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 .
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 4, 5, 8, 13-15, 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 4, there is no antecedent basis for “the ERP system computing apparatus”. No such element is recited in claim 1. It is not clear what this is referring to. This renders the claim indefinite. The ERP computing apparatus is recited in claim 3 but not claim 1. Correction is required.
For claim 5, there is no antecedent basis for “the production chain”. No such element is recited in claim 1. It is not clear what this is referring to. This renders the claim indefinite. Correction is required.
For claim 8, there is no antecedent basis for “the consolidation apparatus”. No such element is recited in claim 1. Is this the same as the apparatus of claim 1 or is this another apparatus? It is not clear what this is referring to. This renders the claim indefinite. Correction is required.
For claims 13-15, 19, the claim recites that the representation is “related to” a reagent or product data or intermediate data, or greenhouse gas, etc.. What does the claimed relation define to the representation itself or to the apparatus that is the subject of the claims? The process data is claimed as a digital representation that is related to other data. What does this recite to the apparatus of claim 13 if anything at all? This is not clear and renders the claim indefinite.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite an apparatus, and pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of monitoring a carbon footprint for a product by calculating a carbon footprint for a product, that includes a carbon footprint for each step of a manufacturing process.
For claim 1, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
monitoring the carbon footprint of a product produced by interconnected process steps, wherein the product is produced from raw materials,
gather process data associated with a production plant, the process data comprising a representation of the one or more process step(s), and
(b) determine the carbon footprint per process step by consolidating the gathered process data and consolidating the carbon footprint obtained to arrive at the carbon footprint of the product produced by the interconnected process steps
The above limitations are reciting a process by which a carbon footprint for a product is being calculated based on data about the product and its manufacture at process steps for the production of the product. This defines a certain method of organizing human activities that can be considered as a commercial practice and/or a legal obligation depending on local jurisdiction and regulations, and the claimed functions/steps that define the abstract idea are capable of being performed by people. While the examiner is not treating the abstract idea first and foremost as a mental process, the gathering of data and using the data to calculate a carbon footprint that is broadly recited is fully capable of being performed by a person who is using data on paper to manually calculate a carbon footprint. As is set forth in the specification, determining carbon footprints for a product is something known to be mandated by or called for by various regulatory bodies, see paragraph 003. The specification in paragraph 005 clearly teaches that it is known in the art to traditionally calculate a carbon footprint for a product manually (by people). As is admitted in the specification, the Greenhouse Gas protocol includes scope 3 that is for emissions related to raw materials obtained from suppliers. Determining a carbon footprint is something that represents a commercial practice, and/or a legal obligation depending on local jurisdiction and regulations, as well as being something that is capable of being performed by people, including mentally. For these reasons the claims are considered to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities abstract idea in the claim scope.
For claim 1, the additional elements are the interface of a computing apparatus, calling the representation of the process steps as a digital representation, and the at least one processor. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim amount to the use of a computing device with an interface and the use of at least one processor as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with an interface to perform the abstract idea step of gathering process data about the product and its process steps. This is claiming the use of a computing apparatus with an interface as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Labeling or naming the process data as being “digital” data is an instruction for one to use a computer because the term “digital” implies computer implementation of the data. The limitation of the at least one processor being used to calculate the carbon footprint, this is claiming the use of the processor as a tool to merely calculate a carbon footprint. This is an instruction for one to use a computer to calculate the carbon footprint as opposed to having a person manually calculate the footprint. These elements when viewed with the claim as a whole do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected and that has an interface of some kind, all being generically recited. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by use of a computing device with an interface and the use of at least one processor as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device with an interface to perform the abstract idea step of gathering process data about the product and its process steps. This is claiming the use of a computing apparatus with an interface as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Labeling or naming the process data as being “digital” data is an instruction for one to use a computer because the term “digital” implies computer implementation of the data. The limitation of the at least one processor being used to calculate the carbon footprint, this is claiming the use of the processor as a tool to merely calculate a carbon footprint. This is an instruction for one to use a computer to calculate the carbon footprint as opposed to having a person manually calculate the footprint. These elements when viewed with the claim as a whole do not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected and that has an interface of some kind, all being generically recited. This does not amount to reciting significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant is again referred to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claim 2, the claim does not recite anything about the apparatus of the claims or that further limits one of the elements recited in claim 1. Claiming that raw materials are used in various intermediates which are processed into a product and where the raw material is used as claimed, does not define anything to the claimed system. The claim is providing commentary on raw materials and their use in the production process of a product, but this has nothing to do with the apparatus of claim 1 or its functionality. Claim 2 is reciting more about the abstract idea as far as raw materials are used to make products and this includes in more than one product as claimed. No further additional element is claimed for consideration. The claims does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not considered to be eligible.
For claims, 3-7, claiming that the process data is gathered through an interface of an ERP planning system, and/or that it is gathered through an interface to different ERP computing apparatuses that are connected to interfaces of production plants, or from a consolidation system, or from a consolidation apparatus, etc., is claiming an additional element that is the use of networked computers that can communicate data to each other. This is taken as a further instruction for one to use a computer(s) to perform the abstract idea. Also, reciting where the process data is gathered from is not really defining anything further to the apparatus because this is just defining the source of the data and does not further define the gathering step itself or anything to the apparatus other than the fact that it can receive data. Regardless, the use of an interface of an ERP system or to the other claimed systems (that are all reciting generic computer systems) is claiming a computer connected to the apparatus that the process data is received from, and is the same as reciting “apply the abstract idea” with a connected computers. This does not amount to integration into a practical application or significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims are not found to be eligible.
For claim 8, the claimed consolidation of the process data so that one can identify intermediates produced by one company, etc., are elements that are reciting more about the abstract idea. What is claimed is the consolidation of data, where the intended use of why one is consolidating the data does not receive weight. The consolidation apparatus has been treated as being the same apparatus of claim 1 and does not provide for integration or significantly more for the same reasons set forth for claim 1. The claim is not eligible.
For claims 9, 20, the generation of a consolidated bill of materials that are listed as claimed, is reciting more about the abstract idea. The claim does not recite more than generation of a consolidated bill of materials. The language describing the production process itself does not define anything to the claimed apparatus and does not receive weight. The language is claiming the intended use of the apparatus as far as what kinds of production processes it can be used with, but that does not define anything to the apparatus itself. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. The claims are not eligible.
For claims 10-14, 19, the claimed process data that is being claimed is directed to information per se and is part of the abstract idea. What the process data is or is associated with what it relates to, or what it represents, are elements that serve to define more about the abstract idea and the data used. The use of the term “digital” in claims 11, 12, 13, 14 is another instruction for one to use a computer and have the data be “digital”. For the same reasons already addressed for claim 1, calling the data digital is a reference to computer implementation for the abstract idea and does not amount to providing for integration into a practical application or significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
For claim 15, reciting what the process steps relate to is not claiming anything further about the apparatus of claim 1. The claim is reciting process steps that are represented in the process data but the manner in which the product is made or intended to be made does not define anything to the apparatus that is monitoring and calculating the carbon footprint based on data. The manufacturing process itself is not part of the claim scope and does not define structure to the claimed apparatus. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not found to be eligible.
For claims 16-18, the applicant is reciting the manipulation or consolidation by identifying per material identifiers, process steps, etc.. This claim is not linking the functions to the claimed system in any manner and is just reciting an abstract manipulation of data. This is part of the abstract idea. No additional elements are claimed for consideration. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claim is not found to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-4, 6, 7, 10-16, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamilton, II et al. (20100127868)
For claims 1, 10-15, 19, Hamilton teaches a carbon footprint tracking system 145 that includes a computing device 10 (see paragraph 022) that is used to track the carbon footprint of a product that is being manufactured at a production plant 203, see figure 2. See paragraphs 004, 014, 015 and especially paragraphs 016, 017. The carbon footprint is determined during the stages of the manufacturing process and paragraph 018 discloses that the carbon footprint can includes values from any or all of the steps in the product lifecycle that includes manufacturing, shipping, storage, and disposal. Hamilton is teaching the claimed step/function of the apparatus determining a carbon footprint for each step of a production process, that inherently requires the claimed process data about the manufacturing process that is being undertaken at a production plant. Paragraph 018 clearly states that the tracking of the carbon footprint value is done for a product as the product is manufactured and discloses that as the product moves along a production line the carbon footprint values are updated. This requires that process data being collected so that the carbon footprint values can be determined. Disclosed in paragraph 017 is that the final composite carbon footprint value is a sum of intermediate carbon footprint values associated with the manufacturing steps. This is teaching the use of carbon footprint values for each step of a process that are used to render an overall carbon footprint value. This satisfies the claimed carbon footprint of the product produced by the interconnected steps. Hamilton is found to be anticipating what is claimed.
For claims 10-15, 19, in addition to the above, the applicant should take notice that claiming the process data as being associated with process steps for a raw material to a product, or that the steps are associated with information about raw materials, or that the representation is related to other claimed data, this does not define anything further to the claimed invention. Claiming that data is associated with other data or is related to other data does not define anything about the process data itself or the fact that the invention is determining the carbon footprint for each process step. What the process data or the digital representation is associated with or related to does not define anything specific to the claimed process data or the functionalities recited for the apparatus.
For claim 2, the claim is reciting details of the production process that is making the claimed product where the claim is reciting just the apparatus that is collecting data and determining a carbon footprint. The claimed element does not define anything to the claimed apparatus because the claim is reciting the intended use of the apparatus with a given type of manufacturing process that is not within the claim scope. Claim 2 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth for claim 1 because the system of Hamilton is capable of being used with any type of production process. The intended use of the apparatus as far as the type of production process that the data is representative of, does not define anything to the apparatus of the claims by way of structure or functionality. Claim 2 is also anticipated by Hamilton.
For claims 3, 4, 6, 7, the computing device that is used by Hamilton to collect the process data satisfies what is claimed. The claim recites an interface of a system is used, and/or that the process data is gathered from a computing apparatus. What you call or name the computing system does not define structure to the system such that it is to be interpreted as being more than another computer or device that is sending the process data to the apparatus 110 for processing. Hamilton teaches that the apparatus for monitoring the carbon footprint is a computer and receives data so that the carbon footprint can be determined. This inherently requires that the data (that is digital data) is collected from another computing device as claimed and that inherently requires a data bus or a data communication interface of some kind. The claimed structure is inherently present in the computing system of Hamilton.
For claim 16, the process data of Hamilton is representative of at least two process steps as claimed. The different steps of the manufacturing process constitute at least two process steps that the process data is defining. This satisfies what is claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-16, 19, 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman et al. (European Patent Application EP 2244216 A1), referred herein as Kaufman and further in view of Hamilton, II et al. (20100127868).
For claims 1, 10-15, 19, Kaufman discloses an apparatus for determining information about a product produced in a production process of a production plant that includes emissions amounts and sustainability information about carbon footprints. Paragraph 048 discloses the tracking of a carbon footprint that is associated with supply chain management. The system and method of Kaufman is computer implemented (computing system 100). The computing system is disclosed as being used to gather process data associated with a production plant. See paragraphs 019, 023, 026 as examples. Data regarding the operation of the plant is collected and that includes data such as energy consumption data, sensor data, equipment data, emissions data, water usage data, raw material data, etc.. The data is in a digital form and is a digital representation of the one or more process steps as claimed. See paragraphs 023, 026, 027, 028. Kaufman discloses that the obtained process data that is associated with the production plant is used to generate a process statement (the output of data) that includes data about the amounts of emissions detected during the manufacturing process such (CO2, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide are disclosed as examples). Disclosed in paragraph 032 is the output of a carbon footprint for materials. Paragraph 026 discloses that the production process can include one or more discrete processes, such as for assembly line production.
Not expressly disclosed but highly implied by the disclosure of Kaufman is that a carbon footprint is obtained for each process step (carbon footprint per process step) of the manufacturing process of the product. Kaufman teaches determining an output that includes amounts of greenhouse gases that are being emitted in an overall production process that is manufacturing a product, but does not expressly disclose that the carbon footprint is determined for each process step.
Hamilton teaches a carbon footprint tracking system 145 that includes a computing device 10 (see paragraph 022) that is used to track the carbon footprint of a product that is being manufactured at a production plant 203, see figure 2. See paragraphs 004, 014, 015 and especially paragraphs 016, 017. The carbon footprint is determined during the stages of the manufacturing process and paragraph 018 discloses that the carbon footprint can includes values from any or all of the steps in the product lifecycle that includes manufacturing, shipping, storage, and disposal. Hamilton is teaching the claimed step/function of the apparatus determining a carbon footprint for each step of a production process. Paragraph 018 clearly states that the tracking of the carbon footprint value is done for a product as the product is manufactured and discloses that as the product moves along a production line the carbon footprint values are updated. Disclosed in paragraph 017 is that the final composite carbon footprint value is a sum of intermediate carbon footprint values associated with the manufacturing steps. This is teaching the use of carbon footprint values for each step of a process that are used to render an overall carbon footprint value.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kaufman with the ability to track and determine the carbon footprint of a product at each process step of the manufacturing process as is taught by Hamilton. This would agree with what Kaufman is trying to accomplish as far as to determine information about emission amounts during a production process with the recognition in paragraph 002 that greenhouse gas emissions are an issue of concern for manufacturing products. Knowing the carbon footprint of each step in the process of making a product yields predictable results of allowing for a more accurate assessment of the carbon footprint of a product during manufacturing, as well as during the entire lifecycle of the product.
For claims 10-15, 19, in addition to the above, the applicant should take notice that claiming the process data as being associated with process steps for a raw material to a product, or that the steps are associated with information about raw materials, or that the representation is related to other claimed data, this does not define anything further to the claimed invention. Claiming that data is associated with other data or is related to other data does not define anything about the process data itself or the fact that the invention is determining the carbon footprint for each process step. What the process data or the digital representation is associated with or related to does not define anything specific to the claimed process data or the functionalities recited for the apparatus. Kaufman teaches that information such as raw materials and other inputs to a process are used as data. This satisfies what is claimed.
For claim 2, the claim is reciting details of the production process that is making the claimed product where the claim is reciting just the apparatus that is collecting data and determining a carbon footprint. The claimed element does not define anything to the claimed apparatus because the claim is reciting the intended use of the apparatus with a given type of manufacturing process that is not within the claim scope. Claim 2 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth for claim 1 because the system of Kaufman is capable of being used with any type of production process. The intended use of the apparatus as far as the type of production process that the data is representative of, does not define anything to the apparatus of the claims by way of structure or functionality.
For claims 3, 4, 6, 7, Kaufman teaches an acquisition component that is used to collect and aggregate the process data. The data is collected from controllers, sensors, a machine or device, see paragraph 023. The claim recites an interface of a system is used, and/or that the process data is gathered from a computing apparatus. What you call or name the computing system or the source of the process data does not define structure to the system such that it is to be interpreted as being more than another computer or device that is sending the process data to the apparatus for processing. The claimed structure is inherently present in the computing system of Kaufman.
For claims 9, 20, see paragraphs 019 and 032 where the claimed generation of a bill of materials is disclosed by Kaufman. Not disclosed is that the bill of materials is for each process step. The content of the bill of materials is directed to non-functional descriptive material that is akin to reciting the printed matter of a report and does not patentably distinguish over the process statement of Kaufman. The combination of Kaufman in view of Hamilton results in a carbon footprint for each process step so it would follow and be naturally obvious to provide the bill of materials of Kaufman for each process step as claimed so that the information for each step of the process can be analyzed, not just the overall process.
For claim 16, the process data of Kaufman in view of Hamilton is representative of at least two process steps as claimed. The different steps of the manufacturing process constitute at least two process steps that the process data is defining. This satisfies what is claimed.
Claim(s) 5, 8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaufman et al. (European Patent Application EP 2244216 A1), referred herein as Kaufman and further in view of Hamilton, II et al. (20100127868) and further in view of Barba et al. (20110141117).
For claims 5, 8, not disclosed by Kaufman is that the process data is gathered from an interface connected to one or more production plants.
Barba teaches a system and method for determining a carbon footprint of a product due to a manufacturing process, see paragraph 073. Discloses in paragraph 075 discloses that the system can be used with different production plants such as a group of plants. This reference is teaching that it is known in the art to monitor and determine a carbon footprint for a product made by different production plants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Kaufman with the ability to obtain process data from more than one production plant as claimed, so that the advantages of the system of Kaufman can be realized with multiple production plants.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17, 20, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12229785. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are anticipated by the patented claims.
The pending claims are just broader versions of the patented claims. The pending claims are simply not claiming all of the limitations of the patented claims but are still reciting common subject matter that results in the patented claims being anticipatory.
For claim 1, see patented claim 1 that recites the gathering of process data and the calculation of a carbon footprint as claimed. This anticipates what is claimed.
For claim 2, see claim 1 that anticipates the claimed limitation.
For claims 3-7, see patented claims 6 and 13. Defining the source of the data by naming different systems that the data is received from and that are not in the claim scope does not define over receiving data from the system of the patented claims. What is claimed is anticipated by the patented claims.
For claim 8, see patented claim 1 that is fully capable of being used with different production plants or by different companies. The claimed ability is inherently present in patented claim 1 and for that reason it anticipates what is claimed.
For claim 9, see patented claim 4. This anticipates what is claimed.
For claims 10-12, 15, see patented claim 1 that teaches the same elements as claimed. This anticipates what is claimed.
For claims 13, 14, see patented claim 10 that anticipates what is claimed.
For claim 16, see patented claim 2. This anticipates what is claimed.
For claim 17, see patented claim 5. This anticipates what is claimed.
For claim 20, see patented claim 11. This anticipates what is claimed.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11,16, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12223513. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are anticipated by the patented claims.
The pending claims are just broader versions of the patented claims. The pending claims are simply not claiming all of the limitations of the patented claims but are still reciting common subject matter that results in the patented claims being anticipatory.
For claim 1, see patented claim 1 that anticipates what is claimed. Patented claim 1 recites process data being gathered by the system and determines a carbon footprint as claimed, where the process data for various steps to a manufacturing process.
For claim 11, see patented claim 2 that anticipates what is claimed.
For claims 3-7, see patented claim 6, 13. Defining the source of the data by naming different systems that the data is received from and that are not in the claim scope does not define over receiving data from the system of the patented claims. What is claimed is anticipated by the patented claims.
For claim 16, see patented claim 7 that anticipates what is claimed.
For claim 9, see patented claim 11 that anticipates what is claimed.
Claims 1, 3-7, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12217269. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are anticipated by the patented claims.
For claim 1, see patented claim 1 that anticipates what is claimed. Patented claim 1 recites process data being gathered by the system and determines a carbon footprint as claimed, where the process data for various steps to a manufacturing process.
For claims 3-7, see patented claim 5. Defining the source of the data by naming different systems that the data is received from and that are not in the claim scope does not define over receiving data from the system of the patented claims. What is claimed is anticipated by the patented claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Himberger et al. (20070016456) discloses a flowchart generation system that can generate a flowchart of a process. This is relevant to the disclosed aspect of the invention directed to a display of the interconnected process steps.
Hamilton, II et al. (8427318) discloses a carbon footprint tracking system for the production of a product. This is relevant to what is claimed.
Sarkisian et al. (20110191071) discloses a carbon footprint analysis tool that is used for estimating the carbon footprint of a structure during construction of a structure. This is relevant to what is claimed.
“Understanding the levels of flowcharting processes” NPL reference discloses information about flowcharts and why people use them for presenting information to viewers in an easy to understand manner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626