DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Remarks and Amendments filed 02/18/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4 have been amended.
Claims 5-7 are newly added.
Claims 1-7 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119(b) is acknowledged.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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
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 (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance outlined in the MPEP 2106, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1 and 5:
calculating, based on the energy consumption information, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions based on the information on the amount of energy used; and
managing information on greenhouse gas emissions entered by a business terminal of a second business that is different from the first business as the greenhouse gas emissions of the first business.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the groups Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations) and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, the calculating step, as drafted, is a mathematical concept and the “managing” step appears to be directed towards some type of risk mitigation associated with greenhouse gas emisssions thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Furthermore, there is no particular hardware necessary to carry out these steps except a generic “business terminal” [computer] for data entry but such generic computer component does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated groupings. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts using generic computer components (e.g. use of “a business terminal” [computer] for the purpose of data entry/data-gathering) and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case mitigating costs/risk through managing greenhouse gas emissions) or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data-gathering such as the “input information by a business terminal” [input via a computer]). The claimed computer components (i.e. the “business terminal(s)”) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows: “determining energy consumption information of a first business based on input information from a business terminal of the first business; … registering a second business that is different from the first business as a guest account associated with the first business for managing greenhouse gas emissions, including storing scope information that specifies whether greenhouse gas emissions information to be submitted by the second business is to be treated as Scope 2 emissions or Scope 3 emissions of the first business; receiving, from a business terminal of the second business, greenhouse gas emissions information including an amount of greenhouse gas emissions of the second business;…”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “determining energy consumption information”; instead, at this very high-level of generality, this step appears to be mere data-gathering; i.e. a step akin to “receiving” or “gathering” generic energy consumption information via use of a business terminal (e.g. a generic computer or phone connected to a network, etc… per Specification [0026]). Additionally, applicant’s invention is not a technique of “registering” per se. This “registering” step is also seen as insignificant pre-solution activity. Similarly, the “storing” of information is generic in the sense that the invention is not a technique of “storing” nor an improvement to storage technology or databases. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features at this very high-level of generality merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts through use of a generic device such as a “business terminal” [computer] or are insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data-gathering or storage of received data) as relates to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. by one or more business terminals) and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. in this case mitigating costs/risk through generic management of greenhouse gas emissions), or as insignificant pre-solution or extra-solution activity as already noted supra. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (e.g. computer-implemented method) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claims 2 recites the following: “The management method according to claim 1, wherein the second business is a business in the supply chain of the first business..” However, this description of a general type of relationship between two businesses may serve to provide context for the implementation of the abstract idea but it does not make it non abstract and it is not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dilip (U.S. 2016/0055596 A1; hereinafter, "Dilip") in view of Jeong (U.S. 2011/0218892 A1; hereinafter, "Jeong").
Claims 1, 5: (Currently amended / New)
Pertaining to claims 1 and 5, exemplified in the limitations of claim 1, Dilip as shown teaches the following:
A computer-implemented method for managing greenhouse gas emissions, the method comprising:
determining energy consumption information of a first business based on input information from a business terminal of the first business (Dilip, see Figs. 1-3 and at least [0006]-[0007] and [0038], e.g.: “…The carbon emissions management application receives an input from the user on the course of entries at each step in terms of valuation and an accounting model used for calculation of carbon emissions…”; see also [0049]-[0050]);
calculating, based on the energy consumption information, an amount of greenhouse gas emissions of the first business and storing greenhouse gas emissions information of the first business including the calculated amount as Scope 1 emissions information of the first business; (Dilip, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0007], teaching, e.g.: “…The carbon emissions management application converts the GHG emission data into carbon and carbon dioxide equivalents for reporting purposes. The GHG protocol categorizes the direct and indirect emissions into three broad scopes, that is, scope 1 emission, scope 2 emissions, and
scope 3 emissions…”; see also at least [0049]-[0050], teaching: “…The carbon emissions management application categorizes the real time emission data 101 from the detectors as scope 1 emission as defined by the greenhouse gas (GHG) protocol… The carbon emissions management application performs analytics 104 using the real time emission data 101 obtained from detectors via the communication protocol, user information 103, for example, scope 2 emissions such as emissions resulting from purchased electricity, heat, steam, etc., and supply chain data 102, for example, scope 3 emissions such as emissions resulting from the extraction and production of purchased materials and fuels from the suppliers… The carbon emissions management application generates analytical reports 105 associated with the emission data and stores the analytical reports 105 in an entity's existing enterprise resource planning (ERP) system via an application programming interface (API)…”); and
registering a second business […] associated with the first business for managing greenhouse gas emissions, including storing scope information that specifies whether greenhouse gas emissions information to be submitted by the second business is to be treated as Scope 2 emissions or Scope 3 emissions of the first business (Dilip, see citations noted supra, including again at least Fig. 2 regarding sub-business unit Toronto Operation-1 [second business]; and per [0069]-[0079], teaching, e.g. a first business such as a corporation may also register “sub-business units” where an interface is provided for “…defining information about sub-business units of a given organization. c) Emission Sources: Helps defining/initializing various GHG sources which will be computed during defined accounting period. Emission Sources Screen: Description: This is one of the important screens which help a firm (Sub business units) to define all emission sources for Scope 1-Direct Emissions, Scope2-Indirect Emissions, Scope3-Indirect Emissions…”)
receiving, from a business terminal of the second business, greenhouse gas emissions information including an amount of greenhouse gas emissions of the second business; and updating the greenhouse gas emissions information of the first business to include the amount of greenhouse gas emissions received from the second business as Scope 2 emissions or Scope 3 emissions of the first business based on the scope information (Dilip, see citations noted supra, including again [0069]-[0070]: “…Emission Sources Screen: Description: This is one of the important screens which help a firm (Sub business units) to define all emission sources for Scope 1-Direct Emissions, Scope2-Indirect Emissions, Scope3-Indirect Emissions…”; and also at least [0096]-[0100]: “…Report: This section will help understand various emission factors in fancy bar graphs. (a) Your organization's greenhouse gas emission by year. (b) Your organization's (according to sub business units [updated information from second business]) emissions compared to your reduction target. (c) Your organization's emissions tabulated by source and business unit [second business], per year….”; and again e.g. per Fig. 2: the reporting is updated for the corporation to including Toronto Operation-1 [second business] which has provided information regarding GHG emissions including CO2 equivalent [an amount] for various GHG emissions sources and some of these are categorized as Scope 3, e.g. for type “Garbage” and “papers”, etc…
PNG
media_image1.png
230
806
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
336
796
media_image2.png
Greyscale
);
Although Dilip teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends and teaches registration of sub-unit businesses [second businesses] of a corporation, which may also provide GHG emissions information, Dilip may not explicitly teach his sub-business units are registered as a “guest account”. However, Dilip in view of Jeong teaches the following:
[second business] that is different from the first business as a guest account (Jeong, see at least Fig. 2 e.g. #150 “Guest account generating unit” and applicable disclosure, e.g. [0070]-[0072], teaching, a user [e.g. first business] may provide information to the system such that the “guest account generating unit” may generate a guest account for a guest user [second business])
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Jeong which is applicable to a known base device/method of Dilip to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Jeong to the device/method of Dilip such that Dilip’s sub-business units may likewise be registered as a guest account [guest account] via the techniques of Jeong because Jeong is pertinent to the objective of Dilip and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 2: (Original)
Dilip/Jeong teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown Dilip teaches the following: The management method according to claim 1, wherein the second business is a business in the supply chain of the first business (Dilip, see citations noted supra, including also at least Abstract, Fig. 4, [0008], [0136], etc… teaching, e.g.: “…The CEMA performs analytics using the RTED obtained from the detectors, that is, scope 1 emissions, user information, that is, scope 2 emissions resulting from purchased electricity, heat, etc., and supply chain data, that is, scope 3 emissions resulting from extraction and production of purchased materials from suppliers…”; Therefore, examiner finds that Dilip contemplates accounting for the carbon emissions of both sub-business units [second businesses] as well as of business which are suppliers in the supply chain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, e.g. via substitution, to recognize that one of Dilip’s sub-units may be a supplier and therefore a business in the supply chain of the parent corporation because MPEP 2143(I) (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious; and/or because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Claim 3: (Currently amended)
Dilip/Jeong teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Dilip/Jeong teaches the following: The management method according to claim 1, wherein registering the second business includes storing, in association with a business identifier of the second business, guest account information indicating that the second business is authorized as a guest account of the first business (Jeong, see at least Fig. 2 e.g. #150 “Guest account generating unit” and applicable disclosure, e.g. [0013]-[0014] and [0070]-[0072], teaching, a user [e.g. first business] may provide information to the system such that the “guest account generating unit” may generate a guest account [guest account information indicating that the second business is authorized as a guest account of the first business] for a guest user based on identifier [e.g. business identifier]; e.g. [0013]: “The guest account generating unit may generate a guest account dependent on the user account when the user information is input as identifier (ID) information and the guest information is input as a password…”)
Claim 4: (Currently amended)
Dilip/Jeong teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Dilip teaches the following: The management method according to claim 1, further comprising: generating a report based on the greenhouse gas emissions information of the first business, the report showing a breakdown of emissions by scope over time (Dilip, see citations noted supra, including again at least Fig. 2 depicting a breakdown of emissions by scope 1, 2, and 3 per year; e.g reporting year 2010 only Scope 1 emissions; reporting year 2013 Scope 1 and 3 emissions.)
Claim 6: (New)
Dilip/Jeong teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Dilip teaches the following: The management method according to claim 5, wherein the emissions category information specifies whether the greenhouse gas emissions information to be submitted by the second business is to be treated as Scope 2 emissions or Scope 3 emissions of the first business, and wherein the first indirect emissions category corresponds to Scope 2 emissions and the second indirect emissions category corresponds to Scope 3 emissions (Dilip, see citations noted supra, including again [0007] and [0069]-[0070]: “…Emission Sources Screen: Description: This is one of the important screens which help a firm (Sub business units) to define all emission sources for Scope 1-Direct Emissions, Scope2-Indirect Emissions, Scope3-Indirect Emissions…”; where per [0007]: “…The scope 1 emissions comprise direct GHG emissions from the detectors. The scope 2 emissions comprise indirect GHG emissions resulting from consumption of purchased electricity, heat, steam, etc. The carbon score for scope 2 emissions are calculated, for example, based on the amount of purchased electricity. The scope 3 emissions comprise other indirect emissions resulting from, for example, extraction and production of purchased materials and fuels, transport-related activities in automobiles not owned or controlled by a reporting entity, electricity-related activities such as transmission and distribution losses not covered under scope 2 emissions, outsourced activities, waste disposal, etc….”; and see also at least [0096]-[0100])
Claim 7: (New)
Dilip/Jeong teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, Dilip teaches the following: The management method according to claim 5, further comprising generating a report based on the greenhouse gas emissions information of the first business, the report showing a breakdown of emissions by emissions category over time (Dilip, see citations noted supra, including again at least Fig. 2 depicting a breakdown of emissions by scope 1, 2, and 3 per year; e.g reporting year 2010 only Scope 1 emissions; reporting year 2013 Scope 1 and 3 emissions.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 4 and added new claims 5-7 on 02/18/2026. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 02/18/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 35 USC 101 and 103 rejections with Dilip in view of Jeong.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621