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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were rejected in the Non-Final Office Action in 04/17/2025. In response, Applicant’s amended claimset, which amends Claims 1-7, 9, 12-13, and 20, cancels Claims 10-11 and 14-19, and adds new Claims 21-27, was entered on 12/11/2024. Claims 1-9, 12-13, and 20-27 are rejected herein this Final Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/17/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-9, 12-13, and 20-27, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Page 7, Applicant argues “The Office rejected the claims under § 101 as allegedly lacking patent eligibility. The Office's arguments contended that the claimed invention was drawn to a mental process without an inventive concept, and relied to some extent on Electric Power Group v. Alstom, SA to support this position. Applicant does not agree but nonetheless has amended the claims.” Examiner does not agree.
Applicant has mischaracterized the rejection of the prior office action. The recited abstract idea is not solely a “mental process,” but falls in the “mathematical concepts,” “certain methods of organizing human activity,” and “mental processes” groupings of abstract ideas under MPEP 2106.04.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that representative Claim 22 is not directed to an abstract idea. Applicant distinguishes instant Claim 22 from Electric Power Group, arguing that “claim 22 involves specific power monitoring devices that both power and measure energy use, usage agents that measure relative CPU utilization on a perentity basis (enabling emissions to be apportioned among multiple entities using shared resources), a remote application that determines energy sources based on time and location, calculates emissions impact factors, and computes real-time carbon footprints, and a dashboard that enables users to view emissions at various granularities (e.g., per device, time, or location). These recitations address a technical problem - how to dynamically and accurately track carbon emissions in shared or distributed computing environments - and offer a technical solution by tightly integrating monitoring hardware, usage profiling, environmental factor modeling, and interactive visualization.” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. . . An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Applicant’s specification has failed to show that “how to dynamically and accurately track carbon emissions in shared or distributed computing environments,” is a technical problem, and not merely a business or administrative problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “to dynamically and accurately track carbon emissions” is a common business problem (see Specification ¶¶16-19 showing that the carbon footprint information is of interest to the customer to monitor the carbon footprint of their entity).
Although representative Claim 22 does recite additional elements (i.e. power monitoring devices, usage agents, remote database, and user interface dashboard), Applicant’s specification has failed to show that these additional elements provide an “unconventional technical solution.” Instead, as shown in the rejection below, the additional elements merely recite generic computer component used in their ordinary capacity to apply an abstract idea to solve a business problem under MPEP 2106.05(f), and therefore cannot provide a technical improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a).
On Page 9, Applicant argues “As a specific example that supports this point, the operations of the power monitoring devices (providing electricity to the computing devices and monitoring energy usage of the computing devices) are clearly not mental processes. The human mind is not equipped to provide electricity to computing devices nor to monitor the energy usage of these devices.” Examiner does not agree.
Although Examiner agrees that providing electricity to the computing devices is not a mental process, such limitation is not characterized as part of the abstract idea in the rejection. Instead, the power monitoring device is a generic computer component (i.e. additional element) used in its ordinary capacity (i.e. providing electricity to the computing devices) as a tool to merely apply the abstract idea (i.e. monitoring energy usage of the computing devices) under MPEP 2106.05(f).
Fig. 2 and Specification ¶26 shows “In the example shown, devices 211, 213, 215, and 217 are powered through power data unit221. In various embodiments, power data unit 221 is a power monitoring device that provides electricity and monitors energy usage of its connected devices. For example, power data unit 221 can monitor the energy usage of devices 211, 213, 215 and 217. In some embodiments, power data unit 221 can monitor the energy usage of connected devices continuously and/or within a certain time window such as every minute or another configured time window. In various embodiments, power data unit 221 provides the energy monitoring data to a cloud service such as carbon footprint app service103 of Figure 1 for determining carbon emissions of devices 211, 213, 215, and/or 217. For example, energy monitoring data can be provided via network251 to a cloud-based emissions application service.” Applicant’s original disclosure does not provide any detail (e.g. schematic or circuit diagrams) as to how the “power data unit 221” provides electricity or monitors energy usage, but merely states that the “power data unit 221” does provide electricity or monitors energy usage. In order to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the operation of the claimed “power monitoring devices,” must be that of a generic computer component used in its ordinary capacity under MPEP 2106.05(f), and therefore is not a specific machine under MPEP 2106.05(b).
On Pages 9-10, Applicant argues that the features of the interactive user interface are integrated “into a specific technological environment that includes instrumentation of hardware (power monitoring devices, usage agents), computing devices used by distinct entities (multi-entity CPU usage attribution), physical-world modeling (energy sources and emissions impact factors based on location and time), and a real-time system architecture for environmental monitoring.” Applicant further argues that this combination is not “conventional” or “routine,” but “reflects a non-generic integration of components to improve environmental transparency and impact in computing. Courts have consistently found such integrations to be patent eligible. See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims found eligible when directed to "a specific improvement to the way computers operate"); DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (eligibility of claims that recite a solution "necessarily rooted in computer technology").” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner first notes that a “technical explanation” in the original disclosure is a necessary requirement in determining that the claims provide a technical improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a). Thus, without the required technical explanation, Examiner cannot determine that the claims provide a patent eligible technical improvement. Therefore, the lack of technical explanation discussed above, sufficiently determines that the claims cannot provide a technical improvement. However, in service of compact prosecution, Examiner will respond to applicant’s further arguments as best as possible.
Examiner responds that the user interface is not integrated into a specific technology because the interface merely displays collected information (Specification ¶19 “For example, network clients can access a dashboard that displays the calculated emissions metrics along with different granularities of the emissions metrics calculations.”). The type and source of the information is disjointed from the function of the user interface, which is to display of the information.
Examiner responds that “environmental transparency” is not a technology, but a business interest, which would be apart of the abstract idea. Therefore, improving “environmental transparency” does not meet the requirements of a patent eligible improvement in technology set by MPEP 2106.05(a). Although the abstract idea relates to the measuring of computer data center performance, the functions of the additional elements are not sufficiently rooting in technology, but instead are used as a tool in their ordinary capacity to merely apply the abstract idea of measuring, monitoring, and calculating performance metrics for a data center. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and MPEP 2106.05(f).
MPEP 2106.05(a)I states “In computer-related technologies, the examiner should determine whether the claim purports to improve computer capabilities or, instead, invokes computers merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, the court evaluated the patent eligibility of claims related to a self-referential database. Id. The court concluded the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather an improvement to computer functionality. Id. It was the specification’s discussion of the prior art and how the invention improved the way the computer stores and retrieves data in memory in combination with the specific data structure recited in the claims that demonstrated eligibility. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. The claim was not simply the addition of general purpose computers added post-hoc to an abstract idea, but a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts. 822 F.3d at 1339, 118 USPQ2d at 1691. Examples that the courts have indicated may show an improvement in computer-functionality: i. A modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d at 1106-07; . . .”
Examiner responds that the recited claims are distinguishable from Enfish and DDR Holdings because (1) the specification does not provides the required technical explanation, (2) the additional elements of the claims are generic computer components used in their ordinary capacity (e.g. the user interface dashboard displays calculated information), (3) the claims do not modify the conventional internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically create a dual-source hybrid webpage.
On Page 10, Applicant argues that “Claim 22 similarly ties its calculations to physical device characteristics and environmental impact modeling. It does not preempt the field of emissions calculation but is limited to a specific technical context and implementation.” Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.04.I states “While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, . . .”
Examiner has performed the Alice/Mayo test to determine that the claims at least recite an abstract idea that is merely applied with the additional elements of generic computer components used in their ordinary capacity under MPEP 2106.05(f).
On Pages 10-11, Applicant argues that the claims recite a technical improvement, stating “Applicant's specification makes it clear that the lack of real-time, entity-specific carbon emissions tracking in shared computing environments, such as data centers, is a technical problem. Traditional systems do not attribute energy usage or emissions to specific users (e.g., customers or tenants) on a per-device or per-location basis, let alone in real-time or across power sources. This deficiency limits the ability of service providers or customers to track environmental impacts or optimize computing resource allocations accordingly [(i.e. in accordance with provider’s or customers environmental business interests)].” (Emphasis added). Applicant further states “Applicant's specification at ¶¶ 16-19 explicitly outlines this problem and the system-level architecture used to solve it. Specifically, the technical challenges include: capturing energy usage per computing device in a real-time and continuous manner (¶¶ 16-17), attributing energy consumption to specific entities (e.g., customers) based on their relative CPU utilization across shared infrastructure (¶¶ 16-17), correlating device location and time of use with power source emissions impact factors (¶¶ 16, 18), and aggregating and presenting emissions metrics at different levels of granularity via an interactive graphical user interface dashboard (¶¶ 16, 19).” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that Specification ¶¶16-17 does not disclose a technical challenge. Instead, Specification ¶¶16-17 describes the functioning of the purported invention, without discussing technical issues overcome. Specifically, in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the capturing of energy usage per computing device in a real-time and continuous manner must be performed using conventional computer components used in their ordinary capacity because the specification (see Fig. 2-3 and ¶¶25-29) does not provide technical detail as to how this is done, but merely that each component performs these functions.
The asserted technical challenges of “attributing energy consumption to specific entities (e.g., customers) based on their relative CPU utilization across shared infrastructure,” “correlating device location and time of use with power source emissions impact factors,” and “aggregating and presenting emissions metrics at different levels of granularity” are operations that are a part of the abstract idea, which solves the business (i.e. not technical) problem of an entity wanting to (more accurately) monitor their environmental impact as it servers their business interests to do so. This is further supported by the use of generic computer components used in their ordinary capacity to solve this business problem.
Finally, the use of an “interactive graphical user interface dashboard” again serves the business interest of communicating pertinent information to the customer. Specification ¶¶16-19 provides no explanation of how conventional user interfaces would be technically incapable of providing this information with varying granularity. This is further supported by the specifications lack of technical explanation as to how, in a technical sense, the user interface functions, but instead merely discloses the features to be implemented using the interface.
Because Applicant’s disclosure fails to include a technical explanation of a technical problem and a technical solution (i.e. Applicant has failed to explain the technical limitation for why “Traditional systems do not attribute energy usage or emissions to specific users (e.g., customers or tenants) on a per-device or per-location basis, let alone in real-time or across power sources”), but instead discloses generic computer components used in their ordinary capacity to solve a business problem, the claims do not recite a technical improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a).
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/17/2025, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for Claims 1-9, 12-13, and 20-27, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On pages 11-12 Applicant argues that “Sahlstrom does not teach or suggest a power monitoring device that performs the three operations recited (providing electricity, monitoring energy usage, and transmitting representations of the energy usage to a remote database in the arrangement as claimed.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that Sahlstrom explicitly teaches that the power monitoring device performs the three operations. Broadly, Sahlstrom shows a variety power supply devices, each of which having a “metrics agent” that monitor and transmit the energy usage. Fig. 3 and ¶36 shows that “metrics agents” are “incorporated within” each component throughout the power supply system, including “single-rack power distribution units (PDUs) [337],” “uninterruptible power supplies 325,” and “multi-rack PDUs [335],” which, by definition, provides electricity to the computing devices (i.e. server / rack). Fig. 3 and ¶36 shows “FIG. 3 illustrates a datacenter power metrics collector (DPMC) 380 [(i.e. remote database)] configured to obtain power-related metrics from a plurality of agents within a data center 102, according to at least some embodiments. As indicated by the arrows 351 (e.g., 351A, 351B, 351C, 351D, 351E, and 351F), the DPMC may be capable of collecting metrics programmatically from a variety of agents incorporated within different parts of the data center.” Fig. 3 and ¶37 shows “The various metrics agents 310 may communicate programmatically with the DPMC 380 in the programmatic environment, providing various types of information including, for example . . . measurements of the actual amount of power consumed during a given time interval, . . .” Therefore, Sahlstrom teaches that the UPS’s and PDU’s, with integrated metrics agents, monitors the energy usage of the computing devices and transmits representations of the energy usage to a remote database.
On page 12, Applicant argues that “Sahlstrom and Moore, and has found no teaching or suggestion of usage agents installed or operating [on the computing devices] as claimed.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that Sahlstrom explicitly teaches that usage agents are installed on the computing devices and measure the relative CPU utilization. Broadly, Sahlstrom teaches combining information from “metric agents” on the servers reporting CPU utilization, and “metric agents” on the power supplies reporting energy consumption, to determine the relative power consumption of a virtual computing job. Fig. 3 and ¶36 shows “respective metrics agents (MAs) 310 may be instantiated at individual servers 370 (e.g. Mas 310H, 310J, 310K, 310M, 310N, and 310P at servers 370A, 370B, 370C. 370M, 370N and 370P respectively) . . .” ¶47 shows “[metrics agents] may include executable processes running within [(i.e. installed)] conventional operating systems at servers.” ¶¶2-3 shows the use of virtual machines which enables multiple customers to each utilize a virtual machine which may be operated on a single (or any number, which would not necessarily correlate to the number of virtual machines) physical machine. Therefore, Sahlstrom teaches the recited limitation.
On page 12, Applicant argues that, related to Claim 23, “Sahlstrom and Moore [do not teach or suggest] an internal server located or operating as claimed [in Claim 23].” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that Sahlstrom explicitly teaches the limitation. First, examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “internal” server is not limited to a customer owned server behind a firewall or on a private network, as such limitation would be illegally reading Specification into the claim limitation. Specification ¶30 states “In some embodiments, an internal server (not shown) is used to gather utilization data as part of a discovery service. For example, an internal server can be located within a customer's network infrastructure and behind a customer firewall to manage and gather utilization data in a more secure manner. In various embodiments, an internal server can be utilized to allow access to internal devices located within the customer network without exposing the devices and certain network connections to an external network.” (Emphasis added). Therefore, the DPMC of Sahlstrom teaches the “internal server” claimed as discussed in greater detail below in the rejection section. Therefore, Sahlstrom teaches the recited limitation.
Additionally, Examiner notes that Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as shown below.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP 2111 states “During patent examination, the pending claims must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.’” MPEP 2111.01.I states “Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms.” (Emphasis added).
Claim 1 recites “determining, by way of usage agents respectively installed on the computing devices, relative CPU utilization values associated with the computing devices for an entity organization with respect to a total amount of CPU utilization across more than one entity organization utilizing the computing devices; . . . calculating a real-time carbon footprint of the entity CPU utilization values the one or more emissions impact factors ” in lines 7-10 and 17-21. Claim 1 recites a “relative CPU utilization values” (emphasis added). The plain meaning of a “relative” value is that the value is “relative” to other values. This relativity can include, for example, a ratio, proportion, fraction, or percentage. Examiner provides an unrelated example of Roommates A, B, and C, who consume 100 gallons of water in April. The “relative utilization value” of Roommate A’s water consumption could be (1) 40 gallons of the (i.e. relative to) 100 gallons of total water consumed or (2) 40% of the (i.e. relative to) 100 gallons of total water consumed. Therefore, the units of the “relative” value could be a percentage (i.e. unit-less proportion) or the “relative” value can be in the same units of the other value (e.g. total value) that the “relative” value is relative to.
The specification provides further direction to the scope of the “relative CPU utilization value” in ¶¶16-18 shown below (emphasis added):
“[0016] A system for calculating greenhouse gas emissions and related metrics is disclosed. In various embodiments, a real-time data acquisition system gathers energy usage data, such as from data centers, on a per-device level of granularity. These computing devices are further monitored by discovery modules to determine the appropriate amount of CPU activity to attribute between different customers. Based on their relative device usages and the gathered device energy usage data, the observed energy usage is allocated between different customers. For example, within a data center and a set of computing devices installed within the data center, the amount of electricity utilized by each customer is determined. In various embodiments, for each contributing location, such as a data center location, the source of electricity for the location is evaluated to determine its impact factor on emissions. Using the determined customer energy usage data and the emissions impact factor of different energy sources, a real-time carbon footprint can be calculated for both customers (who may be spread across multiple data centers) and data centers (each of which may include multiple customers). The carbon footprint metrics are presented using an interactive user interface dashboard. For example, in various embodiments, a web-based dashboard presents the calculated carbon footprint metrics along with the ability to drill down to inspect metrics related to specific devices at specific locations for specific time frames as well as the ability to aggregate emissions metrics across locations, devices, and time frames.
[0017] In some embodiments, energy usage data of devices is received. For example, energy usage data of devices is monitored using one or more power monitoring devices. In some embodiments, the devices, such as network servers and other networking equipment, are plugged into power monitoring devices, which are configured to report the energy usage of any attached devices. For example, a server rack is configured with one or more power monitoring devices and each computing device installed in the server rack is powered via a power monitoring device. The energy usage data can be provided in real-time, such as continuously, over configured intervals, and/or using another appropriate configuration. The gathered energy usage data can be provided to and stored via a cloud service. In some embodiments, relative utilization values associated with the devices for an entity are determined. For example, each device can be monitored to determine the relative processor utilization values associated with different entities, such as different user accounts or customers. The different relative utilization values for each entity are determined and can be provided to and stored via a cloud service. In some embodiments, the monitoring is performed by one or more agents, such as discovery agents that can include an agent monitoring module component installed on each device. For example, an installed monitoring agent can provide the relative utilization values attributed to each entity utilizing a corresponding device. Similar to the energy usage data, the gathered entity utilization metrics can be provided to and stored via a cloud service.
[0018] In some embodiments, a carbon footprint of the entity is calculated based on the energy usage data, the relative entity utilization values, and one or more emissions impact factors associated with one or more energy sources of the devices. For example, using the energy usage data of a device, the utilization associated with an entity for a device, and an emissions impact factor for the device's power source, the carbon footprint for the entity utilizing the device is determined. Further, the carbon footprint for the entity can be determined for each device the entity is associated with and one or more aggregate sums can be determined for the data centers the entity utilizes as well as across all data centers an entity utilizes. In some embodiments, the entity can be a user account, a customer, a service provider, or another organizational structure. In various embodiments, an emission impact factor is a conversion factor that can be applied to convert energy usage into an emissions metric such as the amount of greenhouse gases generated for a given amount of energy. In various embodiments, the emissions impact factor will vary based on the power source. For example, different power sources will have different emission impact factors based on how each power source generates its electricity. In many scenarios, the location of an installed device directly impacts its power source and thus the location of the device correlates to its emission impact factor.”
The specification shows the use of “relative CPU utilization values” to determine which portion of a datacenter’s energy consumption a certain customer (i.e. entity) is responsible for, which is used to provide carbon footprint metrics to the data customer related to data services provided for that customer. Fig. 11 and ¶72 further shows an “emissions dashboard” which enables the data customer (i.e. entity) to view their consumption and emissions metrics, including their calculated “carbon footprint.” The specification does NOT disclose the “relative CPU utilization value” as a performance metric that compares one entity’s carbon footprint (or energy consumption), relative to that of another entity (e.g. providing an entity with a carbon ranking relative to all other entities using the service). Instead, the specification discloses the “relative CPU utilization value” as a necessary input used to calculate the performance metric (i.e. energy consumption or carbon footprint) of that specific entity, since multiple entities can use the same data center.
Claims 2-9, 12-13, and 20-27 recite or depend upon a “relative CPU utilization value,” which is interpreted similarly to the “relative CPU utilization value” of Claim 1 discussed above.
Claims 1-9, 12-13, and 20-27, recite, reference, or depend upon, “real-time carbon footprint.” The limitation of “real-time” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. Specification ¶17 states “The energy usage data can be provided in real-time, such as continuously, over configured intervals, and/or using another appropriate configuration.” Therefore, claimed “real-time” information includes information “provided . . . continuously, over configured intervals, and/or using another appropriate configuration.”
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.
Claims 21 and 23 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 claim(s) 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 inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Representative Claim 21 recites “. . . wherein the internal server provides the representations of the energy usage and the representations of the relative CPU utilization values to the remote database” at the end of Claim 21.
Fig. 3 and ¶¶28-29 shows a “carbon footprint app service 301” connected to a “cloud-based database 303” (i.e. the claimed “remote database.”). Specifically, ¶¶28-29 states “[0028] . . .usage agents 331 and 333 provide usage utilization data to carbon footprint app service301 for storing at cloud-based database 303. Carbon footprint app service 301, database 303, device 321, and device 323 are connected via network 351. Network 351 can be a public or private network. . . [0029] In various embodiments, carbon footprint app service301 is a cloud-based application server that provides emissions metrics for devices associated with a particular entity, such as a particular user account, customer, service provider, or another organizational structure. The calculated emissions metrics can be based on entity utilization as observed by usage agents331 and 333 installed on devices 321 and 323, respectively. For example, devices 321 and 323 installed in data centers 311 and 313, respectively, are monitored for utilization using usage agents331 and 333, respectively. In various embodiments, usage agents 331 and 333 may be part of a larger discovery service that monitors the utilization of their multiple installed devices. For example, usage agents 331 and 333 can monitor the CPU utilization attributable to a particular entity on devices 321 and 323, respectively. In various embodiments, the monitored utilization data is provided to carbon footprint app service 301 where carbon footprint app service 301 stores the utilization data at database 303 and utilizes the data to calculate emissions metrics. . .” (Emphasis added).
The embodiment of Fig. 3 is modified to include “an internal server” in ¶30, which states “In some embodiments, an internal server (not shown) is used to gather utilization data as part of a discovery service. For example, an internal server can be located within a customer's network infrastructure and behind a customer firewall to manage and gather utilization data in a more secure manner. In various embodiments, an internal server can be utilized to allow access to internal devices located within the customer network without exposing the devices and certain network connections to an external network.” (Emphasis added).
Although the other limitations of Claim 21 are supported by Specification ¶30, providing data from the “internal server” (i.e. “internal server” of ¶30) to the “remote database” (i.e. “cloud-based database 303” of Fig. 3 and ¶¶28-29) is not apart of the original disclosure. Additionally, Specification ¶30 seems to discourage use of further external databases, as the purpose of an “internal server” is to prevent access to the data from external sources.
Examiner additionally notes that ¶28 shows that “network 351” could be a “private network,” potentially modifying “carbon footprint app service 301” “cloud-based database 303” to privately controlled hardware and software. However, Specification ¶30 is clear that the “internal server” is an additional feature “not shown” in Fig. 3. Thus, interpreting the “internal server” as a modification of the elements disclosed in Fig. 3 would be contrary to the discussion of the “internal server” in ¶30.
Therefore, the original disclosure does not provide sufficient support for the limitation of “wherein the internal server provides the representations of the energy usage and the representations of the relative CPU utilization values to the remote database.”
Claim 23 recites “wherein the internal server provides the representations of the energy usage and the representations of the relative CPU utilization values to the remote database” at the end of Claim 23. This limitation of Claim 23 is similar to the limitation of Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) discussed above, and therefore is rejected under similar justification as Claim 21, as shown above.
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 1-9, 12-13, and 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-9, 12-13, and 21 recite a method (i.e. a process), Claim 20 recite a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (i.e. a machine or manufacture), and Claims 22-27 recite a system (i.e. a machine or manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-9, 12-13, and 20-27 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
“measuring energy usage data of computing devices . . . external to the computing devices;
. . . configured to . . . , monitor energy usage of the computing devices, and transmit representations of the energy usage . . . ;
determining, . . . , relative CPU utilization values associated with the computing devices for an entity organization with respect to a total amount of CPU utilization across more than one entity organization utilizing the computing devices;
transmitting representations of the relative CPU utilization values . . . ;
determining one or more energy sources of the computing devices based on a time of day;
determining, based on the one or more energy sources, one or more emissions impact factors relating to greenhouse emissions attributable to the computing devices;
calculating a real-time carbon footprint of the entity CPU utilization values the one or more emissions impact factors
. . . providing information regarding the real-time carbon footprint, . . . configured to selectively provide different emissions metrics for different granularities of emissions metrics calculations, wherein the different granularities are of time, computing device, and location.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) measuring energy usage data (Examiner notes that “of computing devices” is a limitation on the type of data, not an additional element), (2) monitoring energy usage to transmit a representation of the energy usage, (3) determining and transmitting CPU utilization values, (4) determining source of energy and emission impact factors based on certain information, (5) calculating a carbon footprint based on certain data, (6) providing information regarding the carbon footprint, and (7) dynamically updating a representation of the carbon footprint, all of which are (i) mathematical calculations (i.e. determining values and calculating carbon footprints), which are mathematical concepts, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I, (ii) commercial or legal interactions (i.e. the carbon footprint and emission impact factors are information related to a service being performed in commerce, which are apart of “advertising [or] marketing or sales activities or behaviors,” the transmitting, presenting, and updating of which is also apart of “advertising [or] marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and (iii) observations (i.e. measuring and monitoring energy usage data), evaluations, judgments, and opinions (i.e. determining, calculating and providing utilization values and carbon footprint related information), which are mental processes, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III. The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., “one or more power monitoring units,” “remote database,” “usage agents,” and “an interactive user interface dashboard”) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the abstract idea groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers (i) mathematical calculations, (ii) commercial or legal interactions, (iii) observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) one or more power monitoring devices configured to provide electricity to the computing devices,
(ii) a remote database,
(iii) usage agents installed on the computing devices, and
(iv) an interactive user interface dashboard.
The additional elements of (i) “one or more power monitoring units [configured to provide electricity to the computing devices]” (Fig. 2 and ¶¶25-27 shows “power data unit 221” that powers “devices 211, 213, 215, and 217,” “can monitor the energy usage of connected devices,” and communicate that information to the cloud server. The specification does not provide a specific architecture as to how “power data unit 221” measures the energy, but merely that “power data unit 221” “can monitor the energy usage of connected devices.” Therefore, in order to satisfy the disclosure requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the “power data unit 221” (i.e. a PSU that measures energy consumption data), includes a conventional power supply.), (ii) “remote database” (Fig. 3 and ¶¶28-29 shows “cloud-based database 303.”), (iii) “usage agents [installed on the computing devices]” (Fig. 3 and ¶¶28-29 shows “usage agents 331 and 333.”), and (iv) “interactive user interface dashboard” (Fig. 1 and ¶21 shows “In some embodiments, client101 is a network client for accessing and/or managing cloud services of carbon footprint app service103. For example, using a web browser client, client101 can access web services hosted by carbon footprint app service103 such as a dashboard for examining calculated carbon emissions for relevant devices associated with client101.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1-3), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) one or more power monitoring units, (ii) a remote database, (iii) usage agents, and (iv) an interactive user interface dashboard, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1-3), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1-3), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of (i) one or more power monitoring units, (ii) a remote database, (iii) usage agents, and (iv) an interactive user interface dashboard, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 1-3), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 12-13, and 21 recite the abstract idea of:
“wherein the one or more emissions impact factors are determined based on respective physical locations of the computing devices” (Claim 2);
“wherein the computing devices are physically located across two or more data center locations” (Claim 3);
“wherein the entity ” (Claim 4);
“wherein the entity corresponds to a cloud service provider” (Claim 5);
“wherein the information regarding the real-time carbon footprint includes daily, weekly, and monthly information corresponding to the real-time carbon footprint of the entity ” (Claim 6);
“wherein the information regarding the real-time carbon footprint includes quantities of the real-time carbon footprint of the entity Claim 7);
“wherein the different physical locations correspond to different data center locations” (Claim 8); and
“wherein the information regarding the real-time carbon footprint further includes quantities of the real-time carbon footprint of the entity for different devices” (Claim 9); and
“. . . provide the representations of the energy usage . . . , wherein . . . provide the representations of the relative CPU utilization values . . . , and . . . provides the representations of the energy usage and the representations of the relative CPU utilization values . . .” (Claim 21).
Dependent Claims 2-9, 12-13, and 21, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 2-9, 12-13, and 21 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations (1) base the emissions impact factors on certain information, (2) further limiting the “energy usage data” to being of certain devices at certain locations, (3) limit the entity to corresponding to certain entities, (4) limit the information regarding carbon footprint to certain forms and quantities, and (5) gathering and providing energy usage data and other related information. The further elements of Claims 2-9, 12-13, and 21 (i.e., “at least one rack” and “data center” of Claims 12-13 and “internal server” of Claim 21) fails to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the elements merely recite additional generic computer hardware (Fig. 1 and ¶¶20-24 shows “device racks 121 and 131” and “data center 111.” ¶30 shows an “internal server.”) similar to the generic computer hardware of Claim 1 or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technology or field of use just as in Claim 1. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 2-9, 12-13, and 21 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 2-9, 12-13, and 21, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-9, 12-13, and 21 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 2-9, 12-13, and 21 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-9, 12-13, and 21 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 20 recites the abstract idea of:
“. . . measuring energy usage data of computing devices . . . external to the computing devices, . . . , monitor energy usage of the computing devices, and transmit representations of the energy usage . . . ;
determining, . . . , relative CPU utilization values associated with the computing devices for an entity CPU utilization across more than one entitycomputing devices;
transmitting representations of the relative CPU utilization values . . . ;
determining one or more energy sources of the computing devices based on a time of day; determining, based on the one or more energy sources, one or more emissions impact factors relating to greenhouse emissions attributable to the computing devices;
calculating a real-time carbon footprint of the entity CPU utilization values the one or more emissions impact factors
. . . providing information regarding the real-time carbon footprint, . . . configured to selectively provide different emissions metrics for different granularities of emissions metrics calculations, wherein the different granularities are of time, computing device, and location.”
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) measuring energy usage data (Examiner notes that “of computing devices” is a limitation on the type of data, not an additional element), (2) monitoring energy usage to transmit a representation of the energy usage, (3) determining and transmitting CPU utilization values, (4) d