Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15 have been amended. (NOTE: Claim 5 has been identified as “Previously Presented” despite having an amendment. The proper identifier is “Currently Amended.” See MPEP § 714)
No claims have been cancelled.
Claim 18 has been added.
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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “in claim 1” in line 3 is unnecessary because claim 12 is already directly dependent from claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification has assigned different acronyms for “enterprise resource planning” throughout the specification, specifically, “ERP”, “ERF”, AND “EPR”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 18 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.
In regards to claims 1, 12, 14, the Examiner asserts that the body of the claims do not satisfy what the preamble sets forth. Specifically, the preambles recite “monitoring and controlling”, however, the last limitation fails to satisfy “controlling.” The last limitation only positively claims the act/function of “providing a control signal” and then describes that the “control signal” is intended to control a change in a production process, but never positively claims the actual act of “controlling”.
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 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
obtaining PCF-related data for a first and a second point in time;
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;
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;
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; and
controlling the production process by:
determining, from the identified at least one influencing factor, at least on action with an adjustment of the PCF of the product to be performed within the production process;
generating a control signal based on the identified at least one influencing factor and the at least one action; and
providing the control signal to a production control system to modify at least one process parameter of the production process, wherein the production control system, in response to the control signal, changes one or more production process parameters of the production process as executed in a production plant
(Claim 14) outputting the identified at least one influencing factor
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, 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. 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).
The limitations of:
obtaining PCF-related data for a first and a second point in time;
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;
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;
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; and
controlling the production process by:
determining, from the identified at least one influencing factor, at least on action with an adjustment of the PCF of the product to be performed within the production process;
generating a control signal based on the identified at least one influencing factor and the at least one action; and
providing the control signal to a production control system to modify at least one process parameter of the production process, wherein the production control system, in response to the control signal, changes one or more production process parameters of the production process as executed in a production plant
(Claim 14) outputting the identified at least one influencing factor
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, and generic enterprise resource planning system. That is, other than reciting a generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, and generic enterprise resource planning system 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, and generic enterprise resource planning system 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, and generic enterprise resource planning system, 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, and generic enterprise resource planning system 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 and identifying influencing factors. The generic data interface, generic processor executing computer code stored on a computer medium, and generic enterprise resource planning system 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, and generic enterprise resource planning system 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, and generic enterprise resource planning system 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:
obtaining PCF-related data for a first and a second point in time;
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;
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;
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; and
controlling the production process by:
determining, from the identified at least one influencing factor, at least on action with an adjustment of the PCF of the product to be performed within the production process;
generating a control signal based on the identified at least one influencing factor and the at least one action; and
providing the control signal to a production control system to modify at least one process parameter of the production process, wherein the production control system, in response to the control signal, changes one or more production process parameters of the production process as executed in a production plant
(Claim 14) outputting the identified at least one influencing factor
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 8 is directed towards human activities and comparing information to determine an action associated with an adjustment of the carbon footprint of the product within the production process.
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.
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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Umay (US PGPub 2023/0162203 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:
obtaining, via an interface to an enterprise resource planning system, PCF-related data for a first and a second point in time;
(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, 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);
(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);
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);
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, at least on action with an adjustment of the PCF of the product to be performed within the production process;
generating a control signal based on the identified at least one influencing factor and the at least one action; and
providing the control signal to a production control system to modify at least one process parameter of the production process, wherein the production control system, in response to the control signal, changes one or more production process parameters of the production process as executed in a production plant
(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, new claim 18 discloses that the production process parameter “comprises at least one of: (i) a raw material or a supplier of the raw material, (ii) a distribution of an intermediate, (iii) an input-output relation of a corresponding process step; (iv) a process step itself including changing an energy used for the process step and/ or using a more efficient production equipment; and (v) a batch size.”
With that said, ¶ 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.).
(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)).
In regards to claim 2, Umay 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 (¶ 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, Umay 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 (¶ 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, Umay 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 (¶ 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, Umay 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
(¶ 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, ¶ 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. 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, Umay 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
(¶ 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, Umay 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 (¶ 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 8, Umay discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, from the identified and/or output at least one influencing factor, at least one action associated with an adjustment of the PCF of the product to be performed within the production process (¶ 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, Umay 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
(¶ 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, Umay 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 (¶ 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 11, Umay 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 (¶ 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 12, Umay discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising using the at least one influencing factor identified in claim 1 to monitor and/or control production of the product, wherein using comprising initiating a controlling measure or intervention within the production process that changes one or more production process parameters based on the at least one influencing factor (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, new claim 18 discloses that the production process parameter “comprises at least one of: (i) a raw material or a supplier of the raw material, (ii) a distribution of an intermediate, (iii) an input-output relation of a corresponding process step; (iv) a process step itself including changing an energy used for the process step and/ or using a more efficient production equipment; and (v) a batch size.”
With that said, ¶ 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 15, Umay discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the output interface (30) comprises a user interface to display 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)).
In regards to claim 16, Umay discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the adjustment is a decrease (¶ 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, Umay 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 (¶ 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, Umay discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more production process parameters comprise at least one of:
(i) a raw material or a supplier of the raw material,
(ii) a distribution of an intermediate,
(iii) an input-output relation of a corresponding process step;
(iv) a process step itself including changing an energy used for the process step and/ or using a more efficient production equipment; and
(v) a batch size
(¶ 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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Objections
The objections to the claims have been withdrawn due to amendments.
Claim Interpretation
The claim interpretation has been withdrawn due to amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(b)
With the exception of the rejection directed to failing to satisfy the preamble, all other rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn due to amendments.
With regards to failing to satisfy the preamble, the preamble recites “monitoring and controlling”, however, the last limitation fails to satisfy “controlling.” The last limitation only positively claims the act/function of “providing a control signal” and then describes that the “control signal” is intended to control a change in a production process, but never positively claims the actual act of “controlling”.
Rejection under 35 USC 112(a)
The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn 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, new claim 18 discloses that the production process parameter “comprises at least one of: (i) a raw material or a supplier of the raw material, (ii) a distribution of an intermediate, (iii) an input-output relation of a corresponding process step; (iv) a process step itself including changing an energy used for the process step and/ or using a more efficient production equipment; and (v) a batch size.”
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 be 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. As a result, Example 46 does not apply.
With regards to “well-understood, routine, and conventional”, the rejection does not rely nor never stated this rationale and, accordingly, Berkheimer does not apply.
With regards to the dependent claims, in addition to what has been discussed above:
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 8 is directed towards human activities and comparing information to determine an action associated with an adjustment of the carbon footprint of the product within the production process.
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 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 (see also the examples provided above.).
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.
Krause et al. (US PGPub 2025/0304525 A1); Sirico et al. (US Patent 12,443,905 B2); Schneider et al. (US Patent 12,429,853 B2); Whikehart et al. (US Patent 12,422,796 B2) – which are directed towards analyzing product manufacturing workflows to reduce carbon emissions or the like
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 1/26/2026