DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 03/26/2026.
2. Claims 2, 9, and 10 are canceled.
3. Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-15 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, and 11-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered. In view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments, the rejection has been withdrawn. Independent Clam 1 recites the limitations wherein, when the computing equipment operates in a battery power supply mode, the carbon intensity value associated with said computing equipment corresponds to the carbon intensity value at a time of charging of the computing equipment, and wherein the carbon footprint recorded in the second database enables real-time quantification of an effect on the computing infrastructure resulting from one or more of changing supply parameters of at least one laptop, optimizing network flow in a supercomputer, using frugal artificial intelligence algorithms. The step of wherein, when the computing equipment operates in a battery power supply mode, the carbon intensity value associated with said computing equipment corresponds to the carbon intensity value at a time of charging of the computing equipment, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations, integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. The claimed invention is patent eligible based on 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Step 2A).
Regarding independent claims 14 and 15, the claims are directed to a method and non-transitory claims respectively, and include similar eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claim 1 as discussed above.
The dependent claims were found to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 by incorporating the eligible subject matter of their corresponding independent claim.
5. 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 15, has been withdrawn in view of amendment.
6. 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 8, has been withdrawn in view of amendment.
7. The objection to Figures 2 and 3 has been withdrawn in view of amendment.
8. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8, and 11-15 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground rejection necessitate by applicant amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
9. Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-13 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) Claims 1, 3, 4-7, limitation use the terms “a collector, a consolidator, a calculator, an aggregator” that are generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the terms “a collector, a consolidator, a calculator, an aggregator” or the generic placeholder are modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the terms “a collector, a consolidator, a calculator, an aggregator” or the generic placeholder are not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the terms “a collector, a consolidator, a calculator, an aggregator” in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the terms “a collector, a consolidator, a calculator, an aggregator” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the terms “a collector, a consolidator, a calculator, an aggregator” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the terms “a collector, a consolidator, a calculator, an aggregator” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. US 2011/0106945 (hereinafter, Conway), in view of Hong KR 2011-0040709 A (hereinafter, Hong), in further view of Brunner et al. US 2012/0271472 (hereinafter, Brunner).
12. Regarding claim 1, Conway discloses a system for determining a carbon footprint of a computing infrastructure in real time, said computing infrastructure comprising a set of pieces of computing equipment on at least one site (Fig. 1), said system comprising:
a device that comprises a first database, a second database (0020], Fig. 1);
a collector configured to collect equipment data from the set of pieces of computing equipment and record the equipment data in the first database, wherein said equipment data comprises, for each computing equipment of the set of pieces of computing equipment, a measurement of an energy consumption of said each computing equipment ([0020], [0028], [0031], Figs. 1, 2 (steps 204, 210)); and a location of said each computing equipment ([0020], [0029]),
a receiver configured to receive, for each site of said at least one site, a carbon intensity value provided by an electricity supplier of the each site, and to record said carbon intensity value in said first database ([0014], [0030], Figs. 1, 2: at block 208, the carbon footprint per unit of power may be determined. For example, if the unit of power is determined to be a watt, it may be determined from information received from the one or more power suppliers that for one watt of power is a specified amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced. The carbon footprint may be averaged or otherwise adjusted to accommodate for multiple power sources or seasonal variations. The carbon footprint per unit of power may also be specified for a particular power source utilized by a power supplier at a particular point in time),
a consolidator configured to associate said carbon intensity value of said each site of said at least one site, recorded in the first database, with said each computing equipment according to the location of said each computing equipment ([0014], [0029]-[0030], Figs. 1, 2 (step 208)),
calculate the carbon footprint of said each computing equipment from the carbon intensity value that is associated and said energy consumption of said each computing equipment that is measured and recorded in the first database, and record the carbon footprint that is calculated in the second database ([0020], [0027]-[0035], Figs. 1, 2: At block 216, the total carbon footprint and/or total power usage for a network service or process may be calculated. This may include the carbon footprint one or more network elements, one or more components of a network element, and/or one or more processes of a network element);
wherein the consolidator is further configured to associate said carbon intensity value of said each site of said at least one site, recorded in the first database ([0014], [0029]-[0030], Figs. 1, 2 (step 208));
wherein, for a site that produces electricity from one or more local electricity production sources, the carbon intensity value associated with the computing equipment corresponds to a real-time carbon intensity of the site calculated from a mixture of a carbon intensity of an electricity grid and carbon intensities of the one or more local electricity production sources ([0014]-[0015], [0030], Fig. 1);
wherein the carbon footprint recorded in the second database enables real-time quantification of an effect on the computing infrastructure resulting from one or more of changing supply parameters of at least one laptop, optimizing network flow in a supercomputer, using frugal artificial intelligence algorithms ([0015], [0055], Fig. 4: the network element chosen may be determined based at least in part on a carbon footprint associated with the network element. For example, a web search engine query may be routed to network element 110 for handling instead of network element 118, which may be due to a lower calculated carbon footprint for network element 110. The method 400 may be utilized to optimize and/or reduce the power usage and/or carbon footprint of a network service. Optimizing a network service may include selecting a network service instantiation based on a carbon footprint of one or more network elements providing the network service (i.e., optimizing network flow in a supercomputer). Optimizing a network service may include the consideration of additional factors such as network performance indicators, cost, utilization and other factors. See also [0044]).
Conway does not disclose:
time-stamped location of said each computing equipment; and wherein the equipment data further comprises a power supply mode of the computing equipment; wherein the consolidator is further configured to associate said carbon intensity value, with said each computing equipment according to the power supply mode of said each computing equipment, wherein, when the computing equipment operates in a battery power supply mode, the carbon intensity value associated with said computing equipment corresponds to the carbon intensity value at a time of charging of the computing equipment.
However, Hong discloses:
wherein the equipment data further comprises a power supply mode of the computing equipment; wherein the consolidator is further configured to associate said carbon intensity value, with said each computing equipment according to the power supply mode of said each computing equipment (pages 5-6: the greenhouse gas management method may further include calculating consumer greenhouse gas emission information according to charging and discharging of the battery.
The consumer greenhouse gas emission information may include information on individual battery greenhouse gas emissions, information on individual electric device greenhouse gas emissions);
wherein, when the computing equipment operates in a battery power supply mode, the carbon intensity value associated with said computing equipment corresponds to the carbon intensity value at a time of charging of the computing equipment (pages 5-6: calculating consumer greenhouse gas emission information according to charging and discharging of the battery…the method for managing a greenhouse gas may include assigning an identifier to the at least one battery and the at least one electric device, and displaying the individual battery greenhouse gas emissions and the individual electric device greenhouse gas emissions
according to the identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Conway to use wherein the equipment data further comprises a power supply mode of the computing equipment; wherein the consolidator is further configured to associate said carbon intensity value, with said each computing equipment according to the power supply mode of said each computing equipment; wherein, when the computing equipment operates in a battery power supply mode, the carbon intensity value associated with said computing equipment corresponds to the carbon intensity value at a time of charging of the computing equipment as taught by Hong. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the carbon intensity based on a different parameters, such as power supply mode of electronic devices (Hong, page 5 ).
Conway in view of Hong does not disclose:
time-stamped location of said each computing equipment.
However, Brunner discloses:
time-stamped location of said each computing equipment ([0127], Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Conway in view of Hong to use time-stamped location of said each computing equipment as taught by Brunner. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to manage energy consumption of each computing equipment efficiently (Brunner, [0008], [0127]).
13. Regarding claims 14 and 15, the claims are rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
14. Regarding claim 3, Conway in view of Hong in view of Brunner disclose the system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Conway further discloses wherein said at least one site comprises
an electricity production source and consumes electricity produced by said electricity production source, and one or more local electricity production sources installed on said at least one site ([0010], [0014], [0029], Fig. 1),
wherein said electricity production source is configured to generate production data comprising a measurement of electrical energy production of said one or more local electricity production sources, and the at least one site ([0010], [0014], [0029], Fig. 1),
wherein the device further comprises a calculator configured to receive the carbon intensity value provided by the electricity supplier for said each site ([0014], [0030], Fig. 2),
calculate, in real time, the carbon intensity consumed by the set of pieces of computing equipment of said each site from the production data received from the electricity production source and the carbon intensity value provided per said receiver ([0028]-[0033], Fig. 2),
record the carbon intensity value calculated in the first database ([0020], Figs. 1, 2).
Conway in view of Hong does not disclose:
location data.
However, Brunner discloses:
location data ([0127], Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Conway in view of Hong to use location data as taught by Brunner. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to manage energy consumption of each computing equipment efficiently (Brunner, [0008], [0127]).
15. Regarding claim 4, Conway in view of Hong in view of Brunner disclose the system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Conway further discloses an aggregator configured to aggregate data relating to the carbon footprint of said each computing equipment of the second database for the computing infrastructure to determine an overall carbon footprint ([0027]-[0035], Fig. 2 (step 216)).
16. Regarding claim 5, Conway in view of Hong in view of Brunner disclose the system of claim 4, as disclosed above.
Conway further discloses wherein the aggregator is further configured to aggregate the data relating to the carbon footprint of said each computing equipment of the second database per one or more of said each site and type of computing equipment ([0013], [0027]-[0035], Figs. 1, 2).
17. Regarding claim 6, Conway in view of Hong in view of Brunner disclose the system of claim 4, as disclosed above.
Conway further discloses wherein the aggregator is further configured to aggregate the data relating to the carbon footprint of said each computing equipment of the second database for a subpart of the computing infrastructure ([0013], [0027]-[0035], Figs. 1, 2).
18. Regarding claim 7, Conway in view of Hong in view of Brunner disclose the system of claim 4, as disclosed above.
Conway further discloses a display screen, said display screen being configured to receive the data that is aggregated provided by the aggregator and to display the data that is aggregated and received ([0035], Fig. 2).
19. Regarding claim 8, Conway in view of Hong in view of Brunner disclose the system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Conway further discloses a computing equipment of said set of pieces of computing equipment that measures the carbon footprint of said computing infrastructure installed on said at least one site in real-time, wherein said computing equipment is configured to determine its energy consumption in real-time and the location and to send the energy consumption that is determined ([0015], [0027]-[0035], Figs. 1, 2). Further, Hong also discloses determine the energy consumption in real time (pages 8-9).
Conway in view of Hong does not disclose:
the time-stamped location that is determined to said device.
However, Brunner discloses:
determine the energy consumption in real time, and the time-stamped location that is determined to said device ([0127], [0142], [0157], Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Conway in view of Hong to use determine the energy consumption in real time, and the time-stamped location that is determined to said device as taught by Brunner. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to manage energy consumption of each computing equipment efficiently (Brunner, [0008], [0127]).
20. Regarding claim 11, Conway in view of Hong in view of Brunner disclose the system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Conway further discloses wherein the computing infrastructure is heterogeneous ([0013], Fig. 1). See also Burnner ([0173]).
21. Regarding claim 12, Conway in view of Hong in view of Brunner disclose the system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Conway further discloses the computing infrastructure is distributed (Fig. 1). See also Burnner (Abstract).
22. Regarding claim 13, Conway in view of Hong in view of Brunner disclose the system of claim 1, as disclosed above.
Conway further discloses wherein the at least one site comprises an electricity production source comprising one or more local electricity production sources installed on the at least one site, wherein said electricity production source is configured to generate and store electricity, generate production comprising a measurement of electrical energy production of said one or more local electricity production sources, and a location of the at least one site, send the production and data to said device ([0010], [0014], Figs. 1, 2). See also Burnner (Abstract).
Conway in view of Hong does not disclose:
location data comprising a measurements of electrical energy.
However, Brunner discloses:
location data comprising a measurements of electrical energy ([0127], Fig. 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Conway in view of Hong to use location data comprising a measurements of electrical energy as taught by Brunner. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to manage energy consumption of each computing equipment efficiently (Brunner, [0008], [0127]).
Conclusion
23. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
24. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights