DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to original communications filed August 27, 2025 and preliminary communications filed August 27, 2025. With respect to the preliminary communications, claims 1–6 are canceled, and claims 7–12 are newly added. Claims 7–12 are currently pending.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a specification acquisition unit”, “a condition acquisition unit”, and “a production route selection unit” in claim 7 and “a presentation unit” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As noted above, the recitations of “a specification acquisition unit”, “a condition acquisition unit”, and “a production route selection unit” in claim 7 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Although paragraph 21 of the Specification indicates that “these configurations are realized by a CPU of an arbitrary computer, a memory, a program loaded into the memory, and the like” and “that these functional blocks can be realized in various forms by hardware alone, software alone, or a combination thereof,” the Specification does not define the specific structure corresponding to each “unit”. As a result, the Specification does not fully set forth the claimed invention in such a way as to convey possession of the claimed invention, and claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 8–10, which depend from claim 7, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 8–10 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Additionally, as similarly noted above, the recitation of “a presentation unit” in claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Although paragraph 21 of the Specification indicates that “these configurations are realized by a CPU of an arbitrary computer, a memory, a program loaded into the memory, and the like” and “that these functional blocks can be realized in various forms by hardware alone, software alone, or a combination thereof,” the Specification does not define the specific structure corresponding to the “presentation unit”. As a result, the Specification does not fully set forth the claimed invention in such a way as to convey possession of the claimed invention, and claim 10 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 7–10 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.
As noted above, the recitations of “a specification acquisition unit”, “a condition acquisition unit”, and “a production route selection unit” in claim 7 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although paragraph 21 of the Specification indicates that “these configurations are realized by a CPU of an arbitrary computer, a memory, a program loaded into the memory, and the like” and “that these functional blocks can be realized in various forms by hardware alone, software alone, or a combination thereof,” the Specification does not define the specific structure corresponding to each “unit”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8–10, which depend from claim 7, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 8–10 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the term “electric power” in line 3. However, claim 7, from which claim 8 depends, previously recites “electric power” in the element reciting “a specification acquisition unit”. As a result, the scope of claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the recitation of claim 8 to reference the previous recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “electric power”.
Further, the scope of the conditions recited by claim 8 is unclear. More particularly, it is unclear whether Applicant intends to recite:
“the condition acquisition unit acquires, as the conditions, (1) at least one of CAPEX, OPEX, acquisition conditions, and a useful life at the location of the plant of at least one of electric power, a material, and constituent elements used for each of the plurality of production routes, (2) a yield of the final product in the plurality of production routes, and (3) discharge conditions at the location of the plant for waste discharged in each of the plurality of production routes” –or–
“the condition acquisition unit acquires, as the conditions, at least one of (1) CAPEX, OPEX, acquisition conditions, and a useful life at the location of the plant of at least one of electric power, a material, and constituent elements used for each of the plurality of production routes, (2) a yield of the final product in the plurality of production routes, and (3) discharge conditions at the location of the plant for waste discharged in each of the plurality of production routes”.
For purposes of examination, claim 8 is interpreted as reciting: “the condition acquisition unit acquires, as the conditions, at least one of (1) CAPEX, OPEX, acquisition conditions, and a useful life at the location of the plant of at least one of the electric power, a material, and constituent elements used for each of the plurality of production routes, (2) a yield of the final product in the plurality of production routes, and (3) discharge conditions at the location of the plant for waste discharged in each of the plurality of production routes”.
Clarification is required.
Claim 9 twice recites “a predetermined period” in line 5. As a result, the scope of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the second recitation to reference the first recitation or intends to introduce a second, different “predetermined period”.
For purposes of examination, claim 9 is interpreted as reciting “an operation cost in a predetermined period, and a profit of the final product produced in [[a]] the predetermined period”.
Claim 10 recites “CAPEX, OPEX, a production unit price, a C02 emission amount and a C02 reduction amount, an operation cost in a predetermined period, and a profit of the final product produced in a predetermined period”. However, claim 9, from which claim 10 depends, previously recites “CAPEX, OPEX, a production unit price, a C02 emission amount and a C02 reduction amount, an operation cost in a predetermined period, and a profit of the final product produced in a predetermined period”. As a result, the scope of claim 10 is indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends for the elements of claim 10 to reference the elements of claim 9 or intends to introduce second, different elements.
For purposes of examination, claim 10 is interpreted as reciting “the CAPEX, OPEX, [[a]] the production unit price, [[a]] the C02 emission amount and [[a]] the C02 reduction amount, [[an]] the operation cost in [[a]] the predetermined period, and [[a]] the profit of the final product produced in [[a]] the predetermined period”.
Finally, as noted above, the recitation of “a presentation unit” in claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Although paragraph 21 of the Specification indicates that “these configurations are realized by a CPU of an arbitrary computer, a memory, a program loaded into the memory, and the like” and “that these functional blocks can be realized in various forms by hardware alone, software alone, or a combination thereof,” the Specification does not define the specific structure corresponding to each “unit”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 7–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 7–12 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 7 recites an abstract idea. Claim 7 includes elements to “acquire specifications required for a final product produced in a plant that produces the final product from a material using electric power”; “acquire conditions at a location of the plant that can affect suitability of a plurality of production routes for producing the final product from the material”; and “select a recommended production route in the plant from the plurality of production routes, based on the specifications acquired and the conditions acquired.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements embody observations or evaluations that can be practically performed in the mind or by a human using pen and paper. As a result, claim 7 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 11–12 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 7. As a result, claims 11–12 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 8–10 further describe the process for selecting a recommended production route and further recite mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 8–10 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a specification acquisition unit, a condition acquisition unit, and a production route selection unit. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 11–12 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further includes a computer readable medium, the additional element, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 11–12 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claim 10 includes an additional element that does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a presentation unit. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 10 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 8–9 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 8–9 depend. As a result, claims 8–9 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a specification acquisition unit, a condition acquisition unit, and a production route selection unit. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 11–12 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 11 further includes a computer readable medium, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 11–12 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claim 10 includes an additional element that does not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional element includes a presentation unit. The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computer element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 10 does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 8–9 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 8–9 depend. As a result, claims 8–9 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 7–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 7–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DA GAMA CAMPOS et al. (WO 2022/180542) in view of Li et al. (U.S. 2019/0303815).
Claims 7 and 11–12: Da Gama Campos discloses a design assistance device comprising:
acquire specifications required for a final product produced in a plant that produces the final product from a material using electric power (See paragraph 6, in view of paragraph 4, wherein a given tonnage of steel products is defined according to specified physical properties and quality);
acquire conditions at a location of the plant that can affect suitability of a plurality of production routes for producing the final product from the material (See paragraph 13, wherein the system takes into account parameters “such as local regulations, C02 already emitted for previous production campaigns, state of the different production equipment or availability of renewable energies”); and
select a recommended production route in the plant from the plurality of production routes, based on the specifications acquired by the specification acquisition unit and the conditions acquired by the condition acquisition unit (See paragraphs 21–22, in view of paragraphs 6 and 13, wherein an optimized manufacturing route is selected by modifying any of the materials, energy sources, and processes within a manufacturing route; see also paragraph 7). Da Gama Campos does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Li discloses a unit (See paragraph 58, in view of FIG. 7, wherein program modules are disclosed; see also paragraph 30).
De Gama Campos discloses a system directed to optimizing a steel manufacturing route. Li discloses a system directed to optimizing a manufacturing route in a distributing manufacturing system. Each reference discloses a system directed to optimizing a manufacturing route. The technique of utilizing programmatic units is applicable to the system of De Gama Campos as they each share characteristics and capabilities; namely, they are directed to optimizing a manufacturing route.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Li would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Li to the teachings of De Gama Campos would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate manufacturing route optimization into similar systems. Further, applying programmatic units to De Gama Campos would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow generalized computer utilization.
With respect to claim 11, Da Gama Campos does not expressly disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a design assistance program for causing a computer to function. However, Li discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a design assistance program for causing a computer to function (See paragraph 57).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Li would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim 8: Da Gama Campos discloses the design assistance device according to Claim 7, wherein: acquires, as the conditions, at least one of CAPEX, OPEX, acquisition conditions, and a useful life at the location of the plant of at least one of electric power, a material, and constituent elements used for each of the plurality of production routes, a yield of the final product in the plurality of production routes, and discharge conditions at the location of the plant for waste discharged in each of the plurality of production routes (See paragraph 6, in view of paragraph 4, wherein the given tonnage of steel products is the final product yield; see also paragraph 13, wherein energy source acquisition conditions are disclosed, and paragraphs 7, 9, and 22, wherein recycling conditions are disclosed with respect to waste gas exhaust). De Gama Campos does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Li discloses a unit (See paragraph 58, in view of FIG. 7, wherein program modules are disclosed; see also paragraph 30).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Li would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
Claim 9: Da Gama Campos discloses the design assistance device according to Claim 7, wherein: the production route selection unit selects the recommended production route in the plant from the plurality of production routes, based on any one of the following parameters for the plant: CAPEX, OPEX, a production unit price, a C02 emission amount and a C02 reduction amount, an operation cost in a predetermined period, and a profit of the final product produced in a predetermined period, or any combination of two or more thereof (See paragraph 25, in view of paragraphs 21–22, wherein an optimized manufacturing route is selected based on an original C02 emission amount and a reduction amount defining a reduction from an original amount to an amount equal to or below a target emission amount; see also paragraph 25, in view of paragraph 7, wherein a C02 reduction amount is used to establish a certificate).
Claim 10: Although De Gama Campos discloses any one of the following parameters for the plant: CAPEX, OPEX, a production unit price, a C02 emission amount and a C02 reduction amount, an operation cost in a predetermined period, and a profit of the final product produced in a predetermined period, or any combination of two or more thereof, in which any of the plurality of production routes is adopted (See citations above), De Gama Campos does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Li discloses a presentation unit configured to present (See paragraph 58, in view of FIG. 7, wherein program modules are disclosed, and wherein “the computer system 800 further includes an output device 825 (e.g., a display) to provide at least some of the results of the execution as output including, but not limited to, visual information to users and an input device 830 to provide a user or another device with means for entering data and/or otherwise interact with the computer system 800”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Li would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Berberich et al. (U.S. 2010/0057507) discloses a system directed to optimizing manufacturing routing based on contextual information; and
Ladosz et al. (Ladosz, Pawel, et al. "A genetic algorithm optimiser for dynamic product routing in agile manufacturing environment." 2018 IEEE 16th International Conference on Industrial Informatics (INDIN). IEEE, 2018.) discloses a system directed to optimizing reconfigurable manufacturing systems according to energy and cost considerations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, 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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights