Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on January 7, 2026 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claims 1 and 13 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15-21, 23, and 24 are pending.
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
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, 3-9, 11-13, 15-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1, 3-9, 11, and 12 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and claims 13, 15-21, 23, and 24 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1 and 13, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1 and 13, is
A method of producing verifiable environmental attributes, the method comprising:
display one or more categories and one or more category pages, each of the one or more category pages corresponding to a particular one of the one or more categories and display one or more items under the particular category;
receiving from the user an input specifying a selected item for purchase, lease and/or rental over an online platform, the selected item having one or more product life cycle phases;
requesting a plurality of delivery options for delivering the selected item from a current location of the selected item to a delivery destination provided, the plurality of delivery options including one or more baseline delivery options and one or more alternative delivery options with reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the baseline delivery options;
providing the delivery options to the user for display and receiving from the user an input specifying a selected delivery option;
calculating item project emissions for the selected item, based at least in part on emissions associated with each of the one or more product life cycle phases of the selected item;
calculating item baseline emissions for an equivalent baseline item to the selected item, based at least in part on emissions associated with one or more product life cycle phases of the equivalent baseline item;
extracting the emissions reductions based at least in part on the selected delivery option, the item baseline emissions and the item project emissions;
delivering to the user for display in one or more of: the item project emissions, the item baseline emissions, the extracted emissions reductions, and a plurality of purchasing options for comparable items having reduced emissions over the equivalent baseline item; and
upon receiving from the user, lease and/or rental of the selected item, delivering the extracted emissions reductions to an independent data verification.
The claimed invention is directed to calculating carbon emission reductions.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements, the limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (steps [C], [E], [H]), analyzing the information (steps [D]- [G]), and displaying the information (steps [B], [E], [I], [J]). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information and analyzing the collected information, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally, the same claim limitations above recite a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce in the form of commercial and legal interaction. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of computer components, the limitations recite a process of obtaining data regarding the emissions attributable to comparable products when shopping in order to award (i.e., deliver) an emissions reduction (e.g., carbon offset credit) to the shopper. Because the limitations above closely follow the steps standard in commercial interaction for a business practice, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Lastly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claims 1 and 13 recite steps of calculating item project emissions and item baseline emission (steps [F] and [G]). The claims recite steps amount to performing mathematical calculations, which falls under “Mathematical Concept” category of the abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “computer-implemented… in connection with a transaction on an online platform”; “a graphical user interface to a user device, the graphical user device enabling the user device to communicate with an environmental impact server of the online platform in real-time, the graphical user interface having a homepage configured to”; “user device an input provided through the graphical user interface”; “from a delivery route server of the online platform”; “through the graphical user interface”; “user device”; “in the graphical user interface”; “data verification system”; and “wherein the independent data verification system comprises a blockchain configured to verify the extracted emissions reductions in real-time”.
Claim 13: “a system… in connection with a transaction on an online platform, the system comprising a delivery route server and an environmental impact server configured to”; “provide a graphical user interface to a user device, the graphical user device enabling the user device to communicate with the environmental impact server in real-time, the graphical user interface having a homepage configured to”; “user device an input provided through the graphical user interface”; “from a delivery route server of the online platform”; “through the graphical user interface”; “user device”; “data verification system”; and “wherein the independent data verification system comprises a blockchain configured to verify the extracted emissions reductions in real-time”.
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to communicate, display, receive, request, provide, calculate, extract, and deliver information. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraph [0046] and Fig. 4) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
That is, the function of limitations [B]-[J] are steps of 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 as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the bold portions of the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [B]-[J] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for carbon emission reductions analysis. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2-9, 11, 12, 14-21, 23, and 24, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims. The claims further recite additional abstract steps and description of the receiving, calculating, and extracting of information, which do not change the abstract idea of the independent claims. The claims recite the additional element of computer components at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer system performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination 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. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1, 3-9, 11-13, 15-21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11-13, 15, 16, 20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, II et al. (US 2018/0158127 A1, hereinafter “Hamilton”) in view of Rodoni et al. (US 2019/0005507 A1, hereinafter “Rodoni”).
Claim 1. Hamilton teaches: A computer-implemented method of producing verifiable environmental attributes in connection with a transaction on an online platform, the method (Abstract and para. [0001]) comprising:
(a) providing a graphical user interface to a user device, the graphical user device enabling the user device to communicate with an environmental impact server of the online platform in real-time, the graphical user interface having a homepage configured to display one or more categories and one or more category pages, each of the one or more category pages corresponding to a particular one of the one or more categories and configured to display one or more items under the particular category (Hamilton: Fig. 2, Claim 1, ¶s 0062, 0082, “online shopping display screen” which is graphical user interface, which shows a “carbon segmented shopping cart 205”, while Hamilton does not use the specific terms “homepage” or “category pages,” organizing an e-commerce website with this standard structure would be an obvious design choice to one person ordinary in the art to enhance user experience and navigation when implementing the system/method of Hamilton);
(b) receiving from the user device an input provided through the graphical user interface, the input specifying a selected item for purchase, lease and/or rental over the online platform, the selected item having one or more product life cycle phases (see, e.g., Figure 2 showing an exemplary online e-commerce shopping cart with carbon footprints for each product; see also ¶s 18-19 teaching that carbon footprints are calculated by measuring the emitted amount of carbon dioxide equivalent throughout the lifecycle phases of the product);
(d) providing the delivery options to the user device for display in the graphical user interface (In Figure 2 and para. [0085], Hamilton discloses user interacting with a graphical user interface to select substitute items by clicking on them);
(e) calculating item project emissions for the selected item, based at least in part on emissions associated with each of the one or more product life cycle phases of the selected item (see, e.g., Figure 2 and ¶ 84 teaching display of the calculated carbon footprint for each item, noting that ¶s 18-19 teach that carbon footprints are calculated by measuring the emitted amount of carbon dioxide equivalent throughout the lifecycle phases of the product. Claim 1 teaches obtaining carbon values associated with each of the plurality of items. ¶0070 carbon footprint tool 50);
(f) calculating item baseline emissions for an equivalent baseline item to the selected item, based at least in part on emissions associated with one or more product life cycle phases of the equivalent baseline item (see, ¶0072 and claim 1, substitute item with a lower carbon value. The original higher carbon item that the user selected serves as the equivalent baseline item. ¶ 85 and Figure 2 noting that “a substitute or complementary item 245” may appear to offer a lower carbon value for the user to purchase instead);
(g) extracting emissions reductions based at least in part on the item baseline emissions and the item project emissions (see, e.g., ¶s 84-85 teaching that if the user selects the substitute or complementary item, the item could be eligible for a carbon credit as well as a recalculation of the total carbon emissions value of the shopping cart, noting further that ¶ 31 teaches that carbon credits must be validated. ¶ 0075 teaches the system calculates the total weight of carbon which requires knowing the individual values that can be compared (difference between baseline and project emission for emission reduction));
(h) delivering to the user device for display in a selected item page of the graphical user interface one or more of: the item product emissions, the item baseline emissions, the extracted emissions reductions, and a plurality of purchasing options for comparable items having reduced emissions over the equivalent baseline item (see, e.g., ¶s 84-85 teaching the display of a complementary item, such as shown in Figure 2 feature 245, that offers “a lower carbon value alternative to the higher carbon value item,” i.e., a display of a plurality of purchasing items having a lower carbon emissions over the equivalent item; see also Figure 3 feature 330); and
(i) upon receiving from the user device a confirmation of purchase, lease and/or rental of the selected item provided through the graphical user interface, delivering the extracted emissions reductions to an independent data verification system (see, e.g., ¶s 84-85 teaching that if the user selects the substitute or complementary item, the item could be eligible for a carbon credit, noting further that ¶ 31 teaches that carbon credits must be validated).
However, Hamilton fails to expressly teach (italic emphasis included),
(c) requesting from a delivery route server of the online platform a plurality of delivery options for delivering the selected item from a current location of the selected item to a delivery destination provided through the graphical user interface, the plurality of delivery options including one or more baseline delivery options and one or more alternative delivery options with reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the baseline delivery options;
receiving from the user device an input specifying a selected delivery option;
(g) extracting emissions reductions based at least in part on the selected delivery option,
wherein the independent data verification system comprises a blockchain configured to verify the extracted emissions reductions in real-time.
Wegner is directed to a system and method for optimizing the transportation of goods by using environmental data including emissions data, which teaches,
(c) requesting from a delivery route server of the online platform a plurality of delivery options for delivering the selected item from a current location of the selected item to a delivery destination provided through the graphical user interface, the plurality of delivery options including one or more baseline delivery options and one or more alternative delivery options with reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the baseline delivery options (Wegner, Abstract and para. [0010] “the central control computer influences supplies for transport means and/or the transport means according to environmental data” teaches a delivery route server. In para. [0012], “example of the usage of a transport means is the choice of a freight vehicle which fulfills the emission criteria according to Euro IV category instead of a freight vehicle which only fulfills the emission criteria according to Euro III category” teaches providing a plurality of delivery options with different emissions profiles for comparing a baseline delivery option with lower-emission alternative);
receiving from the user device an input specifying a selected delivery option (para. [0012], Wegner teaches the system making a choice between transport options based on emissions);
(g) extracting emissions reductions based at least in part on the selected delivery option (Wegner para. [0017]-[0018] and [0086]-[0091] teaches calculating environment effects of transport based on performance data),
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Hamilton for calculating the carbon footprint of the products being purchased to include the calculating of the impact of carbon footprint from delivery with the selection of different delivery choice options for the motivation of creating a more detailed and complete cradle-to-consumer carbon footprint for the consumer to make wise and cleaner choice. This provides a more valuable information to the consumer the reflects more accurate and holistic environment impact in decision making.
Still, the combination does not expressly teach, wherein the independent data verification system comprises a blockchain configured to verify the extracted emissions reductions in real-time.
Rodoni is in similar field of managing carbon emission reduction, which specifically teaches,
wherein the independent data verification system comprises a blockchain configured to verify the extracted emissions reductions in real-time (¶0018, 0038, and claim 1 teaches the elements of using a blockchain for verification. “receive via the second computing device a waste coin on a blockchain, the waste coin including publicly verifiable information associated with the baseline carbon footprint and the reduced carbon footprint”. Claim 3 and ¶0036-0037 stating the second computing device is a governing body computing device, which is a third party and independent data verification system performing verification process).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Hamilton performing the functions steps (a) through (f) to include the feature of independent data verification system comprises a blockchain configured to verify the extracted emissions reductions in real-time and receive a waste coin (¶0007) taught by Rodoni for the motivation of providing transparency and thus guards against fraud.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of providing carbon credits that have gone through third party verification with blockchain technology (disclosed by Rodoni) to the known method and system of providing carbon credits based on consumer purchases (as disclosed by Hamilton), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of providing carbon credits that have gone through third party verification to the known method and system of providing carbon credits based on consumer purchases, because predictably verified carbon credits operate in a system and method that generates and provides carbon credits). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Regarding Claim 13, this claim recites a system comprising an environmental impact server configured to perform the same steps of Claim 1. Because Hamilton teaches that the method may be performed by one or more servers (see at least ¶s 50, 55, 56, 59, etc.), Hamilton teaches the one portion of Claim 13 not expressly recited in Claim 1. The rejection of Claim 1 above, relying on Hamilton and Rodoni, renders Claim 13 obvious with this additional teaching. Similar dependent claims will be treated together below for brevity.
Claims 3 and 15. The combination of Hamilton, Wegner, and Rodoni teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 13. Hamilton further teaches: The method of claim 1, comprising recording the validated and verified emissions in a registry for the platform (see, e.g., ¶ 78 teaching the system itself awarding carbon offset certificates to items that are green using the carbon offset tool 70).
Rodoni further teaches: receiving from the independent data verification system a validation and verified emissions reductions corresponding to the extracted emissions reduction (Rodoni, ¶0018, 0038, and claim 1).
Claims 4 and 16. The combination of Hamilton, Wegner, and Rodoni teaches the limitations of Claims 3 and 15. Hamilton further teaches: The method of claim 3 wherein the validated and verified emissions reductions comprise one or more of carbon units, carbon offsets and carbon credits (see, e.g., ¶ 90 teaching a carbon offset certificate; see also ¶ 84 teaching a happy face icon or graphic 235 indicating a carbon credit). The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Hamilton with/and the teachings of Rodoni are presented in the examining of independent claims 1 and 13 and incorporated herein.
Claims 11 and 23. The combination of Hamilton, Wegner, and Rodoni teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 13. Hamilton further teaches: The method of claim 1 comprising receiving from the user device a project order specifying additional items for purchase, and calculating order project emissions by summing emissions from a plurality of segments of item production and distribution in accordance with the following: PEo
=
∑
1
n
P
E
i
where: n is the total number of items in the project order; and PEi is the emissions for an item in the project order (see, e.g., Figure 2 teaching an exemplary shopping cart with a total carbon footprint of all the items in the order of 279, noting that additional items can be added, including, e.g., alternative items to selected items as taught in feature 245).
Claims 12 and 24. The combination of Hamilton, Wegner, and Rodoni teaches the limitations of Claims 11 and 23. Hamilton further teaches: The method of claim 11 comprising calculating order baseline emissions for a baseline order comparable to the project order by summing emissions from a plurality of segments of the baseline item production and distribution in accordance with the following: BEo
=
∑
1
n
B
E
i
where: n is the total number of equivalent items in the baseline order; and BEi is the emissions for an equivalent item in the baseline order (see, e.g., Figure 2 teaching an exemplary shopping cart with a total carbon footprint of all the items in the order of 279, noting that as taught in feature 245 and ¶ 85 a substitute or complementary item with a lower carbon value alternative can be provided for one or more of the items in the shopping cart).
Claim 20. The combination of Hamilton, Wegner, and Rodoni teaches the limitations of Claim 13. Hamilton further teaches: The method of claim 1 wherein emission reductions for the project order compared to the baseline order are extracted in accordance with the following: ERo
=
B
E
o
-
P
E
o
where: ERo, is the Emission Reductions generated by the project order; BEo is the Baseline Emissions from the baseline order; and PEo is the Project Emissions from the project order (see ¶s 84-85 and Figure 2 teaching that the lower carbon value alternative of the substitute or complementary item can generate an emissions reduction order of the total carbon footprint of the total order).
Claims 5-8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Wegner, in view of Rodoni and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2014/0324407, hereinafter “Chen”).
Claims 6 and 18. The combination of Hamilton, Wegner, and Rodoni teaches the limitations of Claims 1 and 13. Hamilton further teaches: The method of claim 1 comprising receiving from the user device a project order specifying additional items for purchase, and calculating order project emissions by summing emissions from a plurality of segments of item production and distribution in accordance with the following: PEo
=
∑
1
n
P
E
i
+
P
E
s
+
P
E
d
where: n is the total number of items in the project order; PEi is the emissions for an item in the project order; … and PEd is the emissions generated during the delivery of the project order from the distribution centre to the user (see, e.g., Figure 2 teaching an exemplary shopping cart with a total carbon footprint of all the items in the order of 279, noting as taught in ¶s 84 and 85 that if the user selects on an alternative, lower carbon value to an item, i.e., a specified additional item for purchase, that the total carbon value is recalculated “in the calculated total carbon value section 240”). Hamilton and Rodoni fail to teach calculating PEs is the emission allocation for electricity generation used for running one or more environmental impact servers used for determining the emissions data and providing alternative purchasing options to the user. Hamilton does note, however, that the carbon emissions for a product or service should be calculated such that all “direct” and “indirect” emissions are accounted for (see ¶s 18-19). Hamilton also teaches that the invention that hosts the e-commerce platform may operate via server or server cluster (see, e.g., ¶s 50, 55, 56, and 59). Thus, if one wanted to truly account for all of the “direct” and “indirect” emissions related to the product, including its marketing and sale, one would have to account for the server emissions, though Hamilton fails to expressly teach taking that into account. Nevertheless, Examiner notes that analogous reference Chen teaches specifically quantifying the emissions amount attributable to server electricity usage for the provision of a service (see Chen ¶s 66-68 teaching determining carbon emissions based on the power supply mix for the data center where the computing was performed). Chen teaches that its invention “may be used to determine the power consumption of individual services” (see ¶ 16) such as those performed by networked computing devices as taught, e.g., in Figure 1 and ¶ 18. Chen is analogous to Hamilton, Rodoni, and the instant application because it relates to analyzing the environmental impact such as carbon emissions for the delivering of products and services (see Chen ¶ 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of accounting for the carbon emissions attributable to server emissions from electricity usage performed in the computing components of the service or marketing (as disclosed by Chen) as part of the lifecycle carbon emissions calculating in the known method and system of segmenting e-commerce shopping carts by carbon emissions with comparisons for products between a baseline product and a different product (as disclosed by Hamilton and Rodoni). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the known technique of accounting for the carbon emissions from electricity usage attributable to server emissions performed in the computing components of the service or marketing because it “may be used to determine the power consumption [and therefore carbon emissions] of individual services” (see Chen ¶ 16) such as those performed by networked computing devices (see Chen Figure 1 and ¶ 18).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to apply the known technique of accounting for the carbon emissions from electricity usage attributable to server emissions performed in the computing components of the service or marketing (as disclosed by Chen) as part of the lifecycle carbon emissions calculating in the known method and system of segmenting e-commerce shopping carts by carbon emissions with comparisons for products between a baseline product and a different product (as disclosed by Hamilton and Rodoni), because the claimed invention is merely applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). In other words, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (i.e., predictable results are obtained by applying the known technique of accounting for the carbon emissions from electricity usage attributable to server emissions performed in the computing components of the service or marketing as part of the lifecycle carbon emissions calculating in the known method and system of segmenting e-commerce shopping carts by carbon emissions with comparisons for products between a baseline product and a different product, because predictably an additional means of accounting for lifecycle emissions attributable to a product can operate within a method that seeks to account for the lifecycle emissions of a product). See also MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claims 5 and 17. The combination of Hamilton, Wegner, Rodoni, and Chen teaches the limitations of Claims 6 and 18. Chen further teaches: The method of claim 6 wherein the server emissions are calculated based on the emissions factors of electricity for the geographic region in which the environmental impact server(s) are located (see ¶ 68 teaching utilizing emissions factors for electricity in a region or country if the precise power mix of the data center itself is not known).
Claims 7 and 19. The combination of Hamilton, Wegner, Rodoni, and Chen teaches the limitations of Claims 6 and 18. Hamilton further teaches: The method of claim 6 comprising calculating order baseline emissions for a baseline order comparable to the project order by summing emissions from a plurality of segments of the baseline item production and distribution in accordance with the following: BEo
=
∑
1
n
B
E
i
+
B
E
s
+
B
E
d
where: n is the total number of equivalent items in the baseline order; BEi is the emissions for an equivalent item in the baseline order; and BEd is the emissions for a baseline order delivery (see, e.g., Figure 2 teaching an exemplary shopping cart with a total carbon footprint of all the items in the order of 279, noting that as taught in feature 245 and ¶ 85 a substitute or complementary item with a lower carbon value alternative can be provided for one or more of the items in the shopping cart and then the total carbon is recalculated according to the sum of all products now in the cart). Chen further teaches BEs is the emissions for an equivalent baseline server (see Chen ¶s 66-68 teaching determining carbon emissions based on the power supply mix for the data center where the computing was performed).
Claim 8. The combination of Hamilton, Wegner, Rodoni, and Chen teaches the limitations of Claim 7. Hamilton further teaches: The method of claim 1 comprising extracting emission reductions for the project order compared to the baseline order in accordance with the following: ERo
=
B
E
o
-
P
E
o
where: ERo, is the Emission Reductions generated by the project order; BEo is the Baseline Emissions from the baseline order; and PEo is the Project Emissions from the project order (see ¶s 84-85 and Figure 2 teaching that the lower carbon value alternative 245 of the substitute or complementary item can generate an emissions reduction order of the total carbon footprint of the total order).
Claim 9 is as being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Wegner, in view of Rodoni, in view of Chen, and further in view of ISO 14064-2 (NPL attached).
Claim 9. The combination of Hamilton, Wegner, Rodoni, and Chen teaches the limitations of Claim 7.
Hamilton teaches wherein extracting the emissions reductions comprises from a difference between the baseline emissions and the project emissions (¶ 0075, ¶s 84-85).
However, the combination does not expressly teach, subtracting leakage, where applicable.
Nonetheless, Greenhouse gas Protocol, ISO 14064-2 specifically teaches subtracting leakage, where applicable (page 2, GHG emission reductions ((3.1.7) offset by affected GHG SSRs are often referred to as leakage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Hamilton for accounting greenhouse gas emission reductions to include the concept of “leakage” is a fundamental and well-established principle in the filed of carbon accounting and carbon offset project development. Leakage refers to the unintended increase of greenhouse gas emissions by sources outside the defined boundary of a project that occurs as a direct result of the project’s implementation. A person ordinary skilled in the art, when tasked with creating a verifiable and credible environmental attribute such as the “carbon offset certificate” taught by Hamilton or the blockchain-based waste coin taught by Rodoni, would have recognized that for such an attribute to possess environmental integrity and market value, it must accurately represent a net reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Standard and widely accepted carbon accounting methodologies (GHG Protocol, ISO 14064-2, indicated in the Specification [0050]) require the assessment and deduction of any significant project leakage from the gross calculated emission reductions.
Claim 21 is as being unpatentable over Hamilton in view of Wegner, in view of Rodoni, and further in view of ISO 14064-2 (NPL attached).
Claim 21. The combination of Hamilton, Wegner, and Rodoni teaches the limitations of Claim 20.
However, the combination of Hamilton and Rodoni do not expressly teach, wherein the server is configured to account for leakage in the emissions reductions for the project order, where applicable, by subtracting leakage from a difference between the order baseline emissions and the order project emissions.
Nonetheless, Greenhouse gas Protocol, ISO 14064-2 specifically teaches wherein the server is configured to account for leakage in the emissions reductions for the project order, where applicable, by subtracting leakage from a difference between the order baseline emissions and the order project emissions (page 2, GHG emission reductions ((3.1.7) offset by affected GHG SSRs are often referred to as leakage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Hamilton for accounting greenhouse gas emission reductions to include the concept of “leakage” is a fundamental and well-established principle in the filed of carbon accounting and carbon offset project development. Leakage refers to the unintended increase of greenhouse gas emissions by sources outside the defined boundary of a project that occurs as a direct result of the project’s implementation. A person ordinary skilled in the art, when tasked with creating a verifiable and credible environmental attribute such as the “carbon offset certificate” taught by Hamilton or the blockchain-based waste coin taught by Rodoni, would have recognized that for such an attribute to possess environmental integrity and market value, it must accurately represent a net reduction in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Standard and widely accepted carbon accounting methodologies (GHG Protocol, ISO 14064-2, indicated in the Specification [0050]) require the assessment and deduction of any significant project leakage from the gross calculated emission reductions.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
The Applicant’s remarks are fully considered, however are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant has conflated the abstract idea, considered at Step 2A Prong One, with the additional elements, considered at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B. Here, Examiner identified the amended claim steps as part of the abstract idea: requesting a plurality of delivery options and providing the delivery options to the user. The delivery route server of the online platform and user device are considered additional elements, which are merely facilitating the tasks of said abstract idea for requesting and providing/presenting information. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear that this generic recitation does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more. This interpretation holds whether the additional elements are viewed alone or in combination, where the combination of elements is nothing more than a network-enabled computing system.
The Examiner further asserts, the additional elements of “graphical user interface” with homepage, category page, and selected item page; and “independent data verification system comprises a blockchain” are existing computer system components and tools, recited at a high-level of generality (without providing any technical details on how that is achieved) to perform the intended abstract idea steps of the claimed invention.
That is, as reflected in Enfish and Mentone Solutions, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements (improvement of the technology or technical field), on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task (collecting, analyzing, and displaying information), on the other. The alleged advantages that the Applicant touts do not concern an improvement to computer capabilities or any machinery but instead relate to an alleged improvement in receiving, analyzing, and displaying information for a desirable result, which a computer is used as a mere tool in its ordinary capacity.
As addressed in the office action Final Rejection pages 6-8, the invention is related to receiving payment transaction information from a plurality of geographical areas, generating a logistic regression model based on transaction information, identifying a candidate geographical area, and determining a potential outcome of development activity in the candidate geographical area. However, the claimed invention does not improve the method or system for how to provide and receive information on a graphical user interface, calculate emissions, extract emissions reductions, deliver/transmit information, or verify information using blockchain in an improved technological capacity, but rather, merely use/utilize a computer system and technology that can achieve the desirable result from generic computer function. To further clarify, the Applicant reflected a business need of the abstract idea for the collecting and determining GHG emissions for project emissions reduction in the specification (para. [0003]-[0005]). The computer system itself or specific technology is not improved in anyway other than being applied as a tool/instrument for the judicial exception.
(Page 8)
At Alice step one, we determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. In cases involving software, step one often “turns on whether the claims focus on specific asserted improvements in computer capabilities or instead on a process or system that qualifies [as] an abstract idea for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Elecs. USA, Inc., 957 F.3d 1303, 1306–07 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). “We have routinely held software claims patent eligible under Alice step one when they are directed to improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” Id. at 1307 (collecting cases).
(Page 11)
This case is nothing like the claims we held ineligible in Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017). There, the claims recited a method of transmitting packets of information over a communications network comprising: converting information into streams of digital packets; routing the streams to users; controlling the routing; and monitoring the reception of packets by the users. Id. at 1334. We held the claims ineligible because they merely recited a series of abstract steps (“converting,” “routing,” “controlling,” “monitoring,” and “accumulating records”) using “result-based functional language” without the means for achieving any purported technological improvement. Id. at 1337. Here, there is no functional claiming, nor are there abstract steps.
The Examiner has considered the case of Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 Fed. App'x 1001, which claims for a specific, structured graphical user interface that improves the accuracy of trader transactions by displaying bid and asked prices in a particular manner that prevents order entry at a changed price. The present claim only recites a generic use of graphical user interface of mobile device for receiving and presenting information, without any regards to technical details improvement or how. MPEP 2106.05(f) is clear that the generic recitation of additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into practical application and/or add significantly more.
Further, as indicated by the courts, under MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) - “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: viii. Arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).” The step of displaying information on a graphical user interface has been found to be insufficient to show improvement in computer-functionality.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments regarding subject matter eligibility are not persuasive and the § 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - Prior Art:
Regarding the application of the prior art to the claims, Applicant’s arguments have been rendered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights