DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to the arguments and amendments filed [December 1, 2025].
Claims 1-23 have been amended.
Claims 24-26 are newly added.
Claims 1-26 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 .
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
In terms of step 1, claims 1-26 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of step 2(a)(I), independent claims 1, 11, and 21 are directed towards (as represented by claim 1), “receive (i) a digital and technology assets design for a product and (ii) parameters and data including system consumption data and historical usage data logs; model a baseline operation of the digital and technology asset design and a quantification of baseline emissions and power consumption of the digital and technology assets design; generate, by an abatement scenario building and assessment engine, at least two abatement scenario models; generate at least one comparison of the at least two abatement scenario models; generate a carbon equivalent emission data analytics recommendation, based on the least one comparison; cause display of the carbon equivalent emissions data analytics recommendation”. The claims are directed towards modeling asset design and consumption to provide a comparison for abatement scenarios that leads to generating a carbon emission recommendation. This is directed towards a commercial activity in terms of carbon reduction recommendations (described in the specification and dependent claims as within the GHG protocol scopes). The claims are describing carbon emission reduction recommendations based on design parameters that fall into the abstract idea grouping of certain method of organizing human activity.
The claims also fall into an abstract idea under mental process. The claims fall into collecting, high level analyzing, and displaying results that can be performed mentally. The analysis and collection of data is merely providing comparisons and abatement scenarios that a person could mentally opine and observe and the recommendations a person could make mentally in terms of reducing carbon emissions based on the collected information. As such, the claims also fall into an abstract idea under the mental process grouping.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements in terms of being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of the independent claims are, “A computer system for measuring carbon equivalent emissions from digital and technology assets including software, the computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; and computer memory storing a carbon emissions data analytics engine that includes computer-useable instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to (claim 1); by one or more computer processors (claim 11); non-transitory computer readable storage medium for measuring carbon equivalent emissions from digital and technology assets including software, the computer readable storage medium storing a carbon emissions data analytics engine that includes computer-useable instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to (claim 21); generating by an abatement scenario building and assessment engine, at least two abatement scenario models; providing at least one comparison of the at least two abatement scenario models; and cause a modification to the product based on the carbon equivalent emissions data analytics recommendation”. The additional elements of the computer aspects are described in the originally filed specification fig 7 and pages 11-14. The computing environment is merely describing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The abatement scenario and models are described in the originally filed specification pages 6-7 and figures 5C-F. The specification and drawings are not describing specific algorithms, models, or scenarios, but rather utilizing generic engine comparison analysis. The consideration is that the engine and analysis elements are high level analysis that are accomplished by generic technology. Further, the outputs of the recommendations are additionally described in terms of the idea of a solution. The analysis and subsequent output from the engine are providing claims that fail to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Providing a comparison between models and determining the recommendation is not directed towards a technical improvement. This consideration is further provided for the adaption of the products based on the output. The adaption is described in page 9 and is merely describing an idea of a solution based on the output. There is no specific technical description or detail. Therefore, the claims are directed towards generic technology and an idea of a solution that is merely apply it. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements in terms of being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements of the independent claims are, “A computer system for measuring carbon equivalent emissions from digital and technology assets including software, the computer system comprising: one or more computer processors; and computer memory storing a carbon emissions data analytics engine that includes computer-useable instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to (claim 1); by one or more computer processors (claim 11); non-transitory computer readable storage medium for measuring carbon equivalent emissions from digital and technology assets including software, the computer readable storage medium storing a carbon emissions data analytics engine that includes computer-useable instructions that, when executed by the one or more computer processors, cause the one or more computer processors to (claim 21); generating by an abatement scenario building and assessment engine, at least two abatement scenario models; providing at least one comparison of the at least two abatement scenario models; and cause a modification to the product based on the carbon equivalent emissions data analytics recommendation”. The additional elements of the computer aspects are described in the originally filed specification fig 7 and pages 11-14. The computing environment is merely describing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The abatement scenario and models are described in the originally filed specification pages 6-7 and figures 5C-F. The specification and drawings are not describing specific algorithms, models, or scenarios, but rather utilizing generic engine comparison analysis. The consideration is that the engine and analysis elements are high level analysis that are accomplished by generic technology. Further, the outputs of the recommendations are additionally described in terms of the idea of a solution. The analysis and subsequent output from the engine are providing claims that fail to recite details of how the solution is accomplished. Providing a comparison between models and determining the recommendation is not directed towards a technical improvement. This consideration is further provided for the adaption of the products based on the output. The adaption is described in page 9 and is merely describing an idea of a solution based on the output. There is no specific technical description or detail. Therefore, the claims are directed towards generic technology and an idea of a solution that is merely apply it. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 22, and 23 are further describing the abstract idea and not directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The dependent claims are further describing the commercial activity (certain method of organizing human activity) and high level analysis and display of results (mental process) in terms of describing the high level of analysis through the use of Greenhouse Gas Protocol scope model elements (in terms of the claims describing scope 1-3) {claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23}, providing further description in terms of the inputs {claims 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, and 16}, and describing the outputs that include the recommendations provided for emission improvement {claims 9 and 19}. Further, the claims providing the Greenhouse Gas Protocol is merely using a provided algorithm/model description to implement the abstract idea. The protocol while not directed towards additional elements is describing a provided modeling technique/system (GHG Protocol) to provide the scope and emission elements that are utilized for the identified abstract idea. The identified claims are further describing the abstract ideas above and are not directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
Dependent claims 7, 8, 10, 17, 18, and 20 are directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein the abatement scenario building and assessment engine is configured to: define abatement levers and abatement scenarios, and fine-tune digital and technology assets operation determined by a baseline quantification engine, in response to modeled abatement scenarios”, “wherein the carbon emissions data analytics engine further comprises: a decision-support engine configured to: provide comparisons of abatement scenarios and impact potentials, and provide continuous monitoring of the digital and technology assets”, and “wherein the carbon emissions data analytics engine is configured to provide a user interface that renders a layered baseline system architecture that includes a plurality of layers, including at least a hardware layer, an operating system container layer, and an application layer”. The additional elements are in terms of the fine tuning and abatement scenario building, the decision engine and continuous monitoring, and user interfaces with system architectures. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification in pages 5-7 {analytics engine} and 8 {interface and structural layers}. The additional elements are merely describing generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The additional elements are not directed towards technical improvements and as such are not transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 24-26 are further describing additional elements identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein the modification to the product comprises: adapting the digital and technology assets design for the product based on the carbon equivalent emissions data analytics recommendation”, “wherein the modification to the product comprises: adapting a technical configuration of the product based on the carbon equivalent emissions data analytics recommendation”, and “wherein the modification to the product comprises: adapting an operating configuration of the product based on the carbon equivalent emissions data analytics recommendation”. The adaption is described in page 9 and is merely describing an idea of a solution based on the output. There is no specific technical description or detail. Therefore, the claims are directed towards generic technology and an idea of a solution that is merely apply it. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application or significantly more than the identified abstract ideas. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
In response to the arguments filed December 1, 2025 on pages 9-12 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, specifically that the claimed invention is directed towards eligible subject matter.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The arguments allege that the claimed invention provides a technical improvement in terms of providing product modifications based on the emission analysis. In terms of the specific claim limitation, the specification describes the adaptions on page 9. The specification description and claims are merely describing the claim limitations regarding the product/device modifications as an idea of a solution. The limitations are considered as additional elements under 2(a)(II) and 2(b) and, based on the consideration, is merely apply it. The limitations are described as, “Some of the advantages of the solution include enabling business decision makers to measure accurately emissions related to their software products and future products to be deployed, identify drivers and levers they can act on to reduce their software emission footprint which enables full variability based on drivers of functionalities and configuration and adapt their products (architecture design, technical configuration and operating configuration) to achieve their emission footprint goals” {pg. 9}. There is no specific technical description or solution provided. The specification merely provides a listing of ideas for the solution. As such, the claim limitations are not significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, claims 1-26 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Lacking any further arguments, claims 1-26 are maintaining the 35 USC 101 rejection, as considered above in light of the amended claim limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Herb et al [2023/0017632] (distributed computing environmental score);
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629