DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 .
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 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.
This action is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 09/21/2026.
Claims 22 and 28-30 have been amended.
Claims 17-30 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 17-30 in the previous office action have been maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claim 30 in the previous office action have been maintained.
Foreign Priority
The Examiner/office acknowledges that the applicant claims foreign priority to the date 09/02/2022.
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 17-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 17-30 are directed towards a method of which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including generating a graph to data. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
With respect to claims 17-30, the independent claim (claim 17, 28, 29 ) are directed to managing of the production of products, In independent claim 17, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1, A method for recommending one or more actions to enable a circular economy framework across a lifecycle of a product comprising one or more components in an industrial environment, the method comprising:
determining, by a processing unit, one or more features for a given phase of the lifecycle of the product based on information, wherein the information is stored in a knowledge graph comprising semantic information pertaining to properties and behavior of the one or more components of the product at each lifecycle phase of the product;
determining, by the processing unit, one or more performance indicators pertaining to the circular economy framework in the industrial environment based on the determined one or more features from the knowledge graph for a-given phase of the lifecycle of the product;
assigning one or more classes to the nodes of the ontology, wherein each of the one or more nodes have data attributes;
determining relationships between the one or more nodes, wherein the relationships correspond to object properties of the ontology;
associating the collected data to the nodes and one or more links between the nodes based on semantic relationships between the data;
classifying the nodes into one or more categories corresponding to one or more phases of the lifecycle of the product;
these steps fall within and recite an abstract ideas because they are directed to a mental processes which includes concepts perform in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interactions such as business relations (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; commercial interactions, then it falls within the “mental processes”; “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, If the identified limitation(s) falls within any of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, the analysis should proceed to Prong Two. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of processing unit (claim 28 apparatus, processing unit, memory unit, machine-readable; claim 29 database, apparatus, processing unit, memory unit, machine-readable). The claim recite the steps are performed by the processing unit. The processing unit are recited at a high level of generality. In limitation (a), the processing unit is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The processing unit is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of processing unit. The claims recite the steps are performed by the processing unit.
recommending one or more actions for the given lifecycle phase of the product such that the determined one or more performance indicators are within a predefined range enabling circular economy framework in the industrial environment, wherein the information is associated with a unique identifier of the product, wherein the one or more components of the product are linked to the unique identifier, wherein the knowledge graph is generated based on an ontology comprising a plurality of nodes having semantic information pertaining to properties and behavior of the one or more components of the product at each lifecycle phase of the product, wherein creating the ontology comprises:
creating an ontology based on the one or more classes and relationships therebetween, wherein the knowledge graph is further generated using data from one or more data sources associated with development and operation of the product through different phases of the lifecycle of the product, wherein generating the knowledge graph based on the ontology comprises:
collecting data from one or more data sources associated with development and operation of the product through different phases of the lifecycle of the product, wherein the data comprises at least one of: physical properties of materials of the product, chemical properties of the materials of the product, biological properties of the properties of the product, design and production information, transportation and logistics information, usage and operation information of the product, disassembly and reversibility information of the product, and reuse and recycling information of the product;
arranging the one or more nodes into one or more layers under the one or more categories by establishing a relationship between different lifecycle phases of the product based on the classification; and
generating the knowledge graph from the collected data based on the arrangement and the created ontology, and wherein the recommendations are generated by inferencing contextual insights from the knowledge graph.
The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including processing unit amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a processing unit to perform limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 18-27 and 30 do not contain any new additional elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims. In this case, the claims are rejected for the same reasons at step 2a, prong one; step 2a, prong 2; and step 2b. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claim 30 recites processing unit, computer-program product, computer-readable storage medium, machine-readable for classifying data and making recommendations. The dependent claims 18-27 and 30 recite limitations that are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. Claim 30 recites processing unit, computer-program product, computer-readable storage medium, machine-readable which are considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and analyzing data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 18-27 and 30 recite processing unit, computer-program product, computer-readable storage medium, machine-readable, which merely recites an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component; MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claim 30 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. No additional elements are disclosed in the dependent claims that were not considered in independent claims 17. Therefore claims 18-27 and 30 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 30 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 30 recite “executed by one or more processing units, cause the one or more processing units to perform the method according to claim 17.”. As such it’s not clear if all of the steps/limitation of claim 17 are to be included in the execution of claim 30
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 09/21/2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 11-13 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
Claim 1, A method for recommending one or more actions to enable a circular economy framework across a lifecycle of a product comprising one or more components in an industrial environment, the method comprising:
determining, by a processing unit, one or more features for a given phase of the lifecycle of the product based on information, wherein the information is stored in a knowledge graph comprising semantic information pertaining to properties and behavior of the one or more components of the product at each lifecycle phase of the product;
determining, by the processing unit, one or more performance indicators pertaining to the circular economy framework in the industrial environment based on the determined one or more features from the knowledge graph for a-given phase of the lifecycle of the product;
recommending one or more actions for the given lifecycle phase of the product such that the determined one or more performance indicators are within a predefined range enabling circular economy framework in the industrial environment, wherein the information is associated with a unique identifier of the product, wherein the one or more components of the product are linked to the unique identifier, wherein the knowledge graph is generated based on an ontology comprising a plurality of nodes having semantic information pertaining to properties and behavior of the one or more components of the product at each lifecycle phase of the product, wherein creating the ontology comprises:
assigning one or more classes to the nodes of the ontology, wherein each of the one or more nodes have data attributes;
determining relationships between the one or more nodes, wherein the relationships correspond to object properties of the ontology;
creating an ontology based on the one or more classes and relationships therebetween, wherein the knowledge graph is further generated using data from one or more data sources associated with development and operation of the product through different phases of the lifecycle of the product, wherein generating the knowledge graph based on the ontology comprises:
collecting data from one or more data sources associated with development and operation of the product through different phases of the lifecycle of the product, wherein the data comprises at least one of: physical properties of materials of the product, chemical properties of the materials of the product, biological properties of the properties of the product, design and production information, transportation and logistics information, usage and operation information of the product, disassembly and reversibility information of the product, and reuse and recycling information of the product;
associating the collected data to the nodes and one or more links between the nodes based on semantic relationships between the data;
classifying the nodes into one or more categories corresponding to one or more phases of the lifecycle of the product;
arranging the one or more nodes into one or more layers under the one or more categories by establishing a relationship between different lifecycle phases of the product based on the classification; and
generating the knowledge graph from the collected data based on the arrangement and the created ontology, and wherein the recommendations are generated by inferencing contextual insights from the knowledge graph.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for managing of the production of products, which constitutes methods related to mental processes which includes concepts perform in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; method of organizing human activity which includes commercial interactions such as business relations which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, the steps at pg. 11-12 that Applicant points to as practical application are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the following steps and arguments of:
Pg. 11-12. “Applicant contends that claim 17 integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application because it recites a specific technical architecture that improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Claim 17 recites "classifying the nodes into one or more categories corresponding to one or more phases of the lifecycle of the product" and "arranging the one or more nodes into one or more layers under the one or more categories by establishing a relationship between different lifecycle phases of the product based on the classification.”
Pg. 12. “The present application further explains that the method comprises "classifying the one or more nodes into one or more categories corresponding to one or more phases of the lifecycle of the product,"5 and "arranging the one or more nodes into one or more layers under the one or more categories by establishing a relationship between different lifecycle phases of the product based on the classification,"6 and then "generating the knowledge graph from the collected data based on the arrangement and the created ontology."7 The present application provides detailed explanations of an unconventional technical solution. Claim 17 recites the components or steps that provide the improvement described in the specification. Accordingly, claim 17 is not directed to a judicial exception.”
seems to describe a “particular way” of managing of the production of products are part of the abstract idea.
Applicant is basically relying on the organizing of nodes as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application but those nodes aren't really utilized in any particular manner, and the specification indicates that at Pg. 27, Ln. 13-15 " Anything can act as a node, for example, people, com- pany, computer, etc.", which indicates the lack of particularity in the application to the technological environment.
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which managing of the production of products will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Conclusion
The following is the Examiner’s statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but insufficient, either singularly or in combination with one or more of the remaining prior art references of record, to render claim 17 of the invention anticipated or obvious:
Menezes et al., U.S. Pub. 20180075379, (discussing providing a knowledge-management foundation to explain all relevant failure modes” and “representing and locating risks through a process ontology and a process map. The system uses a system’s ontology framework and knowledge-management framework to store and organize lifecycle risk knowledge, including failure modes and events; features (events, failure modes, KPIs, lifecycle stages) are associated with ontology-based representations.).
Daitou et al., W.O. Pub. 2018042940, (discussing the software and system components for managing industrial equipment across multiple systems. One system tracks power state or operating state information for equipment or areas, while another system tracks maintenance history and maintenance status. The invention links these two kinds of records so the user can see which monitored device corresponds to which maintenance object. It then presents the linked information together on a display. The display may show monitoring data, maintenance data, alerts, and detailed diagnostics in coordinated windows. When a trigger occurs, such as abnormal power usage or abnormal operating behavior, the system identifies the related equipment and brings up its maintenance information. The user can also move in the opposite direction, starting from maintenance records and then viewing the associated monitoring data. The system supports automatic registration updates when new devices are added on either the monitoring side or the maintenance side with managing production.).
Favi et al., A Design For Disassembly Approach To Analyze And Manage End-Of-Life Options For Industrial Products In The Early Design Phase, https://www.academia.edu/download/49186748/Chapter_15.pdf, Technology and Manufacturing Process Selection: The Product Life Cycle Perspective, 2013 (discussing the product disassembly in a manufacturing environment in which, product disassembly is an important phase of the product lifecycle to consider from the environmental and economic point of view.).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights