DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claims 1-3,5-6,7-13,15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer et al. (Beer) Pub NO. US 2023/0394496 in view of Gmach et al. (Gmach) (Pub NO. US 2013/0116803) further in view of Asai et al. (Asai) (Pub No. US 20110109613).
Regrading Claim 1 Beer teaches: A method of carbon footprint reporting, [[0006] and [0007], carbon footprint] the method comprising: measuring a power consumption of a device; [[0006] and [0007] electronic devices can include data derived by using one or more sensors of the electronic device to periodically determine power delivered to the device over a plurality of first time periods] decoding, at the device, a carbon intensity indicator that varies over time and corresponds to electricity currently being supplied to the device via an incoming power line; [[0006] and [0007] retrieve carbon intensity data associated with a power grid supplying the power delivered to the device over the plurality of second time periods] determining a carbon footprint of the device based on the power consumption and the carbon intensity indicator; [[0006] and [0007] calculate the carbon footprint of the electronic device from the aggregated power delivered to the device and losses and the retrieved carbon intensity data ]
Regrading Claim 1 Beer does not teach adjusting a power level associated with the device based on the carbon footprint;
However, Gmach teaches: adjusting a power level associated with the device based on the carbon footprint; [[0012]-[0017], [0022],[0037]-[0040], adjust power cap for the second time period based on carbon footprint]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to which this invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust power consumption in Beer’s system using Gmach’s teaching .
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Beer and Gmach in order to reduce overall power consumption of Beer’s system.
The combination of Beer and Gmach does not teach adjusting a setting of a component of the device based on the decoding.
However, Asai teaches: adjusting a setting of a component of the device based on the decoding. [[0182] and [[01824 ] based on amount of CO2 emission can be reduced user change the setting of the mobile device]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to which this invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention to change the setting of Beer’s system based on CO2 emission using Asai’s teaching.
A person with ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Beer, Gmach and Asai in order to promote energy saving of electrical devices [0005]
Regrading Claim 2 Gmach teaches determining the carbon footprint of the device includes determining a carbon footprint of a component of the device. [Fig.1, carbon foot print of the computer device 100]
Regrading Claim 3 Gmach teaches the power level associated with the device includes adjusting the power level of a component of the device. [[0012]-[0017] [0022] [0037]-[0040] adjusted power cap for the second time period based on carbon footprint]
Regrading Claim 5 Gmach teaches the carbon footprint includes determining the carbon footprint over a period of time, and further comprising reporting the carbon footprint for the period of time. [[0012]-[0017] [0022] [0037]-[0041]]
Regrading Claim 6 Gmach teaches reporting the carbon footprint includes reporting an aggregated carbon footprint for the period of time that includes the carbon footprint of the device and a second carbon footprint of at least a second device for the period of time. [[0012]-[0017] [0022] [0037]-[0041] As non-limiting examples, the equipment can be IT equipment or factory equipment; the devices can be household appliances. For example, the power cap of a structure such as a data center can be set on a per-server basis]
Regrading Claim 8 Gmach teaches the power level associated with the device is based on the carbon footprint of the device satisfying a carbon footprint threshold. [[0012]-[0017] [0022] [0037]-[0041]
Regrading Claim 9 Gmach teaches the power level includes adjusting at least one of a voltage level of a component of the device, adjusting an amperage level of the component, adjusting a frequency associated with the component, adjusting a clock speed associated with the component, adjusting an overall voltage level of the device, or adjusting an overall amperage level of the device. [[0012]-[0017] [0022] [0037]-[0041]
Regrading Claim 10 Gmach teaches tracking the carbon footprint over a period of time in an event log stored on the device. [[0012]-[0017] [0022] [0037]-[0041] determine and compare carbon foot print, there for determined data inherently logged prior to comparing]
Claims 11 and 18 are having similar limitations to that of the apparatus of claim 1. Accordingly, claims 11 and 18 are rejected under a similar rational as that of claim 1 above.
Claims 12 and 19 are having similar limitations to that of the apparatus of claim 2. Accordingly, claims 12 and 19 are rejected under a similar rational as that of claim 2 above.
Claims 13 and 20 are having similar limitations to that of the apparatus of claim 3. Accordingly, claims 13 and 20 are rejected under a similar rational as that of claim 3 above.
Claim 15 is having similar limitations to that of the apparatus of claim 5. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected under a similar rational as that of claim 5 above.
Claim 16 is having similar limitations to that of the apparatus of claim 6. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected under a similar rational as that of claim 6 above.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer et al. (Beer) Pub NO. US 2023/0394496 in view of Gmach et al. (Gmach) (Pub NO. US 2013/0116803) further in view of Asai et al. (Asai) (Pub No. US 20110109613) and further in view of Sussmeier et al. (Pub No. US 2010/0153176)
Regarding Claim 4 the combination of Beer, Gmach and Asai dos not teach that the carbon footprint of the device is based on a component carbon footprint of each component of the device.
However, Sussmeier teaches the carbon footprint of the device is based on a component carbon footprint of each component of the device. [[0007] Carbon footprint contribution for each of these components is calculated based on tables that store the relationship between the particular activity and carbon output. A total carbon footprint is obtained by adding together these various components]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to which this invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention to determine the carbon footprint of each components of Gmach’s system using Sussmeier’s method to minimize environmental impact due carbon emissions. [0003]
Claim 14 is having similar limitations to that of the apparatus of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected under a similar rational as that of claim 4 above.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beer et al. (Beer) Pub NO. US 2023/0394496 in view of Gmach et al. (Gmach) (Pub NO. US 2013/0116803) further in view of Asai et al. (Asai) (Pub No. US 20110109613) and further in view of Singh (Pub No. US 20250029099)
Regarding Claim 7 the combination of Beer, Gmach and Asai determining the power consumption of the device is based on measuring an amount of power consumed by the device over a period of time; [Gmach: [[0012]-[0017] [0022] [0037]-[0041]; Beer: [006]-[007][0013],[0027] and [0032]]
The combination does not teach determining the carbon footprint of the device is based on implementing a machine learning model that is trained on power consumption data and carbon footprint data.
However, Singh teaches determining the carbon footprint of the device is based on implementing a machine learning model that is trained on power consumption data and carbon footprint data. [[007] and [0047] determining the carbon footprint of the device is based on implementing a machine learning model that is trained on power consumption data and carbon footprint data.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art to which this invention pertains before the effective filing date of the invention to use the machine learning model of Sign to determine the carbon footprint in Beer, Gmach and Asai’s system to increase accuracy and improve decision-making process.
Claim 17 is having similar limitations to that of the apparatus of claim 7. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected under a similar rational as that of claim 7 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 03/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Beer et al. (Beer) Pub NO. US 2023/0394496, (Gmach) (Pub NO. US 2013/0116803), Asai et al. (Asai) (Pub No. US 20110109613), Sussmeier et al. (Pub No. US 2010/0153176) and Singh (Pub No. US 2025/0029099)
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Prior art Sussmeier et al. (Pub NO. US 2010/0153176) teaches a controller computer is programmed to calculate a carbon footprint for mail to be produced on the inserter by adding carbon footprint contributed by sensed attributes and mail job attribute data. The controller computer stores carbon footprint data for comparison with future mail jobs. The controller computer provides the user with carbon reduction suggestions corresponding to attributes of the mail.
-Prior art Fang et al. (Pub NO. US 2018/0276679) teaches a carbon footprint module comprises: a data collection module, configured to collect raw material and production process data related to carbon footprint calculation, and a carbon footprint analysis module, configured to obtain, based on the collected raw material and production process data, and combined with the data in the database, a carbon footprint in each production process and a carbon footprint of each component of the product.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAHID CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)270-5153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at 571-270-3779. 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.
/ZAHID CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights