DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: As shown in the abstract and specification [0002]-[0072], the goal of the invention is to determine a carbon footprint related to manufacturing the vehicle or at least one part of the vehicle, and setting the price of the vehicle based upon the total carbon footprint for manufacturing the vehicle.
PNG
media_image1.png
136
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, new claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Amendment
The amendment filed 02/19/26 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
(Currently amended) A method, comprising:
[1] eceiving meter data from a plurality of manufacturingfacilities indicating aggregate energy consumption used to produce vehicle parts;
[3] determining a baseline energy usage for the plurality of manufacturingfacilities during a period in which the vehicle parts are not produced;
[4] determining marginal energy contributions for respective vehicle parts by removing the baseline energy usage from the aggregate energy consumption and allocating remaining energy among concurrently produced parts;
[5] aggregating the marginal energy contributions to determine a manufacturing carbon footprint for a vehicle; generating a vehicle specific adjustment parameter based on the manufacturing carbon footprint for the vehicle; and
[6] causing a transaction system to apply the vehicle specific adjustment parameter during a vehicle related transaction.
Steps [2]-[4] are not supported in the specification. The examiner has reviewed the cited paragraphs [0052]-[0054], [0056]-[0061], [0065]-[0071] and [0075] in the “Remarks” but could not find the support.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The following are Final Office Action of June 16, 2025.
Claims amended:
Independent claim: 1, 8 and 15.
Dependent claim: 3, 5, 6, 10-14, 17 and 19.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. They comprise of 3 groups:
Method1: 1-7, and
System1: 8-14, and
CRM1: 15-20.
All appear to have similar scope and will be rejected together.
As of 03/13/25, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. A method, comprising:
1. (Currently amended) A method, comprising:
[1] reading an electric meter at a first manufacturing location to determine an amount of electricity consumed when manufacturing a first part of a vehicle;
[2] reading an electric meter at a second manufacturing location to determine an amount of fuel consumed when manufacturing a second part of the vehicle;
[3] determining a carbon footprint related to manufacturing of the vehicle based on the amount of electricity consumed when manufacturing the first part and the amount of fuel consumed when manufacturing the second part; and
[4] setting a price of the vehicle to be inversely related to the carbon footprint.
As of 09/16/25, independent claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Currently amended) A method, comprising:
[1] reading an electric meter at a first manufacturing location to determine an amount of electricity consumed when manufacturing a first part of a vehicle;
[2] reading an electric meter at a second manufacturing location to determine an amount of fuel consumed when manufacturing a second part of the vehicle;
[3] determining a carbon footprint related to manufacturing of the vehicle based on the amount of electricity consumed when manufacturing the first part and the amount of fuel consumed when manufacturing the second part;
[4] generating a navigational weight based on the determined carbon footprint;
receiving a request for a route to a destination;
[5] weighting routing attributes based on the navigational weight, where the routing attributes include at least one of a distance to travel, an elevation change, and a number of stops; and [setting a price of the vehicle to be inversely related to the carbon footprint]
[6] generating the route based on the weighted routing attributes and autonomously maneuvering the vehicle to the destination via the route.
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[4] are added to the beginning of each step.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-20:
Claim categories:
Method1 (process): 1-7, and
System1 (machine): 8-14, and
CRS media1 (product): 15-20.
Analysis of Step 1:
Method1: claims 1-7 are directed to a method for setting a price of a vehicle based on the determined carbon footprint related to manufacturing a part of a vehicle comprising the steps of [1] determining a carbon footprint related to manufacturing at least one part for a vehicle; and [2] setting a price of the vehicle based on the carbon footprint. (Step 1: yes).
System1: claims 8-14 are directed to a system for setting a price of a vehicle based on the determined carbon footprint related to manufacturing a part of a vehicle comprising: (1) a processor, (2) a memory for carrying out instructions to carry out a method for setting a price of a vehicle based on the determined carbon footprint related to manufacturing a part of a vehicle comprising the steps of [1] determining a carbon footprint related to manufacturing at least one part for a vehicle; and [2] setting a price of the vehicle based on the carbon footprint. (Step 1: yes).
A computer-readable storage medium: 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which when executed cause a processor to perform a method for setting a price of a vehicle based on the determined carbon footprint related to manufacturing a part of a vehicle comprising the steps of [1] determining a carbon footprint related to manufacturing at least one part for a vehicle; and [2] setting a price of the vehicle based on the carbon footprint. (Step 1: yes).
Thus, the claims 1-20 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a method for determining a price of a vehicle comprising steps of: [1] determining a carbon footprint related to manufacturing at least one part for a vehicle; and [2] setting a price of the vehicle based on the carbon footprint, is a fundamental economic principle or business practice of setting a price of a vehicle based on a relationship with the determined carbon footprint related to manufacturing of a part of the vehicle, which is considered as (i) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, independent claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea related to determining a price of a vehicle comprising steps of: determining a carbon footprint related to manufacturing at least one part for a vehicle; and [2] setting a price of the vehicle based on the carbon footprint constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. For example, evaluate the overall price of a vehicle based on the cost of the impact due to environment, i.e. carbon footprint, and others.
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for determining a price of a vehicle by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] reading…amount (data) of electricity consumed. Data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity (IESA).
[2] reading … amount (data) fuel consumed. Data gathering, IESA.
[3] determine a carbon footprint value (data). Mental step.
[4] Setting a price (data) of the vehicle. Mental step.
Steps [1]-[2] are data gathering which is insignificant extra solution activity (IESA).
Steps [3] and [4] are steps for evaluating/determining a price of a vehicle based on a determined carbon footprint due to manufacturing at least one part of the vehicle or the cost due to environment negative impact in the manufacturing of a component of the vehicle. These mental steps or well known business activities for determining a price of a vehicle based on the cost or carbon footprint of the financial impact to the environment for manufacturing the component.
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of these additional elements, i.e. first sensor (meter) for measuring an amount of electricity consumed, second sensor (meter) for measuring an amount of fuel consumed, is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device (sensors). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[4] above.
Steps [1]-[2] are data gathering which is insignificant extra solution activity (IESA).
Steps [3]-[4] are steps for evaluating a price of a vehicle based on a determined carbon footprint due to manufacturing at least one part of the vehicle or the cost due to environment negative impact in the manufacturing of a component of the vehicle. These “mental steps” or well known business activities for evaluation a price of a vehicle based on a relationship with the carbon footprint or financial cost of the negative impact of the environment in manufacturing a component of the vehicle.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, steps [3]-[4], when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). The combination of these additional elements, i.e. first sensor (meter) for measuring an amount of electricity consumed, second sensor (meter) for measuring an amount of fuel consumed, is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic device (sensors). As for the system or article claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 2-3 (part of 1 above), which deal with further detail of the price setting parameters, i.e. difference in the carbon footprint of various parts or vehicles, these further limit the abstract idea of the setting of the price, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-3 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the determined carbon footprint values, this further limits the abstract idea of the determined carbon footprint and is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 5 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the stored determination data, this further limits the abstract idea of the data used in the determination and is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 6 (part of 1 above), which deal with further detail of the price setting parameters, i.e. difference in the carbon footprint of a part, this further limits the abstract idea of the setting of the price, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 6 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 7 (part of 1 above), which deals with further details of the determined carbon footprint values, this further limits the abstract idea of the determined carbon footprint and is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus does not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
101 Rejection:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The sensors are conventional measuring devices, i.e. power consumed, fuel consumed, and carbon emission.
PNG
media_image3.png
146
668
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The sensors are conventional measuring devices, i.e. power consumed, fuel consumed, and carbon emission.
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] reading…amount (data) of electricity consumed. Data gathering, Insignificant extra solution activity (IESA).
[2] reading … amount (data) fuel consumed. Data gathering, IESA.
[3] determine a carbon footprint value (data). Mental step.
[4] Setting a price (data) of the vehicle. Mental step.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
No claims are allowed.
Closest Prior Art
JEFFS et al., US 2014/0.143.157, and (2) GANAPATHIRAJU et al., US 2014/0.067.391, and (3) OLLIPHANT et al., US 2009/0.076.949, and (4) ZHAO, US 6,889,222 fairly teaches the claimed invention except for steps [4] and [5].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6;30-4:30 PM ET.
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, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. 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.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights