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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant only makes a general allegation that the amended claims are eligible under 35 USC 101. Examiner disagrees for reasons established in the updated rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17 and 18 under 35 USC 102 and claims 4-8, 12-16, 19 and 20 has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10 and 12-20 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
reading,
assigning,
receiving,
calculating,
accumulating,
providing,
Each of the limitations recite mental processes as indicated above. The limitations can practically be performed in the mind or with pen and paper. Further, the limitations are certain methods of organizing human activity as they relate to commercial interactions. In claim 1, the nominal recitation of a processor of an ERP system and receiving data from a data source system associated with each manufacturing process does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Independent claim 9 recites the same abstract limitations. The system comprising a processor and memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to implement the abstract idea and receiving data from a data source system associated with each manufacturing process does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Independent claim 17 recites the same abstract limitations. The non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to implement the abstract idea and receiving data from a data source system associated with each manufacturing process does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites each limitation being performed “by a processor of an ERP system” and “receiving… [data] from a computing device associated with each manufacturing process”. This amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 9 recites a system comprising a processor and memory coupled with and readable by the processor and storing therein a set of instructions which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to implement the abstract idea and “receiving… [data] from a computing device associated with each manufacturing process”. This amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 17 recites a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to implement the abstract idea and “receiving… [data] from a computing device associated with each manufacturing process”. This amount to instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer and using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 2, 10 and 18 recite reading a predefined value from a table to assign the component cost value. These are abstract mental processes as one can practically perform the steps in the mind or with pen and paper. The processor of claim 2, system of claim 10 and computer readable medium of claim 18 amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 19 recite steps of calculating a process cost value and gathering data. These are abstract mental processes as one can practically perform the steps in the mind or with pen and paper. The processor and computing device of claims 3-5, system of claims 12-13 and computer readable medium of claim 19 amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, the real time data collection is extra solution activity. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 6, 7, 14, 15 and 20 recite providing and storing the cost value in a table and generating a report. These are abstract mental processes as one can practically perform the steps in the mind or with pen and paper. The processor of claims 6-7, system of claim 14-15 and computer readable medium of claim 20 amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application. Claims 8 and 16 recite the by-product is carbon emissions and the values are measured in metric tons. These limitations only add additional details to the abstract ideas identified in claims 1 and 9. The processor of claim 8 and system of claim 16 amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no integration into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The real-time data gathering step identified as extra-solution activity is well understood, routine and conventional per MPEP 2106.05(d). The claims as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Further, Applicant' s reply makes evident the reason for allowance, satisfying the record as a whole as required by rule 37 CFR 1.104(e). In this case, the substance of applicant' s remarks filed on September 23, 2026, pages 7-8 point out the reason claims are patentable over the prior art of record (see MPEP 1302.14). The closest prior art, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach Applicant' s invention. The closest prior art, cited by examiner, includes: Gupta, US 2024/0241505, Shukla, US 2024/0202614 and Mathers, “Green Freight Match: How to Calculate Emissions for a Truck Move.”
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
