DETAILED ACTION
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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “our” should read “or”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Evaluating whether a claim is eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 adheres to the following eligibility analysis procedure:
Step 1: The examiner determines whether then claim belongs to a statutory category. See MPEP § 2016(III).
Step 2A, prong 1: The examiner evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(II), a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Step 2A, prong 2: The examiner evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by:
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The examiner evaluates whether the claim provides an inventive concept, also referred to as “significantly more”. This evaluation is performed by:
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they amount to significantly more.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 (a method claim):
Step 2A-I: The claim language recites the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for determining carbon content within the following limitations:
determining one or more carbon content attributions for one or more part assembly and/or manufacturing processes;
determining carbon content related to one or more non-attributable operations.
Step 2A-II: The claim language does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because the mere performance of the algorithm does not itself improve the effectiveness of tracking and reducing carbon emissions. Furthermore, the claim recites additional elements, namely:
importing one or more standardized carbon reporting format (SCARF) files on one or more parts from one or more sub-vendors,
taking one or more inputs from a SCARF input screen, and
aggregating the imported SCARF file information, the determined carbon content attributed to the part assembly or manufacturing processes, the carbon content related to the non-attributable operations, and the one or more inputs into a SCARF output file.
However, elements (i) and (ii) merely constitute necessary data-gathering steps for performing later steps in the algorithm and element (iii) merely recites performing generic computer operations in aggregating data into a file, all of which are to be carried out using generic computer hardware configured to perform generic computer operations in the service of implementing the method. Therefore, these additional elements are insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application on their own.
Step 2B: The claim recites several additional elements as previously discussed. However, the elements (b)(i-ii) are merely necessary data-gathering steps for performing later steps in the algorithm and element (b)(iii) does not go beyond that which is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (Naito et al. (US 20080270409 A1, hereinafter Naito) teaches aggregating data into files, see [0003] — “The process of updating the XML data on server 100 involves downloading the XML data from server 100 by client 200, modifying the downloaded XML data with a specific input tool, and uploading the modified data to the server as XML data.”; Zhang et al. (US 20190205184 A1, hereinafter Zhang) also teaches aggregating data into files, see (see [0010] — “…the method further includes filtering contents of the payload or metadata to modify the payload or metadata based on filtering and transformation criteria…”; [0085] — “…the received JSON payload J2 is added to the JSON payload J3, and the expanded JSON payload J4 is passed to the serverless function manager 212.”), meaning none of the additional elements amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 2-3 are also rejected. Claims 2-3 merely further expand upon the data manipulations performed in the claimed mathematical algorithm and do not recite any further additional elements. Dependent claim 4 is also rejected as while it recites a further additional element, “outputting the SCARF output file to a next tier vendor” does not go beyond that which is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (Paquet et al. (US 20220207161 A1, hereinafter Paquet) teaches sending a file to a subsequent vendor, see [0004] — “…the computer further obfuscates the obfuscated data the trace file and sends the further obfuscated data and trace file to a next randomly selected computer.” Aslot et al. (US 20140229447 A1, hereinafter Aslot) also teaches sending a file to a subsequent vendor, see [0038] — “If the current location is not the Destination and today is the day before Start Date, then send the file and metadata to the next destination on the list.”) which does not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application, as the mere act of sending a file offers no improvement in effectively tracking or reducing carbon emissions, or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 5 (a method claim):
Step 2A-I: The claim language recites the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for determining the energy consumption of the manufacturing process from claim 1.
Step 2A-II: The claim language does not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application as the mere performance of the algorithm offers no improvement to the effectiveness of tracking and reducing carbon emissions. Furthermore, the claim recites four additional elements that go beyond the judicial exception, namely:
taking data readings from the manufacturing process through one or more sensors;
transferring, from the one or more sensors to a digital signal processor, the data readings;
processing the data readings by the digital signal processor;
storing, in a first memory storage, the data readings processed by the digital signal processor;
and storing, in a second memory storage, the energy consumption data determined by the processor.
Elements (i-ii) are necessary data-gathering and transferring steps necessary for the performance of later steps in the algorithm and therefore do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application. Furthermore, elements (iii-v) are merely generic computer components configured to perform generic computer operations in service of carrying out the algorithm and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see Alice v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
Step 2B: As previously discussed, elements (b)(i-v) are either necessary data-gathering and transferring steps necessary for the performance of later steps in the algorithm or generic computer components configured to perform generic computer operations, neither of which amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 6 (a method claim):
Step 2A-I: The claim language recites the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for determining carbon content.
Step 2A-II: The claim language does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because the mere performance of the algorithm does not improve the effectiveness of tracking and reducing carbon emissions. Furthermore, the claim language recites two additional elements, namely:
taking one or more inputs from a SCARF input screen;
aggregating the component carbon footprint values, the determined carbon content attributed to the part assembly or manufacturing processes, the carbon content related to the non-attributable operations, and the one or more inputs into a SCARF output file.
However, element (i) is merely a necessary data-gathering step for performing a later step in the algorithm and element (ii) recites performing generic computer operations in aggregating data into a file, both of which are to be carried out using generic computer hardware configured to perform generic computer operations in the service of implementing the method. Therefore, these additional elements are insufficient to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application on their own.
Step 2B: As previously discussed, element (b)(i) is a necessary data-gathering step and therefore does not amount to significantly more. Furthermore, element (b)(ii) does not go beyond that which is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (Naito teaches aggregating data into files, see [0003] — “The process of updating the XML data on server 100 involves downloading the XML data from server 100 by client 200, modifying the downloaded XML data with a specific input tool, and uploading the modified data to the server as XML data.”; Zhang also teaches aggregating data into files, see (see [0010] — “…the method further includes filtering contents of the payload or metadata to modify the payload or metadata based on filtering and transformation criteria…”; [0085] — “…the received JSON payload J2 is added to the JSON payload J3, and the expanded JSON payload J4 is passed to the serverless function manager 212.”).
Furthermore, the dependent claims 7-8 are also rejected. Claims 7-8 merely further expand upon the data manipulations performed in the claimed mathematical algorithm and do not recite any further additional elements. Dependent claim 9 is also rejected as while it recites a further additional element, “outputting the SCARF output file to a next tier vendor” does not go beyond that which is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (Paquet teaches sending a file to a subsequent vendor, see [0004] — “…the computer further obfuscates the obfuscated data the trace file and sends the further obfuscated data and trace file to a next randomly selected computer.” Aslot also teaches sending a file to a subsequent vendor, see [0038] — “If the current location is not the Destination and today is the day before Start Date, then send the file and metadata to the next destination on the list.”) which does not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application, as the mere act of sending a file offers no improvement in effectively tracking or reducing carbon emissions, or amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 10 (a method claim):
Step 2A-I: The claim language recites the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for determining the energy consumption of the manufacturing process in claim 6.
Step 2A-II: The claim language does not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application as the mere performance of the algorithm offers no improvement to the effectiveness of tracking and reducing carbon emissions. Furthermore, the claim recites four additional elements that go beyond the judicial exception, namely:
taking data readings from the manufacturing process through one or more sensors;
transferring, from the one or more sensors to a digital signal processor, the data readings;
processing the data readings by the digital signal processor;
storing, in a first memory storage, the data readings processed by the digital signal processor;
and storing, in a second memory storage, the energy consumption data determined by the processor.
Elements (i-ii) are necessary data-gathering and transferring steps necessary for the performance of later steps in the algorithm and therefore do not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application. Furthermore, elements (iii-v) are merely generic computer components configured to perform generic computer operations in service of carrying out the algorithm and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see Alice v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)).
Step 2B: As previously discussed, elements (b)(i-v) are either necessary data-gathering and transferring steps necessary for the performance of later steps in the algorithm or generic computer components configured to perform generic computer operations, neither of which amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 11 (an apparatus claim):
Step 2A-I: The claim language recites the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm for determining carbon content related to one or more non-attributable operations and carbon content attributions for one or more part assembly and/or manufacturing processes
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application because the mere performance of the algorithm does not improve the effectiveness of tracking and reducing carbon emissions. Furthermore, the claim language sets forth additional elements, namely:
an input screen, on which a user inputs one or more pieces of carbon content attribution information;
a SCARF constructor file, which receives one or more SCARF files on one or more parts from one or more sub-vendors and receives the user inputs from the input screen;
a SCARF processor which aggregates the imported SCARF file information, the determined carbon content attributed to the part assembly or manufacturing processes, the carbon content related to the non-attributable operations, and the one or more inputs into a SCARF output file.
Element (i) recites an input screen, a generic computer component, itself configured for collecting user input of one or more pieces of carbon content attribution information, which is merely a necessary data-gathering step for performance of the algorithm. Element (ii) recites a SCARF constructor file, a generic computer element, itself configured to receive other files and user input, which is merely a necessary data-gathering step for performance of the algorithm. Element (iii) recites a SCARF processor, a generic computer component, itself configured for performing generic computer operations in aggregating data into a file. Hence, these three additional elements are insufficient to integrate the claimed invention into a practical application on their own.
Step 2B: As previously discussed, elements (b)(i-iii) recite necessary data-gathering steps and/or generic computer elements and/or components configured to perform generic computer operations in the service of implementing the recited algorithm.
Furthermore, the dependent claims 12-13 are also rejected because they merely expand upon the data manipulations to be performed in the execution of the claimed mathematical algorithm and do not set forth any additional elements beyond the abstract idea that would otherwise integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Dependent claim 14 is also rejected as while it recites a further additional element, “outputs a SCARF output file to a next tier vendor” does not go beyond that which is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (Paquet et al. (US 20220207161 A1, hereinafter Paquet) teaches sending a file to a subsequent vendor, see [0004] — “…the computer further obfuscates the obfuscated data the trace file and sends the further obfuscated data and trace file to a next randomly selected computer.” Aslot et al. (US 20140229447 A1, hereinafter Aslot) also teaches sending a file to a subsequent vendor, see [0038] — “If the current location is not the Destination and today is the day before Start Date, then send the file and metadata to the next destination on the list.”) which does not integrate the claimed invention into a practical application, as the mere act of sending a file offers no improvement in effectively tracking or reducing carbon emissions, or amount to significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The limitation "the additional carbon emissions" in the first line of the preamble to the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “the one or more subcomponents” is in the second line of the preamble to the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “the one or more components” is on the second and third lines of the preamble to the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeneboom et al. (US 20220108327 A1, hereinafter Schoeneboom) in view of Kronstadt et al. (US 20230186231 A1, hereinafter Kronstadt) and Zhang (US 20190205184 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
The examiner respectfully points out that Schoeneboom teaches a method for generating carbon content data, comprising:
importing data on one or more parts from one or more sub-vendors (see [0068] — “The input or input unit 10 is configured to receive (i) process data comprising information about the process steps from the required raw materials to the product, (ii) the carbon footprint of each raw material, and (iii) energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step.”; [0069] — “Each group company provides process data 101, 201, the carbon footprint of each raw material 102, 202 and energy data 103, 203 through an interface to consolidation systems 11, 12, 13. The consolidation system 11 consolidates the process data to identify intermediates produced by one group company and used by a different group company. The consolidation system 12 consolidates the carbon footprint of each raw material 102, 202 to arrive at one list of raw material with associated carbon footprint.”);
determining one or more carbon content attributions for one or more part assembly and/or manufacturing processes (see [0015] — “…determining a carbon footprint of a product produced in production process of a production plant… determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data…” wherein a raw material may be any part, see [0024] — “A raw material can be on any step along the value chain…”);
taking one or more inputs (see [0068] — “The input or input unit 10 is configured to receive (i) process data comprising information about the process steps from the required raw materials to the product, (ii) the carbon footprint of each raw material…”) from a SCARF input screen (Fig. 6, #600 teaches a computer with an input screen, see Fig. 6, #612 — “Video display”; the video display may be a touch screen, see [0073] — “a video display unit 612 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD), a cathode ray tube (CRT), or a touch screen)”; a person with ordinary skill in the art would have understood the computer is used to input the process data);
Schoeneboom fails to teach importing one or more standardized carbon reporting format (SCARF) files on one or more parts from one or more sub-vendors, determining carbon content related to one or more non-attributable operations, and aggregating the imported SCARF file information, the determined carbon content attributed to the part assembly or manufacturing processes, the carbon content related to the non-attributable operations, and the one or more inputs into a SCARF output file.
Kronstadt teaches determining carbon content related to one or more non-attributable operations (see [0066] — “The carbon logistics engine determines, via data-analysis, distance from the warehouses to, for instance, an end-user, including elevation data to determine carbon delivery costs…”; the non-attributable carbon cost is shipping). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the method step taught by Kronstadt into the method taught by Schoeneboom to better understand the total carbon content of a product.
Together, the combination of Schoeneboom and Kronstadt teaches aggregating (see Schoeneboom, [0079] — “…utilizing terms such as [aggregating] or the like, refer to the actions and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (e.g., electronic) quantities within the computer system's registers and memories…”) the imported information, the determined carbon content attributed to the part assembly or manufacturing process, the carbon content related to the non-attributable operations, and the one or more inputs into an output (see Schoeneboom, [0015] — “…(d) determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data, and (e) outputting the carbon footprint of the product obtained in step (d), preferably outputting the carbon footprint of the product and/or each contribution to it as obtained in step (d).”) but still fails to teach importing one or more standardized carbon reporting format (SCARF) files on one or more parts from one or more sub-vendors and aggregating the imported SCARF file information, the determined carbon content attributed to the part assembly or manufacturing processes, the carbon content related to the non-attributable operations, and the one or more inputs into a SCARF output file.
Zhang teaches a JSON file (see [0085] — “…the received JSON payload J2 is added to the JSON payload J3…”; a JSON file is a SCARF file per the applicant’s specification, [0057] — “In an embodiment each SCARF format packet may be a separate file, and may be in, for example, a JSON format…”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use JSON files as taught by Zhang when importing carbon footprint data and aggregating together imported information, determined carbon content attributed to the part assembly or manufacturing processes, the carbon content related to the non-attributable operations, and the one or more inputs into an output as taught by the combination of Schoeneboom and Kronstadt because using a JSON file would have provided a viable manner of tracking and recording carbon content data due to its simple, human-readable format and native compatibility with JavaScript (JSON means JavaScript Object Notation).
Regarding claim 4:
The examiner respectfully points out that the combination teaches outputting the SCARF output file (see Schoeneboom, [0016] — “…outputting the carbon footprint of the product obtained in step (d)”; the aggregate SCARF output file would be outputted) and that parts may be passed between vendor tiers (see Schoeneboom [0024] — “A raw material can be on any step along the value chain like the product described above. This means, the product of the one production plant can be the raw material of the other production plant.”) but fails to explicitly teach outputting the SCARF output file to a next tier vendor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the method taught by the combination to send the SCARF output file to a next tier vendor as one vendor passes parts to a subsequent vendor tier as disclosed by Schoeneboom in order to improve the accuracy of tracking carbon content data between subsequent vendors and to better understand the accumulated carbon content of a manufactured product composed of many parts.
Regarding claim 6:
The examiner respectfully points out that the combination further teaches a method for generating a standard format carbon content data structure, comprising:
determining one or more subcomponent carbon footprint values (see Schoeneboom, [0015] — “…determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data…”; the product may be a subcomponent for another product, see Schoeneboom, [0023] — “The term “product” as used in the present invention generally refers to any good which can be sold to others at any point in the value chain. This may include final products for end consumers, for example cars, paints, toys or medicaments; this may also include goods which are typically sold to other companies which further process them”) based on a carbon footprint associated with the one or more subcomponents (see Schoeneboom, [0015] — “…determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data…”) and associating the subcomponent carbon footprint value with the subcomponent through a subcomponent identifier (see Schoeneboom, [0061] — “In some embodiments, the present invention further relates to an apparatus configured for or a method for providing the carbon footprint obtained by the method of the present invention in connection with a product identifier.”);
determining a component carbon footprint value for one or more components comprised of at least one of the one or more subcomponents (see Schoeneboom, [0015] — “…determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data…”; the product may be a subcomponent for another product, see Schoeneboom, [0023] — “The term “product” as used in the present invention generally refers to any good which can be sold to others at any point in the value chain. This may include final products for end consumers, for example cars, paints, toys or medicaments; this may also include goods which are typically sold to other companies which further process them”), wherein the component carbon footprint value is the combination of the carbon footprint value of each subcomponent (see Schoeneboom, [0015] — “…determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data…”) combined with an additional carbon emissions caused by manufacturing and/or assembling of the one or more subcomponents into the one or more components (see Schoeneboom, [0015] — “…determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data…”; energy data is the energy consumption for the process, see Schoeneboom, [0015] — “gathering energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step…”);
determining carbon content related to one or more non-attributable operations (see Kronstadt, [0066] — “The carbon logistics engine determines, via data-analysis, distance from the warehouses to, for instance, an end-user, including elevation data to determine carbon delivery costs…”; the non-attributable carbon cost is shipping);
taking one or more inputs (see [0068] — “The input or input unit 10 is configured to receive (i) process data comprising information about the process steps from the required raw materials to the product, (ii) the carbon footprint of each raw material…”) from a SCARF input screen (Fig. 6, #600 teaches a computer with an input screen, see Fig. 6, #612 — “Video display”; the video display may be a touch screen, see [0073] — “a video display unit 612 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD), a cathode ray tube (CRT), or a touch screen)”; a person with ordinary skill in the art would have understood the computer is used to input the process data);
aggregating (see Schoeneboom, [0079] — “…utilizing terms such as [aggregating] or the like, refer to the actions and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (e.g., electronic) quantities within the computer system's registers and memories…”) the component carbon footprint values, the determined carbon content attributed to the part assembly or manufacturing processes, the carbon content related to the non-attributable operations, and the one or more inputs into a SCARF output file (see Zhang, [0085] — “…the received JSON payload J2 is added to the JSON payload J3…”; Schoeneboom, [0015] — “…(d) determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data, and (e) outputting the carbon footprint of the product obtained in step (d), preferably outputting the carbon footprint of the product and/or each contribution to it as obtained in step (d).”; the data would be aggregated in memory and put in a SCARF output file).
Regarding claim 9:
The examiner respectfully points out that the combination further teaches outputting the SCARF output file (see Schoeneboom, [0016] — “…outputting the carbon footprint of the product obtained in step (d)”; the aggregate SCARF output file would be outputted) and that parts may be passed between vendor tiers (see Schoeneboom [0024] — “A raw material can be on any step along the value chain like the product described above. This means, the product of the one production plant can be the raw material of the other production plant.”) but fails to explicitly teach outputting the SCARF output file to a next tier vendor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the method taught by the combination to send the SCARF output file to a next tier vendor as one vendor passes parts to a subsequent vendor tier as disclosed by Schoeneboom in order to improve the accuracy of tracking carbon content data between subsequent vendors and to better understand the accumulated carbon content of a manufactured product composed of many parts.
Regarding claim 11:
The examiner respectfully points out that the combination teaches a system for generating a standard format carbon content data structure, comprising:
an input screen, on which a user inputs one or more pieces of carbon content attribution information (see Schoeneboom, [0068] — “The input or input unit 10 is configured to receive (i) process data comprising information about the process steps from the required raw materials to the product, (ii) the carbon footprint of each raw material…”; Schoeneboom, Fig. 6, #600 teaches a computer with an input screen, see Fig. 6, #612 — “Video display”; the video display may be a touch screen, see [0073] — “a video display unit 612 (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD), a cathode ray tube (CRT), or a touch screen)”; a person with ordinary skill in the art would have understood the computer is used to input the process data);
a SCARF constructor file (a SCARF constructor file is a JSON file, per the applicant’s specification, see [0060] — “The SCARF constructor file 904 may be a JSON file that renders all of the data taken from the input screen 902.”), which receives one or more SCARF files on one or more parts from one or more sub-vendors and receives the user inputs from the input screen (see the method taught by Zhang for aggregating a SCARF file together with carbon data, [0010] — “…the method further includes filtering contents of the payload or metadata to modify the payload or metadata based on filtering and transformation criteria…”; SCARF files would be modified with the carbon data and user inputs and then aggregated together, see Zhang, [0085] — “…the received JSON payload J2 is added to the JSON payload J3...”; a SCARF constructor file would receive one or more SCARF files and the user inputs in the aggregation process);
and a SCARF processor (see Schoeneboom, Fig. 6, #602) which determines carbon content related to one or more non-attributable operations (see Kronstadt, [0066] — “The carbon logistics engine determines, via data-analysis, distance from the warehouses to, for instance, an end-user, including elevation data to determine carbon delivery costs…”; the non-attributable carbon cost is shipping) and carbon content attributions for one or more part assembly and/or manufacturing processes (see [0015] — “…determining a carbon footprint of a product produced in production process of a production plant… determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data…” wherein a raw material may be any part, see [0024] — “A raw material can be on any step along the value chain…”), and aggregates (see Schoeneboom, [0079] — “…utilizing terms such as [aggregating] or the like, refer to the actions and processes of a computer system, or similar electronic computing device, that manipulates and transforms data represented as physical (e.g., electronic) quantities within the computer system's registers and memories…”) the imported SCARF file information, the determined carbon content attributed to the part assembly or manufacturing processes, the carbon content related to the non-attributable operations, and the one or more inputs into a SCARF output file (see Zhang, [0085] — “…the received JSON payload J2 is added to the JSON payload J3...”; Schoeneboom, [0015] — “…(d) determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data, and (e) outputting the carbon footprint of the product obtained in step (d), preferably outputting the carbon footprint of the product and/or each contribution to it as obtained in step (d).”; the data would be aggregated in memory and put in a SCARF output file).
Regarding claim 14:
The examiner respectfully points out that the combination further teaches outputting the SCARF output file (see Schoeneboom, [0016] — “…outputting the carbon footprint of the product obtained in step (d)”; the aggregate SCARF output file would be outputted) and that parts may be passed between vendor tiers (see Schoeneboom [0024] — “A raw material can be on any step along the value chain like the product described above. This means, the product of the one production plant can be the raw material of the other production plant.”) but fails to explicitly teach outputting the SCARF output file to a next tier vendor. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the method taught the combination to send the SCARF output file to a next tier vendor as one vendor passes parts to a subsequent vendor tier as disclosed by Schoeneboom in order to improve the accuracy of tracking carbon content data between subsequent vendors and to better understand the accumulated carbon content of a manufactured product composed of many parts.
Claims 2, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schoeneboom (US 20220108327 A1), Kronstadt (US 20230186231 A1), and Zhang (US 20190205184 A1) in view of Vollmert et al. (US 20220076182 A1, hereinafter Vollmert).
Regarding claim 2:
The examiner respectfully points out that the combination further teaches wherein the one or more non-attributable operations includes shipping (see Kronstadt, [0066] — “The carbon logistics engine determines, via data-analysis, distance from the warehouses to, for instance, an end-user, including elevation data to determine carbon delivery costs…”; the non-attributable carbon cost is shipping).
The combination fails to teach wherein the one or more non-attributable operations includes HV/AC and lighting.
Vollmert teaches determining the carbon content related to HV/AC and lighting (see [0026] — “The web-based analytics system also imports indirect carbon data from an environmental compliance system. The indirect carbon footprint data can include, for example, HVAC, lighting, and other costs from a plant or facility where the product is manufactured.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include determining the carbon content of HV/AC and lighting by importing such data as taught by Vollmert into the determination of non-attributable operations taught by the combination to improve the accuracy on the total carbon content related to a part.
Regarding claim 7:
The examiner respectfully points out that the combination further teaches wherein the one or more non-attributable operations includes shipping (see Kronstadt, [0066] — “The carbon logistics engine determines, via data-analysis, distance from the warehouses to, for instance, an end-user, including elevation data to determine carbon delivery costs…”; the non-attributable carbon cost is shipping).
The combination fails to teach wherein the one or more non-attributable operations includes HV/AC and lighting.
Vollmert teaches determining the carbon content related to HV/AC and lighting (see [0026] — “The web-based analytics system also imports indirect carbon data from an environmental compliance system. The indirect carbon footprint data can include, for example, HVAC, lighting, and other costs from a plant or facility where the product is manufactured.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include determining the carbon content of HV/AC and lighting by importing such data as taught by Vollmert into the determination of non-attributable operations taught by the combination to improve the accuracy on the total carbon content related to a part.
Regarding claim 12:
The examiner respectfully points out that the combination further teaches wherein the one or more non-attributable operations includes shipping (see Kronstadt, [0066] — “The carbon logistics engine determines, via data-analysis, distance from the warehouses to, for instance, an end-user, including elevation data to determine carbon delivery costs…”; the non-attributable carbon cost is shipping).
The combination fails to teach wherein the one or more non-attributable operations includes HV/AC and lighting.
Vollmert teaches determining the carbon content related to HV/AC and lighting (see [0026] — “The web-based analytics system also imports indirect carbon data from an environmental compliance system. The indirect carbon footprint data can include, for example, HVAC, lighting, and other costs from a plant or facility where the product is manufactured.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include determining the carbon content of HV/AC and lighting by importing such data as taught by Vollmert into the determination of non-attributable operations taught by the combination to improve the accuracy on the total carbon content related to a part.
Claims 3, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schoeneboom (US 20220108327 A1), Kronstadt (US 20230186231 A1), and Zhang (US 20190205184 A1) in view of Kienzle, Stefan (US 20130151303 A1, hereinafter Kienzle).
Regarding claim 3:
The combination fails to teach wherein one or more of the inputs taken from the SCARF input screen are inherited.
Kienzle teaches tracking inherited carbon footprint data (see [0022] — “The carbon footprint embedded within the component is stored in carbon footprint restriction database 116. Some components are assembled together in a sub-assembly. This sub-assembly inherit the carbon footprint of the single build in components and so on. The carbon information is stored cumulated within a material master stock inventory or a warehouse management storage area. As such, the restriction module 106 is capable of tracking the carbon footprint of a manufacturing process in real time.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to track inherited carbon footprint data of a part as taught by Kienzle and input it into the SCARF input screen taught by the combination to better track the total carbon footprint of more-complex parts as they pass between vendors.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination fails to teach wherein one or more of the inputs taken from the SCARF input screen are inherited.
Kienzle teaches tracking inherited carbon footprint data (see [0022] — “The carbon footprint embedded within the component is stored in carbon footprint restriction database 116. Some components are assembled together in a sub-assembly. This sub-assembly inherit the carbon footprint of the single build in components and so on. The carbon information is stored cumulated within a material master stock inventory or a warehouse management storage area. As such, the restriction module 106 is capable of tracking the carbon footprint of a manufacturing process in real time.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to track inherited carbon footprint data of a part as taught by Kienzle and input it into the SCARF input screen taught by the combination to better track the total carbon footprint of more-complex parts as they pass between vendors.
Regarding claim 13:
The combination fails to teach wherein one or more of the inputs taken from the SCARF input screen are inherited.
Kienzle teaches tracking inherited carbon footprint data (see [0022] — “The carbon footprint embedded within the component is stored in carbon footprint restriction database 116. Some components are assembled together in a sub-assembly. This sub-assembly inherit the carbon footprint of the single build in components and so on. The carbon information is stored cumulated within a material master stock inventory or a warehouse management storage area. As such, the restriction module 106 is capable of tracking the carbon footprint of a manufacturing process in real time.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to track inherited carbon footprint data of a part as taught by Kienzle and input it into the SCARF input screen taught by the combination to better track the total carbon footprint of more-complex parts as they pass between vendors.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schoeneboom (US 20220108327 A1), Kronstadt (US 20230186231 A1), and Zhang (US 20190205184 A1) in view of Ikeda, Koichiro (US 20230131656 A1, hereinafter Ikeda).
Regarding claim 5:
While rejected under 35 USC 112(b), for the purpose of compact prosecution the examiner will assume “the additional carbon emissions” to be the carbon content attributions for one or more part assembly and/or manufacturing processes as recited in claim 1. Similarly, “the one or more subcomponents” is assumed to mean the one or more parts recited in claim 1, wherein “the one or more components” are assumed to be the product of the recited one or more part assembly and/or manufacturing processes.
The examiner respectfully points out that the combination further teaches wherein the additional carbon emissions caused by the manufacturing and/or assembling of the one or more subcomponents into the one or more components are determined by:
taking data readings from the manufacturing process through one or more sensors (see Schoeneboom, [0042] — “The energy data can also be available directly or indirectly from the energy source, for example a power plant having sensors attached to a processing system which provides its information through an interface.”);
transferring, from the one or more sensors to a digital signal processor (see Schoeneboom, [0019] — “…(b) a processor or processing unit configured to determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the at least one of the information gathered in step (a)…”), the data readings (see Schoeneboom, [0019] — “…(a) an input or input unit configured to receive (i) process data comprising information about the process steps from the required raw materials to the product, (ii) the carbon footprint of each raw material, and/or (iii) energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step…”; the processor would be in the computer, see Schoeneboom, Fig. 6 #602);
storing, in a first memory storage (see Schoeneboom, Fig. 6 #604), the data readings received by the digital signal processor (it is inherent that intermediary data is stored in volatile memory);
determining energy consumption of the manufacturing process based on data readings by a processor (see Schoeneboom, [0052] — “To arrive at the total carbon footprint of the product, the contribution of the raw materials and the contribution of the energy is added. Hence, preferably determining the carbon footprint of the product comprises determining the contribution of the energy in each process step and add shares of it according to the process data.”; the contribution of energy to the carbon footprint is energy consumed);
and storing, in a second memory storage (see Schoeneboom, Fig. 6 #606), the energy consumption data determined by the processor (a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the fully-processed data would be stored in static memory to prevent data loss).
The combination does not teach processing the data readings by the digital signal processor.
Ikeda teaches processing data reading by a processor to remove noise (see [0019] — “An AD converter 107 performs noise removal processing, gain adjustment processing, and AD conversion processing on the electric signal output…”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform noise removal as taught by Ikeda, before storing in the first memory storage, the data transferred to the digital signal processor to better determine the energy consumption by ensuring a cleaner signal when the calculations are performed.
Regarding claim 10:
The examiner respectfully points out that the combination further teaches wherein the additional carbon emissions caused by the manufacturing and/or assembling of the one or more subcomponents into the one or more components are determined by:
taking data readings from the manufacturing process through one or more sensors (see Schoeneboom, [0042] — “The energy data can also be available directly or indirectly from the energy source, for example a power plant having sensors attached to a processing system which provides its information through an interface.”);
transferring, from the one or more sensors to a digital signal processor (see Schoeneboom, [0019] — “…(b) a processor or processing unit configured to determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the at least one of the information gathered in step (a)…”), the data readings (see Schoeneboom, [0019] — “…(a) an input or input unit configured to receive (i) process data comprising information about the process steps from the required raw materials to the product, (ii) the carbon footprint of each raw material, and/or (iii) energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step…”; the processor would be in the computer, see Schoeneboom, Fig. 6 #602);
storing, in a first memory storage (see Schoeneboom, Fig. 6 #604), the data readings received by the digital signal processor (it is inherent that intermediary processed data is stored in volatile memory);
determining energy consumption of the manufacturing process based on the processed data readings by a processor (see Schoeneboom, [0052] — “Alternatively, preferably, the contribution of the energy for the product is determined for the product independent of the raw materials. To achieve this, the energy contribution for each process step is added according to the process data… To arrive at the total carbon footprint of the product, the contribution of the raw materials and the contribution of the energy is added. Hence, preferably determining the carbon footprint of the product comprises determining the contribution of the energy in each process step and add shares of it according to the process data.”);
and storing, in a second memory storage (see Schoeneboom, Fig. 6 #606), the energy consumption data determined by the processor (a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood the fully-processed data would be stored in static memory to prevent data loss).
The combination does not teach processing the data readings by the digital signal processor.
Ikeda teaches processing data reading by a processor to remove noise (see [0019] — “An AD converter 107 performs noise removal processing, gain adjustment processing, and AD conversion processing on the electric signal output…”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform noise removal as taught by Ikeda, before storing in the first memory storage, the data transferred to the digital signal processor to better determine the energy consumption by ensuring a cleaner signal when the calculations are performed.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Xie et al. (US 20220108395 A1), System and Method for Carbon Emissions Exposure Determination
Sarma et al. (US 20240257150 A1), Integrated Carbon Emissions Management Platform
The examiner used the above prior art to better contextualize the claimed invention within the scope of contemporary art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN JAMES STEAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8334. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 EST/EDT.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/RYAN JAMES STEAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857