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 Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on August 7, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 15-20 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 1-14 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-20 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
Claim 15 (representative of independent claim(s) 1 and 8) recites the following steps:
obtaining product data including a quantity of a product, components of the product, and activities for the product;
obtaining emission factor data for the components indicating a carbon dioxide impact of the components per unit;
calculating one or more emissions footprints for the product, for each component, and/or for each activity based on a time period, the quantity, the components, the activities, and the emission factor data, each of the one or more emissions footprints indicating an amount of carbon dioxide per unit for the product, a corresponding component or a corresponding activity;
storing the one or more emissions footprints
publishing an event message wherein the event message includes:
identifiers of the one or more emissions footprints, a notification that the one or more emissions footprints have been calculated, and an indication of a topic endpoint associated with the product, and wherein upon receiving the event message, emits the event message to the one or more subscriber
These steps, these steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) providing one or more calculated emission footprints for a time period (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas
Alternatively, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mathematical relationships. These limitations therefore fall within the “mathematical concepts” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 15 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 1 and 8 are determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
computer system
data store accessible by the computer system;
to an event broker system, the event broker system being another computer system separate from the computer system
wherein the event broker system mediates communication between the computer system and one or more subscriber computer systems subscribed to the topic endpoint
A computer system, comprising: one or more processors; one or more machine-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing computer program code comprising sets of instructions executable by the one or more processors
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program code comprising sets of instructions executable by a computer system to:
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims:
Dependent claims 5-7, 12-14, 19 and 20 fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2-4, 9-11, and 16- 18 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
one subscriber computer system
event broker system
via an application programming interface
a product requestion application
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shukla et al. (2024/0202614) in view of Schoeneboom et al. (2022/0108326).
Claim 1, 8 and 15
Shukla discloses:
one or more processors; one or more machine-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing computer program code comprising sets of instructions executable by the one or more processors to (Shukla [0088]):
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program code comprising sets of instructions executable by a computer system to (Shukla [0091]):
obtain product data including a quantity of a product (Shukla [0053]); See at least “process calculates an amount of material and an amount of energy that are consumed when manufacturing a product according to the manufacturing process.”
obtain emission factor data for the components indicating a carbon dioxide impact of the components per unit (Shukla [0021][0035]); See [0035] “CO2 emission factor of material (212) is a processing step that involves determining the CO2 emission factor for each material [components] used in the manufacturing process.”
calculate one or more emissions footprints for the product, for each component, and/or for each activity based on a time period, the quantity, the components, the activities, and the emission factor data, each of the one or more emissions footprints indicating an amount of carbon dioxide per unit for the product, a corresponding component, or a corresponding activity (Shukla [0035]); See at least “CO2 emission factor of material (212) is a processing step that involves determining the CO2 emission factor for each material used in the manufacturing process.”See also [0062]- [0069] Where the reference teaches the facilitating of one or more materials. Examiner interprets the one or more materials to make up the product as in Figure 5 and 6. See paragraph [0070] “Each input field and selection option feeds into the carbon emissions calculating algorithms, resulting in an estimation of the total CO2 emissions for the product being manufactured.” See [0063] “Select Quarter” for the time period. See [0062] “Select Material” for quantity. See [0066] “Select Billet Type” for components. See [0067] “Factor for Mill Processing” for activities. See [0065] for ”Select Basis for Estimation” emission factor data.
store the one or more emissions footprints in a data store accessible by the computer system (Shukla [0030]); See at least “Carbon emissions computing system (110) of FIG. 1 processes the data, potentially performing validations to ensure that the data falls within expected ranges or conforms to certain formats. The data may then be stored in data repository (116) of FIG. 1 for later retrieval and processing.”
publish an event message to an event broker system, the event broker system being another computer system separate from the computer system, wherein the event message includes: identifiers of the one or more emissions footprints, a notification that the one or more emissions footprints have been calculated, and an indication of a topic endpoint associated with the product, wherein the event broker system mediates communication between the computer system and one or more subscriber computer systems subscribed to the topic endpoint, and wherein upon receiving the event message, the event broker system emits the event message to the one or more subscriber computer systems. (Shukla [0094][0003][0078][Figure 6]). See at least [0078] “The report shown in of FIG. 6 showcases a CO2 emissions report. This report can be generated by the reporting and analytics service (126) of the carbon emissions application (112), and exhibited on the graphical user interface (114).” See also [0094] “The computing system of FIG. 7A may include functionality to present raw and/or processed data [calculated emissions data], such as results of comparisons and other processing. For example, presenting data may be accomplished through various presenting methods. Specifically, data may be presented by being displayed in a user interface, transmitted to a different computing system, and stored.”
each of the emissions footprints indicating an amount of carbon dioxide per unit for a corresponding product, material, or activity (Shukla [0082]); See “The table also shows a percentage share of each energy source [material], CO2 emissions per kilowatt-hour for each source [material], and a weighted CO2 emissions considering the energy mix
(Shukla
Shukla does not explicitly teach obtain product data including, components of the product, and activities for the product. Schoeneboom teaches:
obtain product data including, components of the product, and activities for the product (Schoeneboom [0015]); See at least (a) gathering process data comprising information about the process steps from the required raw materials to the product, and/or (b) gathering the carbon footprint of each raw material, and/or (c) gathering energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step, (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.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of obtaining product data to calculate an emissions footprint, as taught by Shukla, the inclusion of obtaining product data including, components of the product, and activities for the product, as taught by Schoeneboom, so that all relevant contributions are taken into account to provide a complete emissions calculation for products manufactured in a plant (Schoeneboom [0005]).
Claims 2, 9 and 16
Modified Shukla discloses the following:
receive, from at least one subscriber computer system that has consumed the event message from the event broker system, an application programming interface (API) request message that includes an identifier of at least one emissions footprint included in the event message and a request to fetch the at least one emissions footprint (Shukla [0028]). See at least “the calculation might be performed by a dedicated computational module within the server's software architecture, which could use data provided by the user or fetched from integrated systems, like emissions reduction plan (ERP) or manufacturing execution systems (MES), via application programming interfaces (APIs).”
Claims 3, 10 and 17
Modified Shukla discloses the following:
transmit an API response message to the at least one subscriber computer system in response to the API request message, the API response message including the at least one emissions footprint (Shukla [Figure 4]). See “select Material” which identifies the product and “Select Quarter” for time period. See [0069] for publishing the event.
Claim 4, 11 and 18
Modified Shukla discloses the following:
at least one subscriber computer system executes a product requisition application, (Shukla [0028]), See “the calculation might be performed by a dedicated computational module [subscriber computer system] within the server's software architecture, which could use data provided by the user or fetched from integrated systems, like emissions reduction plan (ERP) or manufacturing execution systems (MES), via application programming interfaces (APis).”
Shukla does not explicitly teach a manufacturing plant-based emission footprint. Schoeneboom teaches:
wherein the one or more emissions footprints include a manufacturing plant-based emission footprint or a supplier-based emission footprint (Schoeneboom [0014][0026]). See “It is an objective to provide a method for determining the carbon footprint of a product based on the actual situation of the production processes in a production plant at a given point in time, in particular in production plants with interconnected production processes.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of obtaining product data to calculate an emissions footprint, as taught by Shukla, the embodiment of a manufacturing plant-based emission footprint, as taught by Schoeneboom, so that all relevant contributions are taken into account to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (Schoeneboom [0003][0005]).
Claims 5, 12 and 19
Modified Shukla discloses the following:
wherein event message further includes the time period and the product data (Shukla [Figure 4]). See “Select Material” which identifies the product and “Select Quarter” for time period. See [0069] for publishing the event.
Claim 6 and 13
Modified Shukla discloses the limitations above but does not explicitly disclose emissions footprints based on a manufacturing process. Schoeneboom teaches:
wherein calculating of the one or more emissions footprints is based on a manufacturing process, material acquisition from particular suppliers, and emissions due to transportation (Schoeneboom [0060][0064]). See [0060] “the present invention further relates to the use of the carbon footprint obtained by a method of the present invention for calculating and/or optimizing carbon footprints of downstream products.’ See also [0064] “the system or apparatus according to the present invention comprises (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 [manufacturing process]… The input or input unit may comprise an interface to a consolidation system which collects process data from different production plant(s). The consolidation system consolidates the process data to identify intermediates produced by different production plants.[ information from different data systems of the different production plants.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of obtaining product data to calculate an emissions footprint, as taught by Shukla, the embodiment of a manufacturing plant-based emission footprint, as taught by Schoeneboom, so that all relevant contributions are taken into account to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (Schoeneboom [0003][0005]).
Claim 7 and 20
Modified Shukla discloses the limitations above but does not explicitly mapping data. Schoeneboom teaches:
map the emission factor data for the components to the components of the product; and map activity emission factor data to the activities for the product (Schoeneboom [0066]). See “The user interface may also provide the carbon footprint for each process step [mapping], in particular it may be configured to display the carbon footprint originating from the raw materials, from the energy consumption, and from the direct greenhouse gas emissions separately and in aggregated form.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of obtaining product data to calculate an emissions footprint, as taught by Shukla, the embodiment of a manufacturing plant-based emission footprint, as taught by Schoeneboom, so that all relevant contributions are taken into account to reduce carbon dioxide emissions (Schoeneboom [0003][0005]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Accordingly, when properly considered in their entireties, claims 1, 8, and 15 cannot be construed as reciting mere abstract ideas (mental processes) under Step 2A, Prong One of the Alice Subject Matter Eligibility test because the claims cannot be performed in the human mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that the mental steps of (which could be obtain using pen and paper) merely cite a “computer system” “data store” “event broker system” and a subscriber system.” Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The cited computing elements are not specialized in any way, nor do they perform some improved function. As such the rejection is maintained.
Applicant Argues: Further, even if ( assuming arguendo) these claims could be interpreted as reciting abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong One, the amendments described above clearly integrate any such abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two, as they improve the ability of the recited computer system to integrate with other computer systems (i.e., the afore mentioned subscriber computer systems) in order to efficiently and effectively relay emissions footprint data to those other computer systems.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, calculating an emission footprint data, storing and publishing the information to a group of users who subscribe to the information is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of these methods are, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626