DETAILED ACTION
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 the Claims
Claims 1 and 3-9 were previously pending. Claims 1 and 9 were amended in the reply filed April 20, 2026. Claims 1 and 3-9 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejection of claim 9 made under § 112(b) and it is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
“Rather, the presently claimed invention is an improvement to data analysis systems and data acquisition efficiency in systems that acquire data from facilities using APIs by enabling the system to select the most suitable data model from multiple options so that performance of the sensor will be optimized.” Remarks, 8.
Data acquisition and analysis at the high level claimed is not a technology. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that these fit into the recognized categories of abstract ideas. "The focus of the claims... is on selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis. That is all abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d, 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “[C]ollecting, analyzing, and displaying data, with nothing more, are practices whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1097—98 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). "[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8).
APIs are not recited in the claims. Moreover, they are generic computing tools that are applicable in almost any data communication context. See cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., 986 F.3d 1367, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("The claims apply the abstract idea on a computer by replacing the human intermediary with a GUI and API, but as the Board concluded, representative claim 1 'merely recites generic and conventional computer components (i.e., "processor," "GUI," and "API") and functionality for carrying out' the abstract idea.").
With respect to optimizing the performance of the sensor, there is no description of how it is optimized in a technical fashion. Moreover, this merely states an intended result without any technical detail about the means with which that is accomplished. Similar to the claims at issue in Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017), "the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more." Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1342 (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
“Selecting an optimal data model relates to a technical solution, not a business solution, provided i by the presently claimed invention.” Remarks, 9. “At least this limitation cannot be practically performed in the human mind since the human mind is not equipped to automatically choose a specific data model….” Remarks, 9. Applicant does not explain why either of these are the case. Moreover, the Remarks do not offer any reasons why this step is not a mathematical concept or certain method of organizing human activities. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under §§ 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the recited sensor (see Remarks, 12), this broad term reads on the system/modules in Radjy that collect information regarding the production of a mixture, in real time [0252]. Identity of terminology is not a requirement of a prior art reference. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant also argues that: “Cost in Radjy relates to price, not quantified data characteristics determined according to a scale and complexity of data (of data models).” Remarks, 13. Price-based costs are also quantified data characteristics that can be determined according to a scale and complexity of data. The Specification defines cost very broadly, and the term includes “a bill of materials (BOM) cost and a bill of process (BOP) cost.” Published Specification [0041].
Applicant also argues that “Radjy does not at all consider past performance results of a sensor.” Remarks, 14. The claim merely recites an intended result of: “so that performance of a data collection apparatus, being a sensor, for collecting the site data will be optimized according to past performance results of the data collection apparatus and a cost of characteristics of the site data.” There is no specific means recited that describe how the optimization occurs. In the portions cited of Radjy, the system modules collect data regarding the manufacturing process in accordance with the best updated practices that are, in turn, the result of the information analyzed by the data model. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
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 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 1:
Independent Claims 1 and 9, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea of estimating costs for a factory facility at a site based on the cost of similar facilities, which is a mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, and mental process. The claims recite a mathematical concept because the identified idea is a mathematical calculation by reciting calculating cost and selecting models with similar costs. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C). The claims recite a method of organizing human activity because the identified idea is a fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk) by reciting cost estimation based on site information and selecting a data model based on the similarity of the costs. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A). The claims recite a mental processes because the identified idea contains limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) by reciting observing data models, evaluating the costs, and judging models based on similarity of the costs. The mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, and mental process of “estimating costs for a facility at a site based on the cost of similar facilities,” is recited by claiming the following limitations: receiving site information, calculating a first cost, selecting a data model with similar costs, and outputting the selected data model. The mere nominal recitation of a memory, a processor, and an input/output unit does not take the claim of the mathematical concept, method of organizing human activity, or mental process groupings. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 3-8 claims further recite the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea) by reciting the following limitations: optimizing data model selection, calculating a planned cost, calculating an actual cost, matching costs of a new site to a production facility, calculating bill of materials cost and bill of process cost, calculating a rework cost, calculating a loop cost, calculating a work order cost, and selecting a data model where the combination of costs come close to that of a target.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2A – Prong 2:
Independent Claims 1 and 9 recite the additional elements: a memory, a processor, sensor, and an input/output unit. These memory, processor, sensor, and input/output unit limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Taken individually 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.
Dependent Claims 3-8 do not introduce any additional elements not already introduced the claims upon which they depend.
Considering the limitations containing the judicial exception as well as the additional elements in the claim besides the judicial exception does not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not improve the functioning of a computer or improve other technology or improve a technical field. The claim as a whole is not implemented with a particular machine. The claim as a whole does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state. The claim as a whole is not applied in any 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. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of estimating costs in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing cost estimation process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Alice/Mayo Framework Step 2B:
Independent Claims 1 and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite a generic computer performing generic computer function by reciting a memory, a processor, sensor, and an input/output unit. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (describing a “processor” as a generic computer component); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims reciting an “interface,” “network,” and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (discussing the same with respect to “data” and “memory”). The claims recite the following computer functions recognized by the courts as generic computer functions by reciting receiving information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec; TLI Communications LLC; OIP Techs.; buySAFE, Inc.), processing information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) performing repetitive calculations, Flook; Bancorp Services), and presenting information (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), MPEP 2106.05(g) presenting offers gathering statistics, OIP Technologies). The specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the following additional elements because they are described in a manner that indicates the elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a): a memory (Specification [0019]), a processor (Specification [0019]), sensor, (Specification [0016]), and an input/output unit (Specification [0019]). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2). The claims add the words “apply it” or words equivalent to “apply the abstract idea” such as instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer by reciting a memory, a processor, and an input/output unit. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims recite insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. mere data gathering) by reciting receiving input information. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims limit the field of use by reciting production sites. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements alone, and in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent Claims 3-8, do not recite additional elements not already introduced the claims upon which they depend and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. See MPEP 2106.05(b). Therefore, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Radjy (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2014/0222209 A1), hereinafter Radjy.
Claim 1.
Radjy discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
a memory having site data, for a plurality of sites being factories, which is information regarding a site, the site data being values measured during operation of the respective sites, the memory further storing cost information indicating characteristics of the sites, a plurality of data models which define connection relations between the site data, and related information by which the cost for each site is associated with the plurality of data models (Radjy [0069] production facility sites; [0087], [0135], [0225] [0240] [0255] monitoring values measured during operation of the sites; [0072], [0349] server equipped with a memory; [0073] master database maintains product formulations, tolerances regarding technical/physical aspects of components and processes, and cost data for various components and processes; [0210] local factors; [0217] plurality of product facilities capable of producing a product are identified and localization modules identify their locality; [0218] local factor corresponding to the facility; [0213] locality factor may indicate a particular component is prohibitively expensive in a particular locality; [0223] master database maintains localized versions);
a processor (Radjy [0072], [0348] server equipped with a processor); and
wherein the cost is an index quantifying data characteristics which are determined according to a scale and complexity of the data (Radjy [0077], [0080], [0099] theoretical costs; [0115], [0256] cost impact table; [0255] production related events. Examiner notes that cost impacts represent varied scale and complexity of a formulation with the resulting cost and the specification does not provide details on how scale and complexity are used),
wherein the processor is configured to:
receive site identifying information for identifying a site and calculate a first cost which is a cost of the site identified by the site identifying information based on site information of the site identified by the site identifying information (Radjy [0077], [0080], [0099] theoretical costs; [0115], [0256] cost impact table), and
select, based on the first cost and the related information, a specific data model (Radjy [0204] localization module generates one or more localized versions of a mixture formulation for use at respective production facilities; [0212] localized versions are generated using local factors; [0213] locality factor may indicate a particular component is prohibitively expensive in a particular locality; [0217] plurality of product facilities capable of producing a product are identified and localization modules identify their locality; [0218] local factor corresponding to the facility; [0223] master database maintains localized versions)
from among the plurality of data models so that performance of a data collection apparatus, being a sensor, for collecting the site data will be optimized according to past performance results of the data collection apparatus and a cost of characteristics of the site data (Radjy [0148] optimize mixes; [0252] collect information from various modules involved in the production of a mixture, in real time; [0337] real-time batch data variability with respect to mixture design factors; [0069], [0257] benchmark cost reduction established based on a plurality of production facilities; [0329], [0330] select benchmark based on the best performance; [0332] potential cost savings by improving to the benchmarks), and
output the selected specific data model (Radjy [0255] display indications of modifications to the mixture prior to production; [0328], [0329], [0330] select benchmark based on the best performance)
Claim 3.
Radjy discloses all the elements of claim 1, as shown above. Additionally, Radjy discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to calculate a planned cost based on a production plan of a production facility as a characteristic of the site data (Radjy [0077], [0080], [0099] theoretical costs; [0115], [0256] cost impact table).
Claim 4.
Radjy discloses all the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Additionally, Radjy discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to calculate an actual cost based on performance result data of the production facility (Radjy [0079] historical data stored in master database; [0015], [0099] store actual and theoretical cost and performance factors; [0294] component cost difference).
Claim 5.
Radjy discloses all the elements of claim 4, as shown above. Additionally, Radjy discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to check whether a planned cost and an actual cost of a new site matches a combination of the planned cost and the actual cost of the production facility, refer to performance result data of a site whose combination is the closest, and determine the specific data model to be selected at a new production facility (Radjy [0069], [0257] benchmark cost reduction established based on a plurality of production facilities; [0329], [0330] select benchmark based on the best performance; [0332] potential cost savings by improving to the benchmarks; [0236] select production facility based on locality).
Claim 6.
Radjy discloses all the elements of claim 3, as shown above. Additionally, Radjy discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to calculate a bill of materials (BOM) cost and a bill of process (BOP) cost as the planned cost from a bill of materials (BOM) and a bill of process (BOP) of the production facility (Radjy [0073] store cost data for various components and processes; [0101] cost variances from target costs; [0115] changes in materials can impact a producers cost of materials; [0143] cost of business; [0226] cost of a component may increase substantially and be replaced by an equivalent).
Claim 9.
Radjy discloses an information processing method performed by an information processing apparatus, which includes steps implementing the same functionality of analogous claim 1 (see above).
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.
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radjy in view of Raza et al. (U.S. P.G. Pub. 2022/0358423 A1), hereinafter Raza.
Claim 7.
Radjy discloses all the elements of claim 4, as shown above. Regarding the following limitation:
• wherein the processor is configured to extract a rework, a loop, and a work order change performed in the production facility from past performance result information regarding past performance results of the data collection apparatus and respectively calculate a rework cost, a loop cost, and a work order cost as the actual cost.
Radjy discloses wherein the data model selection unit extracts a work order change performed in the production facility from past performance result information regarding past performance results of the data collection apparatus and respectively calculates and a work order cost as the actual cost (Radjy [0253] cost analysis of a change to the mixture; [0115], [0256] cost impact table). However, Radjy does not disclose extracting rework and loop and calculating rework cost and loop costs, but Raza does (Raza [0061] unit cost per defect includes rework cost; [0072] annualized savings can be calculated using additional output units and unit cost per defect).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the various defect costs of Raza in the cost analysis of Radjy in order to get a more complete understanding of all the costs involved in production. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include all the defect costs as taught by Raza in the system of Radjy, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of manufacturing cost analysis, 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. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Radjy’s system with the improved functionality to have a more complete the total cost by understanding of the cost of defective products not just the cost of correctly produced products.
Claim 8.
Radjy discloses all the elements of claim 6, as shown above. Additionally, Radjy discloses:
• wherein the processor is configured to select the specific data model from among the plurality of data models so that a combination of the bill of materials (BOM) cost, the bill of process (BOP) cost, a rework cost, a loop cost, and a work order cost approaches that of a target.
Radjy discloses wherein the data model selection unit selects the specific data model from among the plurality of data models so that a combination of the bill of materials (BOM) cost, the bill of process (BOP) cost, and the work order cost becomes close to that of a target (Radjy [0101] cost variances from target costs; [0115] changes in materials can impact a producers cost of materials; [0143] cost of business; [0253] cost analysis of a change to the mixture; [0256] master databases stores cost impact of various components and events; [0129] actual profitability versus target). However, Radjy does not disclose considering rework cost and loop costs, but Raza does (Raza [0061] unit cost per defect includes rework cost; [0072] annualized savings can be calculated using additional output units and unit cost per defect).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the various defect costs of Raza in the cost analysis of Radjy in order to get a more complete understanding of all the costs involved in production. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include all the defect costs as taught by Raza in the system of Radjy, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in the art of manufacturing cost analysis, 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. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that only routine engineering would be required to incorporate the above features and yield predictable result of Radjy’s system with the improved functionality to have a more complete the total cost by understanding of the cost of defective products not just the cost of correctly produced products.
Conclusion
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
