DETAILED ACTION
Response received on February 13, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 6-8, 10-12 have been amended and Claims 13-18 are newly added. Therefore, Claims 1-18 are pending.
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
This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on 01/30/2023 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 2/13/2026. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/161,734 was filed 1/30/2023.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of February 13, 2026 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks
at the end of this office action. Applicant' s amendment’s filed February 13, 2026, with respect to Claims 1, 6-8, and 10-12 have been fully considered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 13, 2026 has been entered.
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 1‐18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1‐11 and 13-17 are directed to a system and Claims 12 and 18 are directed to a method, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES). For step 2A, the examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claim 12. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
An integrated carbon emissions management platform, comprising: a computing unit having a at least one processor and memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing unit to: establish a network communication channel with one or more internal and external data sources; receive carbon emissions data associated with one or more organizational assets through the communication channel; transform the received carbon emissions data into a standardized structured data format and store the transformed data in a centralized repository; execute one or more regulatory emissions models using the transformed data and one or more baseline calculation parameters including time periods, emissions sources, and operational variables to generate a baseline carbon emissions dataset; generate a time-series forecast of future carbon emissions based on the baseline carbon emissions dataset and projected operational activity parameters perform a sensitivity analysis by (i) iteratively varying selected operational parameters across respective parameter ranges, (ii) computing a resulting emissions delta for each parameter variation using the baseline dataset and the one or more regulatory emissions models, and (iii) generating ranked tornado charts indicating relative emissions impact of equipment, sources, and factors; and present, via a customizable graphical user interface, interactive dashboards displaying the baseline dataset, forecast, and sensitivity rankings for internal management and regulatory reporting.
The above bolded limitations recite an abstract idea of integrating various sources of data for continuous estimation and monitoring of GHG emissions across the whole organization. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a process implemented by a processor, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed manually by person. For example, for the generic computing components, this claim encompasses commercial and administrative interactions in an organizational carbon-management process that can be performed by a person by manually collecting emissions data from various sources, converting the data into a consistent format, estimating a baseline using predefined rules, preparing reports, forecasting future emissions, and identifying major emission sources through observation and experience, thereby triggering appropriate business or regulatory actions without the use of the computing system. The mere nominal recitation of a “computing unit”, “processor”, “memory”, “programming instructions”, “a network communication channel”, “a centralized repository”, “interactive dashboards”, and “graphical user interface”, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because Claim 1 recites “computing unit”, “processor”, “memory”, “programming instructions”, “a network communication channel”, “a centralized repository”, “interactive dashboards”, and “graphical user interface”. However, Claim 12 only recites a ““processor” and “user interface”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1 and 12 are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The claims recite wherein the one or more data sources further comprises an in-facility data source and out-faciality data source, wherein the in-facility data source includes data from one or more components present internally within the facility, and wherein the out-facility data source includes data from one or more components present externally to the facility. The dependent claims 2-5 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 6 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The claims recite wherein the one or more baseline calculation parameters includes time periods, emissions sources to account for, one or more models to use, and other operational variables of the baseline model. The dependent claim 6 does not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 7 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The claims recite wherein displaying insights comprising one or more of baseline reporting, carbon emission forecasting, sensitivity analysis, continuous monitoring, collaboration analysis, traceability analysis and audit trails, aggregation analysis, benchmarking, corporate reporting, and organization management. In addition, they recite the additional element of a “interactive dashboard”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
Claims 8-11 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The claims recite data sharing component adapted to enable sharing of data and/or insights, store carbon emissions data received from the one or more data sources, generate and output predetermined insights, receiving data-sets pertaining to carbon emission from one or more assets of an organization from one or more data sources, processing the data sets to estimate a baseline carbon emission value based on one or more predetermined baseline calculation parameters; and generating and reporting one or more predetermined insights related to carbon emissions for the organization. In addition, they recite the additional element of an “application programming interface (API)”, “a mobile or a touch-based computing hardware”, “a memory”, “and a “user interface”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claim 13 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The claims recite using at least one of a virtual private network (VPN) tunnel, a secure shell (SSH) tunnel, or a secure file transfer protocol. In addition, they recite the additional element of an “the network communication channel”. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
Claims 14 and 16-17 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The claims recite data wherein the standardized data format comprises JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), wherein performing the sensitivity analysis comprises enabling adjustment of values of one or more operational parameters of an asset and ranking the operational parameters in one or more tornado charts to identify key parameters affecting carbon emissions, and wherein the sensitivity analysis is performed for a plurality of organizational assets. The dependent claims 14 and 16-17 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 15 and 18 recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. The claims recite wherein the one or more regulatory emissions models comprise at least one of an OPGEE model and an EPA Subpart W model and wherein the transformed carbon emissions data comprises, for each of a plurality of organizational assets, asset-associated operational variables for one or more time periods, and wherein executing the one or more regulatory emissions models comprises applying the models to the transformed carbon emissions data for the plurality of organizational assets to generate asset-level baseline emissions values aggregated into the baseline carbon emissions dataset. The dependent claims 15 and 18 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the subject matter which is present in independent claims 1 and 12.
In regards to Claims 1 and 12 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be over Kahn et al. (US 20220358515) in view of Lee et al. (US 20230077829).
Kahn et al. teaches an integrated carbon emissions management platform, comprising: (See Abstract & FIG 1) a computing unit having a at least one processor and memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing unit to: (See [0055] & [0072]) establish a network communication channel with one or more internal and external data sources; (See [0065] & [0027]) receive carbon emissions data associated with one or more organizational assets through the communication channel; (See [0065] & [0021]); execute one or more regulatory emissions models using the transformed data and one or more baseline calculation parameters including time periods, emissions sources, and operational variables to generate a baseline carbon emissions dataset; (See [0028], [0032] , [0051]) generate a time-series forecast of future carbon emissions based on the baseline carbon emissions dataset and projected operational activity parameters perform a sensitivity analysis by (See [0024], [0022], [0056]). Lee et al. teaches transform the received carbon emissions data into a standardized structured data format and store the transformed data in a centralized repository (See [0036])
However, Kahn et al. in view of Lee et al. alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious generate a time-series forecast of future carbon emissions based on the baseline carbon emissions dataset and projected operational activity parameters perform a sensitivity analysis by (i) iteratively varying selected operational parameters across respective parameter ranges, (ii) computing a resulting emissions delta for each parameter variation using the baseline dataset and the one or more regulatory emissions models, and (iii) generating ranked tornado charts indicating relative emissions impact of equipment, sources, and factors; and present, via a customizable graphical user interface, interactive dashboards displaying the baseline dataset, forecast, and sensitivity rankings for internal management and regulatory reporting, when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1 and 12 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 6 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that the amendments materially narrow the claims to a defined technical workflow with concrete results, and they directly address the Office Action's concern that the claims previously recited only high-level results using generic computing components. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is referred to the 101-rejection section above as to why the claims are still directed to an abstract idea. Examiner notes that the claimed system merely recites generic computing components performing data collection, estimation, forecasting, and reporting functions on carbon emission data, which constitute an abstract idea of integrating various sources of data for continuous estimation and monitoring of GHG emissions. The claim fails to recite any specific technological improvement to computer functionality for integrating such data beyond commonly known implementation on a generic computer. Applicant further argues that the amended claims recite a specific computer-implemented technical process, not an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the amended claims merely use generic computer components to collect, analyze, and display emissions data, which constitutes an abstract idea without a specific technological improvement. Applicant further disagrees with the Examiner characterizes claim 1 (and claim 12 similarly) as "integrating various sources of data for continuous estimation and monitoring" and asserts the steps could be performed manually, because the focus of the amended independent claims is not a fundamental economic practice, a method of organizing human activity, or a mental process. Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that the claims merely integrate and analyze data for emissions monitoring and decision-making activities that can be performed manually and therefore constitute an abstract method of organizing human activity rather than a technological improvement.
Applicant further argues that the limitations recited in the claims are not merely "collect/analyze/display" results, nor is it the type of activity that can practically be performed "manually" in the manner asserted in the Office Action and that the claims require repeated parameter-range sweeps tied to model execution and delta computation to generate ranked sensitivity outputs, which meaningfully constrain the claim to a particular emissions modeling workflow rather than an abstract "information integration" concept. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that despite the recitation of repeated parameter range sweeps, model execution, delta computation, and ranked sensitivity outputs, these steps merely describe mathematical analysis and data processing applied to emissions information using generic computer implementation, which does not amount to a specific technological improvement but instead refines the abstract idea of analyzing and organizing information. Applicant further argues that the amended claims here require model-driven baseline formation, forecasting from that baseline, and a defined sensitivity workflow using parameter range sweeps and emissions-delta computation features that move the claims away from generic "information analysis" and toward a particularized emissions modeling process anchored in specific processing stages and defined intermediate/final results. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited model-driven baseline formation, forecasting, parameter sweeps, and emission delta computations merely define a sequence of mathematical and analytical steps applied to data, which refine the abstract idea of emissions information analysis without reciting a specific improvement to computer technology or another technical field. Applicant further argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they require a concrete technical workflow and machine-generated outputs. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that merely implementing the abstract data analysis workflow on a generic computer to produce machine generated outputs does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, as the claims do not recite any specific improvement to computer technology or other technical functionality.
Applicant further argues that the even if some aspect of the claims could be described at a high level as involving "data integration," the claims integrate that concept into a practical application by requiring a concrete emissions workflow that produces operationally meaningful artifacts: a baseline carbon emissions dataset, a time-series forecast, and ranked tornado charts that quantify relative emissions impact by equipment/sources/factors based on parameter range variation and delta computation. Examiner respectfully disagrees because producing baseline emissions, forecasts, and ranked tornado charts through generic data processing merely applies the abstract idea of organizing and analyzing information using generic computer functions, without reciting any specific technological improvement or practical application beyond the abstract idea. Applicant further argues that considered together with amended claim l's parameter-range sweep/delta computation and tornado-chart ranking, these limitations confirm that the claims are directed to a specific technical emissions modeling pipeline and are integrated into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that even when considered together, the parameter sweeps, delta computations, and tornado chart rankings merely define generic analytical steps applied to emissions data, which do not transform the abstract idea into a specific technical process or practical technological application. Applicant further argues that while a person may be able to manually type numbers into a spreadsheet, but cannot "establish a secure communication channel" with enterprise systems and perform repeated model-executions across parameter ranges to compute deltas and generate ranked tornado charts in the manner recited. Examiner respectfully disagrees because implementing data collection, repeated model executions, delta computations, and tornado chart generation over a network using generic computer and communication functions merely automates generic information processing tasks and does not recite a specific technological improvement beyond the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea as the ordered combination is constrained to a particular emissions-modeling pipeline. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the claimed ordered combination merely recites generic data collection, transformation, modeling, analysis, and presentation steps implemented on a generic computing unit, which amounts to applying an abstract idea of data analysis and reporting in the field of carbon emissions without any technological improvement or non-generic technical implementation. Applicant further argues that even assuming arguendo that the claims involve "data integration" at a high level, the amended independent claims require a particular ordered workflow that goes beyond generic collection/analysis/reporting. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that although the claims recite an ordered workflow, the sequence of receiving data, transforming it, applying models, performing analysis, and presenting results reflects a conventional and result oriented data processing pipeline implemented with generic computing components, rather than a specific technological improvement or special computing functionality. Applicant further argues that this ordered combination meaningfully constrains the claim to a defined emissions-modeling workflow with specified intermediate results rather than a result-oriented instruction to "monitor emissions" using generic computing. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the alleged meaningful constraints merely describe functional results of data processing within an emissions modeling context, such as generating intermediate datasets and forecasts, without really reciting any specific technical mechanism specialized data structure or improvement to computer functionality, and therefore remain directed to an abstract idea implemented on generic computing components.
Applicant further argues that the dependent claims further confirm that the claim scope is not directed to manual or generic implementation, such as requires establishing the communication channel via secure tunneling, a specific structured format (JSON), requires use of identified regulatory emissions models (OPGEE and/or EPA Subpart W), and further defining the sensitivity workflow and asset-level structuring used in model execution and reporting. Taken together, these limitations reinforce that the claims are directed to a specific technical pipeline for producing regulatory-model-based baselines, forecasts, and sensitivity outputs, not an abstract idea performed on a generic computer. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the dependent claim limitations merely add generic data transmission, formatting, and modeling steps within the abstract process of emissions analysis, and do not reflect a technological improvement to computer functionality sufficient to transform the claims into patent eligible subject matter. Applicant further argues that the dependent claims further reinforce technical implementation. The examiner respectfully disagrees because the dependent claims merely add further intended use limitations and generic implementation details that refine the abstract idea of emissions analysis process, without reciting any specific technological improvement or non-generic computer functionality that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For the reasons mentioned above, the argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims1-18 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection are noted. On page 9 of Applicant’s response, applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kahn et al. (US 2022/0358515 A1) and asserts that Kahn fails to expressly or inherently disclose each and every limitation of Claim 12 as currently amended. The examiner finds the applicants argument to be persuasive. Kahn et al. alone or in combination fail to disclose or anticipate performing, by the processor, a sensitivity analysis by iteratively varying selected operational parameters and generating ranked tornado charts indicating relative emissions impact of equipment, sources, and factors; and presenting, via a user interface, interactive dashboards displaying the baseline carbon emissions dataset, the time-series forecast, and the ranked tornado charts for internal management and regulatory reporting, when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 12 and its dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art. Accordingly, the examiner withdraws the corresponding prior art rejections based on that subject matter.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection are noted. On page 10 of Applicant’s response, applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Kahn in view of Lee, Li, and Yu, and that additional dependent limitations are supplied by further combining Singh and/or Gomila. The examiner finds the applicants argument to be persuasive. Kahn et al. in view of Lee, Li, and Yu alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious generate a time-series forecast of future carbon emissions based on the baseline carbon emissions dataset and projected operational activity parameters perform a sensitivity analysis by (i) iteratively varying selected operational parameters across respective parameter ranges, (ii) computing a resulting emissions delta for each parameter variation using the baseline dataset and the one or more regulatory emissions models, and (iii) generating ranked tornado charts indicating relative emissions impact of equipment, sources, and factors; and present, via a customizable graphical user interface, interactive dashboards displaying the baseline dataset, forecast, and sensitivity rankings for internal management and regulatory reporting, when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art. Accordingly, the examiner withdraws the corresponding prior art rejections based on that subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626