METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MEASURING CARBON EMISSION OF DISTRICT HEATING SYSTEM, ELECTRONIC DEVICE, AND MEDIUM

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. 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 2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 of the amendment to the claims filed on 04/22/2026 has been entered. Response to Arguments 3. Applicant's arguments regarding the claim eligibility have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 4-5 as set forth below in this Office Action. Applicant argues that (REMARKS, p.2-3): PNG media_image1.png 154 645 media_image1.png Greyscale Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is advised that, according to MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the Office determines claim eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 using the Alice framework. The analysis under Step 2A - Prong 1 evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Step 2A - Prong 2 asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and, if necessary, Step 2B further analyzes whether or not the claim provides an Inventive Concept. That is, the claim needs to be analyzed limitation by limitation, and/or element by element, following the MPEP/2019 PEG guidelines. In the instant case, focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly and giving the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) to the claims, Examiner asserts that instant claims 1-6 and 9-20 are directed to an abstract idea of estimating carbon emission of a district heating system based on counting a combination of the steady carbon emission amount of a current district heating system and a dynamic carbon emission amount of the current district heating system, but without reciting any additional element that amounts to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Amended claims 1 and 9 recite the amended limitation: displaying the carbon emission amount of the current district heating system on a user-side carbon meter for viewing of a user, and receiving an operation performed by the user, on the user-side carbon meter, according to the carbon emission amount of the current district heating system and a carbon reduction requirement, wherein the operation performed by the user comprises reducing, by the user, a heat consumption amount of the user through the user-side carbon meter when the carbon emission amount of the current district heating system does not meet the carbon reduction requirement. Under its BRI, this limitation reads on an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified judicial exception. Such a post solution activity encompasses merely displaying the results of the identified judicial exception and the instructions to apply the judicial exception for an intended use or to link the use of the abstract idea to the relevant technological environment. The newly added user-side extra-solution activity/action “reducing, by the user, a heat consumption amount of the user through the user-side carbon meter …” does not reflect an improvement in the manner of data collection, the functioning of the claimed electronic device itself, the network communications between the electronic device and/or any other related equipment/computer system. As such, the limitation S4, including the newly added extra-solution features, does not impose meaningful limits to integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application or to reflect a qualified “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.04, MPEP 2106.05. The rest of the Applicant’s arguments are reliant upon the issues discussed above or have been fully addressed by Examiner’s analyses of the claims under the 2019 PEG as set forth below in this Office Action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 4. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 101 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: 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. 5. Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Under the 2019 PEG (now been incorporated into MPEP 2106), the revised procedure for determining whether a claim is "directed to" a judicial exception requires a two-prong inquiry into whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.0S(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Claims 1-6 and 9-20 are directed to an abstract idea of estimating carbon emission of a district heating system. Specifically, representative claim 9 recites: An electronic device, comprising: a memory; a processor; and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the processor, when executing the computer program, implements: (S1) obtaining a steady carbon emission amount of a current district heating system using a pre-trained steady carbon emission flow model, wherein the pre-trained steady carbon emission flow model is constructed based on a pipeline carbon flow rate, network loss carbon emission, a nodal carbon flow density, a pipeline carbon flow density, a heat source carbon flow rate, and a heat load carbon flow rate of the current district heating system; (S2) obtaining a dynamic carbon emission amount of the current district heating system using a pre-trained dynamic carbon emission flow model, wherein the pre-trained dynamic carbon emission flow model is constructed based on water element carbon flow rates at a plurality of time periods, actual outlet carbon flow rates of a pipeline at the plurality of time periods, network loss carbon flow rates at the plurality of time periods, and nodal carbon flow densities at the plurality of time periods of the current district heating system; and (S3) counting a carbon emission amount of the current district heating system based on the steady carbon emission amount and the dynamic carbon emission amount; and (S4) displaying the carbon emission amount of the current district heating system on a user-side carbon meter for viewing of a user, and receiving an operation performed by the user, on the user-side carbon meter, according to the carbon emission amount of the current district heating system and a carbon reduction requirement, wherein the operation performed by the user comprises reducing, by the user, a heat consumption amount of the user through the user-side carbon meter when the carbon emission amount of the current district heating system does not meet the carbon reduction requirement. The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”. The highlighted portion of the claim constitutes an abstract idea under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and the additional elements are NOT sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, as analyzed below: Step Analysis 1. Statutory Category ? Yes. System/Apparatus 2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited? Yes. See the bolded portion as listed above. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), each and/or the combination of the limitations S1, S2 and S3 recited in the bolded portion encompasses mathematical concepts and/or calculations, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, which also encompasses mental processes, i.e. data manipulation, evaluation and judgment, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. In particular, the limitation of “obtaining … using a pre-trained … model” recited in S1 and S2 is analogous to the process of "generating a prediction using a machine learning model" discussed in Examples 47-49 of the USPTO’s July 17, 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, which focuses solely on the concept of making predictions by using a generic machine learning model as a tool but does not provide any details about how the pre-trained ML model itself operates to generate the outputs that goes beyond the basic idea of using a computer to analyze data and generate predictions. As to the recited physical parameters/variables used for constructing the steady carbon emission flow model and the dynamic carbon emission flow model, under the BRI, they encompass merely data characterization which can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use. Further, the limitation of “counting a carbon emission amount” as recited in S3 reads on calculating the total quantity of carbon released into the atmosphere resulted from the current district heating system. Under the BRI, such a calculation encompasses typically mathematical concepts. Nothing in the bolded portion precludes the limitations S1/S2/S3 from practically being performed by a human using a pen and paper or with the aid of a general-purpose computer. Note, the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Also, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). As such, the bolded portion of instant claim 9, reciting a series of mathematical concepts and mental process, amounts to an abstract idea falling within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of Abstract Ideas defined by the 2019 PEG. 2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application? No. Representative claim 9 recites “a memory; a processor; and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor” at a high level of generality. Under the BRI, the combination of the processor and the memory reads on a general-purpose computer performing a generic computer function of processing data. The generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using the general-purpose computer. It is held that performing an abstract idea using a general-purpose computer system would not amount to significantly more than the abstract algorithm itself. See, for example, Whitserve LLC v. Dropbox, Inc. and MPEP 2106.05(f); see also ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014). Under its BRI, each of the limitations S1 and S2 encompasses a process of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. The claim does not require a particular device or sensor to receive the data information in a unique way that is never done before in the relevant technological field. Thus, the limitations S1 and S2 do not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3): … that were described as mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 13863, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Under its BRI, the limitation S4 reads on an insignificant post solution activity and/or a field of use of the output from identified judicial exception. Such a post solution activity encompasses merely displaying the results of the identified judicial exception and the instructions to apply the judicial exception for an intended use or to link the use of the abstract idea to the relevant technological environment. The post solution activity and/or field of use limitation recited in S4 does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the claimed electronic device itself, the network communications between the electronic device and/or any other related equipment/computer system. The amended claim 9 now recites the additional limitation: wherein the operation performed by the user comprises reducing, by the user, a heat consumption amount of the user through the user-side carbon meter when the carbon emission amount of the current district heating system does not meet the carbon reduction requirement. Under the BRI, “reducing, by the user, a heat consumption amount of the user through the user-side carbon meter …” encompasses merely user-side extra-solution activities/actions such as lowering a desired setting of HVAC or water-heater temperature for a residential home via a user-side controller device to reduce fuel/gas consumptions. Such extra-solution activities do not act in concert with the recited mathematical concepts to improve, e.g., the manner of collecting the data (the water element carbon flow rates, the actual outlet carbon flow rates, the network loss carbon flow rates, and the nodal carbon flow densities, etc.), the functionality of the claimed electronic device, and/or an existing technological process of estimating carbon emission of a district heating system. Accordingly, the limitation S4, including the newly added extra-solution features, does not impose meaningful limits to integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(g). See also: Diamond v. Diehr (specifically claimed measurement of temperature at a mold cavity of a rubber-molding press and the repetitive computer recalculation of the appropriate cure time using the constantly updated measurements provide ‘‘something more’’ than mere computer implementation of calculation); Parker v. Flook (adjusting an alarm limit variable to a figure computed according to a mathematical formula was an insignificant “post-solution activity”); and Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims to generating tasks based on rules to be completed upon the occurrence of an event recited an abstract idea and its implementation on a generic computer without any meaningful limitations to the concept did not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application). None of the additional limitations/elements recited in claim 9 is considered to be qualified for “significantly more” because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application: An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field; an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim; an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. However, in all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. At most, it only generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept? No. Focusing on what the inventors have invented exactly, it is deemed that the “core” of the representative claim 9 is directed to an algorithm of mathematically estimating a (deviation of) carbon emission amount of the current district heating system based on steady carbon emission amount and dynamic carbon emission amount that are simulated by artificial intelligence models. Under its BRI, the claimed algorithm falls within a combination of the “Mental Process” and “Mathematical Concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the recited additional limitations in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components and/or well-known/conventional extra-solution activities. The claim does not include any limitation that can be treated as “significantly more” or an “inventive concept”. See MPEP 2106.05. Particularly, under the BRI, the limitation S4 recited in claim 9 does not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B. For example, prior art reference JEONG et al. (KR20110066246A) as listed in section 7 below teaches measuring/calculating carbon emission amount of a current district heating system and displaying the results on a user-side device/meter for viewing of a user (see discussions of units 470, 370 and 350 in Fig. 3: “the produced carbon dioxide emission information is buffered in the indicator memory (330) …, and then output to the output unit (350) according to the control signal of the indicator control unit (340) (S150). The above output unit (350) displays …”); the user-side device/meter is further configured to receive an operation (e.g., user’s settings via unit 360 in Fig. 3 or other input means allowing the user to control the heating system for desired indoor temperature) performed by the user, on the user-side device/meter, according to related requirements. The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101. The dependent claims 10-14 inherit attributes of the independent claim 9, but do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrows) the abstract idea which does not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea as discussed above. In particular, the physical and/or mathematical parameters/variables recited in claims 10-14, such as “the pipeline carbon flow rate, the network loss carbon emission, the nodal carbon flow density, the pipeline carbon flow density, the heat source carbon flow rate, and the heat load carbon flow rate of the district heating system” (claim 10), “a branch heat flow matrix of the water supply network and a branch heat flow matrix of the water return network” (claim 13), and “the water element carbon flow rates at the plurality of time periods, the actual outlet carbon flow rates of the pipeline at the plurality of time periods, the network loss carbon flow rates at the plurality of time periods, and the nodal carbon flow densities at the plurality of time periods” (claim 14), are considered merely data characterization to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the relevant technological environment or field of use but do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for the same reason as for claims 9-14 set forth above. Claim 1 recites the limitation: “the method being performed by a processor of an electronic device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system”. The claimed “a processor of an electronic device” is recited at a high level of generality. According to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes except for the mention of generic computer components performing computing activities via basic function of the computer, then the claim is likely considered to be directed to an ineligible abstract idea, as it essentially describes a mental process that could be performed by a human without the computer components adding any significant practical application beyond the abstract concept itself. Further, under the BRI, “for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system” encompasses an insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering the data/information necessary for performing the abstract idea. Thus, it does not impose any other meaningful limits on the claim. See also discussion for the limitations S1 and S2 of claim 9 as set forth above. Examiner’s Note 6. While there are related references that discuss mathematically estimating a carbon emission amount of the current district heating system based on artificial intelligence models, the prior art of record does not specifically provide teachings for the claimed limitations including: wherein the pre-trained steady carbon emission flow model is constructed based on a pipeline carbon flow rate, network loss carbon emission, a nodal carbon flow density, a pipeline carbon flow density, a heat source carbon flow rate, and a heat load carbon flow rate of the current district heating system; and wherein the pre-trained dynamic carbon emission flow model is constructed based on water element carbon flow rates at a plurality of time periods, actual outlet carbon flow rates of a pipeline at the plurality of time periods, network loss carbon flow rates at the plurality of time periods, and nodal carbon flow densities at the plurality of time periods of the current district heating system. It is these limitations, as they are claimed in the combination recited in independent claim 1 or 9, that would make the pending claims 1-6 and 9-20 of the present application distinguish over the prior art of record. Citation of Relevant Prior Art 7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest reference Sekiai et al. (US 20090132095 A1) teaches a computer implemented method and device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system (para. 0003), comprising: obtaining a steady carbon emission amount (e.g., Sa) of a current heating system using a pre-trained steady carbon emission flow model (para. 0041: “a model adapted to simulate a characteristic of the plant, learning means for generating an input signal of the model so that an output signal obtained by the model simulating the characteristic of the plant satisfies a predetermined target …”; para. 0042, 0090); obtaining a dynamic (instantaneous) carbon emission amount (e.g., Sm1, Sm2) of the current power plant system using a pre-trained dynamic carbon emission flow model (para. 0040, 0041: “using a measurement signal obtained by measuring an operation state of the plant, includes manipulation signal generation means for generating the manipulation signal to be transmitted to the plant, a model adapted to simulate a characteristic of the plant, learning means for generating an input signal of the model ...”; see also para. 0064-0065, 0077, 0085); and counting a carbon emission amount of the current power plant system based on the steady carbon emission amount and the dynamic carbon emission amount (para. 0124-0127). However, Sekiai fails to anticipate or render obvious a method/device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system comprising the subject matter as identified in section 6 set forth above. Li et al. (CN 113341716 A, machine translation) discloses a large coal-fired power plant CO2 capture system optimization scheduling method based on artificial intelligence but fails to anticipate or render obvious a method/device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system comprising the subject matter as identified in section 6 set forth above. Yamada et al. (US 7660639 B2) discloses a method/system for estimating and controlling the change of heating value of fuel and exhaust gas components automatically based on reinforcement learning method. Yamada fails to anticipate or render obvious a method/device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system comprising the subject matter as identified in section 6 set forth above. BHATTACHARYYA et al. (CA 3119273 A1) discloses machine-learning-based prediction, planning, and optimization of pollutant emission. BHATTACHARYYA fails to anticipate or render obvious a method/device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system comprising the subject matter as identified in section 6 set forth above. JEONG et al. (KR 20110066246 A) discloses a remote meter reading information and carbon dioxide emission check system. JEONG fails to anticipate or render obvious a method/device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system comprising the subject matter as identified in section 6 set forth above. Kang et al. (US 10203312 B2) discloses a system/method for measuring carbon emissions in a power system. Kang fails to anticipate or render obvious a method/device for measuring carbon emission of a district heating system comprising the subject matter as identified in section 6 set forth above. Contact Information 8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm. 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, Shelby A. 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 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. /X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857 /MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857