Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that claim 1 recite several specific hardware components: a production line, a power meter sensor, an imaging device and a processor, therefore, the claim is thus directed to a particular machine, the examiner respectfully disagrees, the production line that is being controlled by the method of claim 1 is a pre-solution activity (i.e. the production line is controlled before the calculation of the CO2 emission amount, the production line is not controlled based on the calculation of the CO2 emission amount), therefore, controlling the production line to produce the first product and the second product is an insignificant extra solution activity, the power meter sensor is used to acquire power consumption consumed in the production line/acquiring, with an imaging device, a production quantity of the first product in the predetermined period and a production quantity of the second product that represent mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra solution activity, the processor is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. JP2016126372 (provided in the 8/3/2023 IDS) discloses that it is well known for companies to calculate gas emissions as environmental loads throughout the supply chain (the supply chain includes production of product), therefore, the pre-solution activity of controlling the production line is well-understood, routine and conventional, the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), and the processor is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and these limitations do not amount to significantly more. These claims are not patent eligible.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and the rejection(s) claim(s) 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mathematical concepts involving calculating a CO2 emission amount for each product by allocating the power consumption amount based on a ratio of a total work time required to produce the first product in the production line during the predetermined period and a total work time required to produce the second product in the production line during the predetermined period, wherein the C02 emission amount for each product includes the first C02 emission amount that is a sum of C02 emission amounts of the first products produced in the production line during the predetermined period, and the second C02 emission amount that is a sum of C02 emission amounts of the second products produced in the production line during the predetermined period, the method further comprising: dividing a first C02 emission amount by the production quantity of the first product in the predetermined period to calculate a third C02 emission amount indicating a C02 emission amount per unit product of the first product; dividing a second C02 emission amount by the production quantity of the second product in the predetermined period to calculate a fourth C02 emission amount indicating a C02 emission amount per unit product of the second product, adding the third C02 emission amount to a fifth C02 emission amount required to procure raw materials for parts that make up the first product to produce and transport the parts and obtained from an upstream company to calculate a sixth C02 emission amount required to produce the first product, adding the fourth C02 emission amount to a seventh C02 emission amount required to procure raw materials for parts that make up the second product and to produce and transport the parts and obtained from an upstream company to calculate an eighth C02 emission amount required to produce the second product, converting the power consumption amount consumed in the production line during the predetermined period into a C02 emission amount using the conversion information, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), (claims 1 and 3). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations of the controlling the production line to produce the first product and the second product is a pre-solution activity (i.e. the production line is controlled before the calculation of the CO2 emission amount, the production line is not controlled based on the calculation of the CO2 emission amount), therefore, controlling the production line to produce the first product and the second product is an insignificant extra solution activity, the limitation of acquiring, with a power meter sensor, a power consumption amount consumed in the production line for a predetermined period while the first product and the second product are produced and acquiring, with an imaging device, a production quantity of the first product in the predetermined period and a production quantity of the second product in the predetermined period represent mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra solution activity (claim 1). The limitation reading conversion information for converting a power consumption amount into a CO2 emission amount; represent mere data storage/retrieval, which is an insignificant extra solution activity (claim 3). The processor (claim 1) is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)). Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because JP2016126372 (provided in the 8/3/2023 IDS) discloses that it is well known for companies to calculate gas emissions as environmental loads throughout the supply chain (the supply chain includes production of product), therefore, the pre-solution activity of controlling the production line is well-understood, routine and conventional, the insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, see mpep 2106.05(d), infra applied prior art, references cited. The insignificant extra-solution activity of data storage/retrieval is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, please see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)., infra applied prior art, references cited. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, which cannot provide an inventive concept. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action, is overcome.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117