DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, filed 07/07/2026, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Status
Claims 1-28 are pending.
Claims 21 and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected species.
Claims 26-28 are newly added.
Claims 1-20, 22-23, and 25-28 are rejected.
Priority
The instant Application is a Continuation of US provisional application 17/098415, filed 11/15/2020, which claims benefit of US non-provisional 62/935774 filed 11/15/2019. Accordingly, each of claims 1-20 are afforded the effective filing date of the 11/15/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 12/20/2024, 08/10/2024, and 10/02/2024 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and have been considered in full by the examiner. A signed copy of the IDS is included in the 12/19/2024 Office Action.
Drawings
The Drawings submitted 12/10/2021 are accepted.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 26 is 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. This rejection pertains to new matter. The rejection is newly stated based upon claim amendment.
Claim 26 recites “a control instruction; and transmit the control instruction to at least one appliance to automatically alter a farm-management operation”. Automatically altering a farm management operation is broader than the original support provided in the disclosure. The specification provides support for ‘in the situation the emissions data represents a level of emissions that does not satisfy the emissions threshold, control instructions including, for example, computer readable instructions, can be generated to control appliances (e.g., farm appliances) to alter the feed formulation, grazing areas, manure management, etc. to achieve emissions goals or thresholds”. In the situation new animal behavior data is available” [0142]. Therefore, the limitation introduces new matter. An appliance that can automatically alter a farm management operation can be numerous things such as weed control, machine guidance, fertilization, irrigation as described in (Kaloxylos, Alexandros, et al. "Farm management systems and the Future Internet era. "Computers and electronics in agriculture 89 (2012): 130-144.) and (SOTO, EMBODAS Iria, et al. The contribution of precision agriculture technologies to farm productivity and the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. 2019).
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.
For the following rejections, underlined text indicates newly recited portions necessitated by claim amendment.
Claims 1-20, 22-23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
MPEP 2106 organizes judicial exception analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prongs One and Two) and 2B as follows below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter;
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
Step 2B: If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
Step 1
With respect to Step 1: yes, the claims are directed to system, process, and computer program products i.e., a process, machine, or manufacture within the above 101 categories [Step 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.03].
Step 2A, Prong One
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or
mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information).
With respect to the instant claims, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, the claims are found to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) are as follows:
Independent claim 1:
identify, by the computing device processor of the computing system, a plurality of equation components based on the historic animal data, individual equation components configured to quantify an amount of emissions,
generate, by the computing device processor of the computing system, an emissions model comprising the plurality of equation components, the emissions model quantifying a total amount of emissions by a group of animals for an emissions lifecycle of the group of animals, wherein the emissions is decomposed into a plurality of lifecycle segments and includes a plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways, each potential lifecycle emissions pathway of the plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways comprising a different combination of one or more of the plurality of lifecycle segments
identify, by the computing device processor of the computing system, one or more data variables associated with at least one equation component of the plurality of equation components of the emissions lifecycle based on the performance data, and
apply, by the computing device processor of the computing system, at least one adjustment to the at least one equation component to generate an animal-centric emissions model, based on a lifecycle emissions pathway of the plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways, the animal-centric emissions model quantifying an amount of emissions by the selected animal across the lifecycle emissions pathway during the emissions lifecycle of the selected animal.
Dependent claim 3:
identify, by the computing device processor of the computing system, equation components associated with the pathway, wherein the animal-centric emissions model is based on the equation components.
Dependent claim 4:
determine, by the computing device processor of the computing system, the amount of emissions by the selected animal during the emissions lifecycle of the selected animal by evaluating the animal-centric emissions model on the historic animal data and the performance data.
Dependent claim 7:
associate at least one certification with the selected animal based on the amount of emissions by the selected animal during the emissions lifecycle of the selected animal.
Dependent claim 9:
iteratively update the animal-centric emissions model based on additional data from the plurality of sensors.
Dependent claim 13:
generate control instructions to control an appliance to alter at least one task affecting the amount of emissions by the selected animal during the emissions lifecycle of the selected animal.
Independent claim 14:
identifying, by the computing device processor, a plurality of equation components based on the historic animal data, individual equation components configured to quantify an amount of emissions,
generating, by the computing device processor, an emissions model comprising the plurality of equation components, an emissions model comprising the plurality of equation components, the emissions model quantifying a total amount of emissions by a group of animals for an emissions lifecycle of the group of animals, wherein the emissions is decomposed into a plurality of lifecycle segments and includes a plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways, each potential lifecycle emissions pathway of the plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways comprising a different combination of one or more of the plurality of lifecycle segments
identifying, by the computing device processor, one or more data variables associated with at least one equation component of the plurality of equation components of the emissions lifecycle based on the performance data, and
apply, by the computing device processor, at least one adjustment to the at least one equation component to generate an animal-centric emissions model based on a lifecycle emissions pathway of the plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways, the animal-centric emissions model quantifying an amount of emissions by the selected animal across the lifecycle emissions pathway during the emissions lifecycle of the selected animal.
Dependent claim 16:
identifying, by the computing device processor, equation components associated with the pathway, wherein the animal-centric emissions model is based on the equation components.
Dependent claim 17:
determining, by the computing device processor, the amount of emissions by the selected animal during the emissions lifecycle of the selected animal by evaluating the animal-centric emissions model on the historic animal data and the performance data.
Dependent claim 18:
determining, by the computing device processor, an emissions offset based on the total amount of emissions by the group of animals and the amount of emissions by the selected animal.
Independent claim 20:
identify, by the computing device processor, a plurality of equation components based on the historic animal data, individual equation components configured to quantify an amount of emissions,
generate, by the computing device processor, an emissions model comprising the plurality of equation components, an emissions model comprising the plurality of equation components, the emissions model quantifying a total amount of emissions by a group of animals for an emissions lifecycle of the group of animals, wherein the emissions is decomposed into a plurality of lifecycle segments and includes a plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways, each potential lifecycle emissions pathway of the plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways comprising a different combination of one or more of the plurality of lifecycle segments
identify, by the computing device processor, one or more data variables associated with at least one equation component of the plurality of equation components of the emissions lifecycle based on the performance data, and
apply, by the computing device processor, at least one adjustment to the at least one equation component to generate an animal-centric emissions model, based on a lifecycle emissions pathway of the plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways, the animal-centric emissions model quantifying an amount of emissions by the selected animal across the lifecycle emissions pathway during the emissions lifecycle of the selected animal.
Dependent claim 22:
transmits control instructions generated from the animal-centric emissions model to at least one appliance thereby automatically altering an operation of the farm to reduce the determined emissions by the selected animal.
Dependent claim 23:
automatically and continuously updating, by the computing device processor, the animal-centric emissions model based on the real-time sensor data received from the at least one sensor, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a gas sensor, a feed-intake sensor, a movement sensor, a body-composition sensor or any combination thereof, whereby the updated model causes modification of a control instruction output to alter a farm-management operation to reduce the determined emission by the selected animal.
Dependent claim 26:
generate, based on the amount of emissions quantified by the animal-centric emissions model, a control instruction; and
transmit the control instruction to at least one appliance to automatically alter a farm-management operation, the altered farm-management operation reducing the amount of emissions by the selected animal during the emissions lifecycle of the selected animal.
Dependent claim 28:
generate a certification record based on the animal-centric emissions model for the selected animal, the certification record comprising a quantitative emissions score associated with the unique identifier of the selected animal and indicating that the amount of emissions by the selected animal during the emissions lifecycle is reduced, relative to a baseline emissions scenario, by at least a threshold amount, the certification record being accessible for product labeling, supply-chain traceability, regulatory reporting, or any combination thereof.
Dependent claims 5, 8, 10-12, 19, and 27 recite further steps that limit the judicial exceptions in independent claims 1 and 14 and, as such, also are directed to those abstract ideas. For example, claim 5 further limits the lifecycle emission of claim 1, claim 8 further limits the certification of claim 7, claim 10 further limits the emissions model of claim 9 to including a machine learning technique, claim 11 further limits the emissions model of claim 1 to including a machine learning technique, and claim 27 further limits the one adjustment of claim 1.
Under the BRI, the instant claims recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mental process”, such as procedures for evaluating, analyzing or organizing information, and forming judgement or an opinion. The instant claims further recite judicial exceptions that are an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of a “mathematical concept”, such as mathematical relationships and mathematical equations.
The claim recites identify(ing), generate(ing), apply(ing), determine(ing), associate, alter, and update. The human mind is capable of “identify, a plurality of equation components”, “generate, an emissions model”, “ identify, one or more data variables”, “apply, at least one adjustment”, “identify, equation components”, “associate at least one certification”, “iteratively update the animal-centric emissions model”, “generate control instructions “, “identify(ing), a plurality of equation components”, “ identify(ing), one or more data variables”, “apply(ing), at least one adjustment”, and “determining, an emissions offset” under the BRI, one may simply, for example, use pen and paper to determine emission from animal production.
The claims recite a mathematical concepts of generate, …, an emissions model comprising the plurality of equation components, an emissions model comprising the plurality of equation components, the emissions model quantifying a total amount of emissions by a group of animals for an emissions lifecycle of the group of animals
Therefore, claims 1, 14, and 20 and those claims dependent therefrom recite an abstract idea [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.04].
Step 2A, Prong Two
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under Step 2A, Prong Two, provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions, the claim is said to fail to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Additional elements, Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Independent claim 1:
obtain, by the computing device processor of the computing system, historic animal data from a plurality of different disaggregated sources
receive a selection of an animal associated with the group of animals to identify a selected animal, the animal associated with a unique identifier identifying the selected animal,
obtain in real-time from a database, by the computing device processor of the computing system, wherein the database is comprised of information obtained by at least one sensor of a plurality of sensors monitoring the selected animal, performance data associated with the unique identifier of the selected animal
Dependent claim 2:
receive a selection of a pathway from the plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways for the selected animal, the pathway comprising an entry point corresponding to a start date and an exit point corresponding to an end date, wherein the animal-centric emissions model is based on the pathway.
Dependent claim 6:
display, for the selected animal associated with the unique identifier, in a graphical user interface one or more views of the amount of emissions during the emissions lifecycle.
Independent claims 14 and 20:
obtain(ing), by the computing device processor, historic animal data from a plurality of different disaggregated sources
receive(ing) a selection of an animal associated with the group of animals to identify a selected animal, the animal associated with a unique identifier identifying the selected animal,
obtain(ing) in real-time from a database, by the computing device processor, wherein the database is comprised of information obtained by at least one sensor of a plurality of sensors monitoring the selected animal, performance data associated with the unique identifier of the selected animal
Dependent claim 15:
receive a selection of a pathway from the plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways for the selected animal, the pathway comprising an entry point corresponding to a start date and an exit point corresponding to an end date, wherein the animal-centric emissions model is based on the pathway.
Dependent claims 12 and 19 recite further steps that limit the additional element in independent claim 1and, as such, also are directed to those abstract ideas. For example, claim 12 further limits the sensor of claim 1 and claim 19 further limits the database of claim 14.
Dependent claim 22:
an appliance
The claims also include non-abstract computing elements. For example, independent claim 1 includes a computing system comprising: a computing device processor: and a memory device including instructions. Independent claim 14 includes a computer-implemented method. Independent claim 20 includes a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
Considerations under Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following reasons. Those steps directed to data gathering, such as “obtain(ing)”, and “receive(ing)”, and to data outputting, such as “display”, perform functions of collecting and outputting the data needed to carry out the judicial exceptions. Data gathering and outputting do not impose any meaningful limitation on the judicial exceptions, or on how the judicial exceptions are performed. Data gathering and outputting steps are not sufficient to integrate judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further steps directed to additional non-abstract elements of “a computing system, a computer-implemented model, and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” do not describe any specific computational steps by which the “computer parts” perform or carry out the judicial exceptions, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer, such as the computer-readable recording media, are used to implement these functions. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate that judicial exceptions into a practical application. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc.… are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the courts have found that receiving and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). As such, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(d)). The data gathering steps as recited in the instant claims constitute a general link to a technological environment which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept which would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(g)&(h)).
Thus, none of the claims recite additional elements which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to one or more judicial exceptions [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO; See MPEP § 2106.04(d)].
Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi)
According to analysis so far, the additional elements described above do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A determination of whether additional elements provide significantly more also rests on whether the additional elements or a combination of elements represents other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Conventionality is a question of fact and may be evidenced as: a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims, the courts have found that receiving and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). As such, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(d)). The data gathering steps as recited in the instant claims constitute a general link to a technological environment which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept which would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(g)&(h)).
With respect to claims 1, 14, and 20 and those claims dependent therefrom, the computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, which the courts have found to not provide significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.06(A)). The specification also notes that computer processors and systems, as example, are commercially available or widely used at [0148]. The additional elements are set forth at such a high level of generality that they can be met by a general purpose computer. Therefore, the computer components constitute no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself [Step 2B: NO; See MPEP § 2106.05].
Therefore, the instant claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106.
Response to Applicant Arguments
1. Applicant submits that the independent claims, read as a whole, cannot practically be performed in the human mind [p. 12, par. 3].
It is found persuasive. The claims as amended are a combination of mental steps and mathematical concepts as described in the above 101 rejection.
2, Applicant submits claim 13 and new claim 26 generate a control instruction from the model output and transmit it to an appliance that automatically alters a farm-management operation to reduce the selected animal's emissions-a particular application of any recited concept, not a mere link to a technological environment [p. 13, par. 2].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. A control instruction under BRI can be a set of written instruction given to a person to perform an activity. The limitation of transmitting to an appliance that automatically alters a farm-management operation can be interpreted as a basic economical practice or any business practice that can include purchasing things such as carbon credits; therefore it is still considered an abstract idea.
3. Applicant submits this result is consistent with the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, including Example 45 (controller for an injection molding apparatus) and Example 46 (Livestock Management), in which recited computations that improve, or are integrated into, a real-world technological process are eligible [p. 13, par. 2].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. In regard to example 45, claim 45 claim limitation is directed to a control system that when it meets a threshold signals an apparatus to open a mold and eject the product which is an automated control of a machine. The instant claims are broad enough to include controlling farm operations, such as business practices and other basic economic activities, that fall within the realm of abstract ideas. In regards to example 46, claim 2 limitation (d) specifies that the monitoring component automatically sends a control signal to the feed dispenser to dispense a therapeutically effective amount of supplemental salt and minerals mixed with the feed when the analysis results for the animal indicate that the animal is exhibiting an aberrant behavioral pattern indicative of grass tetany therefore does not merely link the judicial exceptions to a technical field, but instead adds a meaningful limitation in that it can employ the information provided by the judicial exception. The instant claims again as stated above are not specific enough to limit the appliance to non-abstract farm operations.
4. Applicant submits that the claims recite features and a combination of features which are not well-understood, routine, or conventional nor has the Office met the requirements of establishing that they are [p. 14, par. 1].
It is respectfully found not persuasive. The additional elements of claim 1 the memory, display and processor are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The other additional elements are the obtaining and receiving, both of which are extra-solution activity, which for purposes of Step 2A Prong Two was considered insignificant. Here, the recitation of the receiving and obtaining data are mere data gathering that is recited at a high level of generality. Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The outstanding rejections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted herein. The prior art of record does not teach does not disclose an emissions lifecycle that is decomposed into a plurality of lifecycle segments, or a plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways each comprising a different combination of those segments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The outstanding rejections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted herein. The prior art of record does not teach does not disclose an emissions lifecycle that is decomposed into a plurality of lifecycle segments, or a plurality of potential lifecycle emissions pathways each comprising a different combination of those segments.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dawn Bickham whose telephone number (703)756-1817. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30am - 3:30pm, Fri 7:00am- 11:00am.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached on (571)272-2249. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1685
/Soren Harward/Primary Examiner, TC 1600
