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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 09, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply filed December 09, 2025.
Claims 1, 8-9 have been amended.
Claims 2 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) to claims 1 and 3-8 have been withdrawn in response to the submitted amendments. The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) to claim 9 has been maintained, as explained below.
Regarding applicant’s claim for foreign priority, the certified priority document was received on November 12, 2025.
Applicant’s remaining arguments filed December 09, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 112, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Applicant has amended claims 1, 8 and 9 for clarification. Additionally, claim 9 does not include both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus. Rather, claim 9 is directed only to a method. Claim 9 sets forth a method performed by an apparatus and then describes the apparatus in the preamble, but the claim is directed to a method (see steps after the transitionary phrase "comprising").
Examiner respectfully disagrees. To the extent the apparatus is intended as a part of the preamble, the preamble recites statements limiting structure which must be treated as claim limitations. See MPEP 2111.02(I). The apparatus limitations being treated as claim limitations is further supported by the use of the transitional phrase “including,” which is an open transitional phrase, placed before the recital of the apparatus limitations and is used in addition to the transitional phrase “comprising,” which precedes the method limitations. See MPEP 2111.03(I). Therefore, Examiner maintains that the claims recite both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Applicant disagrees that the presently claimed invention, "a whole, is directed to the abstract idea of estimating costs for a facility at a site based on the cost of similar facilities," as stated in the Office Action. 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 based on the characteristics of the site data and the factory environment. Although, one use of the claimed invention may be to reduce cost, the presently claimed invention as a whole is not directed to estimating costs of a facility.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims focus on selecting a data model using site and cost data which does not change the underlying data model. The specification does not describe a new data model, a new site, a new facility, a new data acquisition device, a new API, or a new physical combination thereof. In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The specification does not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two. The specification fails to provide any technical details for the tangible components, but instead predominately describes the system and methods in purely functional terms.)
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Further, Applicant has amended claim 1 to specify that cost is "an index quantifying data characteristics which are determined according to a scale and complexity of the data." See para. [0041] of of the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application (US 2025/0111399). Therefore, "cost," as set forth in claim 1, cannot be interpreted to be as abstract as a monetary cost.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The example in the paragraph referenced by Applicant (i.e. as-filed specification [0028], which is PG Pub [0041]) provides actual cost as an example of the cost defined by the quoted index language. Examiner maintains that cost as an index is just as abstract as a monetary cost for the purposes of the analysis under the Alice/Mayo framework for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Even further, claim 1 is not directed to a business problem. The solution provided by claim 1 may be used in a business setting, but claim 1, when considered as a whole, is not directed to solving a business problem.
Additionally, the presently claimed invention is a technical solution to a technical problem that is rooted in computer technology. For example, the presently claimed invention addresses a problem in conventional systems which is that, conventional systems, such as described in Patent Literature 1, determine whether to use a data model based on application access patterns but do not consider the specific characteristics of the target data. As a result, they might not select the optimal data model for the situation. See paras. [0003]-[0008] and [0012]. Selecting an optimal data model relates to a technical solution, not a business solution, provided i by the presently claimed invention.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reducing and optimizing costs is a business problem. An improvement to the selection of a data model is an improvement to the underlying abstract idea not to a technological process. See In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 991 F.3d 1245, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[T]he improvement in computational accuracy alleged here does not qualify as an improvement to a technological process; rather, it is merely an enhancement to the abstract mathematical calculation … itself.”); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591-92 (1978) ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all")
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
The improvement is also recited in the claims. For example, claim 1 recites "select, based on the first cost and the related information, a specific data model from among the plurality of data models so that performance of a data collection apparatus 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."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identified improvements argued by Applicant are really, at best, improvements to the performance of the abstract idea itself (e.g. improvements made in the underlying business method) and not in the operations of any additional elements or technology. For example, in Trading Tech, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
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 so that performance of a data collection apparatus 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. Further, the limitation does not recite a method of organizing human activity or a mathematical concept
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A mental process may be performed by a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Examiner maintains that a human mind can compare the performance of data models based on the past performance results and costs in order to choose a data model.
The claimed computer components have not been improved by the automation of the manual process. Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan-application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential), has been found by the courts not to be sufficient to show an improvement in a computer-functionality.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
Even further, the improvement set forth in claim 1 is not to the alleged abstract idea itself. Additionally, this is not a case like Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) where the computer is merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.
Thus, Applicant's claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because claim 1 includes additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea demonstrated by a particular 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 based on the characteristics of the site data and the factory environment. Therefore, under the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reducing and optimizing costs is a business problem. An improvement to the selection of a data model is an improvement to the underlying abstract idea not to a technological process. See In re Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University, 991 F.3d 1245, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[T]he improvement in computational accuracy alleged here does not qualify as an improvement to a technological process; rather, it is merely an enhancement to the abstract mathematical calculation … itself.”); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 591-92 (1978) ("the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all")
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 USC 102, Applicant submitted the following arguments:
That is, Radjy does not at all relate to selecting data models from among a plurality of data models so that performance of a data collection apparatus 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. Accordingly, Radjy does not disclose "wherein the cost is an index quantifying data characteristics which are determined according to a scale and complexity of the data, [...], and select, based on the first cost and the related information, a specific data model from among the plurality of data models so that performance of a data collection apparatus 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," as set forth in claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the claim “the data” is site data. See claim 1 line 2. According to the claim the data model connects site data and costs. See claim 1 lines 3-6. The site data is described as the output from the sensors or data collection apparatus. See as-filed specification [0016]. The data collection apparatus refers to sensors of the production line of a production facility that measure performance of the production line. See as-filed specification [0016]. According to as filed specification [0028] actual cost is an example of index quantifying data characteristics which are determined according to a scale and complexity of the site data. The “scale and complexity” of the site data (i.e. measured production output) is only discussed in terms of having a relationship to cost. See as filed specification [0028]. As far as Examiner understands the claims when read in light of the specification, the claims are for selecting the data model for a site that optimizes the production output at that site using cost and past performance. Examiner maintains, as shown in the rejection below, that Radjy discloses selecting formulations, using localizations and the cost impacts of those formulations, which performs the claimed functions. The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9 is 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.
Claim 9 is directed to a "method" however the claim recites a combination of devices as a part of an apparatus (e.g., "An information processing method…" and "an information processing apparatus including: …"). A single claim that claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005). These claims do not properly apprise the public as to what would constitute infringement (i.e., creation of the claimed device or the act of using it) and accordingly is vague and indefinite and rejected under § 112(b). For the purposes of compact prosecution, claim 9 has been interpreted to recite a method for the remainder of the rejection.
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 1:
Claims 1 and 3-8 recite a combination of devices and therefore recite a machine.
Claim 9 has been interpreted to recite a process as explained in the 112(b) rejection above.
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 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, and an input/output unit. These memory, processor, 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, 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]), 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 extrasolution 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.
Claim(s) 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, which is information regarding a site, 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 [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 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; [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
a memory having site data, for a plurality of sites, which is information regarding a site, 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 [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);
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); and
a processor (Radjy [0072], [0348] server equipped with a processor); and
the information processing method comprising:
a cost calculation processing step, which is executed by the processor, of receiving site identifying information for identifying a site and calculating 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
a data model selection step, which is executed by the processor, of selecting, 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 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;[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
outputting 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT M TUNGATE whose telephone number is (571)431-0763. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 - 4:30 EST.
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.
/SCOTT M TUNGATE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628