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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated September 11, 2025. In Response, submitted December 11, 2025, claims 1 and 8 were amended, and claims 3 and 10 were cancelled. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 10-11 of the Response regarding the previous interpretation of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered but are not found to be persuasive in view of the amended claims.
On Page 10-11 of the Response, Applicant argues “With regard to the terms ‘carbon footprint object agent’, ‘subordinate carbon footprint object agent’, ‘superior carbon footprint object agent’, and ‘carbon footprint master agent’ in claims 1 and 8, Applicant asserts that these terms satisfy the statutory clarity requirements as these terms are described in the specification so as to be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art. In the description of the present application, ‘carbon footprint object agent’ is described as ‘an abstraction and intelligence of a product with carbon footprint’. Taking the manufacture of a car as an example, a car corresponds to a carbon footprint object agent. Various components of a car correspond to subordinate agent, such as a tire. As the tire is composed of a valve core, etc., the valve core corresponds to subordinate agent of the carbon footprint object agent of the tire (see paragraph [0042] of the description of the present application). Moreover, the carbon footprint object agent includes a data interaction module, a carbon footprint object agent calculation module, and a data management module (see paragraph [0083]), and the present disclosure may be implemented by ...software modules executed by a processor (see paragraph [0094]). In other words, the ‘carbon footprint object agent’ may be a hardware component, or a software module, which is responsible for receiving carbon footprint data from a carbon emission unit, performing carbon emission calculation, managing corresponding carbon footprint data, and cascading the carbon footprint data to a superior carbon footprint object agent, and finally to the carbon footprint master agent. The ‘carbon footprint master agent’ is capable of analyzing the received carbon footprint data to achieve the intended purpose. Further, one of skill in the art would understand that the term ‘agent’ may refer to either a hardware component or a software module, which is consistent with the description provided in the present application. Therefore, the above terms in claims 1 and 8 are clear and unambiguous, and a person skilled in the art would readily understand their meanings. All pending claims satisfy the statutory clarity requirements. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112 is respectfully requested.”
Examiner notes, that it is specifically the ambiguity that “the term ‘agent’ may refer to either a hardware component or a software module” or “an abstraction and intelligence of a product with carbon footprint” which triggers the 112(f) interpretation and the 112(b) rejection. It is unclear how “an abstraction and intelligence of a product with carbon footprint” is able to perform actions such as sending or receiving carbon footprint data, as there is no detail provided as to what constitutes an “abstraction” or an “intelligence”. This is further made unclear by the example of manufacturing a car, where “a car corresponds to a carbon footprint object agent” and “Various components of a car correspond to subordinate agent, such as a tire” as well as “the valve core corresponds to subordinate agent of the carbon footprint object agent of the tire”. It is unclear, if, for example, the subordinate agent is a tire or a valve core, how it accomplishes the data transfers discussed above. Similarly, if the subordinate agent merely represents the tire or valve core, it is still unclear how the data is gathered and sent. For example, it is unclear whether the subordinate agent is merely a software virtual representation that simulates the manufacturing process and estimates the carbon footprint accordingly, or whether the subordinate agent uses sensor within the manufacturing processes and machinery itself to continuously measure the carbon footprint throughout the process to determine the carbon footprint data. The current claim language, as well as the varied definitions provided within the specification provide enormous latitude in interpreting how the invention operates, to the point that it is unclear. Therefore the 112(f) interpretation and 112(b) rejection remain in the detailed rejection below.
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 pages 11-12 of the Response, Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits claim 1 as amended applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that claim 1 is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Specifically, claim 1 as amended recites, for example, ‘analyzing the received carbon footprint data, sending an analysis result to a user interface provided by the system, and receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result via the user interface, by the carbon footprint master agent’. Such limitations are not the judicial exception because the claimed solution relates to a user interface provided by, for example, a display of the system for sharing carbon footprint, and the user interface is capable of presenting the analysis result to a relevant person and acquiring the check result from the relevant person. These limitations also use the purported judicial exception in a meaningful way (i.e., presenting the interface to the entity and acquiring input from the entity). Hence, it concerns a practical application concerning human-machine interaction. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claim 1 integrates the purported abstract idea into a practical application and thereby passes Prong Two of Step 2A. Consequently, claim 1 as amended is not directed to a judicial exception even if it recites the judicial exception as purported in the Office Action. Accordingly, claim 1 clearly recites statutory subject matter. 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 and 11 - 14 depend from claim 8 and recite statutory subject matter for at least the same reasons. Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101 is respectfully requested.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, "analyzing the received carbon footprint data, sending an analysis result to a user…, and receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result" are recitations of the abstract idea and unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. In this case, the additional element of the “user interface” and “the system” are used merely as tools to perform the abstract ideas of receiving/displaying “analysis results” and “receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result”, and receive only high levels of disclosure the Applicant’s Specification, supporting the findings that they amount to merely “apply it”. Similarly, additional element of the carbon footprint master agent is used merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea of “receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result”, and also receives a high level of disclosure in the Specification, supporting the findings that it amounts to merely “apply it”. Further when these, and all other recited additional elements of the claim, are analyzed as a whole/ordered combination they still fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d)(I), “apply it” is one of the limitations which the courts have determined do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, insofar as it is claimed in the current claim language, “presenting the analysis result to a relevant person and acquiring the check result from the relevant person” and “presenting the [data] to the entity and acquiring input from the entity” is also a recitation of the abstract idea and unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. Finally, that the claims involve human-machine interaction does not inherently mean that the claims recite a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), “certain activity between a person and a computer … may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”. Therefore, as discussed fully in the detailed rejection below, the claims remain ineligible over 101.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 12-16 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered but are not found persuasive or moot in light of amended claims.
On Page 15 of the Response, Applicant argues “Hunt relates to manufacturing process analysis. Hunt indicates that "manufacturers cannot obtain real-time analytics with standard data collection methods" and "using a dedicated solution for data gathering, processing and analysis is key for getting fast and actionable insights". Moreover, Hunt explicitly states that collecting and analyzing a large amount of varied data also limits the ability to process it quickly. Thus, Hunt teaches away from "storing the received data until the carbon footprint data sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is received, if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent" of amended claim 1.”
Examiner notes, the cited excerpts from Hunt disclose “challenges of implementing manufacturing process analysis” (Pg. 6, Hunt) that are the starting point for the improvements suggested throughout the article for “implement[ing] the systems needed to gather data, analyse it, and design better processes”. Therefore, while Hunt appears to not explicitly disclose “storing the received data until the carbon footprint data sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is received, if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent” it does not teach away from the limitation.
The remaining arguments are moot in light of the amended claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 11, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes method claim 1 recites “determining whether the received carbon footprint data is sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent, if it is determined that the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is operating properly; storing the received data until the carbon footprint data sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is received, if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent; collecting carbon emission data for stages in the lifecycle of the carbon footprint if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent;” (emphasis added). Examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation of the above bolded conditional limitation, the “determining whether the received carbon footprint data is sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent” step does not need to be performed if the condition “if it is determined that the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is operating properly” is not met; the “storing the received data until the carbon footprint data sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is received” step does not need to be performed if the condition “if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent” is not met; the “collecting carbon emission data for stages in the lifecycle of the carbon footprint … and cascading the collected data to the superior carbon footprint object agent or the carbon footprint master agent by the carbon footprint object agent based on the hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object agents” step does not need to be performed if the condition “if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent” is not met. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses a method where only the steps of “sending carbon footprint data…”, “analyzing the received carbon footprint data…”, “determining whether the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is operating properly …”, and “cascading the collected data to the superior carbon footprint object agent or the carbon footprint master agent” are performed. See Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 2016).
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” “a carbon footprint object agent”, “a subordinate carbon footprint object agent”, “a superior carbon footprint object agent”, and “a carbon footprint master agent” with no corresponding recitation of structure, material, or act for performing the claimed function.
The “carbon emissions unit” are 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 “carbon footprint object agent”, “subordinate carbon footprint object agent”, and “superior carbon footprint object agent” are defined in the specification as “The carbon footprint object agent includes a data interaction module, a carbon footprint object agent calculation module, and a data management module.”, and “the embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented by hardware, software modules executed by a processor” in paras. 83 and 94. Claims depending on the above are also invoked by way of their dependency.
The “carbon footprint master agent” is defined in the specification as “The carbon footprint master agent includes a data interaction module, a master agent calculation module, and a data management module.”, and “the embodiments of the present disclosure may be implemented by hardware, software modules executed by a processor” in paras 82 and 94. 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.
Examiner further notes, that multiple and conflicting definitions are provided within the Applicant’s specification in regards to the “carbon footprint object agent”, “subordinate carbon footprint object agent”, “superior carbon footprint object agent”, and “carbon footprint master agent”. These definitions include those recited above, but also the conflicting definition of “ The carbon footprint object agent is an abstraction and intelligence”. The original interpretation above is used by the Examiner, as it appears to be most closely aligned with the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended to recited “sending an analysis result to a user interface provided by the system, and receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result via the user interface”
Examiner initially notes that while there is no haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicitly, or inherent disclosure (MPEP 2183). Further, when an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skilled would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires the limitation," Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348,1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998), MPEP 2163.
Examiner notes that Paragraph [0084] of Applicant’s Specification states that “The carbon emission unit refers to an entity or a group that generates carbon emissions, including a data interface and/or an instruction control interface. The data interface may be a communication module, an application programming interface (API), or a manual input.”
That is, no description of sending an analysis result to a user interface or receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result via the user interface is provided within the Applicant’s specification or claims. The only interfaces disclosed in the specification are found in paragraph 84, quoted above, with no additional detail provided.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, and 11-14 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term, the written description must clearly define the claim term and set forth the definition. The terms “carbon footprint object agent”, “subordinate carbon footprint object agent”, “superior carbon footprint object agent”, and “carbon footprint master agent” in claims 1 and 8. These terms are indefinite because the specification does not clearly define these term. The term “carbon footprint object agent” is given at least 3 definitions within the specification as “an abstraction and intelligence of a product with carbon footprint” (para. 40), “a car” (example provided in para. 42), and “includ[ing] a data interaction module, a carbon footprint object agent calculation module, and a data management module” (para. 83) in view of “the present disclosure may be implemented by …software modules executed by a processor” (para. 94). The term “subordinate carbon footprint object agent” appears to generally receive the same broad definitions applied to the “carbon footprint object agent”, with the exception of the example provided in para. 43 being drawn to “[v]arious components of a car” rather than the car itself. The term “superior carbon footprint object agent” receives no additional description or definition beyond those found applied to the “carbon footprint object agent” in paras. 40, 83, and 94. Finally, the “carbon footprint master agent” is given at least the definitions of “an abstraction and intelligence of a product with carbon footprint” (para. 40), “a car” (example provided in para. 42), and “include[ing] a data interaction module, a carbon footprint object agent calculation module, and a data management module” (para. 82) in view of “the present disclosure may be implemented by …software modules executed by a processor” (para. 94)
As discussed above in the discussion of the claims in view of 112(f), these claims will interpret these terms with respect to the definition provided in paras. 82/83 in view of para. 94.
Claims 2, 4-7, 9, 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;
cascading the carbon footprint data sent by the carbon emission unit or carbon footprint data sent by a subordinate carbon footprint object agent to a superior carbon footprint object agent or a carbon footprint master agent based on a hierarchical relationship; and
analyzing the received carbon footprint data, sending an analysis result to a user, and receiving a user confirmation on the 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 agent:
determining whether the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent 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 agent;
determining whether the received carbon footprint data is sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent, if it is determined that the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is operating properly;
storing the received data until the carbon footprint data sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is received, if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent;
collecting carbon emission data for stages in the lifecycle of the carbon footprint if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent; and
cascading the collected data based on the hierarchical relationship.
Examiner notes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, as discussed above in the claim interpretation section, the claim encompasses a method where only the steps of “sending carbon footprint data…”, “analyzing the received carbon footprint data…”, “determining whether the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is operating properly …”, and “cascading the collected data to the superior carbon footprint object agent or the carbon footprint master agent” are performed. However, for compact prosecution, all of the claim limitations will be analyzed for subject matter eligibility.
Independent claim 8 substantially recites sending 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 agent based on a hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object agents; and
analyzing the received carbon footprint data, sending an analysis result to a user, and receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result,
determining whether the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent 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 agent;
determining whether the received carbon footprint data is sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent, if it is determined that the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is operating properly;
storing the received data until the carbon footprint data sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is received, if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent;
collecting carbon emission data for stages in the lifecycle of the carbon footprint if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent; and
cascading the collected data based on the hierarchical relationship.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions) of sharing carbon footprint data (see specification Para. 2 and 5). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 7 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a carbon footprint object agent (claims 1, 8), (ii) a subordinate carbon footprint object agent (claim 1, 8), (iii) a superior carbon footprint object agent (claim 1, 7), (iv) a carbon footprint master agent (claim 1, 8), (v) a user interface (claims 1, 8), and (vi) a system (claims 1, 8).
The additional elements of : (i) a carbon footprint object agent, (ii) a subordinate carbon footprint object agent, (iii) a superior carbon footprint object agent, (iv) a carbon footprint master agent, (v) a user interface are recited at a high level of generality (see [0083 & 0094] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the carbon footprint object agent, the subordinate carbon footprint object agent, and the superior carbon footprint object agent, [0082 & 0094] discussing the carbon footprint master agent, [0084] discussing the user interface, and [0077] discussing the system) 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 showing all the additional (i) a carbon footprint object agent, (ii) a subordinate carbon footprint object agent, (iii) a superior carbon footprint object agent, (iv) a carbon footprint master agent, (v) a user interface, and (vi) a system 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 (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, 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)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), 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.
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:
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 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, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoeneboom (US 20220107618) (hereafter Shoeneboom) in view of Liu (“Real-time quality monitoring and diagnosis for manufacturing process profiles based on deep belief networks”; July 24, 2019) (hereafter Liu) and further in view of Katterbauer (US 20230193743) (hereafter Katterbauer).
In regards to claim 1, Shoeneboom discloses a method for sharing a carbon footprint, performed by a system for sharing carbon footprint, comprising: sending carbon footprint data by a carbon emission unit to a carbon footprint object agent; (Para. 22, 31, 68-69, 82) (“a method according to the present invention determines the carbon footprint of products. … The carbon footprint may relate to the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted or removed in the production process e.g. from extracting natural resources to the product as it leaves the production plant.” “The process data may comprise the digital representation (i.e. a carbon footprint object agent) of one or more process step(s) of the production process and such representation may include or may be associated with information about direct greenhouse gas emissions by respective process step(s).” “FIG. 3 shows a schematic view of the system (i.e. a carbon footprint object agent). 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. (i.e. sending carbon footprint data by a carbon emission unit to a carbon footprint object agent) … Each group company (i.e. carbon emission unit) 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 present disclosure is not to be limited in scope by the specific embodiments described herein. Indeed, other various embodiments of and modifications to the present disclosure, in addition to those described herein, will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art from the description and accompanying drawings. Thus, such other embodiments and modifications are intended to fall within the scope of the present disclosure.”)
Shoeneboom discloses cascading the carbon footprint data sent by the carbon emission unit or carbon footprint data sent by a subordinate carbon footprint object agent to a superior carbon footprint object agent or a carbon footprint master agent, by the carbon footprint object agent based on a hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object agents; and (Para. 68-69, Fig. 4) (“Processor or Processing unit 20 (i.e. superior carbon footprint object agent or a carbon footprint master agent) is configured to determining the carbon footprint of each process step taking into account the information obtained from the input unit 10 and consolidating the carbon footprints thus obtained to arrive at the carbon footprint of the product. Output or output unit 30 is configured to output the carbon footprint of the product and each contribution to it as obtained from the processing unit. …The consolidation system 11 consolidates the process data to identify intermediates (i.e. subordinate carbon footprint object agent) 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 (i.e. subordinate carbon footprint object agent) to arrive at one list of raw material with associated carbon footprint. The consolidation system 13 consolidates the energy data 103, 203 (i.e. subordinate carbon footprint object agent) to arrive at a uniform data set of energy data.” That is, as shown in Fig. 4, systems 11-13 receive carbon footprint data of the components, energy, and raw materials of processes (i.e. carbon footprint data sent by a subordinate carbon footprint object agent) and feed them into (i.e. cascading carbon footprint data sent by a subordinate carbon footprint object agent) input unit 10 for the processing unit 20 (i.e. to a superior carbon footprint object agent or a carbon footprint master agent)”)
Shoeneboom discloses analyzing the received carbon footprint data, sending an analysis result to a user interface provided by the system, by the carbon footprint master agent, (Para. 57, 58, 68) (“Outputting can mean writing the carbon footprint on a non-transitory data storage medium, displaying it on a user interface, providing it to an interface for further processing or any combination thereof (i.e. sending an analysis result to a user interface provided by the system). It is also possible to provide the output through an interface to a customer, for example to the customers supply chain system or ERP system” “the process further comprises outputting the carbon footprint for each process step as it contributes to the carbon footprint of a certain product. In this way, it is possible to analyze the contribution of each step (i.e. analyzing the received carbon footprint data by the carbon footprint master agent), in particular the contribution of raw materials and energy in each step. This allows the identification of potential to reduce the carbon footprint of the product.” “Processor or Processing unit 20 is configured to determining the carbon footprint of each process step taking into account the information obtained from the input unit 10 and consolidating the carbon footprints thus obtained to arrive at the carbon footprint of the product (i.e. analyzing the received carbon footprint data by the carbon footprint master agent). Output or output unit 30 is configured to output the carbon footprint of the product and each contribution to it as obtained from the processing unit.”)
Shoeneboom does not explicitly discloses, however Liu, in the same field of endeavor discloses 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 agent to the superior carbon footprint object agent or the carbon footprint master agent of Shoeneboom comprises: determining whether the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is operating properly based on an operation status in the carbon footprint data, by the carbon footprint object agent when receiving the carbon footprint data sent by the carbon emission unit or the carbon footprint data sent by the subordinate carbon footprint object agent; (Pg. 3) (“With the sensors installed in the production line, a large number of observations can be obtained during the manufacturing process. The manufacturing process profile can be represented by the observation matrix X , which indicates the running status during the process (i.e. determining whether the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is operating properly based on an operation status in the carbon footprint data).”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carbon footprint determination of Shoeneboom with the real-time quality monitoring of Liu in order to improve data collection and process performance. (Liu – Pg. 1)
Shoeneboom in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose, however Katterbauer, in the same field of endeavor, discloses receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result of Shoeneboom via the user interface of Shoeneboom, (Para. 40) (“a user device (e.g., user device M (330)) may communicate with a carbon dioxide manager to manage carbon dioxide emissions, carbon footprints, electric-power generation at one or more power turbines, and/or well production based on one or more user selections (i.e. receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result of Shoeneboom via the user interface of Shoeneboom) … the carbon dioxide manager may provide various reports for different well facilities, power-generation facilities, and other information in a graphical user interface regarding predicted production data, predicted electric-power data, and carbon emission data.” That is, the user interface provides carbon emissions data (i.e. the analysis result of Shoeneboom) that the user is able to interact with confirming that the user has viewed the carbon emissions data (i.e. receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result of Shoeneboom via the user interface of Shoeneboom).)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carbon footprint determination of Shoeneboom in view of with the carbon emissions interfaces of Katterbauer in order to improve management functionality of the system. (Katterbauer – Para 28)
In regards to claim 2, Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Katterbauer discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shoeneboom discloses wherein the cascading the carbon footprint data sent by the carbon emission unit or carbon footprint data sent by the subordinate carbon footprint object agent to the superior carbon footprint object agent or the carbon footprint master agent comprises: collecting carbon emission data for stages in a lifecycle of the carbon footprint and cascading the collected data to the superior carbon footprint object agent or the carbon footprint master agent based on the hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object agents, by the carbon footprint object agent when receiving the carbon footprint data sent by the carbon emission unit or the carbon footprint data sent by the subordinate carbon footprint object agent. (Para. 64) (“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 (i.e. collecting carbon emission data for stages in a lifecycle of the carbon footprint and cascading the collected data to the superior carbon footprint object agent or the carbon footprint master agent based on the hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object agents), (ii) the carbon footprint of each raw material, and (iii) energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step.” That is, the carbon footprint is collected from raw material through the entire production process to the final product (i.e. collecting carbon emission data for stages in a lifecycle of the carbon footprint), carbon footprint data is further input as production moves form raw materials, components, and final product (i.e. the hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object agents).)
In regards to claim 4, Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Katterbauer discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shoeneboom discloses wherein the analyzing the received carbon footprint data by the carbon footprint master agent comprises: for each of the carbon footprint object agents, determining a carbon footprint contribution factor by the carbon footprint master agent based on the received carbon footprint data, wherein the carbon footprint contribution factor comprises at least one of a total amount of carbon footprint, the number of stages in the lifecycle of the carbon footprint involved, the carbon footprint at each of the stages in the lifecycle of the carbon footprint, a product component involved, and a carbon footprint in the product component; and (Para. 56, 58, 66) (“For process steps which cause direct greenhouse gas emissions, these direct emissions may be added to the carbon footprint of the process step. Hence, determining the carbon footprint of each process step can further comprise adding the emissions caused by direct greenhouse gas emissions. It is also possible to determine the contribution of direct emissions for the product along the production chain analogously to the raw material contribution and the energy contribution and finally add it to the other contributions.” “the process further comprises outputting the carbon footprint for each process step as it contributes to the carbon footprint of a certain product. In this way, it is possible to analyze the contribution of each step, in particular the contribution of raw materials and energy in each step.” “an output or output unit configured to output the carbon footprint of the product, preferably the carbon footprint of the product and each contribution to it as obtained from the processor or processing unit. … The arrows represent process steps. Their width reflects the amount of greenhouse gases the respective process step contributes to the carbon footprint of the product.”)
Shoeneboom discloses calculating a proportion of the carbon footprint contribution factor based on the carbon footprint contribution factor, and performing contribution analysis on the carbon footprint object agent. (Para. 58, 66) (“the process further comprises outputting the carbon footprint for each process step as it contributes to the carbon footprint of a certain product. In this way, it is possible to analyze the contribution of each step, in particular the contribution of raw materials and energy in each step. This allows the identification of potential to reduce the carbon footprint of the product.” “Their width reflects the amount of greenhouse gases the respective process step contributes to the carbon footprint of the product.”)
In regards to claim 5, Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Katterbauer discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shoeneboom discloses wherein the analyzing the received carbon footprint data by the carbon footprint master agent comprises: determining carbon footprint data for a product under different production processes and carbon footprint data for a product component under different production processes based on the received carbon footprint data; (Para. 14, 35, 57) (“it should be possible to analyze each contribution to the carbon footprint and monitor any changes thereof” “A typical example of such a change would be that the production plant receives insufficient reagent from a different factory and has to use an external supply instead. Such an external supply usually has a different product carbon footprint than the internal intermediate, hence changing the carbon footprint of the product produced in the production plant.” “the output can be used to simulate effects of changes, for example by manually changing certain values and see its effect on the carbon footprint of the product. For example, the effect of replacing a particular raw material by one having lower carbon footprint for each product may be analyzed.”)
Shoeneboom discloses comparing the footprint data for the product under the different production processes to obtain a sensitivity factor affecting an amount of the carbon footprint of the product; and (Para. 44, 57) (“Depending on the energy source the contribution to the product carbon footprint can be quite different, for example essentially no contribution if the energy is received from a solar panel or a wind turbine or a significant contribution if the energy is received from a public power grid which provides energy from coal power plants.” “When the carbon footprint and each contribution to it is output onto a user interface, the user interface preferably uses graph technology. In this way, it is possible to analyze the contributions along the production process in order to optimize the production process and thereby minimize the carbon footprint for the products (i.e. comparing the footprint data for the product under the different production processes to obtain a sensitivity factor affecting an amount of the carbon footprint of the product). It is also possible to monitor changes of the carbon footprint upon changes in the production process. In addition, the output can be used to simulate effects of changes, for example by manually changing certain values and see its effect on the carbon footprint of the product. For example, the effect of replacing a particular raw material by one having lower carbon footprint for each product may be analyzed.”)
Shoeneboom discloses comparing the footprint data for the product component under the different production processes to obtain a sensitivity factor affecting an amount of the carbon footprint of the product component. (Para. 57) (“When the carbon footprint and each contribution to it is output onto a user interface, the user interface preferably uses graph technology. In this way, it is possible to analyze the contributions along the production process in order to optimize the production process and thereby minimize the carbon footprint for the products. It is also possible to monitor changes of the carbon footprint upon changes in the production process. In addition, the output can be used to simulate effects of changes, for example by manually changing certain values and see its effect on the carbon footprint of the product. For example, the effect of replacing a particular raw material by one having lower carbon footprint for each product may be analyzed (i.e. comparing the footprint data for the product component under the different production processes to obtain a sensitivity factor affecting an amount of the carbon footprint of the product component).”)
Claims 8, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt (“Manufacturing Process Analysis: Starting Points for Fast Improvements”; August 17, 2021) (hereafter Hunt) and even further in view of Paul White (“Data warehouse staging architecture”; November 16, 2016) (hereafter White) and even further in view of Katterbauer.
In regards to claim 8, Shoeneboom discloses a system for sharing carbon footprint, comprising: a carbon footprint master agent, at least one level of carbon footprint object agent, and at least one carbon emission unit, wherein the carbon emission unit is configured to send carbon footprint data to the corresponding carbon footprint object agent; (Para. 22, 31, 68-69, 82) (“a method according to the present invention determines the carbon footprint of products. … The carbon footprint may relate to the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted or removed in the production process e.g. from extracting natural resources to the product as it leaves the production plant.” “The process data may comprise the digital representation (i.e. a carbon footprint object agent) of one or more process step(s) of the production process and such representation may include or may be associated with information about direct greenhouse gas emissions by respective process step(s).” “FIG. 3 shows a schematic view of the system (i.e. a carbon footprint object agent). 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. (i.e. send carbon footprint data to a carbon footprint object agent) … Each group company (i.e. carbon emission unit) 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 present disclosure is not to be limited in scope by the specific embodiments described herein. Indeed, other various embodiments of and modifications to the present disclosure, in addition to those described herein, will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art from the description and accompanying drawings. Thus, such other embodiments and modifications are intended to fall within the scope of the present disclosure.”)
Shoeneboom discloses the carbon footprint object agent is configured to cascade the carbon footprint data sent by the carbon emission unit or carbon footprint data sent by a subordinate carbon footprint object agent to a superior carbon footprint object agent or the carbon footprint master agent based on a hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object agents; and (Para. 68-69, Fig. 4) (“Processor or Processing unit 20 (i.e. superior carbon footprint object agent or a carbon footprint master agent) is configured to determining the carbon footprint of each process step taking into account the information obtained from the input unit 10 and consolidating the carbon footprints thus obtained to arrive at the carbon footprint of the product. Output or output unit 30 is configured to output the carbon footprint of the product and each contribution to it as obtained from the processing unit. …The consolidation system 11 consolidates the process data to identify intermediates (i.e. subordinate carbon footprint object agent) 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 (i.e. subordinate carbon footprint object agent) to arrive at one list of raw material with associated carbon footprint. The consolidation system 13 consolidates the energy data 103, 203 (i.e. subordinate carbon footprint object agent) to arrive at a uniform data set of energy data.” That is, as shown in Fig. 4, systems 11-13 receive carbon footprint data of the components, energy, and raw materials of processes (i.e. carbon footprint data sent by a subordinate carbon footprint object agent) and feed them into (i.e. the carbon footprint object agent is configured to cascade the carbon footprint data sent by a subordinate carbon footprint object agent) input unit 10 for the processing unit 20 (i.e. to a superior carbon footprint object agent or a carbon footprint master agent)”)
Shoeneboom discloses the carbon footprint master agent is configured to analyze the received carbon footprint data, send an analysis result to a user interface provided by the system, and (Para. 57, 58, 68) (“Outputting can mean writing the carbon footprint on a non-transitory data storage medium, displaying it on a user interface, providing it to an interface for further processing or any combination thereof (i.e. send an analysis result to a user interface provided by the system). It is also possible to provide the output through an interface to a customer, for example to the customers supply chain system or ERP system” “the process further comprises outputting the carbon footprint for each process step as it contributes to the carbon footprint of a certain product. In this way, it is possible to analyze the contribution of each step (i.e. analyze the received carbon footprint data), in particular the contribution of raw materials and energy in each step. This allows the identification of potential to reduce the carbon footprint of the product.” “Processor or Processing unit 20 is configured to determining the carbon footprint of each process step taking into account the information obtained from the input unit 10 and consolidating the carbon footprints thus obtained to arrive at the carbon footprint of the product (i.e. analyze the received carbon footprint data). Output or output unit 30 is configured to output the carbon footprint of the product and each contribution to it as obtained from the processing unit.”)
Shoeneboom does not explicitly discloses, however Liu, in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein the carbon footprint object agent of Shoeneboom is configured to: determine whether the carbon emission unit of Shoeneboom or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent of Shoeneboom is operating properly based on an operation status in the carbon footprint data of Shoeneboom, by the carbon footprint object agent of Shoeneboom when receiving the carbon footprint data of Shoeneboom sent by the carbon emission unit of Shoeneboom or the carbon footprint data of Shoeneboom sent by the subordinate carbon footprint object agent of Shoeneboom; (Pg. 3) (“With the sensors installed in the production line, a large number of observations can be obtained during the manufacturing process. The manufacturing process profile can be represented by the observation matrix X , which indicates the running status during the process (i.e. determining whether the carbon emission unit or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is operating properly based on an operation status in the carbon footprint data).”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carbon footprint determination of Shoeneboom with the real-time quality monitoring of Liu in order to improve data collection and process performance. (Liu – Pg. 1)
Shoeneboom in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose, however Hunt, in the same field of endeavor, discloses determining whether the received carbon footprint data of Shoeneboom is sent by all of the carbon emission units of Shoeneboom or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent of Shoeneboom, if it is determined that the carbon emission unit of Shoeneboom or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent of Shoeneboom is operating properly; (Pg. 5) (“MPA requires the collection of data from all components of a process. This may include data from sensors connected to manufacturing equipment, along with data related to total output, labour, and costs.”)
Shoeneboom in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose, however Hunt, in the same field of endeavor, discloses if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data of Shoeneboom is not sent by all of the carbon emission units of Shoeneboom or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent of Shoeneboom; (Pg. 5) (“The data is then processed. It must be cleansed to ensure the data set contains no duplicate or incomplete data (i.e. it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent).”)
Shoeneboom in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose, however Hunt, in the same field of endeavor, discloses collect carbon emission data of Shoeneboom for stages in the lifecycle of the carbon footprint of Shoeneboom if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data of Shoeneboom is sent by all of the carbon emission units of Shoeneboom or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent of Shoeneboom; and (Pg. 5) (“The data is then processed. It must be cleansed to ensure the data set contains no duplicate or incomplete data.”)
Shoeneboom in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose, however Hunt, in the same field of endeavor, discloses cascade the collected data of Shoeneboom to the superior carbon footprint object agent of Shoeneboom or the carbon footprint master agent of Shoeneboom based on the hierarchical relationship between the carbon footprint object agents of Shoeneboom. (Pg. 5) (“After acquiring and cleansing the data, different analytical and machine learning models can be used to generate insights.”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carbon footprint determination of Shoeneboom in view of Liu with the process analysis of Hunt in order to improve the system’s ability to ensure outputs meet organizational standards and objectives (Hunt – Pg. 3)
Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt does not explicitly disclose, however White, in the same field of endeavor, discloses store the received data of Shoeneboom until the carbon footprint data of Shoeneboom sent by all of the carbon emission units of Shoeneboom or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent of Shoeneboom is received, if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent of Hunt; (Pg. 1) (“The other method would be to incrementally load it into staging (i.e. if it is determined that the received carbon footprint data is not sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent of Hunt), sort it into inserts/updates and store it in the same format as the source systems (i.e. storing the received data until the carbon footprint data sent by all of the carbon emission units or the subordinate carbon footprint object agent is received).”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carbon footprint determination of Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt with the data storage architecture of White in order to improve data warehousing design and data staging. (White – Pg. 1)
Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White does not explicitly disclose, however Katterbauer, in the same field of endeavor, discloses receive a user confirmation on the analysis result of Shoeneboom via the user interface of Shoeneboom, (Para. 40) (“a user device (e.g., user device M (330)) may communicate with a carbon dioxide manager to manage carbon dioxide emissions, carbon footprints, electric-power generation at one or more power turbines, and/or well production based on one or more user selections (i.e. receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result of Shoeneboom via the user interface of Shoeneboom) … the carbon dioxide manager may provide various reports for different well facilities, power-generation facilities, and other information in a graphical user interface regarding predicted production data, predicted electric-power data, and carbon emission data.” That is, the user interface provides carbon emissions data (i.e. the analysis result of Shoeneboom) that the user is able to interact with confirming that the user has viewed the carbon emissions data (i.e. receiving a user confirmation on the analysis result of Shoeneboom via the user interface of Shoeneboom).)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carbon footprint determination of Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White with the carbon emissions interfaces of Katterbauer in order to improve management functionality of the system. (Katterbauer – Para 28)
In regards to claim 9, Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White and even further in view of Katterbauer discloses the limitations of claim 8. The remainder of the limitations of the claim are rejected using the same rationale as claim 2.
In regards to claim 11, Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White and even further in view of Katterbauer discloses the limitations of claim 8. The remainder of the limitations of the claim are rejected using the same rationale as claim 4.
In regards to claim 12, Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White and even further in view of Katterbauer discloses the limitations of claim 8. The remainder of the limitations of the claim are rejected using the same rationale as claim 5.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Katterbauer and even further in view of Liu (CN 115983618) (hereafter Liu II).
In regards to claim 6, Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of even further in view of Katterbauer discloses the limitations of claim 4. Shoeneboom discloses wherein the analyzing the received carbon footprint data by the carbon footprint master agent comprises: performing contribution analysis and sensitivity analysis on the received carbon footprint data, to obtain a proportion of a carbon footprint contribution factor for each carbon footprint object agent, a sensitivity factor affecting an amount of a carbon footprint of a product, and a sensitivity factor affecting an amount of a carbon footprint of a product component; (Para. 44) (“When the carbon footprint and each contribution to it is output onto a user interface, the user interface preferably uses graph technology. In this way, it is possible to analyze the contributions (i.e. contribution analysis to obtain a proportion of a carbon footprint contribution factor for each carbon footprint object agent) along the production process in order to optimize the production process and thereby minimize the carbon footprint for the products. It is also possible to monitor changes of the carbon footprint upon changes in the production process (i.e. sensitivity analysis a sensitivity factor affecting an amount of a carbon footprint of a product component). In addition, the output can be used to simulate effects of changes, for example by manually changing certain values and see its effect on the carbon footprint of the product. For example, the effect of replacing a particular raw material by one having lower carbon footprint for each product (i.e. a sensitivity factor affecting an amount of a carbon footprint of a product) may be analyzed.”)
Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Katterbauer does not explicitly disclose, however Liu II, in the same field of endeavor, discloses generating carbon reduction solutions based on the proportions of the carbon footprint contribution factors of Shoeneboom, the sensitivity factor affecting the amount of carbon footprint of the product of Shoeneboom, and the sensitivity factor affecting the amount of carbon footprint of the product component of Shoeneboom; and (Para. 60) (“The invention claims a carbon risk industrial value chain reconstruction method, the method comprising: collecting … carbon disclosure data; calculating the stability factor coefficient of each industrial value chain member; constructing the economic target function and the environment target function under the carbon risk disturbance … selecting the optimal solution centralized environment target value is less than the set value and the economic target value maximum solution as optimal solution, according to the optimal solution to construct industrial value chain.”)
Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Katterbauer does not explicitly disclose, however Liu II, in the same field of endeavor, discloses performing economic analysis and feasibility analysis on the carbon reduction solutions to obtain an optimal carbon reduction solution. (Para. 44, 60) (“judging whether the new solution y is feasible solution, if it is feasible solution, updating the optimal value z *” “The invention claims a carbon risk industrial value chain reconstruction method, the method comprising: collecting … carbon disclosure data; calculating the stability factor coefficient of each industrial value chain member; constructing the economic target function and the environment target function under the carbon risk disturbance”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carbon footprint determination of Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Katterbauer with the carbon risk reduction of Liu II in order to improve the quality of solutions of the system (Liu II – Para. 164)
In regards to claim 7, Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White and even further in view of Katterbauer discloses the limitations of claim 5. Shoeneboom discloses wherein the analyzing the received carbon footprint data by the carbon footprint master agent comprises: performing contribution analysis and sensitivity analysis on the received carbon footprint data, to obtain a proportion of a carbon footprint contribution factor for each carbon footprint object agent, a sensitivity factor affecting an amount of a carbon footprint of a product, and the sensitivity factor affecting an amount of a carbon footprint of a product component; (Para. 57) (“When the carbon footprint and each contribution to it is output onto a user interface, the user interface preferably uses graph technology. In this way, it is possible to analyze the contributions (i.e. contribution analysis to obtain a proportion of a carbon footprint contribution factor for each carbon footprint object agent) along the production process in order to optimize the production process and thereby minimize the carbon footprint for the products. It is also possible to monitor changes of the carbon footprint upon changes in the production process (i.e. sensitivity analysis a sensitivity factor affecting an amount of a carbon footprint of a product component). In addition, the output can be used to simulate effects of changes, for example by manually changing certain values and see its effect on the carbon footprint of the product. For example, the effect of replacing a particular raw material by one having lower carbon footprint for each product (i.e. a sensitivity factor affecting an amount of a carbon footprint of a product) may be analyzed.”)
Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Katterbauer does not explicitly disclose, however Liu II, in the same field of endeavor, discloses generating carbon reduction solutions based on the proportions of the carbon footprint contribution factors of Shoeneboom, the sensitivity factor affecting the amount of carbon footprint of the product of Shoeneboom, and the sensitivity factor affecting the amount of carbon footprint of the product component of Shoeneboom; and (Para. 60) (“The invention claims a carbon risk industrial value chain reconstruction method, the method comprising: collecting … carbon disclosure data; calculating the stability factor coefficient of each industrial value chain member; constructing the economic target function and the environment target function under the carbon risk disturbance … selecting the optimal solution centralized environment target value is less than the set value and the economic target value maximum solution as optimal solution, according to the optimal solution to construct industrial value chain.”
Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Katterbauer does not explicitly disclose, however Liu II, in the same field of endeavor, discloses performing economic analysis and feasibility analysis on the carbon reduction solutions to obtain an optimal carbon reduction solution. (Para. 44, 60) (“judging whether the new solution y is feasible solution, if it is feasible solution, updating the optimal value z *” “The invention claims a carbon risk industrial value chain reconstruction method, the method comprising: collecting … carbon disclosure data; calculating the stability factor coefficient of each industrial value chain member; constructing the economic target function and the environment target function under the carbon risk disturbance”)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carbon footprint determination of Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Katterbauer with the carbon risk reduction of Liu II in order to improve the quality of solutions of the system (Liu II – Para. 164)
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White and even further in view of Katterbauer and even further in view of Liu II.
In regards to claim 13, Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White and even further in view of Katterbauer discloses the limitations of claim 11. The remainder of the limitations of the claim are rejected using the same rationale as claim 6.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carbon footprint determination of Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White and even further in view of Katterbauer with the carbon risk reduction of Liu II in order to improve the quality of solutions of the system (Liu II – Para. 164)
In regards to claim 14, Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White and even further in view of Katterbauer discloses the limitations of claim 12. The remainder of the limitations of the claim are rejected using the same rationale as claim 7.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the carbon footprint determination of Shoeneboom in view of Liu and further in view of Hunt and even further in view of White and even further in view of Katterbauer with the carbon risk reduction of Liu II in order to improve the quality of solutions of the system (Liu II – Para. 164).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 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
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628