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 .
Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 17 and 19 are amended. Claims 3 and 11 are cancelled. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits set forth below.
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 states the amendments are thought to fully address the reasons for the rejection or otherwise render the rejection moot. Examiner disagrees. As described in the previous rejection of claims 3 and 11 - the added receiving step amounts to using a computer as a tool to gather data. This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Gupta does not disclose receiving data related to operation of the manufacturing process and calculating a process cost value for the by-product… Examiner disagrees. In at least paragraph 0072, Gupta describes determining an environmental cost, the embedded emissions, generated from producing the part and performing the processes. The emissions are the by-product.
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) 1-20 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, manufacturing process during operation of the manufacturing process; [observation – mental process]
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 data source system 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 data source system 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 data source system 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 an abstract mental processes as one can practically perform the steps in the mind or with pen and paper. The processor of claims 3-5, system of claims 11-13 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). This claims as a whole amounts 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.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gupta et al, US 2024/0241505.
As per claim 1, Gupta et al discloses a method for monitoring of manufacturing processes and tracking of production byproducts, the method comprising:
reading, by a processor of an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, a Bill of Materials (BOM) for a product, the BOM for the product identifying a plurality of components of the product ([0061] – parts of a product in the BOM);
assigning, by the processor of the ERP system, a component cost value for a by-product for each component of the plurality of components in the BOM for the product ([0071-0072] – standardized tables to derive baseline embedded emissions and energy wherein embedded emissions are an environmental cost value);
receiving, by the processor of the ERP system, from a data source system associated with each manufacturing process, data related to operation of the manufacturing process during operation of the manufacturing process ([0072-0075] – to generate the environmental cost, the embedded emissions, the system uses measured emissions, energy etc from the processes and generates embedded emissions which is the amount of environmental cost);
calculating, by the processor of the ERP system, a process cost value for the by-product for each manufacturing process of a plurality of manufacturing processes to produce the product using the plurality of components based on the data related to operation of the manufacturing process ([0073-0074] – calculation of embedded emissions (environmental cost) for manufacturing a part);
accumulating, by the processor of the ERP system, the component cost value for the by-product for each component of the plurality of components and the process cost value for the by-product for each manufacturing process of a plurality of manufacturing processes into a total by-product cost value for the product ([0075-0081] – combining the embedded emissions for the part and the manufacturing embedded emissions); and
providing, by the processor of the ERP system, the total by-product cost value for the product ([0082-0084] – providing the total cost value).
Claim 9 is directed to 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, cause the processor to [implement the method of claim 1]. The same art and rationale applied to claim 1 also applies to claim 9. In addition, Gupta et al discloses the claimed system [0115-0117].
Claim 17 is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which causes the processor to [implement the method of claim 1]. The same art and rationale applied to claim 1 also applies to claim 17. In addition, Gupta et al discloses the claimed computer-readable medium [0115-0117].
As per claim 2, Gupta et al discloses the method of claim 1, wherein assigning the component cost value for the by-product for each component of the plurality of components in the BOM for the product comprises reading a predefined value for the component cost value from a by-product cost table ([0071-0072] – standardized tables to derive baseline embedded emissions and energy wherein embedded emissions are an environmental cost value);
Claim 10 is directed to 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, cause the processor to [implement the method of claim 2]. The same art and rationale applied to claim 2 also applies to claim 10. In addition, Gupta et al discloses the claimed system [0115-0117].
Claim 18 is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which causes the processor to [implement the method of claim 2]. The same art and rationale applied to claim 2 also applies to claim 18. In addition, Gupta et al discloses the claimed computer-readable medium [0115-0117].
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 4-7, 12-15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al and Shukla et al, US 2024/0202614.
As per claim 4, Gupta et al discloses the method of claim 3, but fails to explicitly disclose while Shukla et al discloses wherein calculating the process cost value for the by-product for each manufacturing process of a plurality of manufacturing processes comprises calculating a per-hour value for the process cost value based on the received data related to operation of the manufacturing process ([0082] – methods generate an analysis of CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour based on different energy sources used in manufacturing processes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Gupta et al the ability to calculate per hour for process cost as taught by Shukla et al’s carbon emissions quantification interface since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 12 is directed to 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, cause the processor to [implement the method of claim 4]. The same art and rationale applied to claim 4 also applies to claim 12. In addition, the system is taught in Gupta et al [0115-0117] and Shukla et al [0088].
Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which causes the processor to [implement the method of claim 4]. The same art and rationale applied to claim 4 also applies to claim 19. In addition, Gupta et al discloses the claimed computer-readable medium [0115-0117].
As per claim 5, Gupta et al fails to explicitly disclose while Shukla et al discloses wherein the data related to operation of the manufacturing process is received from the data source associated with each manufacturing process in real time ([0016, 0025] – real time collection of manufacturing data). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Gupta et al the ability to calculate per hour for process cost as taught by Shukla et al’s carbon emissions quantification interface since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 13 is directed to 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, cause the processor to [implement the method of claim 5]. The same art and rationale applied to claim 5 also applies to claim 13. In addition, the system is taught in Gupta et al [0115-0117] and Shukla et al [0088].
As per claim 6, Gupta et al disclose the method of claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose while Shukla et al discloses wherein providing the total by-product cost value for the product comprises storing the total by-product cost value in a table associated with and tracking costs of manufacturing the product ([0082] – the report of figure 6 shows a table including cost values). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Gupta et al the ability to provide the cost values in a table for tracking as taught by Shukla et al’s carbon emissions quantification interface since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 14 is directed to 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, cause the processor to [implement the method of claim 6]. The same art and rationale applied to claim 6 also applies to claim 14. In addition, the system is taught in Gupta et al [0115-0117] and Shukla et al [0088].
As per claim 7, Gupta et al fails to disclose while Shukla et al discloses wherein providing the total by-product cost value for the product comprises generating one or more reports from the table associated with and tracking costs of manufacturing the product ([0079-0087] – reports generated from analysis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include in the system of Gupta et al the ability to provide reports as taught by Shukla et al’s carbon emissions quantification interface since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15 is directed to 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, cause the processor to [implement the method of claim 7]. The same art and rationale applied to claim 7 also applies to claim 15. In addition, the system is taught in Gupta et al [0115-0117] and Shukla et al [0088].
Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising a set of instructions stored therein which causes the processor to [implement the method of claim 7]. The same art and rationale applied to claim 7 also applies to claim 20. In addition, Gupta et al discloses the claimed computer-readable medium [0115-0117].
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta et al and Shukla et al in view of Mathers, “Green Freight Math: How to Calculate Emissions for a Truck Move”.
As per claim 8, Gupta et al in combination with Shukla et al fails to explicitly disclose wherein the by-product is carbon emissions and the component cost value, the process cost value, and the total by-product cost value for the product are measured in metric tons. Shukla et al discloses kilograms. Mathers describes that metric tons are the standard measurement unit for corporate emissions of greenhouse gases. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Shukla et al to present tons vs. kilograms since the conversion from kilograms to tons is a standard calculation and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16 is directed to 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, cause the processor to [implement the method of claim 8]. The same art and rationale applied to claim 8 also applies to claim 16. In addition, the system is taught in Gupta et al [0115-0117] and Shukla et al [0088].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hildebrandt et al, US 2026/0065309 - METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR GENERATING A BILL OF MATERIALS AND A CORRESPONDING BILL OF PROCESSES FOR A PRODUCT - the transparency for costs and sustainability values is achieved by defining a bill of materials (BOM) in combination with a bill of processes (BOP) and then calculating and summing up costs and sustainability values along the BOM/BOP-structure of a product to get the total costs/carbon of the product. The BOM/BOP in that sense can be regarded as the digital twin of the product in terms of the materials and manufacturing processes required for manufacturing the product also including any direct or indirect overheads contributing to it
Zhang et al, A Carbon Emissions Costing Method Based on Carbon Value Flow Analysis - To verify the rationality and effectiveness of this method, this article also implements it in a case company. The results indicate that carbon emissions were reduced by 405,021.97 tons, and RMB 107,300,000 $15,670,000) was saved through conducting optimized analysis. It is proved that the CVFA method is particularly suitable for process manufacturing enterprises. However, certain conditions are required to apply CVFA, such as the availability of compulsory carbon information disclosure regulations. Also, improving managers’ carbon resources investment decision-making capacity can reduce more carbon emissions and save more carbon emission costs
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 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
Prosecution Insights