DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 05/11/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1,8 and 13 have been amended. Regarding Claims 2,9 and 16: cancelled.
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, 3-8, 10-15 and 17- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17- 20 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. Each of claims 1, 3-7 fall within category of process; Each of claim 8, 10-14 fall within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); and each of claims 15, 17–20 is directed to a “computer program product” and therefore falls within category of manufacture.1
Regarding Claims 1, 3-7
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of determining an emitted amount.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
determining an amount of each of a plurality of constituent components of a fuel being used by at least one physical component of a processing plant, wherein the amount of at least one constituent component is determined based at least in part on sensor data associated with operation of the at least one physical component, wherein the sensor data is transmitted over a network to at least one of a processor or a database associated with the processing plant;
determining one or more properties of the fuel based at least in part on the amount of at least one constituent component;
generating one or more emission factors for the fuel, each emission factor corresponding to a different greenhouse gas, each emission factor generated using at least one of the constituent components and at least one of the properties;
determining a mixed lower heating value for each the plurality of constituent components based on a lower heating value of each the plurality of constituent components and a weight fraction of the amount of each the plurality of constituent components in a total amount of the constituent components, wherein each emission factor is generated further using a sum of the mixed lower heating values for all of the constituent components;
determining, by at least a second sensor associated with the processing plant, an amount of the fuel used by the at least one component of the physical plant;
using the one or more generated emission factors, determining an emitted amount of a corresponding one or more greenhouse gases; and
causing outputting of the emitted amount, wherein the outputting of the emitted amount comprises one or more of transmission of the emitted amount to another system for processing and causing rendering of the emitted amount to at least one display..
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mental step (i.e., fundamental economic practice, a sales activity, managing interactions between people, and/or a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper) and a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “determining an amount of each of a plurality of constituent components [..]; determining one or more properties of the fuel [..]; generating one or more emission factors [..]; determining a mixed lower heating value [..]; determining an amount of the fuel used [..] determining an emitted amount[..]” are a combination of mental steps (i.e., fundamental economic practice, a sales activity, managing interactions between people, and/or a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper) and a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “ wherein the sensor data is transmitted over a network to at least one of a processor or a database associated with the processing plant ; causing outputting of the emitted amount, wherein the outputting of the emitted amount comprises one or more of transmission of the emitted amount to another system for processing and causing rendering of the emitted amount to at least one display” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., field in use and/or data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
For Examples, 2nd additional first element is “by at least a second sensor associated with the processing plant”: This element amounts to mere use of a generic sensor device with computer components , which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. processor, sensor, memory”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
Dependent Claims 3-7
Dependent claims 3-7 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 3-7 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For Examples, claim 3-7: imitations a combination of mental steps (i.e., fundamental economic practice, a sales activity, managing interactions between people, and/or a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper) and a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2).
Regarding Claims 8, 10-15 and 17- 20
Claims 8-20 contains language similar to claims 1, 3-7 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 8, 10-15 and 17- 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea). Furthermore, claim 8 and 15 contain the additional elements “An apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory comprising program code; A computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory computer- readable storage medium having computer-readable program code portions stored therein, the computer-readable program code portions comprising an executable portion configured to ”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic device with computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
Examiner Notes
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, There is no prior art rejection over claims, however there is 101 rejections, the prior arts fail to teach the limitation, i.e. (determine a mixed lower heating value for each the plurality of constituent components based on a lower heating value of each the plurality of constituent components and a weight fraction of the amount of each the plurality of constituent components in a total amount of the constituent components, wherein each emission factor is generated further using a sum of the mixed lower heating values for all of the constituent components).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1, 8 and 15, The applicant did not agree with it, see, pages 7-9.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because limitations of claim 1, 8 and 15 represent a combination of mental step (i.e., fundamental economic practice, a sales activity, managing interactions between people, and/or a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper) and a mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea). Therefore, the limitations, specifically claim1, above fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. In view of the above, the three “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a plurality of generic measuring device with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the additional element does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Claim invention only recite the idea of a solution or outcome “outputting an analysis result” and do not include any details about how the “outputting a analysis result” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect 102 rejection has been considered and withdrawn.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Hermalyn et al. (US 2023/0266235) disclose An example system for measuring emissions from a building includes a housing, a plurality of sensors arranged in the housing to detect concentrations of gas constituents in gas exiting the building, a gas flow sensor to detect a gas flow rate of the gas exiting the building, and a computing device to perform functions of calculating a total emissions of the particular gas constituent being tracked from a concentration of the particular gas constituent detected by the plurality of sensors and the gas flow rate, calculating an emission rate of the particular gas constituent being tracking, determining whether the total emissions and the emission rate of the particular gas constituent are within acceptable ranges, and based on the total emissions and the emission rate of the particular gas constituent being outside the acceptable ranges, outputting a prompt to a building computer system or operator indicating an alert.
b) Foody (US 20130089905) disclose a method for reducing life cycle GHG emissions associated with production of a liquid fuel or fuel intermediate. The method comprises: fermenting sugar to produce biogenic carbon dioxide and the liquid fuel or fuel intermediate; collecting an amount of biogenic carbon dioxide generated from the fermentation; and supplying the biogenic carbon dioxide for use in one or more enhanced oil or gas recovery sites for displacement of geologic carbon dioxide. Further provided is a method comprising receiving an amount of carbon dioxide from an apparatus for delivering carbon dioxide to one or more enhanced oil or gas recovery sites so as to displace the use of geologic carbon dioxide at the site. The carbon dioxide received has the GHG emission attributes of the biogenic carbon dioxide introduced to the apparatus.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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 at 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
1 Applicant’s specification defines “computer program product” as “any non-transitory storage medium that participates in providing data (for example, computer executable instructions or processor executable instructions) that may be read by a computer, a processor, a mobile device processor, or a like device” ([0018]).
Prosecution Insights