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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 22, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 were previously pending and subject to a final rejection dated January 23, 2026. In RCE, submitted April 22, 2026, claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 were amended. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 are currently pending and subject to the following non-final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 10 of the Response regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 11-12 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Page 12 of the Response, Applicant argues “Amended claim 1 now specifies ‘adjusting at least one of raw materials, temperature, humidity, and pressure of the production process by the carbon footprint master computing device based on an analysis result’. The claim as a whole is directed to an improvement to the production process of the product by adjusting at least one of raw materials, temperature, humidity, and pressure of the production process based on the analysis result. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites that the received carbon footprint data is analyzed, and at least one of raw materials, temperature, humidity, and pressure of the production process of the product is adjusted based on the analysis result, which may include the corresponding carbon reduction scheme, thereby improving the production process of the product. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 1 recites statutory subject matter because it is not directed to any judicial exception. Claims 2, and 4 - 7 depend from claim 1 and recite statutory subject matter for at least the same reasons. For reasons that should be clear from the foregoing discussion, claim 8 separately recites statutory subject matter. Claims 9, 11-14 depend from claim 8 and recite statutory subject matter. All pending claims recite statutory subject matter. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is respectfully requested.”
Examiner notes, “adjusting at least one of raw materials, temperature, humidity, and pressure of the production process … based on an analysis result” appears to be merely an abstract idea, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below. All discussion of changing the production process that occurs within the Applicant’s Specification involves only the abstract manipulation of data regarding these exemplary aspects of a production process within the context of abstract data analysis such as comparative analysis, contribution analysis, and sensitivity analysis (See Specification, Paras 65-72). This analysis is used to generate “multiple carbon reduction solutions” (Specification Para. 71) which exist only as abstract data that is used in further abstract economic effectiveness analysis and feasibility analysis, before any change to the actual production process may occur. Any actual changes to the production processes, however, are only assumed as they occur beyond the scope of the claimed invention and the specification. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, and in light of the specification, this limitation is a recitation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “carbon footprint master computing device” is disclosed at a high level of generality, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, and amounts to merely a tool used to perform this abstract idea, and therefore is merely “apply it”. Therefore, this and the other additional elements recited in the claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more, and the claims remain rejected over 101.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 12-14 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are found persuasive in light of the amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 8 recite “based on a hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object computing device” (emphasis added) in claim 1, limitation 2 and claim 8, limitations 2 and 8. These limitations should recite “based on a hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object computing devices” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites “the carbon footprint object agent” in limitation 2 and should recite “the carbon footprint object computing device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 recites “a superior carbon footprint object agent” in limitation 1 and should recite “a superior carbon footprint object computing device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites “the superior carbon footprint computing device” in limitation 2 and should recite “the superior carbon footprint object computing device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1 and 8 invoke means plus function interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to the recitation of “a carbon emission unit” with no corresponding recitation of structure, material, or act for performing the claimed function.
The “carbon emissions unit” is defined in the specification as “The carbon emission unit refers to an entity or a group generating carbon emissions” in para. 35. Claims depending on the above are also invoked by way of their dependency.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is unclear how the terms “cascading” in claim 1 (limitations 2, 4, and 9) and “cascade” in claim 8 (limitations 2 and 8), and also recited in dependent claims 2 and 9, are meant to be interpreted. It is unclear if these terms are meant to convey data flowing from one “carbon footprint object computing device” to only the immediately superior carbon footprint object computing device, or to all superior carbon footprint object computing device(s) including the “master carbon footprint object computing device”. For examination purposes, these limitations will be interpreted as conveying that data flows to all superior carbon footprint object computing device(s) including the “master carbon footprint object computing device”.
Claims 4-7 and 11-14 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claims 8, 9, and 11-14 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites sending carbon footprint data by a carbon emission unit;
cascading the carbon footprint data sent by the carbon emission unit or carbon footprint data sent by a subordinate carbon footprint object computing device to a superior carbon footprint object computing device or a carbon footprint master computing device, based on a hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object computing device; and
analyzing the received carbon footprint data, and adjusting at least one of raw materials, temperature, humidity, and pressure of the production process based on an analysis result,
wherein the cascading the carbon footprint data sent by the carbon emission unit or the carbon footprint data sent by the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device to the superior carbon footprint object computing device or the carbon footprint master computing device comprises:
determining whether the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device is operating properly based on an operation status in the carbon footprint data, when receiving the carbon footprint data sent by the carbon emission unit or the carbon footprint data sent by the subordinate carbon footprint object;
storing the received data until the carbon footprint data sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device is received, in response to determining that the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device is operating properly and that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device;
collecting carbon emission data for stages in a lifecycle of a carbon footprint, in response to determining that the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device is operating properly and that the received carbon footprint data is sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device; and
cascading the collected data based on the hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object computing devices.
Independent claim 8 substantially recites at least one carbon emission unit, wherein
the carbon emission unit is configured to send carbon footprint data
cascading the carbon footprint data sent by the carbon emission unit or carbon footprint data sent by a subordinate carbon footprint object computing device to a superior carbon footprint computing device or the carbon footprint master computing device based on a hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object computing device; and
analyzing the received carbon footprint data, and adjust at least one of raw materials, temperature, humidity, and pressure of the production process based on an analysis result,
determining whether the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device is operating properly based on an operation status in the carbon footprint data, when receiving the carbon footprint data sent by the carbon emission unit or the carbon footprint data sent by the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device;
storing the received data until the carbon footprint data sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent computing device is received, in response to determining that the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device is operating properly and that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent computing device;
collecting carbon emission data for stages in a lifecycle of a carbon footprint, in response to determining that the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device is operating properly and that the received carbon footprint data is sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device; and
cascading the collected data based on the hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object computing device.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) of analyzing and sharing carbon footprint data (see specification Para. 2, 5, and 7). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 8 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a carbon footprint object computing device/at least one level of carbon footprint object computing device (claims 1, 8), (ii) a subordinate carbon footprint object computing device (claim 1, 8), (iii) a superior carbon footprint object computing device/a superior carbon footprint computing device (claim 1, 8), (iv) a carbon footprint master computing device (claim 1, 8).
The additional elements of (i) a carbon footprint object computing device/at least one level of carbon footprint object computing device, (ii) a subordinate carbon footprint object computing device, (iii) a superior carbon footprint object computing device/a superior carbon footprint computing device, and (iv) a carbon footprint master computing device are recited at a high level of generality (see [0083 & 0094] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the carbon footprint object computing device/at least one level of carbon footprint object computing device, the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device, and the superior carbon footprint object computing device/the superior carbon footprint computing device, and [0082 & 0094] discussing the carbon footprint master computing device) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1 and 5 showing all the additional elements (i) a carbon footprint object computing device/at least one level of carbon footprint object computing device, (ii) a subordinate carbon footprint object computing device, (iii) a superior carbon footprint object computing device/a superior carbon footprint computing device, and (iv) a carbon footprint master computing device in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1 and 8 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 4-7, 9, and 11-14 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 8 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 4-7, 9, and 11-14 are also ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0107618 to Shoeneboom et al (hereafter Shoeneboom). Shoeneboom discloses the sending and cascading of carbon footprint data between computing devices based on their hierarchical relationships, analyzing the data and adjusting data inputs regarding production process in response the analysis results.
The next closest prior art is Non-Patent Literature “Real-time quality monitoring and diagnosis for manufacturing process profiles based on deep belief networks” by Liu (hereafter Liu). Liu discloses determining whether or not computing devices are operating properly based on operation status included in received data from the computing devices.
The next closest prior art is Non-Patent Literature “Manufacturing Process Analysis: Starting Points for Fast Improvements” by Hunt (hereafter Hunt). Hunt discloses determining whether or not all computing devices have provided expected data for analysis, collecting the data for analysis for all computing devices, and cascading the data from all computing devices to other appropriate computing devices.
The next closest prior art is Non-Patent Literature “Data warehouse staging architecture” by White (hereafter White). White discloses storing received data when all expected data has not yet been received.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Specifically, Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White fail to explicitly teach the limitations of “storing the received data until the carbon footprint data sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device is received, in response to determining that the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device is operating properly and that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device; collecting carbon emission data for stages in a lifecycle of a carbon footprint, in response to determining that the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device is operating properly and that the received carbon footprint data is sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object computing device” (emphasis added) as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 8. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights