Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 05/30/2025.
Claim 1 is currently pending and has been examined.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,321,144 (“reference patent”). This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, each and every limitation is identical to the corresponding limitations of claim 1 of the reference patent. In particular, claim 1 of the reference patent discloses the following features:
An artificial-intelligence-based (AI-based) platform for enabling intelligent orchestration and management of power and energy, the AI-based platform comprising: memory hardware configured to store instructions; and processor hardware configured to execute the instructions from the memory hardware, wherein the instructions include:
collecting, via at least one of a set of edge devices or a set of internet of things (IoT) devices, data associated with at least one of current carbon generation or emissions of a mining operation;
automatically generating a set of control instructions to govern the mining operation by keeping the mining operation in a range that is offset by available carbon offset credits;
conveying at least one parameter that is sensed by a sensor of a mine of the mining operation, wherein the at least one parameter is associated with a compliance of the mining operation with a set of labor standards; and
providing, via an adaptive energy digital twin, at least one of a visual or an analytic indicator of energy consumption by at least one energy consumer.
Claim 1 of the reference patent therefore discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 of the present application. Thus, claim 1 of the reference patent anticipates claim 1 of the present application.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claim 1 is directed to a machine (“an artificial-intelligence-based (AI-based) platform”). Thus, claim 1 satisfies Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claim 1, however, is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Collecting […] data associated with at least one of current carbon generation or emissions of a mining operation;
Conveying at least one parameter […] wherein the at least one parameter is associated with a compliance of the mining operation with a set of labor standards; and
Providing […] at least one of a visual or an analytical indicator of energy consumption by at least one energy consumer.
Therefore, claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular, the limitations of claim 1 identified above, as a whole, recite concepts of managing information corresponding to a mining operations and energy consumption - which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions in the form of business relations and contracts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced in the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0006] and ¶ [0072].
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include a “memory hardware configured to store instructions”, “processor hardware configured to execute the instructions from the memory hardware”, “a set of edge devices or set of Internet of things (IoT) devices”, steps for conveying information “sensed by a sensor of a mine of the mining operation”, and an “adaptive energy digital twin”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the claim further include steps for “automatically generating a set of control instructions to govern the mining operation by keeping the mining operation in a range that is offset by available carbon offset credits”. This additional element, as currently drafted, merely describes steps for generating computer instructions for an intended result, but is devoid of any steps for actually implementing or executing the generated instructions by a particular machine or equipment performing the described mining operation. Thus, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements merely describe the use of a computer in its ordinary capacity (i.e., to generate, receive, store, or transmit information) to perform the judicial exception. Accordingly, these additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer tools. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer tools/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0376801, hereafter known as Johnson, in view of DaCosta et al. WO2020250007, hereafter known as DaCosta, in further view of Park et al. U.S. Publication No. 2019/0158309, hereafter known as Park.
Claim 1: Johnson teaches the following:
Memory hardware configured to store instructions; and processor hardware configured to execute the instructions from the memory hardware, wherein the instructions include: (¶ [0036]: components of the system/carbon emissions manager include instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium and executable by processors); (¶ [0071]: carbon emissions manager may be implemented with drilling operations and exploration of natural resources).
Collecting, via at least one of a set of edge devices or a set of internet of things (IoT) device, data associated with at least one of current carbon generation or emissions of a mining operation; (¶ [0033]: carbon emissions manager may receive measurements from one or more sensors. Using the measurements from the sensors, an emissions estimator may estimate the carbon emissions for a drilling operation); (¶ [0022]: drilling operations include sensors that may detect drilling parameters); (¶ [0064]: information may be transferred over a network between computer systems, modules, and other electronic devices).
Automatically generating a set of control instructions to govern the mining operation by keeping the mining operation in a range that is offset by available carbon offset credits; (¶ [0013]: drilling equipment may operate with one or more surface drilling parameters); (¶ [0055]: drilling parameters may be determined from a wellbore drilling model); (¶ [0056]: determining the surface drilling parameters includes receiving measurements from the sensors); (¶ [0039]: the carbon emissions manager may display one or more surface drilling parameters, the power draw, and fuel consumption rate via a GUI); (¶ [0049] the method further includes determining a total carbon emissions to drill the target wellbore. This may allow the drilling operator to determine the number of carbon credits to buy or to provide a cap for carbon emissions for the drilling operator to stay under during drilling operations. Determining the projected carbon emissions may include determining the projected carbon emissions at any time over the period of time. During actual drilling of the wellbore, instantaneous and/or cumulative carbon emissions are compared against the projected carbon emissions at that point in time. If the actual and projected carbon emissions are different, one or more drilling parameters are adjusted).
Johnson does not explicitly teach conveying at least one parameter that is sensed by a sensor of a mine of the mining operation, wherein the at least one parameter is associated with a compliance of the mining operation with a set of labor standards.
However, DaCosta teaches the following:
Conveying at least one parameter that is sensed by a sensor of a mine of the mining operation, wherein the at least one parameter is associated with a compliance of the mining operation with a set of labor standards; (Abstract: an environmental management and monitoring system configured to accommodate and assist multidisciplinary operations such as industrial plants, manufacturing plants, and mines); (pg. 12, lines 19-34: live data streams are collected from measuring devices capable of being informative about environmental, safety, and health variables on an ongoing basis. Measuring devices are located at or near the property); (pg. 3, lines 10-13: a primary measuring device for measuring and publishing a live input data stream about a primary variable related to safety, health, or welfare of people at work); (pg. 6, lines 4-13: an option module is configured to present a selectable output option tailored to address identified environmental compliance shortcomings. An access module presents evaluated results to an authorized user in the mining industry to enable same to make an informed decision about the primary variables).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Johnson the ability to convey at least one parameter that is sensed by a sensor of a mine of the mining operation, wherein the at least one parameter is associated with a compliance of the mining operation with a set of labor standards, as taught by DaCosta, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification when one considers “a common problem facing many multidisciplinary operations is the inability to comply with a myriad of legal requirements in respect of health and safety” (pg. 1, lines 20-21), as suggested by DaCosta, and the teachings of DaCosta provide a solution to this problem by facilitating multidisciplinary operations “to address environmental compliance shortcomings” (pg. 6, lines 6-8), as further suggested by DaCosta. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the teachings of DaCosta are compatible with the system of Johnson as they share capabilities and characteristics; namely, they are both systems configured to obtain sensor data corresponding to mining operations.
Johnson does not explicitly teach providing, via an adaptive energy twin, at least one of a visual or an analytic indicator of energy consumption by at least one energy consumer.
However, Park teaches the following:
Providing, via an adaptive energy twin, at least one of a visual or an analytic indicator of energy consumption by at least one energy consumer. (Abstract: a building system for operating a building and managing building information); (¶ [0185]: building may include a factory, an office building, and/or the like. The present disclosure is not limited to the number or types of buildings shown in Fig. 1, and may include one or more different types of buildings than that shown in Fig.1); (¶ [0421]: facility operation agent includes access to all the building mechanical and electrical information in a three dimensional representation of the building. The operator is able to zoom in digitally onto any device and equipment. The three dimensional digital twin contains information of all assets and employees, and may illustrate a heatmap of energy consumption); (¶ [0057]: the digital twin of the building represents at least one of spaces, people, or devices associated with the building).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system of Johnson the ability to provide, via an adaptive energy twin, at least one of a visual or an analytic indicator of energy consumption by at least one energy consumer, as taught by Park, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements. In combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination are predictable. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification with the purpose of “making it faster and easier for facility management professionals to access and share information for knowledge-driven decisions that improve outcomes” (¶ [0422]), as suggested by Park.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628