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 . 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.
Status of the Claims
The pending claims in the present application are claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18 of the Amendment dated 14 January 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “Amendment”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. For example, claim 1 recites, “wherein the visualization pane is dynamically recalculated and rendered in response to the modifications without requiring a separate user command or page refresh,” among other limitations. The examiner could not find support for the recited limitation in the originally-filed disclosure, and thus, the recited limitation does not comply with the written description requirement. Further, the recite limitation is (or includes) a negative limitation, and “Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.” (MPEP 2173.05(i).) Each of claims 7 and 13 recites a similar unsupported limitation, and thus, claims 7 and 13 are similarly deficient. Claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 18 depend from one of claims 1, 7, and 13, and are similarly deficient due to that dependency.
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 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The paragraphs below provide rationales for the rejection. The rationales are based on the multi-step subject matter eligibility test outlined in MPEP 2106.
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis involves determining whether a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 USC 101. (See MPEP 2106.03(I).) That is, Step 1 asks whether a claim is to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. (See MPEP 2106.03(II).) The “method” of claims 1-3 and 6 constitutes a process under 35 USC 101, the “device” of claims 7-9 and 12 constitutes a machine under the statute, and the “non-transitory computer readable medium” of claims 13-15 and 18 constitutes a manufacture under the statute. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18 meet the criteria of Step 1 of the eligibility analysis. The claims, however, fail to meet the criteria of subsequent steps of the eligibility analysis, as explained in the paragraphs below.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2A, involves determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.04(II).) This step asks whether a claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea. (See id.) Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).) Prong One and Prong Two are addressed below.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong One asks whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1).) Using claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following abstract idea limitations:
“A method for ... commercial real estate decarbonization forecasting visualization, the method ... comprising: ...” - See MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes
“... generating and outputting, in response to a request ... a plurality of decarbonization actions ...” - See MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes
“... monitoring adjustments, to one or more parameters for one or more of the plurality of decarbonization actions, ... to generate action data for the one or more of the plurality of decarbonization actions; ...” - See MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes
“... generating and outputting for display ... one or more monetary outputs and a graph comprising business-as-usual (BAU), target, and decarbonization pathways plotted over time and illustrating an energy or emissions difference between the BAU, target, and decarbonization pathways, wherein the BAU and target pathways are generated based on building data for a subset of a plurality of buildings of a commercial real estate building portfolio associated with the enterprise ..., the building data ... comprises baseline energy data for each of the subset of the buildings comprising at least energy utilization data, and the decarbonization pathway is generated based on scenario data comprising at least an association of each of the subset of the buildings with one or more portions of the action data; and ...” - See MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes
“... updating ... to adjust for the BAU, target, and decarbonization pathways and one or more of the monetary outputs based on one or more modifications ... to thereby graphically display an impact of the modifications ..., wherein the modifications disassociate at least one of the plurality of decarbonization actions from one of the buildings of the subset of the buildings.” - See MPEP 2106.04(a), certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes
The above-listed limitations of claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, fall under enumerated groupings of abstract ideas outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a). For example, limitations of the claim can be characterized as: commercial interactions, including commercial real estate forecasting, which fall under the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Limitations of the claim also can be characterized as: concepts performed in the human mind, including observation (e.g., the recited “monitoring” step), and evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (e.g., the recited “generating” and “updating” steps), which fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Accordingly, for at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis.
In the context of Step 2A of the eligibility analysis, Prong Two asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2).) Continuing to use claim 1 as an example, the claim recites the following additional element limitations:
The claimed “method” is performed in “real-time” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “request” is “received from a user device via an enterprise network, an action selection graphical user interface (GUI) for display on a display device of the user device via a sustainability analytics application of a facility management system of an enterprise, wherein the action selection GUI comprises” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “decarbonization actions” are “retrieved from a stored library” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “adjustments” are “received from the user device via the enterprise network and the action selection GUI” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “display” is “to the user device via the sustainability analytics application and the enterprise network a modeling GUI comprising an editing pane adjacent to a visualization pane, wherein the editing pane and the visualization pane are displayed simultaneously to enable users to observe pathway changes while making modifications in the editing pane, wherein the visualization pane graphically displays” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “buildings” are “selected via the editing pane” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “building data” is “obtained from the facility management system via a wide area network” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “updating” is of “the visualization pane of the modeling GUI displayed by the user device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “modifications” are “received from the user device via the editing pane of the modeling GUI displayed by the user device” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The claimed “display” is “in real-time, wherein the visualization pane is dynamically recalculated and rendered in response to the modifications without requiring a separate user command or page refresh” - See below regarding MPEP 2106.05(a)-(c) and (f)-(h)
The above-listed additional element limitations of independent claim 1, when applying their broadest reasonable interpretations in light of their context in the claim as a whole, are analogous to: accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, mere automation of manual processes, instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result, and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I)); a commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, delivering broadcast content to a portable electronic device such as a cellular telephone (when claimed at a high level of generality), and selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform from within a range of fundamental or commonplace functions performed by the hardware, which courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)); a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions, and merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, which do not qualify as a particular machine or use thereof (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)); a machine that is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not integrate the exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(II)); use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method, which does not integrate a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)); transformation of an intangible concept such as a contractual obligation or mental judgment, which is not likely to provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location as performed by generic computer components, and requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, which courts have found to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); mere data gathering in the form of obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify transactions and consulting and updating an activity log, and selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated in the form of selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in an environment, for collection, analysis, and display, which courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); and specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and language specifying that the abstract idea of budgeting was to be implemented using a "communication medium" that broadly included the Internet and telephone networks, because this limitation merely limited the use of the exception to a particular technological environment, which courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). For at least these reasons, claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis.
The next step of the eligibility analysis, Step 2B, asks whether a claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106.05(II).) The step involves identifying whether there are any additional elements in the claim beyond the judicial exceptions, and evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept. (See id.) The ineligibility rationales applied at Step 2A, Prong Two, also apply to Step 2B. (See id.) For all of the reasons covered in the analysis performed at Step 2A, Prong Two, independent claim 1 fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B. Further, claim 1 also fails to meet the criteria of Step 2B because at least some of the additional elements are analogous to: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory, which courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). As a result, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC 101 as ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 6, the claims depend from claim 1, and expand upon limitations introduced by claim 1. The dependent claims are rejected at least for the same reasons as claim 1. For example, the dependent claims recite abstract idea elements similar to the abstract idea elements of claim 1, that fall under the same abstract idea groupings as the abstract idea elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “wherein the scenario data comprises an energy or emissions intensity threshold and an associated timeframe and the action data comprises one or more rules for generating, for each of the one or more of the plurality of decarbonization actions and based on the building data, a start date, an end date, a required capital expenditure, an operational expenditure savings, or an impact level” of claim 2, the “wherein the modifications comprise a modification of one or more of the rules or another modification of a result of an application of one or more of the rules” of claim 3, and the “further comprising generating the one or more monetary outputs based on a portion of one or more of the building data, the action data, or the scenario data, wherein the monetary outputs comprise a required capital expenditure, an operational expenditure savings, or a property value increase” of claim 6). The dependent claims recite further additional elements that are similar to the additional elements of claim 1, that fail to warrant eligibility for the same reasons as the additional elements of claim 1 (e.g., the “visualization pane is generated to include the monetary outputs” of claim 6). Accordingly, claims 2, 3, and 6 also are rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claims 7-9 and 12, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-3 and 6, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-3 and 6. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 1-3 and 6 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 7-9 and 12. Limitations recited by claims 7-9 and 12 that do not have a counterpart in claims 1-3 and 6, such as the recited “decarbonization forecasting device, comprising memory comprising programmed instructions for real-time commercial real estate decarbonization forecasting visualization stored thereon and one or more processors configured to execute the stored programmed instructions” limitations of claim 7, fail to warrant a finding of eligibility, because such limitations amount to additional elements that fail to meet the criteria of Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B, for the same reasons as the additional elements of claims 1-3 and 6. Claims 7-9 and 12 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding pending claims 13-15 and 18, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-3, 6, 7-9, and 12, the claims recite limitations similar to the limitations of claims 1-3, 6, 7-9, and 12. As such, the rejection rationales applied to reject claims 13-15 and 18 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 7-9, and 12. Claims 13-15 and 18 are, therefore, also rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2022/0358515 A1 to Kahn et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Kahn”), in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0030077 A1 to Park et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Park”), and further in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2023/0065744 A1 to Cousins et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Cousins”).
Regarding claim 1, Kahn discloses the following limitations:
“A method for real-time commercial real estate decarbonization forecasting visualization, the method implemented by one or more decarbonization forecasting devices and comprising: ...” - Kahn discloses, “Various aspects of the technology described herein are generally directed to systems, methods, and computer storage media, for among other things, providing carbon emissions data analytics recommendations (“recommendations”) using a carbon emissions data analytics engine (“analytics engine”) in a carbon emissions management system. The recommendation can be associated with simulated carbon emissions optimization results data based on carbon emissions data analytics model of the carbon emissions management system. The simulated carbon emissions optimization results data refers to outputs (i.e., predicted behavior for carbon emissions) of a carbon emissions data analytics model” (para. [0004]), “Processing the input data can include forecasting, scenario simulation and scenario optimization. Based on processing the input data, output data (e.g., a carbon emissions data analytics recommendation) associated with a plurality of abatement levers can be generated” (para. [0005]), “FIG. 6 provides a block diagram of an exemplary distributed computing environment suitable for use in implementing aspects of the technology described herein” (para. [0016]), “FIG. 7 is a block diagram of an exemplary computing environment suitable for use in implementing aspects of the technology described herein” (para. [0017]), “company facilities” (para. [0051]), and “Factory” (FIGS. 2F and 2G). The methods for computer processor speed simulating of carbon emissions optimization results data, implemented by the computing environment and clients, in Kahn, read on the recited limitation.
“... generating and outputting, in response to a request received from a user device via an enterprise network, an action selection graphical user interface (GUI) for display on a display device of the user device via a sustainability analytics application of a facility management system of an enterprise, wherein the action selection GUI comprises a plurality of decarbonization actions retrieved from a stored library; ...” - See the aspects of Kahn that have been mentioned above. Kahn also discloses, “The carbon emission library can be generated by consolidating open-access data and also based on acquiring licenses to different database. In addition, the enhanced carbon emissions factors database can be extended to include computed carbon emissions factors for complex products and processes” (para. [0029]), “With reference to FIG. 2B, FIG. 2B illustrates a carbon emissions data analytics engine 110 and a carbon emissions data analytics engine client 110B that support performing operations to provide carbon emissions data analytics recommendations using a carbon emissions data analytics engine in a carbon emissions management system” and “At block 18, carbon emissions interface data associated with visualizing carbon emissions data is generated. At block 20, simulation interface data associated with abatement levers and baseline carbon emissions data are generated. The carbon emissions interface data and the simulation interface data can be communicated to a carbon emissions data analytics client engine that supports a collaborative platform for presenting dashboards, scenario versioning and simulations, and comparisons to baseline carbon emissions data” (para. [0047]), “With reference to FIGS. 2E-2H, FIG. 2E-2H illustrate aspects—interface representations—associated with the carbon emissions data analytics engine 110, the carbon emissions data analytics interfaces configuration engine 110A, and the carbon emissions data analytics engine client 110D. At a high level, the carbon emissions data analytics engine configuration engine 110A operates to generate interface data (e.g., carbon emissions interface data and simulation interface data). Interface data includes user interface elements, carbon emissions data, and dashboard data associated with scenarios versioning and simulation and optimization operations.” (para. [0049]), “Memory 712 includes computer storage media in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory. The memory may be removable, non-removable, or a combination thereof. Exemplary hardware devices include solid-state memory, hard drives, optical-disc drives, etc. Computing device 700 includes one or more processors that read data from various entities such as memory 712” (para. [0070]), “CARBON EMISSIONS DATA ANALYTICS ENGINE CLIENT” and associated desktop and smartphone icons (FIG. 2A), and dashboards with links, drop-downs, sliders, and other actionable elements (FIGS. 2E-2H). Generating and displaying, in response to input from clients of carbon emissions management client devices, entered via user interfaces displayed by carbon emissions data analytics engine clients, via the carbon emissions data analytics engine of the entity, wherein the interactions with the interfaces include selecting abatement levers from databases, in Kahn, reads on the recited limitation.
“... monitoring adjustments, to one or more parameters for one or more of the plurality of decarbonization actions, received from the user device via the enterprise network and the action selection GUI, to generate action data for the one or more of the plurality of decarbonization actions; ...” - See the aspects of Kahn that have been mentioned above. The carbon emissions data analytics engine continually receiving data about abatement levers in response to simulation parameters for abating emissions entered via the interfaces and dashboards displayed on the client devices, to generate recommendations associated with the abatement levers, in Kahn, reads on the recited limitation.
The combination of Kahn and Park (hereinafter referred to as “Kahn/Park”) teaches limitations below of claim 1 that do not appear to be disclosed in their entirety by Kahn:
“... generating and outputting for display to the user device via the sustainability analytics application and the enterprise network a modeling GUI comprising an editing pane adjacent to a visualization pane, wherein the editing pane and the visualization pane are displayed simultaneously to enable users to observe pathway changes while making modifications in the editing pane, wherein the visualization pane graphically displays one or more monetary outputs and a graph comprising business-as-usual (BAU), ..., and decarbonization pathways plotted over time and illustrating an energy or emissions difference between the BAU, ..., and decarbonization pathways, wherein the BAU ... pathways are generated based on building data for a subset of a plurality of buildings of a commercial real estate building portfolio associated with the enterprise selected via the editing pane, the building data is obtained from the facility management system via a wide area network and comprises baseline energy data for each of the subset of the buildings comprising at least energy utilization data, and the decarbonization pathway is generated based on scenario data comprising at least an association of each of the subset of the buildings with one or more portions of the action data; and ...” - See the aspects of Kahn that have been mentioned above. Kahn also discloses, “SELECT INITIATIVES,” “FILTERS,” “Reference” values for “Carbon Emissions Impact,” “Scenario total” values for “Carbon Compensation Impact” expressed in “k$,” associated bar graphs, and a slider bar for “Year” ranges (FIG. 1E); “Company facilities” and “Manufacturing” (FIG. 2E), and “Factory 1,” “Factory 2,” and “Factory 3” (FIG. 2F); and “The components of cloud computing platform 610 may communicate with each other over a network (not shown), which may include, without limitation, one or more local area networks (LANs) and/or wide area networks (WANs)” (para. [0063]). Generating and outputting for display to client devices, via the carbon emissions data analytics interface and the communications network, roadmaps for simulations, wherein the interface includes actuatable elements (e.g., check boxes, filters, and the like) and displayed outputs in terms of k$ and graphs with reference values and scenario total values for selectable time ranges, in Kahn, reads on the recited “generating and outputting for display to the user device via the sustainability analytics application and the enterprise network a modeling GUI comprising an editing pane adjacent to a visualization pane, ... wherein the visualization pane graphically displays one or more monetary outputs and a graph comprising business-as-usual (BAU), ..., and decarbonization pathways plotted over time and illustrating an energy or emissions difference between the BAU, target, and decarbonization pathways” limitation. The displayed outputs, including the reference values and scenario total values, being based on performance data of company facilities and/or manufacturing infrastructure (factories), the performance data being obtained via WANs, wherein the performance data includes reference values relating to kWh consumed, and the scenario total values are based on recommendations being performed with respect to the facilities and/or factories, in Kahn, reads on the recited “wherein the BAU ... pathways are generated based on building data for a subset of a plurality of buildings of a commercial real estate building portfolio associated with the enterprise ..., the building data is obtained from the facility management system via a wide area network and comprises baseline energy data for each of the subset of the buildings comprising at least energy utilization data, and the decarbonization pathway is generated based on scenario data comprising at least an association of each of the subset of the buildings with one or more portions of the action data” limitation. Alternatively, the baselines in Cousins (see below) read on the recited “BAU” limitation. Park discloses, “Referring now to FIGS. 19-34, an overview dashboard 1900 for energy management application 532 is shown, according to an exemplary embodiment. Overview dashboard 1900 may be presented after the user logs in and may be the first interface that the user sees after entering access credentials 1802-1804. Overview dashboard 1900 is shown to include a navigation pane 1902 on the left side of dashboard 1900” (para. [0251]), “As shown in FIG. 19, navigation pane 1902 includes a portfolio tab 1910. Portfolio tab 1910 may include an outline or hierarchy of the facilities which can be viewed and managed by the user. For example, portfolio tab 1910 is shown to include a portfolio-level node 1912 indicating the name of the portfolio or enterprise managed by energy management application 532 (i.e., “ABC Corporation”) and two facility-level nodes 1914 and 1916 indicating the facilities within the portfolio (i.e., “Ace Facility” and “Omega Facility”). In some embodiments, the portfolio is a set of buildings associated with the enterprise. When portfolio-level node 1912 is selected, overview dashboard 1900 may display energy-related information for the portfolio. For example, overview dashboard 1900 is shown displaying a chart 1918 of energy use intensity (EUI) for the various facilities within the portfolio, an energy facts panel 1920 to the right of chart 1918, and an energy consumption tracker 1922” (para. [0252]), and “Throughout this disclosure, EUI is used as an example of an energy usage metric for a facility. However, it should be understood that energy density can be used in addition to or in place of EUI in any of the user interfaces, analytics, or dashboards described herein. Any reference to EUI in the present disclosure can be replaced/supplemented with energy density (or any other energy usage metric) without departing from the teachings of the present disclosure” (para. [0255]). The simultaneous displaying of the navigation pane and the energy metric panels, charts, and other visuals, wherein selections made via the navigation pane give rise to the visuals, in Park, reads on the recited “wherein the editing pane and the visualization pane are displayed simultaneously to enable users to observe pathway changes while making modifications in the editing pane” limitation. The selecting of a facility (e.g., “Ace Facility”) from the hierarchy of facilities of the entity (e.g., “ABC Corporation”) in the navigation pane, as shown in FIG. 19 of Kim, reads on the recited “selected via the editing pane” limitation.
“... updating the visualization pane of the modeling GUI displayed by the user device to adjust for the BAU, ..., and decarbonization pathways and one or more of the monetary outputs based on one or more modifications received from the user device via the editing pane of the modeling GUI displayed by the user device to thereby graphically display an impact of the modifications in real-time, wherein the visualization pane is dynamically recalculated and rendered in response to the modifications without requiring a separate user command or page refresh, wherein the modifications disassociate at least one of the plurality of decarbonization actions from one of the buildings of the subset of the buildings.” - See the aspects of Kahn and Park that have been cited above. Updating the visuals of the interfaces displayed by the user devices, involving adjusting reference, scenario, and recommendations and financials (e.g., k$) based on entries entered using the actuatable elements of the interface, in Kahn, including selections made via the navigation pane, resulting in changes being made to the metric panels, charts, and other visuals, as in Park, reads on the recited limitation.
Park discloses “building energy management” (Abstract) similar to the claimed intention and to Kahn. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the interface(s), of Kahn, to include features and functionality of the interface(s), of Park, to provide users with the ability to view and manage desired data, and for ease of navigation, per Park (paras. [0251] and [0252]).
The combination of Kahn, Park, and Cousins (hereinafter referred to as “Kahn/Park/Cousins”) teaches limitations below of claim 1 that do not appear to be taught in their entirety by Kahn/Park:
The claimed “graph” having “target ... pathways” - Cousins discloses, “The graphic portrayal 524 can specify the estimated emissions 506 as well as emissions reduction targets 510 and baseline emissions measurements 534” (para. [0065]), and “The graphical portrayal 526 can indicate the estimated emissions 514 and baseline emissions 528 relative to emissions reductions targets 520b” (para. [0066]). Generating the emissions reduction targets based on data, in Cousins, reads on the recited limitation.
The claimed “emissions difference between” applies to “target ... pathways” - See the aspects of Cousins that have been cited above. The differences between baseline, target, and estimated metrics, in Cousins, read on the recited limitation.
The “generated” also relates to “target pathways” - See the aspects of Cousins that have been cited above. The target metrics, in Cousins, read on the recited limitation.
Cousins discloses, “Graphical user interfaces for abating emissions of gaseous byproducts at hydrocarbon assets” (Abstract), similar to the claimed invention and to Kahn/Park. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the displayed graph data, of Kahn/Park, to include the displayed graph data about emissions reductions targets and the like, of Cousins, as doing so helps users abate such emissions, as taught by Cousins (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Kahn/Park/Cousins teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, wherein the scenario data comprises an energy or emissions intensity threshold and an associated timeframe and the action data comprises one or more rules for generating, for each of the one or more of the plurality of decarbonization actions and based on the building data, a start date, an end date, a required capital expenditure, an operational expenditure savings, or an impact level.” - See the aspects of Kahn that have been mentioned above. Kahn also discloses, “carbon emissions baseline data” (para. [0051]); “Date,” “01/01/2020,” “Jan,” “Feb,” Mar,” “Objectives,” “70% overall renewable energy,” (FIG. 2F); and “% Manufacturing intensity change,” “%Energy consumption change,” and “Energy mix share,” (FIG. 2G). Company facilities and factory data including carbon emissions baseline data for the distilleries, factories, and stores; objectives data including renewable energy percentages; and associated date ranges, and simulated abatements including energy mix shares, in Kahn, read on the recited limitation.
Regarding claim 3, Kahn/Park/Cousins teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 2, wherein the modifications comprise a modification of one or more of the rules or another modification of a result of an application of one or more of the rules.” - See the aspects of Kahn that have been mentioned above. Kahn also discloses “Simulation” and “Energy mix share” inputs with modifiable data input fields thereunder, respective to the distilleries, factories, and stores, the use of which reads on the recited limitation (see, e.g., FIG. 2G of Kahn).
Regarding claim 6, Kahn/Park/Cousins teaches the following limitations:
“The method of claim 1, further comprising generating the one or more monetary outputs based on a portion of one or more of the building data, the action data, or the scenario data, wherein the monetary outputs comprise a required capital expenditure, an operational expenditure savings, or a property value increase and the visualization pane is generated to include the monetary outputs.” - Kahn discloses, “Carbon Compensation Impact” and “1,559 k$” (FIG. 1E). Generating financial metrics and values for abatement projects, in Kahn, reads on the recited limitation (e.g., as an “operational expenditure savings”).
Regarding claims 7-9 and 12, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-3 and 6, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-3 and 6. As such, the rationales applied in the rejections of claim 1-3 and 6 also apply for purposes of rejecting claims 7-9 and 12. For any limitations of claims 7-9 and 12 that do not appear to have a counterpart in claims 1-3 and 6, such as the elements recited in the preamble of claim 7, Kahn discloses, “Referring initially to FIG. 7 in particular, an example operating environment for implementing embodiments of the present invention is shown and designated generally as computing device 700” (para. [0064]), “The invention may be described in the general context of computer code or machine-useable instructions, including computer-executable instructions such as program modules, being executed by a computer or other machine” (para. [0065]), and “Computer storage media include volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data” (para. [0068]), that read on said limitations. Claims 7-9 and 12 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of Kahn/Park/Cousins.
Regarding claims 13-15 and 18, while the claims are of different scope relative to claims 1-3 and 6 and to claims 7-9 and 12, the claims recite limitations similar to those recited by claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12. Claims 13-15 and 18 are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC 103 as obvious in view of the combination of Kahn/Park/Cousins, for at least the same reasons as claims 1-3, 6-9, and 12.
Response to Arguments
On pp. 9-16 of the Amendment, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 101. With respect to Step 2A, Prong One of the eligibility analysis, the applicant contends that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, and instead are directed to improved graphical interfaces and decarbonization forecasting visualizations, and the like. (Amendment, pp. 9 and 10.) The applicant also contends that the claimed invention is not a commercial interaction or a mental process. (Amendment, pp. 10 and 11.) The examiner disagrees with these contentions. The applicant’s contentions mix abstract idea limitations with additional element limitations, and point to the additional element limitations as evidence that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional element limitations, however, are not relevant in Step 2A, Prong One. When the additional element limitations are set aside for consideration at later steps of the eligibility analysis, what remains are the abstract idea limitations. Those limitations read like thought processes, and some explicitly recite commercial aspects.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis, the applicant contends that the Office’s analysis ignores several limitations of the pending claims that are both additional elements and not generic computing components. (Amendment, p. 11.) The applicant emphasizes various GUI/display/visualization aspects of the claimed invention. (Amendment, p. 11.) The applicant also raises Example 37 as supporting eligibility of the pending claims. The applicant also contends that the Reminder Memo supports eligibility, and that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem. (Amendment, p. 12.) The applicant also contends that the claims recite a technical improvement to GUI functionality, in the form of multiple panes and rendering without user command or page refresh (Amendment, pp. 12-14.) The examiner disagrees with these contentions. Even if not all of the additional elements are generic computing components, such additional elements are GUI aspects that are similar to ones found to be indicative of ineligibility, per various sections of MPEP 2106.05. See the 35 USC 101 section above for more details. Further, the claims do not provide a technical solution to a technical problem. Rather, the claims provide a technical solution to a business forecasting problem. The technical solution reads like using generic computer componentry and/or use of a GUI to display information. Also, the claimed invention merely uses a GUI to display various types of business forecasting content. The GUI is not improved. Thus, the eligibility rationale of Example 37 does not apply to the claimed invention.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the applicant contends that the claims qualify as significantly more because they add limitations that are not merely well-understood, routine, and conventional, and the claims also add unconventional steps. (Amendment, p. 15.) The applicant also contends that the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces calls for eligibility. (Amendment, p. 15.) The applicant emphasizes the eligibility rationales from BASCOM. (Amendment, p. 15.) The applicant also contends that the claims require a specially programmed computing device with particular network connectivity to user devices, sustainability analytics applications, and facility management systems, and various forms of data, for the interactive graphical displays and visualizations. (Amendment, p.. 15 and 16.) The examiner disagrees with the contentions above. Some of the claim limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activity, per the 35 USC 101 section above.. Other claim limitations might not be well-understood, routine, conventional activity, but still fail to warrant eligibility under various other rationales in MPEP 2106.05, per the 35 USC 101 section above. The examiner also contends that the claims do not establish a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of pieces. All additional elements in the claims are conventional and generic, individually and in their combined arrangement. Anything non-conventional is limited to the content of the data handled by the conventional and generic elements. The examiner also contends that whether a computer is specially programmed is of little consequence, in that such considerations are now considered superseded by the multi-step eligibility analysis. (MPEP 2106.05(b)(I).) For at least these reasons, and those outlined in the 35 USC 101 section above, the ineligibility rejection stands.
On pp. 16-22 of the Amendment, the applicant requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the claim rejection under 35 USC 103. The applicant contends that Kahn does not disclose any selected subset of buildings. (Amendment, p. 17.) The applicant also contends that Cousins does not disclose the claimed target pathway. (Amendment, pp. 17 and 18.) The applicant also contends that Kahn does not disclose updating a visualization pane to adjust a target decarbonization pathway. Based on these contentions, the applicant asserts that the claims are allowable. The examiner disagrees. Kahn discloses facilities and factories (see, e.g., FIGS. 2E-2G) that are subsets of buildings. Additionally or alternatively, Park discloses selected subsets of buildings (see, e.g., FIG. 19). The combination of Kahn, Park, and Cousins teaches the claimed target pathway, and the claimed updating, even if Cousins and Park might not. In short, the combination of the selection of facilities via the navigation pane in Park, in combination with providing visualizations of various facility-related metrics, as in Kahn, Cousins, and Park, reads on the recited limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Y. HO, whose telephone number is (571)270-7918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 5:30 PM Eastern.
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, Jerry O'Connor, can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/THOMAS YIH HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights