DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimers filed on 6/3/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application have been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimers have been recorded.
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Eligibility Step 1 (MPEP 2106. 3, subsection II): The claims, after reviewing the entire application disclosure, considered as a whole, are determined to be directed to one of the statutory category (processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter): A method/apparatus/system.
Eligibility Step 2A (MPEP 2106. 4, subsection II):
Prong One: The claim recites the sequence of generating an extensible carbon object via the gateway server and recording it to the LCI. This sequence as analyzed can “practically be performed in the Human Mind” with/without sketching on paper. As stated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III. Mental Processes, “A claim that encompasses a Human Performing the step(s) mentally with or without a physical aid recites a mental process”; as a result, the claim recites a mental process that falls within at least one of the abstract idea groupings (MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas: The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mental processes). As a result, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Prong Two: The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims:
- storing an environment embodied CO2e record in the LCI – obtaining information (MPEP 2106.05(g));
- generating an embodied CO2e record (Insignificant post solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
When viewed in combination of as a whole, the recited additional steps/actions/elements do no more than add insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception. As a result, these additional steps/actions/elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (MPEP 2106. 5: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more):
The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims, storing and generating an embodied CO2e record, are well known in the field as addressed in the prior art rejection below, do not add an inventive concept to the claim because they do is no more than adding insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
The claims, at the end, cite wherein the system is configured to generate an embodied CO2e record. It is unclear how such embodied CO2e generation links, supports, or connects to the generation of extensible carbon objects cited in the claim preamble.
Furthermore, the claims are unclear on how the system generates an embodied CO2e record (last paragraph) because there is no clear connection between this generation to the other actions in the claim body. It is unclear whether “an embodied CO2e record” (the last paragraph, claim 1) connects to “an environment embodied CO2e record” stored in the LCI (3rd paragraph, claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
3. Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drummond (US 2004/0249732) in view of Oliver Gomila (US 2022/0114562).
Drummond discloses a system configured to generate extensible carbon objects comprising input and a memory including non-transitory program memory (FIG. 2, element 226) for storing at least instructions and a processor (FIG. 2, element 220) that is operative to execute instructions that enable actions, the system comprising:
an application programming interface (API) gateway server (FIG. 2, element 110) between a logical layer and a representational layer, the API gateway server being configured to interface software with the logical layer, the API gateway server configured to allow a user to generate an extensible carbon object representing a carbon instrument (paragraph [0052]: Buyers at workstations 102 may participate in the electronic carbon trading by interacting with the carbon management).
Drummond however does not teach a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) library database configured to store an environmental embodied CO2e record for a cradle to gate life cycle of an item or process, based on the process inputs and outputs of a Reference Unit and a Defined Unit, wherein the system comprises a public ledger configured to record an extensible carbon object to the LCI, and wherein the system is configured to generate an embodied CO2e record for the cradle to gate life cycle of a product or service, based on the process inputs and outputs of one or more Reference Units and one or more Defined Units, from the LCI.
Oliver Gomila discloses a system for conversion of transaction of carbon units comprising a Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) library database configured to store an environmental embodied CO2e record for a cradle to gate life cycle of an item or process (paragraphs [0048]-[0049]: The product life cycle (cradle to gate, cradle to consumer, cradle to grave) database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drummond’s system, as modified, to comprise the cradle to gate cycle database to store carbon emission quantity of all phases of a product/service to gain the accuracy of the carbon emission calculation/estimation as taught by Oliver Gomila (paragraphs [0048]-[0049]).
4. Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drummond (US 2004/0249732) in view of Oliver Gomila (US 2022/0114562), and further in view of Sperling et al. (US 2009/0292617).
Drummond, as modified, discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, except wherein the API gate server being configured with an extensible Carbon Reporting Markup Language (CarML) configured to interface software with the logical layer, the CarML comprising a core set of common data schema and message types including interface objects, and a third party external systems.
Sperling et al. discloses a method/system for calculating an estimated cost to offset a calculated carbon emissions of a web server configured with an extensible Carbon Reporting Markup Language comprising a core set of common data schema and message types including interface objects (FIG. 4, element 410: XML (eXtensible Markup Language)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drummond’s server, as modified, to be configured with eXtensible Markup Language to provide XML web service to obtain the carbon offset information as taught by Sperling et al. (paragraph [0043]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s Remarks, the Examiner cites that the claim language does not specify on “the process inputs and outputs of a Reference Unit and a Defined Unit”; as a result, it is reasonable to broadly interpreted the claimed Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) library database as just a database for storing an environment embodied CO2e record and outputting (generating) the stored embodied CO2e. Oliver Gomila’s “existing database” for storing and outputting GHG emission data (paragraph [0048]) thus reads on the claimed LCI in light of such broadly interpretation. In addition, means for writing the GHG emission data into such “existing database” reads on the claimed public distributed ledger.
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 LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/LAM S NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights