DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This Office Action is in response to submission of documents on June 22, 2026.
Objection to the Drawings.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Graeber in view of Meinrenken and Ajani.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Objection to the claims, Examiner agrees that the amendments properly address the objection. Accordingly, the objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Examiner agrees that the amendments overcome the rejections. Accordingly, rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Examiner disagrees that the claims as amended, overcome the rejection. Further, Examiner does not find the submitted arguments to be persuasive for the following reasons:
First, Applicant asserts that the claims, as currently presented, are not directed to an abstract idea. See Response at pg. 11. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that “amended claim 1 is not directed to a mathematical concept in the abstract because the claim does not merely recite calculating an emissions value and displaying the result.” Response at pg. 11. However, this is not what the Office Action provides as reasoning for the identification of the “calculating” step as a mathematical concept. Instead, the Office Action indicates that “calculating an estimated emission flow” is not explained with particular specificity in the Specification and therefore is interpreted to mean that several data sources are consulted for information about emissions in a process and a total emissions flow is calculated. For example, referring to FIG. 3 of the Specification, estimates of item footprints are connected to illustrate the flow in a manufacturing process. Each of the nodes 302 to 314 indicate a footprint for a particular item. As disclosed in the Specification,
After data preparation has been finalized, a final calculation may be triggered. An entire network of item footprint estimates may be processed first in a top-down order and in a second iteration in a bottom-up order. The actions performed in the executed calculation steps differ depending on execution order. For top-down, each Top-Down step will receive item footprint estimate root nodes of one level and item type together with its output and input edges. The output edges may be considered to calculate the required values on the root node and the root nodes may be used to calculate the values on the input edges. The output edges may remain untouched. This step calculates, for example, the output quantity on the nodes as a sum of the quantities on the output edges. Bottom- up calculation is the final calculation step. It will roll up an overall emissions quantity from leaf nodes through the network to the output materials. The final results may be visualized in connection with a Sankey chart that maps input sources to outputs. Spec. at [0064].
PNG
media_image1.png
640
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, as disclosed, the “calculation” step appears to be no more than a processing of a graph by determining the contributions of the nodes to the emissions. This falls into the mathematical concept of graph theory, which is a mathematical concept. The claim does not even go into the limited details that are included in the Specification and instead merely generally discloses performing a “calculation” with some number of inputs to result in an output. Accordingly, as previously asserted, the “calculating” step is a mathematical concepts, which is supported by the Specification.
As now amended, the “calculating” step includes additional features, none of which change the final identification of the step as an abstract idea. A “balancing constraint,” as understood from the Specification (note, the term “balancing constraint” does not appear to be in the Specification), the balancing that is performed is similar to justifying an accounting sheet; that is, the inputs and outputs must be equal. This itself is another abstract idea, one that is a mental process that can be performed by a human and further includes addition and comparison of numbers, also an abstract idea of a mathematical concept. The fact that it is performed by a computer is merely an application of an abstract idea with the recitation of generic computer components. Although the Response proffers that the features are not “an abstract accounting idea performed at a high level of generality,” Specification at pg. 12, Examiner does not identify any feature or limitation that specifically does anything but account for inputs and outputs of a model.
Next, Applicant asserts that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Again, Examiner disagrees. Applicant lists a number of limitations that are alleged to do the integration (see Response at pg. 12), but those limitations are either additional elements that courts have found do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or are themselves abstract ideas, which cannot furnish an additional element that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (“An inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’…after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, ‘we then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?”’) (emphasis added)); (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract”). Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.). MPEP 2106.05, citations omitted. See also the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, below, for specific reasons for each of the elements that appear in the claims.
The argument that the claim improves computer functionality is additionally unpersuasive. Nothing in the claim is directed to the operation of a computer, such as saving computing resources when executing the process. Further, any improvement alleged in the Specification is not necessarily accomplished by the claimed invention.
Finally, the additional elements recited in the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions based on what courts have found. For each of the additional elements of the claim, a listing of court cases to support the finding of insignificantly more than the recited judicial exceptions (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, below). These include recitation of generic computer components, sending and receiving data, and ideas of solutions. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05 for additional listings of additional elements. There is nothing unconventional about the elements or the order (e.g., arrangement) of the additional elements that amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Accordingly, for at least the reasons stated above and asserted below with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, the rejection is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), Examiner agrees with the arguments and amendments submitted in the Response. Accordingly, rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) are withdrawn. However, after additional searching and consideration, a new rejection is asserted under 35 U.S.C. 103 because the claims, as amended, are obvious over Graeber in view of Graeber and Meinrenken.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “306,” which appears in FIG. 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions without significantly more. The claims recite mathematical calculations and additional elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements that are recited in the claims are extra-solution activities that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because courts have found that the steps of receiving and providing data are not significantly more than a judicial exception.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed to an article of manufacture, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim 1 limitations include (bolded for abstract idea identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
A non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform a method for providing automated mechanisms for modelling and quantitatively characterizing emissions inflows and outflows for an entity over a certain period based on a set of physical transactions, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of scoping inputs including a physical process defined scope of emission-producing physical inputs;
receiving a plurality of modeling inputs including associated footprints associated with physical manufacturing inputs, the associated footprints including: user provided footprint inputs, information provided via a data processing integration with one or more suppliers of physical inputs; and inputs derived from one or more lifecycle assessment (LCA) databases, the plurality of modeling inputs further including one or more model energy flows associated with one or more production processes;
constructing, by a computing system, a unified flow model stored in a memory as a directed flow graph comprising (i) material flows derived from aggregated enterprise resource planning (ERP) transaction data associated with the physical process defined scope and (ii) the one or more model energy flows, the directed flow graph comprising nodes representing production activities and edges representing the material flows and the one or more model energy flows;
applying one or more allocation rule definitions to allocate emissions associated with the one or more model energy flows to production activities represented in the unified flow model by propagating emissions through the directed flow graph according to the allocation rule definitions;
calculating an emission flow based on one or more combined energy flows, based at least in part on the plurality of modeling inputs and one or more material flows, wherein calculating the emission flow comprises calculating emission inflows and emission outflows for a reporting period and
enforcing a balancing constraint requiring a total quantity of the emission inflows to equal a total quantity of the emission outflows;
providing one or more analytics user interfaces associated with the calculated emissions flows to provide insight into highest emission producing emission drivers along a production chain; and
generating a technical report, wherein the technical report maps the emission outflows to balance-sheet categories derived from the ERP transaction data and provides drill-down tracing from an emission outflow category to underlying physical transactions used in the calculation.
Abstract Idea: Mental Processes
Constructing a graph comprised of nodes and edges is a mental process that additionally involves mathematical concepts. A human, with the aid of pencil and paper, can construct such a graph, such as the graph that is constructed in FIG. 3 of the Specification. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mental Processes
Applying a rule is a mental process that can include setting one or more variables and/or parameters of a graph based on the production activity of a node. For example, a human can evaluate a particular node, select an appropriate allocation based on observation and judgment, and evaluate the emissions using the graph. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection III.
Abstract Idea: Mathematical Calculations
The limitation is directed to a “calculation,” which is a mathematical concept. Although not disclosed with specificity in the Specification, the process of “calculating an estimated emission flow” appears to be an additive process (“The calculated emission flow is based on a calculated emission footprint at a plurality of stages along a production process.” Spec. at [0067]). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Abstract Idea: Mental Processes
“Balancing constraint” is not explicitly defined in the Specification, so it is interpreted to mean some type of accounting of input emission and output emissions to ensure that all emissions are accounted for. This can be performed in the human mind by observing the inputs and outputs and evaluating them to ensure that they are the same.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The claim 1 limitations recite (bolded for additional element identification):
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
A non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform a method for providing automated mechanisms for modelling and quantitatively characterizing emissions inflows and outflows for an entity over a certain period based on a set of physical transactions, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of scoping inputs including a physical process defined scope of emission-producing physical inputs;
receiving a plurality of modeling inputs including associated footprints associated with physical manufacturing inputs, the associated footprints including: user provided footprint inputs, information provided via a data processing integration with one or more suppliers of physical inputs; and inputs derived from one or more lifecycle assessment (LCA) databases, the plurality of modeling inputs further including one or more model energy flows associated with one or more production processes;
constructing, by a computing system, a unified flow model stored in a memory as a directed flow graph comprising
(i) material flows derived from aggregated enterprise resource planning (ERP) transaction data associated with the physical process defined scope and (ii) the one or more model energy flows,
the directed flow graph comprising nodes representing production activities and edges representing the material flows and the one or more model energy flows;
applying one or more allocation rule definitions to allocate emissions associated with the one or more model energy flows to production activities represented in the unified flow model by propagating emissions through the directed flow graph according to the allocation rule definitions;
calculating a flow based on one or more combined energy flows, based at least in part on the plurality of modeling inputs and one or more material flows, wherein calculating the emission flow comprises calculating emission inflows and emission outflows for a reporting period and enforcing a balancing constraint requiring a total quantity of the emission inflows to equal a total quantity of the emission outflows;
providing one or more analytics user interfaces associated with the calculated emissions flows to provide insight into highest emission producing emission drivers along a production chain; and
generating a technical report, wherein the technical report maps the emission outflows to balance-sheet categories derived from the ERP transaction data and provides drill-down tracing from an emission outflow category to underlying physical transactions used in the calculation.
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Transmitting data (e.g., sending and receiving data) is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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).
Transmitting data (e.g., sending and receiving data) is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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).
Reciting generic computer components is the additional element of instructions to apply the recited judicial exception, which courts have found does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Each of the recited components of the graph are merely data that is generated elsewhere and provided to construct the graph. For example, the limitation does not actually derive the material flows and the model energy flows are merely received data. Thus, the limitation uses transmitted data and does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application for at least the same reasons as indicated for the “receiving a plurality of modeling inputs” step above.
Transmitting data (e.g., providing and receiving data) is an extra-solution activity that courts have found does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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).
The limitation is an idea of a solution that does not recite with specificity how the solution is accomplished. For example, the limitation does not indicate what a “drill-down tracing” is nor how the mapping is performed or what is included in a mapping. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1).
Step 2B: Regarding Step 2B, the inquiry is whether any of the additional elements (i.e., the elements that are not the judicial exception) amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The additional elements recite generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f), Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014), Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972), Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 112 USPQ2d 1750 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) and data transmission (See Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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)), and recite ideas of solutions (See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015), all of which courts have found do not amount to significantly more than a recited judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites wherein the model energy flows are provided via a graphical modeling user interface and one or more support allocation rule definitions for distributing one or more overhead emissions footprint definitions. The claim does not recite any judicial exceptions and does not include additional elements that are not already rejected in claim 1. For example, the claim merely describes the provided interface with additional specificity, which is still an additional element that does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 2 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites wherein the one or more material flows us derived from aggregated transaction data associated with the physical process defined scope of emission-producing physical inputs. Aggregating data is either a mathematical concept (e.g., taking “aggregating” as synonymous with “adding”) or a mental process (e.g., taking “aggregating” as synonymous with “combining”). In with instance, aggregating data is a judicial exception that is ineligible patentable subject matter. Accordingly, claim 3 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites wherein the calculated emission flow is based on a calculated emission footprint at a plurality of stages along a production process. The limitation is directed to a “calculation,” which is a mathematical concept. The Specification does not provide additional details as to how the calculation is performed other than the same language as recited in the claim (“The calculated emission flow is based on a calculated emission footprint at a plurality of stages along a production process.” Spec. at [0067]). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), Subsection I.
Accordingly, claim 4 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites wherein the calculated emission flow may be visualized in connection with a Sankey chart. The claim does not include additional elements and/or judicial exceptions but instead merely recites elements that are already rejected with greater specificity. Accordingly, claim 5 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites wherein the technical report further enables drill-down tracing from a balance-sheet category to the underlying physical transactions used in generating a corresponding emission outflow category. The technical report has already been identified as an additional element that does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Similarly, providing drill-down functionality is an idea of a solution that is not claimed with specificity to recite how the drill-down tracing is performed nor what it entails. Further, the term “drill-down tracing” is not explicitly disclosed in the Specification so as to provide additional details about what it includes. Accordingly, claim 6 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites wherein the emissions outflows correspond to a quantity of carbon emissions. The claim does not include additional elements and/or judicial exceptions but instead describes already recited (and rejected) elements with additional details. Accordingly, claim 7 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim 8-14
Claim 8 recites a method that performs substantially the same steps as the non-transitory media of claim 1. According, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 8 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 9-14 recite limitations that are substantially the same as the limitations of claims 2-7. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons, claims 9-14 are rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 15-20
Claim 15 recites a system that performs substantially the same steps as the non-transitory media of claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons as claim 1, claim 15 is rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claims 16-20 recite limitations that are substantially the same as the limitations of claims 2-6. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons, claims 16-20 are rejected for being directed to unpatentable subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious Graeber, et al., (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0101212, hereinafter “Graeber”) in view of Meinrenken, et al., (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2021/0232935, hereinafter “Meinrenken”) and Ajani, et al., (“Comprehensive carbon stock and flow accounting: A national framework to support climate change mitigation policy,” hereinafter “Ajani”).
Claim 1
Graeber discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, perform a method
Articles are also described that comprise a tangibly embodied machine-readable medium operable to cause one or more machines (e.g., computers, etc.) to result in operations described herein. Similarly, computer systems are also described that may include a processor and a memory coupled to the processor. The memory may include one or more programs that cause the processor to perform one or more of the operations described herein. Graeber at [0005].
for providing automated mechanisms for modelling and quantitatively characterizing emissions inflows and outflows for an entity over a certain period based on a set of physical transactions, the method comprising:
In some embodiments, there is provided a GHG data model which is used to extend the data models of an enterprise system, such as an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, so that the enterprise system can allocate GHG emissions to products or services. Graeber at [0020].
receiving a plurality of scoping inputs including a physical process defined scope of emission-producing physical inputs;
The user interface 1000 allows defining a GHG data model by providing an ID for the model (e.g., “Bakery Energy Flow 2020”), a description of the model, a date range for the validity of the model, an inventory scope indicating footprint inventory periodicity (i.e. valid from, valid to), the companies incorporated into that scope, estimation level (individual product level or product category level) the GHG categories that shall be taken into consideration, and/or a Business Res indicating the physical location. Graeber at [0045].
receiving a plurality of modeling inputs including associated footprints associated with physical manufacturing inputs, the associated footprints including: user provided footprint inputs, information provided via a data processing integration with one or more suppliers of physical inputs; and
FIG. 2B depicts an example of an Ecology Management Engine (EME) 270 retrieving data from an ERP system 272. For example, the EME reads aggregated transaction data from ERP for a given time period. This transaction data may include goods receipt from supplier per material, internal service confirmations from production, and the like. Graeber at [0036].
the plurality of modeling inputs further including one or more model energy flows associated with one or more production processes;
As a result, ERP data model including the GHG data model 100 represents a single, unified model of the physical value chain and the energy flows that allows allocating resources including the GHG emissions at a product level using the existing ERP system infrastructure from cradle to grave, for example. Graeber at [0025].
constructing, by a computing system, a unified flow model stored in a memory as a directed flow graph
In some embodiments, the GHG data model includes nodes and connectors representative of flows. The nodes may indicate a value, such as a quantity of energy consumed at a given time t1, for example. The nodes and flows may be configured as a directed graph. This directed graph may be made up of a set of nodes connected by connectors (e.g., edges) in which the edges have a direction associated with the flow of that edge. Graeber at [0024].
comprising (i) material flows derived from aggregated enterprise resource planning (ERP) transaction data associated with the physical process defined scope and
Alternatively, or additionally, the ERP system may also model emissions that occur during the life cycle of a material or a product after the sale, such as emissions related to distribution, storage, product use, disposal, and/or end-of-life. As a result, ERP data model including the GHG data model 100 represents a single, unified model of the physical value chain and the energy flows that allows allocating resources including the GHG emissions at a product level using the existing ERP system infrastructure from cradle to grave, for example. Graeber at [0025].
(ii) the one or more model energy flows, the directed flow graph comprising nodes representing production activities and edges representing the material flows and the one or more model energy flows;
The ERP nodes may also provide a model of the overall production process by depicting certain steps in the process such as melting 240, backing 242, coatings 244 and 246, and warehousing 248. Graeber at [0027].
applying one or more allocation rule definitions to allocate emissions associated with the one or more model energy flows to production activities represented in the unified flow model by propagating emissions through the directed flow graph according to the allocation rule definitions;
Like the costing analytics provided by an ERP system, one or more GHG data models may extend the models of an ERP system to enable allocation of GRG emissions to a given product or product line. Disclosed herein is a system and method for using GHG data models with an ERP system to allocate GHG emission to one or more products. Graeber at [0021].
calculating an emission flow based on one or more combined energy flows, based at least in part on the plurality of modeling inputs and one or more material flows,
The second data model includes energy data and flows associated with the product or the service. The second data model includes emissions that occur during a least a portion of a lifecycle of the product or the service, the portion including emissions related to distribution, storage, usage, and/or disposal. The first and second data models are configured to form a directed graph to enable the calculation that allocates to the product or the service the amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Graeber at [0004].
providing one or more analytics user interfaces associated with the calculated emissions flows to provide insight into highest emission producing emission drivers along a production chain;
FIG. 6 depicts an example of a user interface where a user may choose to add energy carriers 602, flow elements 604, flow models 606, or energy consumption rates 608 to the GHG data flow model. Referring to FIG. 6, a selection 602 at a client device may be received, and this selection 602 may be indicative of an energy carrier being selected for use in the model. In response to the selection 602, a user interface 700 at FIG. 7 may be caused to be presented at the client device. The user interface 700 enables editing 704 of an existing energy carrier or defining a new 702 energy carrier, such as a carrier providing cold water, gas, power, steam, etc., each of which may have a unit of measure (UoM). Graeber at [0040].
Graeber does not appear to teach:
wherein the plurality of modeling inputs are derived from one or more lifecycle assessment (LCA) databases,
wherein calculating the emission flow comprises calculating emission inflows and emission outflows for a reporting period and enforcing a balancing constraint requiring a total quantity of the emission inflows to equal a total quantity of the emission outflows;
generating a technical report, wherein the technical report maps the emission outflows to balance-sheet categories derived from the ERP transaction data and provides drill-down tracing from an emission outflow category to underlying physical transactions used in the calculation.
Meinrenken, which is analogous art to the claimed invention, discloses:
wherein the plurality of modeling inputs are derived from one or more lifecycle assessment (LCA) databases,
Carbon management and cost / benefit evaluations : Knowing CFs for all products , including breakdowns by LCA stages , allows “ slicing and dicing ” the CFs for the company's global portfolio in any desired way including national roll - ups , by product type , by business line and break - downs of the company's total product CF , e.g. , by packaging , transportation , disposal , etc. Carbon reduction strategies such as light - weighting the packaging , substituting purchased goods with low - carbon alternatives, improving distribution and transportation efficiency , etc. can be evaluated instantly , and the resulting changes in GHG emissions can be compared with the estimated investment cost. Meinrenken at [0058].
generating a technical report, wherein the technical report maps the emission outflows to balance-sheet categories derived from the ERP transaction data and provides drill-down tracing from an emission outflow category to underlying physical transactions used in the calculation.
This table stores inventory for all LCA stages, for all items, i.e., products/services of a company. It covers material and activity data such as amounts of purchased goods, including scrap, spillage, etc., production and distribution, transportation routes, and use-phase characteristics. In addition, table A stores product attributes such as country, brand, business line, and annual production volume (to report roll-ups and breakdowns of the CFs by various characteristics). Meinrenken at [0041].
Certification and communication with eco-labeling groups: Input data and algorithmic details such as allocation rules are transparent and such that the resulting CF for individual products are easily certifiable, based on system-generated, detailed reports. Meinrenken at [0059].
Meinrenken is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to identifying inflows from lifecycle databases. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Graeber with Meinrenken to result in a directed graph that takes as inputs LCA database information in addition to material flows because both are potential sources of carbon emissions. Motivation to combine includes ensuring accuracy and balancing of outflows with sources of inflows. Thus, the resulting system can be used to verify that all inflows and outflow are accounted for when assessing the emissions.
Ajani, which is prior art, discloses:
wherein calculating the emission flow comprises calculating emission inflows and emission outflows for a reporting period and enforcing a balancing constraint requiring a total quantity of the emission inflows to equal a total quantity of the emission outflows;
The development of systematic and internationally comparable NGGI to support the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol is a major achievement of international climate change negotiations. The carbon accounting framework proposed here complements NGGI by incorporating both stocks and flows, effectively introducing a double-entry bookkeeping system. Under the framework, carbon stocks, carbon stock changes, emissions and removals would be estimated for each reservoir for defined time intervals. Emissions would be disaggregated from removals. Movement of carbon, as an emission or removal, would be accounted as changes in the opening and closing stocks over the accounting period, thus accurately tracking all the carbon in the system and incorporating cumulative stock changes. Ajani at pg. 68, col. 2.
A “double-entry bookkeeping” process ensures that inflow and outflow of carbon emissions are equal.
Ajani is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are directed to a system whereby the inflows must be equal to the outflows. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ajani with Graeber and Meinrenken to result in a process including a review of the inflows and outflows to ensure that the two are equal and balanced. Motivation to combine is to prevent an entity from obscuring carbon emissions to avoid, for example, charges incurred for emissions. Further, all sources of emission inflow can be verified against outflows to ensure that consumption of inflows are all accounted for.
Claim 2
Graeber discloses:
wherein the model energy flows are provided via a graphical modeling user interface and
FIGS. 6-11 depict examples of user interfaces at which one or more aspects of the GHG data model are defined. Graeber at [0014].
one or more support allocation rule definitions for distributing one or more overhead emissions footprint definitions.
Like the costing analytics provided by an ERP system, one or more GHG data models may extend the models of an ERP system to enable allocation of GRG emissions to a given product or product line. Graeber at [0021].
Claim 3
Graeber discloses:
wherein the one or more material flows us derived from aggregated transaction data associated with the physical process defined scope of emission-producing physical inputs.
FIG. 2B depicts an example of an Ecology Management Engine (EME) 270 retrieving data from an ERP system 272. For example, the EME reads aggregated transaction data from ERP for a given time period. This transaction data may include goods receipt from supplier per material, internal service confirmations from production, and the like. Graeber at [0036].
Claim 4
Graeber discloses:
wherein the calculated emission flow is based on a calculated emission footprint at a plurality of stages along a production process.
[T]here may be maintained multiple, parallel GHG node breakdowns as vectors on top of GHG quantity scalar and as explanation component of the GHG origin by GHG quantity break-down by GHG emission categories, GHG quantity break-down by country of emission origin, and GHG quantity break-down by country of emission origin and by emission categories (cross product). Graeber at [0034].
Claim 5
Graeber discloses:
wherein the calculated emission flow may be visualized in connection with a Sankey chart.
The user interface is configured as a Sankey diagram. Graeber at [0004].
Claim 6
Graeber does not appear to disclose:
wherein the technical report further enables drill-down tracing from a balance-sheet category to the underlying physical transactions used in generating a corresponding emission outflow category.
Meinrenken discloses:
wherein the technical report further enables drill-down tracing from a balance-sheet category to the underlying physical transactions used in generating a corresponding emission outflow category.
This table stores inventory for all LCA stages, for all items, i.e., products/services of a company. It covers material and activity data such as amounts of purchased goods, including scrap, spillage, etc., production and distribution, transportation routes, and use-phase characteristics. In addition, table A stores product attributes such as country, brand, business line, and annual production volume (to report roll-ups and breakdowns of the CFs by various characteristics). Meinrenken at [0041].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the reporting disclosed in Graeber with the roll-ups and breakdowns of Meinrenken (analogous to drilling down to identify the emissions from a particular process step) to result in a system that can allocate emissions to particular producers of emissions. Motivation to combine includes improved allocation of consequences of emissions to the corresponding emitter. Thus, for example, better accounting can be realized that allows for charges of emissions to be traced back to the source of the emissions.
Claim 7
Graeber discloses:
wherein the emissions outflows correspond to a quantity of carbon emissions.
FIG. 4 depicts the allocation, based on gas, of C02 emissions. In this example, the 1000 kilograms of C02 emissions are allocated based on the corresponding consumption of the oven and cooling system, so 800 kilograms of carbon dioxide (C02) emissions are allocated to the oven 222 and 200 kilograms of C02 emissions are allocated to the cooling system. The 150 kg CO2 emissions and the 50 kg CO2 emissions are from the combustion of gas in the cooling system. The 200 kg of CO2 emissions from the cooling system 230 are allocated to assembly A 226 and assembly B 228 by the planned consumption from the ERP system. The allocation may be in accordance with GHG scope category 1.1 stationary combustion. Graeber at [0030].
Claims 8-14
Claims 8-14 recite the method and limitations that are stored on the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 1-7, claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Graeber in view of Meinrenken and Ajani.
Claims 15-20
Claims 15-20 recite a system that includes, as memory, the media recited in claim 1. Accordingly, for at least the same reasons and based on the same prior art as claims 1-6, claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Graeber in view of Meinrenken and Ajani.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0107618: Discloses quantifying carbon footprint for the production of materials in a supply chain.
Gao, et al., “Economic and Environmental Life Cycle Optimization of Noncooperative Supply Chains and Product Systems: Modeling Framework, Mixed-Integer Bilevel Fractional Programming Algorithm, and Shale Gas Application”: Discloses LCA databases, designing optimizing supply chains to reduce carbon footprints of materials, and accounting analysis of material supply coupled with carbon footprint data.
U.S. Pat. No. 12,217,269: Discloses finding carbon footprint of a production process.
Kang, et al., (“Carbon Emission Flow From Generation to Demand: A Network-Based Model”): Discloses allocation of carbon emissions to producers using a directed graph and model.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5735. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at (571) 272-4071. 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.
JOSEPH MORRIS
Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/JOSEPH P MORRIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights