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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 12/15/2025.
Claim 6 has been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1-7 are pending.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 7) and/or system (Claim 1), thus Claims 1-7 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1 and 7 recite:
a processor that calculates, based on first calculation information, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the first printing apparatus/merchandise in the lifetime; and
an output unit that outputs a calculation result obtained by the processor, wherein
the first calculation information includes
a usage quantity of a first material forming the first printing apparatus/merchandise,
a first emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with production of the first material,
a second emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with disposal of the first material,
a weight of the first printing apparatus/merchandise,
a third emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with production of the first printing apparatus/merchandise,
a first transportation distance of transportation of the first printing apparatus/merchandise using first transportation unit,
a fourth emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with transportation using the first transportation unit,
a type of an expendable used for the first printing apparatus/merchandise,
a quantity of the expendable used for the first printing apparatus/merchandise,
a usage quantity of a second material forming the expendable,
a fifth emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with production of the second material,
a sixth emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with disposal of the second material,
a weight of the expendable,
a seventh emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with production of the expendable,
a second transportation distance of transportation of the expendable using second transportation unit,
an eighth emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with transportation using the second transportation unit,
an amount of electric power consumed by the first printing apparatus/merchandise, and
a ninth emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions per amount of electric power.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical formulas, equations, and/or calculations. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of mathematical formulas, equations, and/or calculations which represents the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a formula/equations/calculation for calculating an amount of carbon dioxide emitted by a printing apparatus/merchandise and related expendables using a set of data and coefficients in the lifetime which merely represents the factors use di the calculations.
Additionally, the underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of concepts performed in the human mind which represents the abstract idea of mental processes. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a formula/equations/calculation for calculating an amount of carbon dioxide emitted by a printing apparatus/merchandise and related expendables using a set of data and coefficients in the lifetime which could be performed in the human mind or by using pen and paper. For example, the recited formula/equations/calculation, including the recited data and coefficients, are merely recited as factors used in the formula/equations/calculation, and thus could be performed mentally and or using pencil and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 7 does not recite any additional features. Claim 1 elements additional elements such as:
A printing apparatus management system that calculates an amount of carbon dioxide emitted by a first printing apparatus in a lifetime of the first printing apparatus, comprising:
a processor [used for calculating results]; and
an output unit that [for outputting calculations]
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0017], “processor is described at a high level of generality using broad terms such as “host computer”). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-6 recite further elements related to the calculation steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the first calculation information includes related-model information indicating a second printing apparatus related to the first printing apparatus, and when there is insufficiency in the first calculation information, the processor compensates for the insufficiency by using second calculation information used to calculate an amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the second printing apparatus in a lifetime of the second printing apparatus and calculates the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the first printing apparatus in the lifetime”, which further specifies additional types of data to be used in the calculations when additional data is needed, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of data for calculations is part of the abstract idea and merely adding that data to the calculations performed by the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 3 recites “comprising a notification unit that notifies when there is insufficiency in the first calculation information”, which further specifies providing notifications to a user, but does not lead toward eligibility. The output unit is recited at a high level of generality and is merely used to apply the step of providing notifications. This claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 4 recites “wherein the first calculation information includes transfer quantity information on the first printing apparatus, and the processor calculates, based on the transfer quantity information and the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the first printing apparatus in the lifetime, an amount of carbon dioxide emitted by a first printing apparatus group including the first printing apparatus in a lifetime of the first printing apparatus group”, which further specifies additional types of data to be used in the calculations, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional types of data for calculations is part of the abstract idea and merely adding that data to the calculations performed by the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. In the instant claim, the additional calculations could be as simple as multiplying the carbon dioxide emitted by a first printing apparatus by the transfer quantity.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the processor calculates, as the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the first printing apparatus in the lifetime, a first emission amount including an amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the expendable in a lifetime of the expendable and a second emission amount not including the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the expendable in the lifetime of the expendable”, which further specifies an additional calculation using less factors (data and coefficients), but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional calculation is part of the abstract idea and merely using the processor to performing the calculation with less factors does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 6 recites “a first database, a second database, a third database, a fourth database, and a fifth database in which the first calculation information is stored, wherein the first database stores, of the first calculation information, the usage quantity of the first material, the weight of the first printing apparatus, the type of the expendable used for the first printing apparatus, the quantity of the expendable used for the first printing apparatus, the usage quantity of the second material forming the expendable, the weight of the expendable, and the amount of electric power consumed by the first printing apparatus, the second database stores, of the first calculation information, the first emission coefficient, the second emission coefficient, the fifth emission coefficient, and the sixth emission coefficient, the third database stores, of the first calculation information, the third emission coefficient, the seventh emission coefficient, the first transportation distance, and the second transportation distance, the fourth database stores, of the first calculation information, the fourth emission coefficient and the eighth emission coefficient, and the fifth database stores, of the first calculation information, the ninth emission coefficient”. The claim merely recites a set of databases to store the information use di the parent claim. The databases are recited at a high level of generality and is merely used to store data. Additionally, the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception. Throughout the specification, any databases are merely described as “in a server” and used for obtaining data (as a non-limiting example, see specification at [0052], “a transportation information database TDB is built in the transportation information data server 80”). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2-6 are ineligible.
Prior Art Identified, but not Relied Upon
The closest prior art identified includes:
Kunihiro et al. (JP 2013031959 A). Discloses calculation of lifecycle carbon (and other gasses) emissions for an expendable and emissions associated with an image forming device (Printer, etc.) or other merchandise (see at least Abstract; page 10, line 36-page 11, line 13). However, the reference fails to disclose all of the data and coefficients used in the claims. For example, it does not use emissions associated with the manufacturing and disposal of the material used to form the expendable (second material). The reference also fails to disclose a calculation of emissions of the printing device/merchandise with which the expendable is used. Although it does touch on the emissions related to the use of power when operating the device/merchandise with the expendable, it does not provide a calculation of lifecycle emissions for the device/merchandise using the data and coefficients described in the claims.
境野 哲 et al. (JP 2013031959 A). Discloses calculation of carbon emissions for the manufacturing process of a merchandise (see at least Abstract; page 9, line 13-page 10, line 22; [C1]-[C5]). However, the reference fails to disclose all of the data and coefficients used in the claims. For example, it does not use emissions associated with the manufacturing and disposal of the material used to form the merchandise (first material), the quantity of the first material, or weight of the merchandise. The reference also fails to disclose a calculation of emissions of expendable to be used with the merchandise.
No prior art was identified, alone or in combination, that discloses all of the elements and steps recited in the claims No prior art to demonstrates the series data and coefficients used in the emissions calculations, Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose at least a first emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with production of the first material, a second emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with disposal of the first material, a quantity of the expendable used for the first printing apparatus, a fifth emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with production of the second material, and a sixth emission coefficient indicating a unit amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with disposal of the second material. Additionally, the prior art fails to disclose the use of emissions data for both a printer/merchandise and an expendable in a first calculation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Claim Objections:
Claim 6 has been amended to claim dependency from Claim 1. The claim objection has been withdrawn.
II. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Applicant refers to Example 29, but does not provide any analysis, comparison, evidence, etc. to demonstrate why the features of the claimed invention would be similar to the findings in Example 39.
Applicant argues that the claims “do not recite mathematical concept” because the claims “do not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols”. However, the claims clearly recite that the claimed invention outputs a calculation result…the first calculation information includes a usage quantity…a first emission coefficient indicating a unit amount…a second emission coefficient indicating a unit amount…a weight…a third emission coefficient indicating a unit amount… a first transportation distance… a fourth emission coefficient indicating a unit amount…a quantity… a fifth emission coefficient indicating a unit amount… a sixth emission coefficient indicating a unit amount…[etcetera]”. This language sets forth mathematical relationships, calculations, and equations that are described using mathematical words to describe the equation/formula components that are used to produce the calculated output. Terms such as coefficients, amounts, weights, distance, etc. represent the numerical components used to produce the calculated output representing the lifetime emissions.
Applicant does not provide any arguments or evidence to demonstrate why the claimed invention could not be performed mentally.
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention provides an improvement in the field and a technological improvement. Applicant discusses the intended benefits of calculating a lifetime emissions, but does not provide sufficient evidence regarding how/why this would represent an improvement. Applicant does not provide any background or evidence regarding how the method/system used provides the alleged improvement in the field or technology, but merely discussed potential benefits. There is not discussion of prior systems/methods, why they would/could not provide these calculations, what the deficiencies are, how those deficiencies are addressed in a meaningful manner beyond the abstract tides, etc.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“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. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
Applicant is reminded that the standards for patentability under 35 U.S.C. §101 and 35 U.S.C. §103 are different and patentability under one does not inherently provide patentability under the other.
The claim elements have been considered individually and as a whole. Applicant does not provide evidence or arguments to demonstrate how/why the claims as a whole “integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application”, “amount to significantly more than the abstract idea”, or “provide [an] improved system/method”.
Claim 5: Applicant’s remarks for Claim 5 are similar to those provided for the independent claims and therefore are subject to the same responses provided above.
As explained in the rejection, merely using different factors in the calculations does not render the claim eligible. The additional coefficients recited in Claim 5, considered individually or as a whole, do not render the claims to be eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/
Examiner, Art Unit 3629
January 7, 2026
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629