information and executing the written information, e.g., substituting suppliers, implementing a different delivery route, or etc.?
Reference and reliance of “production plant” is insufficient because it is directed towards describing an environment of use for the invention and does not provide a definition or example of what are the structural components that comprise the product control system or how the modification is being performed. The definition and rejection were not provided because “production plant” was unknown or that the purpose of the invention was unknown, but because “product control system” is insufficient to integrate the claimed invention into a practical application. There is insufficient disclosure as to the particular acts that are being imposed upon the raw materials. The claimed invention is directed towards a “method for monitoring and control a product carbon footprint”, which can take place in a production plant where the control signal that is provided to the product control system can encompass a human activity (e.g., decreasing/increasing batch size) or modifying a procedure (e.g., delaying a process, deciding to use another process, referring to improvements that can be made by applying six-sigma and etc.).
Finally, similar to what has been discussed above, the “production process parameter” is equally as broad and is insufficient in describing what encompasses the technological improvement, resolution, or how the end results (i.e. (i) – (ii)) are being achieved. As a non-limiting example, modifying a production process parameter that comprises a production equipment used for the process step can be as simply as using a different delivery supply vehicle, making note that a particular production equipment requires maintenance, or simply providing information stating that a different energy source should be used, that energy usage can be reduced by operating during certain business hours, that a newer production equipment should be used, or etc. There is no specificity in the claimed invention or specification to demonstrate how the solution is being achieved or what is being improved upon or resolved in technology.
The limitations of:
receiving PCF-related data for a first and a second point in time, wherein the PCF-related data comprise energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step, and determining the energy consumption and/or greenhouse gas release transfer their data to the ERP system from which the energy data are received;
calculating a first PCF of the product at the first point in time and a second PCF of the product at the second point in time based on the PCF-related data;
determining whether the first PCF and the second PCF of the product differ from each other;
in response to determining that the first PCF and the second PCF differ, calculating at least a first PCF of an intermediate of the product at a first point in time and a second PCF of the intermediate at a second point in time based on the PCF-related data, and identifying at least one influencing factor within the production process for a change in value between the first and second PCF of the product based on the first and second PCF of the intermediate;
controlling the production process by:
determining, from the identified at least one influencing factor, a controlling measure or intervention within the production, a production network, or a production step, that affects the PCF of the product;
generating, based on the identified at least one influencing factor and the controlling measure or intervention, a control signal that modifies data within production; and
providing the control signal to modify at least one production process parameter of a process step the production process as executed in a production plant, wherein the at least one production process parameter comprises at least one of: (i) an energy used for the process step, (ii) production equipment used for the process step, or (iii) a physical or chemical influence on an input material of the process step
(Claim 14) outputting the identified at least one influencing factor
(Claim 19) the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the PCF-related data comprise energy data obtained from a production plant, and wherein sensors for determining energy consumption and/or greenhouse gas release transfer their data to the enterprise resource planning system from which the energy data are obtained
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of a generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic enterprise resource planning system, and generic sensors. That is, other than reciting a generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic enterprise resource planning system, and generic sensors nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic enterprise resource planning system, and generic sensors in the context of this claim encompasses having humans in a supply chain collect, tabulate, and provide their respective carbon footprint impact, summing up each respective carbon footprint to calculate the overall carbon footprint for the production of a product, and identifying influencing factors that affect and correspond to a carbon footprint, wherein the process can be performed by humans communicating (talking) to one another and/or writing down the information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic enterprise resource planning system, and generic sensors, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – a generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic enterprise resource planning system, and generic sensors to communicate and output information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper, i.e. calculating carbon footprints, identifying influencing factors, identifying measures or interventions, and taking some type of action to modify a production process, workflow, agreement, or etc. The generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic enterprise resource planning system, and generic sensors in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic enterprise resource planning system, and generic sensors can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of receiving and transmitting information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the a generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, generic enterprise resource planning system, and generic sensors are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, and generic enterprise resource planning system.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, and generic enterprise resource planning system to perform the steps of:
receiving PCF-related data for a first and a second point in time, wherein the PCF-related data comprise energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step, and determining the energy consumption and/or greenhouse gas release transfer their data to the ERP system from which the energy data are received;
calculating a first PCF of the product at the first point in time and a second PCF of the product at the second point in time based on the PCF-related data;
determining whether the first PCF and the second PCF of the product differ from each other;
in response to determining that the first PCF and the second PCF differ, calculating at least a first PCF of an intermediate of the product at a first point in time and a second PCF of the intermediate at a second point in time based on the PCF-related data, and identifying at least one influencing factor within the production process for a change in value between the first and second PCF of the product based on the first and second PCF of the intermediate;
controlling the production process by:
determining, from the identified at least one influencing factor, a controlling measure or intervention within the production, a production network, or a production step, that affects the PCF of the product;
generating, based on the identified at least one influencing factor and the controlling measure or intervention, a control signal that modifies data within production; and
providing the control signal to modify at least one production process parameter of a process step the production process as executed in a production plant, wherein the at least one production process parameter comprises at least one of: (i) an energy used for the process step, (ii) production equipment used for the process step, or (iii) a physical or chemical influence on an input material of the process step
(Claim 14) outputting the identified at least one influencing factor
(Claim 19) the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the PCF-related data comprise energy data obtained from a production plant, and wherein sensors for determining energy consumption and/or greenhouse gas release transfer their data to the enterprise resource planning system from which the energy data are obtained
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claims 2, 3, 4 are directed towards “Mental Processes”, “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”, and “Mathematical Concepts” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper as they are directed towards the collection/communication and identification of carbon footprint related information to allow for the calculation of a carbon footprint or identification of an influencing factor for a particular process step amongst a plurality of process steps that are involved in the supply chain for the production of a product and describing the carbon footprint related information, e.g., describing an influencing factor and describing a process step (e.g., raw material, intermediate, processes involved with each, and etc.).
Claims 5, 6, 7 are directed towards the collecting and comparing information and, based on a rule(s), identify options, as well as performing mathematical calculations, in this case, comparing/calculation process parameters to identify a change and calculating an impact or determining a cause based on the behavior of the change.
Claim 9 is directed towards the collection of information and performing a mathematical calculation based on the collected information.
Claim 10 is directed towards descriptive subject matter describing where information is obtained from, as well as the recitation of generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea.
Claim 11 is directed towards the collection and organization of information.
Claim 12 is directed a human contacting another human to modify a business agreement/transaction, e.g., a buyer of raw materials calling a first supplier of raw material to cancel their transactional agreement and the buyer calling a second supplier of raw material and entering into a transactional agreement with them or a user changing their order size. The claimed invention is an idea of a solution because the claimed invention attempts to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The same rationale applies to “action”, as recited in the claimed invention.
Additionally, the specification and claimed invention fail to define what a “product control system” is intended to encompass and, accordingly, the Examiner asserts that, in the broadest reasonable interpretation and plain meaning of the terms, a “product control system” is a system (i.e. an organized set of ideas or theories or a particular way of doing something, for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/system); an organized or established procedure (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system)) for product production, thereby resulting in the claimed invention being directed towards a workflow whose inputs and outputs are being evaluated, e.g., by mentally thinking about or referring to written information, to determine what changes could be made in the business workflow (see the examples provided above).
Claim 15 is directed towards the recitation of generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea, as well are extra-solution activities.
Claim 16 is directed towards describing the results of a mathematical calculation and/or modification in response to human activities.
Claim 17 is directed towards the collection and organization of information.
Claim 18 is directed towards description subject matter describing what the production processes are intended to be.
Claim 19 is directed towards descriptive subject matter describing where information is obtained from, as well as reciting generic technology at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for determining the carbon footprint for a product and its corresponding supply chain, as well as influencing factors that affect a carbon footprint. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible.
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, 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.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umay (US PGPub 2023/0162203 A1) in view of Nguyen (US PGPub 2022/0122172 A1).
In regards to claims 1, 13, 14, Umay discloses (Claim 1) a computer-implemented method for monitoring and/or controlling a product carbon footprint, PCF, of a product produced in a production process, the method comprising; (Claim 13) a non-transitory computer readable data medium storing a computer program including instructions for executing steps of the method according to claim 1; (Claim 14) a system for monitoring and controlling a product carbon footprint, PCF, of a product produced in a production process, the system comprising:
In regards to:
receiving, via an interface to an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, PCF-related data for a first and a second point in time, wherein the PCF-related data comprise energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step, and […] determining the energy consumption and/or greenhouse gas release transfer their data to the ERP system from which the energy data are received;
(Claim 14) an input interface comprising a data interface to receive PCF-related data (PCFRD) for a first and a second point in time
(¶ 12, 16, 58, 61, 63, 71, 74, 75, 81, 92, 93 wherein PCF-related data is received for various points in time; ¶ 23, 24, 30, 31, 35, 43, 47 regarding the system, computing device(s), and interface(s); ¶ 61 wherein the recorded information allows for the identification of influencing factors within the production process of the finalized product at various points in time for the different PCF’s corresponding to their respective points in time and are further based on the PCF of the intermediate of the product and outputted to analyze the impact that each process has towards the production of the finalized product and allows for the modification of different scenarios/decisions to further analyze the impact of each scenario/decisions
See, for example:
¶ 12 “Accordingly, the present disclosure is directed to an emission records ledger that may enable different entities to evaluate the emissions for which they are responsible, both directly and indirectly, by correlating different emission records provided by different emission reporting entities. To reuse the above example, the construction company, cement factory, transportation/shipping companies, and/or any other entities involved in facilitating the cement order may each provide emission data records to the emission records ledger. A correlation service may identify a correlation between two or more different emission data records to determine correlated emission analytics, and the correlated emission analytics can then be provided to a requesting entity based at least in part on the identified correlation. For example, the correlated emission analytics may be used by the construction company to quantify the total amount of emissions associated with the cement order, so that it can be counted as part of the construction company's overall carbon footprint, and/or as part of a carbon budget associated with construction of the building.”
¶ 16 “Such emissions may be associated with a particular period of time (e.g., one day, one month, one year), associated with a particular event (e.g., a transaction, a construction project, development of a new product), and/or any other suitable categorization of emissions activity may be used.”
¶ 58 “In some examples, the emission records ledger may be configured to evaluate product components (e.g., referring to processes or discrete manufacturing) to build product graphs to calculate the carbon footprint across an entire supply chain.”
¶ 61 “Additionally, or alternatively, composition graphs may provide analytics on the impact of supply chain decisions on overall carbon footprints-e.g., composition graphs may allow decisionmakers to evaluate the potential emissions impacts associated with changing different aspects of the supply chain. For example, using a composition graph, an entity may evaluate whether replacing a first producer with a second producer affects their indirect emissions responsibility-e.g., because the second producer uses different upstream transportation providers that contribute to less overall emissions than the first producer. As other examples, composition graphs may enable entities to evaluate whether changing the recipe of a product will affect emissions, or changing the location at which the product is produced will affect emissions. In other words, composition graphs can beneficially provide more insight into how an entity's emissions responsibility may be changed by changing different aspects of the entity's broader supply chain.”
¶ 63 “The originator may ingest the product ID, the time range, the emissions value (e.g., in the case of a direct measurement), and/or a set of input parameters associated with a model ID and calculation parameters ( e.g., in the case of an indirect measurement).”
¶ 75 “For example, the requesting entity may request emission analytics pertaining to its own purchase of a product, an ongoing project (such as building construction), total emissions over a given period of time (e.g., a financial quarter), emissions associated with an entire industry (e.g., construction, electrical production, petroleum), emissions inherited by the requesting entity from one or more other specified or unspecified entities, and/or the request for correlated emission analytics may define any other suitable scope.”
¶ 81 “Thus, emission data record 508B may specify the amount of cement manufactured over a particular interval of time (e.g., one day), and the estimated amount of emissions associated with the cement manufacture.”);
(Claim 14) a processor configured to (¶ 23, 24, 30, 31, 35, 43, 47):
calculating a first PCF of the product at the first point in time and a second PCF of the product at the second point in time based on the PCF-related data (¶ 12, 16, 58, 61, 63, 71, 74, 81, 92, 93 wherein a first PCF at a first point in time and a second PCF at a second point in time are calculated based on the PCF related data);
determining whether the first PCF and the second PCF of the product differ from each other (¶ 12 “Accordingly, the present disclosure is directed to an emission records ledger that may enable different entities to evaluate the emissions for which they are responsible, both directly and indirectly, by correlating different emission records provided by different emission reporting entities. To reuse the above example, the construction company, cement factory, transportation/shipping companies, and/or any other entities involved in facilitating the cement order may each provide emission data records to the emission records ledger. A correlation service may identify a correlation between two or more different emission data records to determine correlated emission analytics, and the correlated emission analytics can then be provided to a requesting entity based at least in part on the identified correlation. For example, the correlated emission analytics may be used by the construction company to quantify the total amount of emissions associated with the cement order, so that it can be counted as part of the construction company's overall carbon footprint, and/or as part of a carbon budget associated with construction of the building.”
¶ 16 “Such emissions may be associated with a particular period of time (e.g., one day, one month, one year), associated with a particular event (e.g., a transaction, a construction project, development of a new product), and/or any other suitable categorization of emissions activity may be used.”
¶ 58 “In some examples, the emission records ledger may be configured to evaluate product components (e.g., referring to processes or discrete manufacturing) to build product graphs to calculate the carbon footprint across an entire supply chain.”
¶ 61 “Additionally, or alternatively, composition graphs may provide analytics on the impact of supply chain decisions on overall carbon footprints-e.g., composition graphs may allow decisionmakers to evaluate the potential emissions impacts associated with changing different aspects of the supply chain. For example, using a composition graph, an entity may evaluate whether replacing a first producer with a second producer affects their indirect emissions responsibility-e.g., because the second producer uses different upstream transportation providers that contribute to less overall emissions than the first producer. As other examples, composition graphs may enable entities to evaluate whether changing the recipe of a product will affect emissions, or changing the location at which the product is produced will affect emissions. In other words, composition graphs can beneficially provide more insight into how an entity's emissions responsibility may be changed by changing different aspects of the entity's broader supply chain.”
¶ 63 “The originator may ingest the product ID, the time range, the emissions value (e.g., in the case of a direct measurement), and/or a set of input parameters associated with a model ID and calculation parameters ( e.g., in the case of an indirect measurement).”
¶ 75 “For example, the requesting entity may request emission analytics pertaining to its own purchase of a product, an ongoing project (such as building construction), total emissions over a given period of time (e.g., a financial quarter), emissions associated with an entire industry (e.g., construction, electrical production, petroleum), emissions inherited by the requesting entity from one or more other specified or unspecified entities, and/or the request for correlated emission analytics may define any other suitable scope.”
¶ 81 “Thus, emission data record 508B may specify the amount of cement manufactured over a particular interval of time (e.g., one day), and the estimated amount of emissions associated with the cement manufacture.”);
in response to determining that the first PCF and the second PCF differ, calculating at least a first PCF of an intermediate of the product at a first point in time and a second PCF of the intermediate at a second point in time based on the PCF-related data (¶ 12, 16, 58, 61, 63, 71, 74, 81, 92, 93 wherein a first PCF at a first point in time and a second PCF at a second point in time are calculated for an intermediate of the product, e.g., components, parts, interim, or the like, which are used in the production of the finalized product, based on the PCF related data), and identifying at least one influencing factor within the production process for a change in value between the first and second PCF of the product based on the first and second PCF of the intermediate (¶ 61 wherein the recorded information allows for the identification of influencing factors within the production process of the finalized product at various points in time for the different PCF’s corresponding to their respective points in time and are further based on the PCF of the intermediate of the product and outputted to analyze the impact that each process has towards the production of the finalized product and allows for the modification of different scenarios/decisions to further analyze the impact of each scenario/decisions); and
In regards to:
controlling the production process by:
determining, from the identified at least one influencing factor, a controlling measure or intervention within the production, a production network, or a production step, that affects the PCF of the product;
generating, based on the identified at least one influencing factor and the controlling measure or intervention, a control signal that modifies data within production, in or via a production control system and/or the ERP system; and
providing the control signal to a production control system and/or ERP system to modify at least one production process parameter of a process step the production process as executed in a production plant, wherein the at least one production process parameter comprises at least one of: (i) an energy used for the process step, (ii) production equipment used for the process step, or (iii) a physical or chemical influence on an input material of the process step
(First, the applicant’s specification on Pages 2 – 3, Lines 40 – 7, defines “controlling the production” as “may refer to any controlling measure intervention within the production, a production network, e.g. a chemical production network, a production step, or the like, that affects the environmental impact parameter and/or the PCF of the product. This may comprise generating a control signal that modifies data within production, e.g. in or via a production control system, an enterprise resource planning 45 systems, or the like. For example, such a controlling measure or intervention may, for example, comprise controlling the production in terms of the PCF of the raw material, e.g. by changing the raw material, a supplier of it, etc., of a process step, e.g. by changing an energy used for the process step, by technical modification of the production step by a modified physical or chemical influence on an input material of the production step, etc. In other words, controlling the production may change one or more production process parameters in the production reality and thus directly or indirectly control the PCF of the product.” Further, claim 18 discloses “wherein the at least one influencing factor is associated with at least one of: (i) a PCF of raw material, (ii) a distribution of an intermediate, (iii) an input-output relation of a corresponding process step, or (iv) a process step itself.”
With that said, ¶ 11, 44, 50, 58, 61, 92 discloses that the system generates and outputs composition graphs, i.e. “controlling measure intervention”, that provide analytics on the impact of supply chain decisions and allows decisionmakers to evaluate potential emission impacts associated with changing different aspect of the supply chain, e.g., replacing a first producer with a second producer affects their indirect emission responsibility, changing the recipe of a product, changing the location at which a product is produced, and/or changing different aspects of the entity’s broader supply chain. As a non-limiting example, changing the data in the production, influencing factor, and controlling a measure or intervention within production encompasses a change in supplier who has a corresponding energy consumption that indirectly affects the carbon footprint of the end user.
¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.
Based on the broad definition provided by the applicant’s specification and lack of specificity of what comprises the recited production control system and the broad scope of an ERP, the Examiner asserts that Umay’s computer-based system that is communicating with a plurality of other systems in order to assess the carbon footprint for a product produced by an end user, which is based on the aggregation of direct and indirect measurements, and provide the necessary data and reporting to provide analytics for different scenarios that correspond to different supply chain decisions that would each have their own corresponding emissions totals. The production process is modified in response to the control signal (analytics output) because, for example, a first producer is replaced with a second producer, a recipe is changed, a location is changed, or etc.
In other words, the system of Umay provides a control signal by way of composition graphs that directly and/or indirectly control a system (i.e. an organized set of ideas or theories or a particular way of doing something, for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/system); an organized or established procedure (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system)) for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials (components of cement, steel, or car chassis, e.g., cement aggregate, iron, and etc. (¶ 53, 58, 90)), distribution of an intermediate (components of cement, steel, or car chassis (¶ 53, 58, 90)), input-output relation of a corresponding process step (e.g., delivery, manufacture, etc.), and etc. based on influencing factors corresponding to the product’s production process, e.g., GHG emissions, power consumption, power source usage, and etc. (¶ 16, 17) and wherein the action may be, for example, replacing an entity in the supply chain.).
(Claim 14) an output interface configured to output the identified at least one influencing factor (¶ 61 wherein the recorded information allows for the identification of influencing factors within the production process of the finalized product at various points in time for the different PCF’s corresponding to their respective points in time and are further based on the PCF of the intermediate of the product and outputted to analyze the impact that each process has towards the production of the finalized product and allows for the modification of different scenarios/decisions to further analyze the impact of each scenario/decisions; ¶ 23, 24, 30, 31, 35, 43, 47 regarding the system, computing device(s), and interface(s)).
Umay discloses a system and method for determining the carbon footprint of an entity by analyzing direct and indirect emissions. Although Umay discloses that energy consumption data is collected and provided to the system, Umay fails to explicitly disclose how the energy consumption data is collected. That is to say, Umay fails to explicitly disclose the use of sensors.
To be more specific, Umay fails to explicitly disclose:
receiving, via an interface to an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, PCF-related data for a first and a second point in time, wherein the PCF-related data comprise energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step, and wherein sensors for determining the energy consumption and/or greenhouse gas release transfer their data to the ERP system from which the energy data are received
However, Nguyen, which is also directed towards a system and method for determining emissions of a product based on supply chain data, further teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there are a wide range of data types that can be collected and that some of these data types can be accurately measured and provided by sensors. Nguyen teaches:
“Systems and methods of the present disclosure may collect data associated with a user activity. The data may be transmitted from an app running on a computing device with a user account authenticated by the computer-based system. The system may calculate a carbon footprint of the user activity based on the data associated with the user activity. An amount of carbon credits may be assigned to a user account authenticated with the computer-based system based on the calculated carbon footprint of the user activity. A transaction may be written to a blockchain retiring the amount of carbon credits in response to a request to offset a carbon footprint.”
(Abstract)
“Systems, methods, and devices of the present disclosure (collectively, the “System”) may operate using a web app, mobile app, tablet, wearable, personal computer, wearable, or other device to upload data relating to the ecological impact of user activities. The System may collect data, analyze, compute and track an individual, products, actions, events, groups and use the data to generate real-time, instantaneous measurement of carbon-dioxide emissions or other suitable measurement for environmental impact. Results may take the form of an instant CO2 emission calculation or an instant CO2 emission saving calculator, for example.”
(¶ 22)
“The System may generate credits based on the difference of CO2 emission for actions, products, individuals, or activity relative to a baseline value. For example, a credit may be equivalent to 5,000 kg, 1,000 kg, 500 kg, 100 kg, 50 kg, 10 kg, 5 kg, or 1 kg of CO2 emissions saved relative to the baseline value for an activity, for example. The System may issue fractional credits depending on the credit value of different amounts of CO2 emissions. Each credit may have a unique identifier to enable the eco credit buying, selling, trading, or otherwise transferring a credit between individuals and entities. Companies, individuals, and other entities may thus invest in and otherwise encourage ecologically responsible behavior in individuals by purchasing credits generated by desirable activities.”
(¶ 23)
“User 101 may interact with system 100 through app 102 running on computing device 103 and/or a web portal 104 running on computing device 105. A computing device may include active components that detect the state of the environment surrounding computing device 103 such as, for example, movement sensor 107 (e.g., an accelerometer), a GPS sensor 109, microphone 112, camera 110, biometric scanner, or other component 114 suitable for detecting state. Device 103 may also accept user input in the form of typed text or spoken word using a text interface 108 such as, for example, keyboard, touchscreen, voice-to-text interface, or other suitable input/output device. Third-party apps 116 and other users 118 may also interact with portal 104 to submit or retrieve information related to user behavior and/or environmental credits.”
(¶ 24)
“Referring now to FIG. 2, a system 200 for generating credits based on the environmental impact of user activities is shown, in accordance with various embodiments. App 102 running on computing device 103 (of FIG. 1) may collect and/or process data related to various activity categories having an environmental impact. For example, app 102 may collect and/or process transportation data 202, home improvement data 204, retail data 206, food data 208, action data 210, event data 212, lifestyle data 214, and/or other data sources 216. App 102 may transmit collected data and/or processing results via web server 120 to web app engine 124. FIGS. 3A to 3I depict examples of processes for app 102 to collect and/or process data related to the foregoing activity categories.”
(¶ 34)
“In various embodiments, system 300 may use various factors and parameters to calculate, estimate, approximate, or otherwise generate CO2 emissions associated with a transportation event to assign a credit value to the transportation event. For example, system 300 may use trip parameters including CO2 = CO2 emission (kg), S=speed (km/hr), D=distance (km), and/or T=time (minutes). System 300 may also use factors specific to a given mode of transportation of model of vehicle such as, for example, FS=Speed factor, FCO2 = CO2 factor (kg/km), FW=WTT CO2 factor (kg/km), FB=Battery CO2 emission factor (kg/km), FHP=Petrol usage of Hybrid Electric emission factor (kg/km), FHE=Hybrid Electric emission factor (kg/km). Carbon emissions may thus be calculated using equation (1) as follows:
CO2=T((FCO2+FB+FHP)(1+Fs)+Fw)”
(¶ 39)
“In that regard, total emission may be calculated based on the duration of emission under certain conditions (e.g., speed, car model etc.) using the foregoing. A trip may comprise various different speeds and thus CO2 emissions rates at various periods between k, where k is a positive integer and we consider a car which moves during the period from the moment t.sub.i−1 to the moment t.sub.i at speed S.sub.i for each i varying from 1 to k. The distance covered in each such period is Di=S.sub.i(t.sub.i−t.sub.i-1) for 1≤i≤t. CO2 emissions may be calculated using equation (2) or equation (3) as follows:
CO2=(FCO2+FB+FHP+FHE){
T
+
∑
j
=
1
k
t
i
-
b
j
-
1
n
F
s
i
)
}+TFw
CO2=(FCO2+FB+FHP+FHE)(
T
+
c
[
T
-
cos
T
+
1
]
)
+
T
F
w
Equations (2) and (3) may be multiplied by a constant or function to produce a similar result without deviating from the invention disclosed herein. The foregoing equations are given for exemplary purposes and are not intended to be limiting or exhaustive. The various other types of events disclosed herein may use different equations to model the carbon footprint of such events.”
(¶ 40)
“In various embodiments, app 102 may categorize retail event 328 as having a retail type 330, which may include, for example, online 332, in store 334, a purchase of goods 336, a purchase of service 338, or other data related to a retail event and relevant to the environmental impact of user 101. Data related to a retail event may include the type of goods or services, the content of goods, the brand of goods or services, the carbon footprint to make and/or deliver goods, carbon footprint over the life of a product, the carbon footprint associated with providing a service, or other data suitable to assess the environmental impact of retail events 328 of user 101. Carbon footprint calculations may consider environmental impact from growing, collecting, or producing raw materials through delivery of an end product. Other factors relevant to carbon footprint may include, for example, the impact of mining oil to produce plastic, the impact of shipping or transportation, the impact if refining processes, the impact of energy consumption, or other environmental externalities accrued over the lifecycle of a product.”
(¶ 43)
“In various embodiments, app 102 may capture start 329 data such as, for example, start location, start time, start temperature, start biometrics, or other start conditions measured or entered at the start of retail event 328. App 102 may also capture end 331 data such as, for example, end location, end time, end temperature, end biometrics, or other end conditions measured or entered at the end of retail event 328. Start 329 data may be compared to end 331 data to detect a difference or change in conditions such as, for example, time spent at locations within a retail facility. App 102 may generate a summary 340 of retail event 328 for transmission to web server 120 (of FIG. 2), web app engine 124 (of FIG. 2), and/or database 122 for server-side validation 312 and analysis by AI 123. AI 123 may consider real-time data from app 102 and data written to database 122 to make user experience improvements. Server-side validation may comprise processing data related to retail event 328 to estimate carbon emissions associated with retail event 328. The estimated carbon emissions associated with retail event 328 may be converted into credits assigned to user 101.”
(¶ 44)
(See also Fig. 1)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate sensors to collect activity data that affects the amount of emissions produced by an entity because sensors would be able to more accurately report the data as they are devices that are configured to collect and report specific data, thereby resulting in more accurate reporting of emissions and providing an end user with a more complete and accurate evaluation of their carbon footprint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the emission reporting and assessment system and method of Umay with the ability to use sensors to collect and report activity data that affects an entity’s carbon footprint, as taught by Nguyen, because sensors would be provide more accurate data reporting that, in turn, would provide an end user with better and more accurate insight of their carbon footprint.
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the PCF of more than one intermediate is calculated, and the production process contains multiple process steps, wherein in each process step at least one input material is processed into at least one output material (Umay – ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 2, wherein calculating of the PCF of the multiple intermediates is performed over the multiple process steps until a raw material of the product is reached (Umay – ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one influencing factor is associated with one or more of: a carbon footprint of raw material, a distribution of an intermediate, an input-output relation of a corresponding process step, and a process step itself, wherein the influencing factor is included in or derivable from the PCF-related data and from knowledge data about the production process obtained from the enterprise resource planning system (Umay – Fig. 1B, 3A, 4, 5 wherein the system is a network of computing devices that collect and report emission related data for correlation and analysis regarding the emission usage of entities for a given supply chain; ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the at least one influencing factor comprises:
determining, for the at least one intermediate whether or not a change in one or more process parameters, comprising a ratio between amounts of at least two raw materials, an input/output relation of the process step, and/or a process step itself, has occurred,
wherein if only one of these process parameters has changed, the change of the intermediate is attributed to the determined change of process parameter, and
wherein if more than one of these process parameters have changed, a relative contribution of the individual change is determined and respectively attributed
(Umay – ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.;
With that said, Umay – ¶ 11, 44, 50, 58, 61, 92 discloses that the system generates and outputs composition graphs, i.e. “controlling measure intervention”, that provide analytics on the impact of supply chain decisions and allows decisionmakers to evaluate potential emission impacts associated with changing different aspect of the supply chain, e.g., replacing a first producer with a second producer affects their indirect emission responsibility, changing the recipe of a product, changing the location at which a product is produced, and/or changing different aspects of the entity’s broader supply chain. As a non-limiting example, changing the data in the production, influencing factor, and controlling a measure or intervention within production encompasses a change in supplier who has a corresponding energy consumption that indirectly affects the carbon footprint of the end user.
Based on the broad definition provided by the applicant’s specification and lack of specificity of what comprises the recited production control system and the broad scope of an ERP, the Examiner asserts that Umay’s computer-based system that is communicating with a plurality of other systems in order to assess the carbon footprint for a product produced by an end user, which is based on the aggregation of direct and indirect measurements, and provide the necessary data and reporting to provide analytics for different scenarios that correspond to different supply chain decisions that would each have their own corresponding emissions totals. The production process is modified in response to the control signal (analytics output) because, for example, a first producer is replaced with a second producer, a recipe is changed, a location is changed, or etc.
In other words, the system of Umay provides a control signal by way of composition graphs that directly and/or indirectly control a system (i.e. an organized set of ideas or theories or a particular way of doing something, for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/system); an organized or established procedure (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system)) for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials (components of cement, steel, or car chassis, e.g., cement aggregate, iron, and etc. (¶ 53, 58, 90)), distribution of an intermediate (components of cement, steel, or car chassis (¶ 53, 58, 90)), input-output relation of a corresponding process step (e.g., delivery, manufacture, etc.), and etc. based on influencing factors corresponding to the product’s production process, e.g., GHG emissions, power consumption, power source usage, and etc. (¶ 16, 17) and wherein the action may be, for example, replacing an entity in the supply chain. As a non-limiting example, changing the recipe of cement would result in changing the ratio of its raw materials or an entity using the cement would change the ratio of cement and its aggregates or changing their cement supplier.).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the at least one influencing factor comprises:
determining whether or not the calculated first and second PCF of the intermediate have a change in value in between; and
in case of the first and second PCF of the intermediate having a change in value, determining a ratio and/or sign of this change and comparing this change to the change between the first and second PCF of the product, thereby identifying the at least one influencing factor
(Umay – ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 6, wherein if the change between the first and second PCF of the intermediate and the change between the first and second PCF of the product point in a same direction, this is identified as a driver for the change, and its contribution to the first and/or second PCF of the product is determined (Umay – ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the calculation of the first and/or second PCF of the product or the intermediate comprises:
obtaining process data comprising information about the process steps from a raw material to the product;
obtaining a carbon footprint of each raw material;
obtaining energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each production process step; and
calculating the first and/or second final product-related PCF taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and the energy data
(Umay – ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the one or more of the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and the energy data is obtained from a production plant via an enterprise resource planning system (Umay – ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.
Umay – ¶ 23, 30, 31, 35, 43, 47 This is accomplished via a centralized system that allows for a plurality of entities, which have their own respective identifier and digital signature, to share their respective processes, intermediates, and etc., which corresponds to the impact that each respective entity has. The Examiner asserts that this is equivalent to an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. See also Page 11 Lines 12 – 19 of the applicant’s specification.).
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the carbon footprint of the raw material is obtained for each supplier together with an identifier of the supplier and wherein determining the carbon footprint takes into account the amount of raw material from a particular supplier and its associated carbon footprint (Umay – ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.
Umay – ¶ 23, 30, 31, 35, 43, 47 This is accomplished via a centralized system that allows for a plurality of entities, which have their own respective identifier and digital signature, to share their respective processes, intermediates, and etc., which corresponds to the impact that each respective entity has. The Examiner asserts that this is equivalent to an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. See also Page 11 Lines 12 – 19 of the applicant’s specification.).
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising initiating, based on the at least one influencing factor the controlling measure or the intervention within the production process by controlling an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, wherein initiating the controlling measure comprises creating or modifying product information including the PCF of the product by modifying a dataset in the ERP system (First, the applicant’s specification on Pages 2 – 3, Lines 40 – 7, defines “controlling the production” as “may refer to any controlling measure intervention within the production, a production network, e.g. a chemical production network, a production step, or the like, that affects the environmental impact parameter and/or the PCF of the product. This may comprise generating a control signal that modifies data within production, e.g. in or via a production control system, an enterprise resource planning 45 systems, or the like. For example, such a controlling measure or intervention may, for example, comprise controlling the production in terms of the PCF of the raw material, e.g. by changing the raw material, a supplier of it, etc., of a process step, e.g. by changing an energy used for the process step, by technical modification of the production step by a modified physical or chemical influence on an input material of the production step, etc. In other words, controlling the production may change one or more production process parameters in the production reality and thus directly or indirectly control the PCF of the product.” Further, claim 18 discloses “wherein the at least one influencing factor is associated with at least one of: (i) a PCF of raw material, (ii) a distribution of an intermediate, (iii) an input-output relation of a corresponding process step, or (iv) a process step itself.”
With that said, Umay – ¶ 11, 44, 50, 58, 61, 92 discloses that the system generates and outputs composition graphs, i.e. “controlling measure intervention”, that provide analytics on the impact of supply chain decisions and allows decisionmakers to evaluate potential emission impacts associated with changing different aspect of the supply chain, e.g., replacing a first producer with a second producer affects their indirect emission responsibility, changing the recipe of a product, changing the location at which a product is produced, and/or changing different aspects of the entity’s broader supply chain. As a non-limiting example, changing the data in the production, influencing factor, and controlling a measure or intervention within production encompasses a change in supplier who has a corresponding energy consumption that indirectly affects the carbon footprint of the end user.
Umay – ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.
Based on the broad definition provided by the applicant’s specification and lack of specificity of what comprises the recited production control system and the broad scope of an ERP, the Examiner asserts that Umay’s computer-based system that is communicating with a plurality of other systems in order to assess the carbon footprint for a product produced by an end user, which is based on the aggregation of direct and indirect measurements, and provide the necessary data and reporting to provide analytics for different scenarios that correspond to different supply chain decisions that would each have their own corresponding emissions totals. The production process is modified in response to the control signal (analytics output) because, for example, a first producer is replaced with a second producer, a recipe is changed, a location is changed, or etc.
In other words, the system of Umay provides a control signal by way of composition graphs that directly and/or indirectly control a system (i.e. an organized set of ideas or theories or a particular way of doing something, for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/system); an organized or established procedure (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system)) for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials (components of cement, steel, or car chassis, e.g., cement aggregate, iron, and etc. (¶ 53, 58, 90)), distribution of an intermediate (components of cement, steel, or car chassis (¶ 53, 58, 90)), input-output relation of a corresponding process step (e.g., delivery, manufacture, etc.), and etc. based on influencing factors corresponding to the product’s production process, e.g., GHG emissions, power consumption, power source usage, and etc. (¶ 16, 17) and wherein the action may be, for example, replacing an entity in the supply chain.).
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the output interface (30) comprises a user interface to display the identified at least one influencing factor (Umay – ¶ 61 wherein the recorded information allows for the identification of influencing factors within the production process of the finalized product at various points in time for the different PCF’s corresponding to their respective points in time and are further based on the PCF of the intermediate of the product and outputted to analyze the impact that each process has towards the production of the finalized product and allows for the modification of different scenarios/decisions to further analyze the impact of each scenario/decisions; ¶ 23, 24, 30, 31, 35, 43, 47 regarding the system, computing device(s), and interface(s)).
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the adjustment is a decrease (Umay – ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the carbon footprint of the raw material is obtained for each supplier together with an identifier of the supplier and wherein determining the carbon footprint takes into account the amount of raw material from a particular supplier and its associated carbon footprint (Umay – ¶ 11, 12, 44, 58, 61, 65, 67, 71, 74 wherein the production of a finalized product is comprised of a plurality of production process steps and one or more intermediates with each intermediate and process step having a corresponding input material and output material which further have a corresponding carbon footprint, carbon emissions, energy consumption, and the like. The invention calculates the overall carbon footprint associated with the production of a finalized produce, which is based on the overall emissions of a product at any level in the supply chain, including interim products. The aggregated information allows an entity to determine the impact that the product, intermediates, and process steps have and allows for the entity to make and compare decisions of what to change and the impact that the change has. This further allows the entity to trace the full emissions lineage to all of the providers that contribute to the product, i.e. all the way back to the raw materials.
¶ 23, 30, 31, 35, 43, 47 This is accomplished via a centralized system that allows for a plurality of entities, which have their own respective identifier and digital signature, to share their respective processes, intermediates, and etc., which corresponds to the impact that each respective entity has. The Examiner asserts that this is equivalent to an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. See also Page 11 Lines 12 – 19 of the applicant’s specification.).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one influencing factor is associated with at least one of:
(i) a PCF of raw material,
(ii) a distribution of an intermediate,
(iii) an input-output relation of a corresponding process step, or
(iv) a process step itself
(Umay – ¶ 61 discloses that the system generates and outputs composition graphs, i.e. “controlling measure intervention”, that provide analytics on the impact of supply chain decisions and allows decisionmakers to evaluate potential emission impacts associated with changing different aspect of the supply chain, e.g., replacing a first producer with a second producer affects their indirect emission responsibility, changing the recipe of a product, changing the location at which a product is produced, and/or changing different aspects of the entity’s broader supply chain.
In other words, the system of Umay provides a control signal by way of composition graphs that directly and/or indirectly control a system (i.e. an organized set of ideas or theories or a particular way of doing something, for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/system); an organized or established procedure (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system)) for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials (components of cement, steel, or car chassis, e.g., cement aggregate, iron, and etc. (¶ 53, 58, 90)), distribution of an intermediate (components of cement, steel, or car chassis (¶ 53, 58, 90)), input-output relation of a corresponding process step (e.g., delivery, manufacture, etc.), and etc. based on influencing factors corresponding to the product’s production process, e.g., GHG emissions, power consumption, power source usage, and etc. (¶ 16, 17) and wherein the action may be, for example, replacing an entity in the supply chain).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Umay and Nguyen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the PCF-related data comprise energy data obtained from a production plant, and wherein sensors for determining energy consumption and/or greenhouse gas release transfer their data to the enterprise resource planning system from which the energy data are obtained (Umay – ¶ 12, 16, 58, 61, 63, 71, 74, 75, 81, 92, 93 wherein PCF-related data is received for various points in time; ¶ 23, 24, 30, 31, 35, 43, 47 regarding the system, computing device(s), and interface(s); ¶ 61 wherein the recorded information allows for the identification of influencing factors within the production process of the finalized product at various points in time for the different PCF’s corresponding to their respective points in time and are further based on the PCF of the intermediate of the product and outputted to analyze the impact that each process has towards the production of the finalized product and allows for the modification of different scenarios/decisions to further analyze the impact of each scenario/decisions
See, for example:
¶ 12 “Accordingly, the present disclosure is directed to an emission records ledger that may enable different entities to evaluate the emissions for which they are responsible, both directly and indirectly, by correlating different emission records provided by different emission reporting entities. To reuse the above example, the construction company, cement factory, transportation/shipping companies, and/or any other entities involved in facilitating the cement order may each provide emission data records to the emission records ledger. A correlation service may identify a correlation between two or more different emission data records to determine correlated emission analytics, and the correlated emission analytics can then be provided to a requesting entity based at least in part on the identified correlation. For example, the correlated emission analytics may be used by the construction company to quantify the total amount of emissions associated with the cement order, so that it can be counted as part of the construction company's overall carbon footprint, and/or as part of a carbon budget associated with construction of the building.”
¶ 16 “Such emissions may be associated with a particular period of time (e.g., one day, one month, one year), associated with a particular event (e.g., a transaction, a construction project, development of a new product), and/or any other suitable categorization of emissions activity may be used.”
¶ 58 “In some examples, the emission records ledger may be configured to evaluate product components (e.g., referring to processes or discrete manufacturing) to build product graphs to calculate the carbon footprint across an entire supply chain.”
¶ 61 “Additionally, or alternatively, composition graphs may provide analytics on the impact of supply chain decisions on overall carbon footprints-e.g., composition graphs may allow decisionmakers to evaluate the potential emissions impacts associated with changing different aspects of the supply chain. For example, using a composition graph, an entity may evaluate whether replacing a first producer with a second producer affects their indirect emissions responsibility-e.g., because the second producer uses different upstream transportation providers that contribute to less overall emissions than the first producer. As other examples, composition graphs may enable entities to evaluate whether changing the recipe of a product will affect emissions, or changing the location at which the product is produced will affect emissions. In other words, composition graphs can beneficially provide more insight into how an entity's emissions responsibility may be changed by changing different aspects of the entity's broader supply chain.”
¶ 63 “The originator may ingest the product ID, the time range, the emissions value (e.g., in the case of a direct measurement), and/or a set of input parameters associated with a model ID and calculation parameters ( e.g., in the case of an indirect measurement).”
¶ 75 “For example, the requesting entity may request emission analytics pertaining to its own purchase of a product, an ongoing project (such as building construction), total emissions over a given period of time (e.g., a financial quarter), emissions associated with an entire industry (e.g., construction, electrical production, petroleum), emissions inherited by the requesting entity from one or more other specified or unspecified entities, and/or the request for correlated emission analytics may define any other suitable scope.”
¶ 81 “Thus, emission data record 508B may specify the amount of cement manufactured over a particular interval of time (e.g., one day), and the estimated amount of emissions associated with the cement manufacture.”
Nguyen – Abstract, ¶ 22, 23, 24, 34, 39, 40, 43, 44 wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate sensors to collect activity data that affects the amount of emissions produced by an entity because sensors would be able to more accurately report the data as they are devices that are configured to collect and report specific data, thereby resulting in more accurate reporting of emissions and providing an end user with a more complete and accurate evaluation of their carbon footprint.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the emission reporting and assessment system and method of Umay with the ability to use sensors to collect and report activity data that affects an entity’s carbon footprint, as taught by Nguyen, because sensors would be provide more accurate data reporting that, in turn, would provide an end user with better and more accurate insight of their carbon footprint.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(b)
A new rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been provided due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been maintained.
The Examiner asserts that the newly presented amendments are broad and generic and fail to demonstrate an improvement to technology, resolving an issue that arose in technology, or deeply rooted in technology, but directed to an idea of a solution (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claimed invention, with respect to the independent claims, fails to disclose the specifics with regards to “controlling” or how the “controlling” is being performed. Moreover, in light of the applicant’s specification, specifically, Pages 2 – 3, Lines 40 – 7, the specification defines “controlling the production” as “may refer to any controlling measure intervention within the production, a production network, e.g. a chemical production network, a production step, or the like, that affects the environmental impact parameter and/or the PCF of the product. This may comprise generating a control signal that modifies data within production, e.g. in or via a production control system, an enterprise resource planning 45 systems, or the like. For example, such a controlling measure or intervention may, for example, comprise controlling the production in terms of the PCF of the raw material, e.g. by changing the raw material, a supplier of it, etc., of a process step, e.g. by changing an energy used for the process step, by technical modification of the production step by a modified physical or chemical influence on an input material of the production step, etc. In other words, controlling the production may change one or more production process parameters in the production reality and thus directly or indirectly control the PCF of the product.” Further, claim 18 discloses “wherein the at least one influencing factor is associated with at least one of: (i) a PCF of raw material, (ii) a distribution of an intermediate, (iii) an input-output relation of a corresponding process step, or (iv) a process step itself.”
The Examiner asserts that the claimed invention is broad and generic enough to encompass a human contacting another human to modify a business agreement/transaction, e.g., a buyer of raw materials calling a first supplier of raw material to cancel their transactional agreement and the buyer calling a second supplier of raw material and entering into a transactional agreement with them or a user changing their order size. The claimed invention is an idea of a solution because the claimed invention attempts to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claimed invention is ineligible because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the changes are performed, which is equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")). The same rationale applies to “action”, as recited in the claimed invention.
Additionally, the specification and claimed invention fail to define what a “product control system” is intended to encompass and, accordingly, the Examiner asserts that, in the broadest reasonable interpretation and plain meaning of the terms, a “product control system” is a system (i.e. an organized set of ideas or theories or a particular way of doing something, for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials (https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/system); an organized or established procedure (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system)) for product production, thereby resulting in the claimed invention being directed towards a workflow whose inputs and outputs are being evaluated, e.g., by mentally thinking about or referring to written information, to determine what changes could be made in the business workflow (see the examples provided above). As a result, the claimed invention remains being directed to “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities”. The invention is also directed to “Mathematical Concepts” because it is collecting PCF-related data and performing multiple calculations to determine the PCF of products at different points in time.
Moreover, in light of the discussion provided above, the claimed invention does not rise to the same level of Diamond v. Diehr because the calculation outputs are not being utilized by the claimed invention to iteratively improve a product, but directed towards evaluating a workflow to determine how a products carbon footprint can be improved, such as, but not limited to, changing suppliers, rather than improving the product itself, e.g., improving rubber vulcanization by analyzing a first run and using the information from the first run to improve upon a second vulcanization process and performing this process iteratively until a desired product is manufactured. As stated above, the claimed invention is broad and generic with regards to “controlling” and is, therefore, directed towards an idea of a solution.
The definition that was provided illustrates that the claim lacks sufficient specificity to determine what technology is improved upon, what issue that arose in technology is being resolved, or whether the invention is deeply rooted in technology. The Examiner provided a definition for the term “system” that is commensurate with a method claim. The Examiner also referred to the specification and claims to determine whether the definition provided would be appropriate, i.e. does the specification or claims provide a definition that counters the definition provided. One of ordinary skill in the art of a production process would, indeed, interpret a “production control system” as a planning process and not necessarily limited to an apparatus, e.g., six-sigma.
Moreover, when reviewing claim 18, which defines what the production process parameters could be, one would see that this can be process step itself or a batch size (claim 18: PCF of raw material (i.e. how much emissions were produced?); distribution of an intermediate (i.e. delivery of a product and collecting and/or writing down information of emissions produced); input-output relation of a corresponding process step (i.e. substituting suppliers yield different emission results); and the process step itself (i.e. which encompasses human activities, as will be discussed above); Specification, Page 7 recites changing a batch size (i.e. how much material to delivery at one time)). As a result, when reviewing claims 1, 14 in light of the specification, one would have to interpret that the modification is to a process step itself or any one of the aforementioned examples, which, consequently, results in one questioning that if “product control system” were an apparatus or directed to structure and not an organized set of ideas or theories or a particular way of doing something, for product production resulting in changing/modifying a supplier of materials, then what is the structure that comprises the product control system? What is the modification that is being made to technology? How can modifying a batch size not be interpreted to encompass a particular way of doing something or procedure? How is changing data to then modify a process step and improvement to technology when the claimed invention and specification is not only broad, but encompasses activities that can be performed by a human, e.g., a human modifying a supply chain to substitute one supplier for another and modifying the production process to employ the new supplier or modifying data that states an order of 100 widgets? What is meant by “controlling” when the scope of the claim encompasses a human simply writing down information and executing the written information, e.g., substituting suppliers, implementing a different delivery route, or etc.?
Reference and reliance of “production plant” is insufficient because it is directed towards describing an environment of use for the invention and does not provide a definition or example of what are the structural components that comprise the product control system or how the modification is being performed. The definition and rejection were not provided because “production plant” was unknown or that the purpose of the invention was unknown, but because “product control system” is insufficient to integrate the claimed invention into a practical application. There is insufficient disclosure as to the particular acts that are being imposed upon the raw materials. The claimed invention is directed towards a “method for monitoring and control a product carbon footprint”, which can take place in a production plant where the control signal that is provided to the product control system can encompass a human activity (e.g., decreasing/increasing batch size) or modifying a procedure (e.g., delaying a process, deciding to use another process, referring to improvements that can be made by applying six-sigma and etc.).
Finally, similar to what has been discussed above, the “production process parameter” is equally as broad and is insufficient in describing what encompasses the technological improvement, resolution, or how the end results (i.e. (i) – (ii)) are being achieved. As a non-limiting example, modifying a production process parameter that comprises a production equipment used for the process step can be as simply as using a different delivery supply vehicle, making note that a particular production equipment requires maintenance, or simply providing the production control system/ERP system, i.e. computer, with information stating that a different energy source should be used, that energy usage can be reduced by operating during certain business hours, that a newer production equipment should be used, or etc. There is no specificity in the claimed invention or specification to demonstrate how the solution is being achieved or what is being improved upon or resolved in technology.
Rejection under 35 USC 102
The Examiner asserts that the applicant’s arguments are directed towards newly amended limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the newly submitted amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the applicant’s arguments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Whikehart (US Patent 12,554,234 B2); Wei et al. (AU 2021101060 A4); Kulkarni et al. (US PGPub 2023/0186371 A1); Dilip et al. (US PGPub 2016/0055596 A1) – which are directed towards monitoring and controlling greenhouse emissions for a business, including emissions throughout a supply chain
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 9/25/2026
