DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 7/27/26 wherein:
Claims 1-18 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/27/26 has been entered.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 7 and 13 recite an apparatus, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The following underlined limitations identify the abstract limitations which are considered certain methods of organizing human activity:
collecting, via a control interface between the first apparatus and the equipment, operational data from the equipment of the entity corresponding to carbon emissions of the equipment;
transmitting the operational data and a request for information on a price of carbon emission credits to a second apparatus comprising at least one second processor that executes another digital twin model for carbon emission central control to determine an optimized price of the carbon emission credits;
receiving, in response to the request, a response including information on the optimized price of the carbon emission credits from the second apparatus;
performing, using the digital twin model, a simulation for a carbon emission transaction and operation of the equipment, the simulation comprising performing a virtual operation of the equipment according to changes in input elements including the operational data and the optimized price of the carbon emission credits;
transmitting a request for the carbon emission transaction based on a result of the simulation to the second apparatus; and
completing the carbon emission transaction by:
receiving a response to the request for the carbon emission transaction from the second apparatus,
generating control data to adjust physical operation of the equipment based on the result of the simulation and in accordance with the response to the request for the carbon emission transaction; and
causing, at least in part, the control data to be transmitted to the equipment via the control interface and the physical operation of the equipment to be adjusted in accordance with the control data to control carbon emissions of the equipment to be within a permitted emission limit,
wherein the another digital twin mode for carbon emission central control determines the optimized price of the carbon emission credits based on a result of an optimization simulation performed using carbon emission information represented by the operational data and the permitted emission limit.
These limitations constitute carbon emission management (see also Specification ¶5), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of
Claim 1: a first apparatus based on a digital twin model for an entity of equipment operation, a control interface, equipment of the entity, a second apparatus comprising at least one second processor that executes another digital twin model for carbon emission central control;
Claim 7: a first apparatus comprising: at least one processor, at least one transceiver, and at least one memory, a control interface, equipment of the entity, a second apparatus comprising at least one second processor;
Claim 13: a second apparatus comprising: at least one processor, at least one transceiver, and at least one memory,
which are all considered computer components. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The limitations reciting performing, using the digital twin model, a simulation for a carbon emission transaction and operation of the equipment, the simulation comprising performing a virtual operation of the equipment according to changes in input elements including the operational data, and the optimized price of the carbon emission credits (claim 1), perform, using the digital twin model, a simulation fora carbon emission transaction and operation of the equipment, the simulation comprising performing a virtual operation of the equipment according to changes in input elements including the operational data (claim 7), and perform, using the digital twin model for carbon emission central control, a simulation to determine an optimized price of the carbon emission credits and carbon emission control information associated with adjusting physical operation of at least one entity of equipment operation from among the one or more entities of equipment operation, by using carbon emission information represented by the operational data and a permitted emission limit (claim 13) provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the claims fail to recite details of how the simulation is performed and therefore, recite only the idea of a solution or outcome.
The limitations reciting causing, at least in part, . . . the physical operation of the equipment to be adjusted in accordance with the control data to control carbon emissions of the equipment to be within a permitted emission limit (claim 1 and claim 7) and cause, at least in part, physical operation of the at least one entity of equipment operation to be adjusted in accordance with the carbon emission control information to control its carbon emissions to be within the permitted emission limit (claim 13) provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer/machinery. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the claims fail to recite details of how the physical operation of the equipment (or the at least one entity of equipment operation as in claim 13) is adjusted in accordance with the control data and therefore, recite only the idea of a solution or outcome.
Additionally, the transmitting and receiving limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. 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 transmitting, receiving, performing a simulation, and causing the physical operation of the equipment to be adjusted steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the transmitting and receiving limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 merely recites further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1, however none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 refer to causing the reduction or adjustment of the subsequent carbon emissions by the equipment, which, at most, is nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer/machinery in the form of results-based claiming. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, the 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.
Claim 4, 5, 6, 8-10, 11, 12, 14-18 further define additional elements as including a simulation, a digital twin model, a first digital twin model, a second digital twin model, a single digital twin model, all of which are considered generic computer components or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computing device (similar to claims 1, 7, and 13, above). The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even in combination, the 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 light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Distinguished from Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to claims 1-18 for the reasons previously provided in the Non-Final Rejection of 5/5/26.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of Claims under 35 USC 101
i. Claim 1 is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites “a coordinated digital-twin architecture that receives operational data from physical equipment, performs simulations using multiple digital twin models, generates control data, and physically adjusts operation of equipment” and therefore, the “focus of the claims is…not a financial transaction, but rather, the use of digital twin technology.” Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims were characterized as a financial transaction. Rather, the claims constitute carbon emission management, as stated in the preamble of the claim (see also Specification ¶5), which are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors).
ii. Claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Applicant argues that the claims “applies any alleged abstract concept in a meaningful way to achieve a technological result involving monitoring, simulation, and control of physical equipment” and as such, “integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application.” Remarks 13. Applicant references MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)-(d)(2), (d)(5). Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that there is no MPEP 2106.04(d)(5). Examiner also notes that MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) is not applicable to this case, as it is applicable to only to cases in which the claim in question must affirmatively recite an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The instant claims do not recite such an action that effects a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Finally, as to Applicant’s argument that the claims “achieve a technological result involving monitoring, simulation, and control of physical equipment,” MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that one way to demonstrate an integration to a practical application is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. Simply involving monitoring, simulation, and control of physical equipment does not provide such an improvement.
iii. Claim 1 does not recite a specific technological implementation rather generic computer functionality
Applicant argues that claim 1 “recites a particular technological architecture employing multiple specialized digital twin models that cooperate to perform simulations, generate control data, and control operation of physical equipment.” Remarks 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees. No specific technical details are provided with regard to how the digital twin models “cooperate to perform simulations, generate control data, and control operation of physical equipment”; only general, high-level terms are used.
iv. Claim 1 does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea
Applicant then argues that the claims provide significantly more than the abstract idea, arguing that the features “define a specific technological implementation that uses coordinated digital twin models to simulate and control operation of physical equipment” and pointing out that there is no prior art rejection. Remarks 14. Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the argument that there is no prior art that teaches the claimed invention, the applicant is reminded that the eligibility analysis is not a prior art-based analysis. From SAP AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. INVESTPIC, LLC
We affirm. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function). No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.
The same is found for the pending claims because the lack of a prior art rejection does not equate to the claims being eligible under 35 USC 101. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive.
As to the argument regarding whether the combination is WURC, it is the additional elements (or combination of additional elements) that must be considered. Here, Applicant is not just considering the combination of the additional elements, but also the abstract idea. This cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea. As to the alleged requirement under Berkheimer to provide evidence, this is only required when the rejection indicates the claims include well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (WURC). Only the transmitting and receiving limitations are established as WURC. As is stated in the rejection, the courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the transmitting and receiving limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). This provides the needed evidentiary basis.
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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
