DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on October 17, 2025 has been entered. The following has occurred: Claims 1, 3-12, 14, and 16-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been maintained in light of the amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed January 1, 2026 has been considered. Initialed copies of the Form 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Priority
The present application claims priority to Provisional Application 63/445,196, filed on February 13, 2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? (MPEP 2106.03)
In the present application, claims 1-13 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 14-18 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 19 and 20 are directed to a computer product (i.e. an article of manufacture). Thus, the eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong one.
Step 2A. prong one: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? (MPEP 2106.04)
While claims 1, 14, and 19, are directed to different categories, the language and scope are substantially the same and have been addressed together below.
The abstract idea recited in claims 1, 14, and 19, is
collect telemetry data associated with multiple first entities;
select one or more modeling assumptions for modeling low-level sustainability data based on the telemetry data associated with the multiple first entities;
receive high-level sustainability data associated with an entity;
generate a plurality of sustainability indicators for a plurality of categories for the at least one of one or more of the multiple first entities or one or more second entities based on the high-level sustainability data and one or more modeling assumptions;
aggregate the plurality of sustainability indicators into a single sustainability indicator;
generate the single sustainability indicator; and
perform an action to improve the single sustainability indicator.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of managing emission data (para. [0002] of the specification).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, without the recitation of additional elements of computer components, the limitations above suggest a process similar to collecting information (step [A], [C]), analyzing and manipulating the information (steps [B], [D]-[G]). Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and displaying the result, and the steps involved human judgements, observations, and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed in the human mind, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental processes” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Additionally and alternatively, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, other than the additional elements of computer components, the above-mentioned limitations recite a process of collecting telemetry and sustainability data associated with plurality of entities to aggregate and generate sustainability indicator for actions to be performed for the purpose of improving the sustainability indicator. The claims recite process of steps that fall under the sub-grouping of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, thus the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of the abstract ideas, set forth in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Accordingly, the above-mentioned limitations are considered as a single abstract idea, therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2A. prong two.
Step 2A. prong two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? (MPEP 2106.04)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely add instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer.
The additional elements considered include:
Claim 1: “A system, comprising: one or more processors and one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:” “a graphical user interface”; “cause one or more devices”;
Claim 14: “by one or more processing circuits,” “a graphical user interface”; “one or more device”
claim 19: “One or more memory devices storing instructions thereon, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:” “a graphical user interface”; “cause one or more devices”;
In particular, the claim only recites the above-mentioned additional elements to select, receive, generate, and generate information and perform action. The computer in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing a generic computer function; See Applicant’s Specification at least at paragraphs [0076], [0078]-[0081] and [0195]-[0196]. In para. [0266] states the one or more devices can be residential computing system, which is generic computer system) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
That is, the function of limitations [A]-[G] are steps of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not improve a computer or other technology, do not transform a particular article, do not recite more than a general link to a computer, and do not invoke the computer in any meaningful way; the general computer is effectively part of the preamble instruction to “apply” the exception by the computer. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? (MPEP 2106.05)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recited above, were all considered to be an abstract idea in Step2A-Prong Two. The additional elements and analysis of Step2A-Prong two is carried over. For the same reason, these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Applicant has merely recited elements that instruct the user to apply the abstract idea to a computer or other machinery. When considered individually and in combination the conclusion, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the above-mentioned limitations [A]-[G] amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the function of the limitations to the exception using generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept for client risk assessment. Thus, viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. For these reasons there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus are ineligible.
As for dependent claims 2-13, 15-18, and 20, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claims. Claims 2 and 15 recite abstract step of updating/controlling setting on devices to lower an energy consumption of the device, which can be performed by a person, without the need of the computer components; claims 3 and 16 further recite abstract step of collecting telemetry data from devices and generate sustainability indicator based on the telemetry data; claims 4 further provides additional information regarding to the telemetry data collecting system; claim 5 further recites abstract steps of retrieving geographic region information and generating sustainability indicator; claim 6 further recites abstract steps of retrieving activity information and offsetting the single sustainability indicator; claim 7 further recites abstract steps of retrieving sustainability indicator limit information and generating single sustainability indicator; claim 8 further recites abstract steps of recording and generating information; claims 9-12, 17, 18, and 20 further recite abstract steps of selecting, receiving, offsetting, and displaying information; claim 13 further recites abstract information regarding to the sustainability indicators. The further narrowing of the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea itself into practical application and is not significantly more. The additional elements of computer system, processor, memory, graphical interface, and devices are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In summary, the dependent claims considered both individually and as ordered combination do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-7, 9-11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaramellino et al. (US20100042453A1) in view of Davis et al. (US20230152763A1).
Claim 1, Scaramellino discloses a system (Abstract and para. 0002], apparatus and systems), comprising:
one or more processors and one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon that (para. [0043], downloadable application may be adapted to run on a cellular phone, a personal digital assistant, a laptop computer, a desktop computer), when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 1 and para. [0059], processing means 14 may include multiple computer processors), cause the one or more processors to:
collect telemetry data associated with one or more first entities of a group of entities (para. [0068], “multivariate regression analysis of the most recent Department of Energy Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) data to identify factors significant in determining total energy use”. The RECS dataset is a large detailed collection of granular energy consumption and household characteristic data from thousands of U.S. households which is the one or more first entities of a group of entities. The detailed survey data collected from a plurality of sources/households to build a model is analogous to telemetry data);
determine one or more modeling assumptions for the group of entities based on the telemetry data associated with the one or more first entities (para. [0069], discloses determining regression functions which is representative of the modeling assumption, based on the analysis of the RECS data);
receive high-level sustainability data associated with at least one of the one or more first entities or one or more second entities of the group of entities (in view of applicant’s specification in paragraph [0101], “high-level data can indicate high-level behaviors, characteristics, preferences, or a profile of consumption for the entities of the corpus or group of entities in various categories (e.g., commuting, food, shopping, business travel, additional consumption from remote work, remote work behaviors, work from home setups, work from home frequency, work from home durations, etc.). For example, the high-level data could indicate typical commute distance, typical commute day per week, average size of a vehicle driven, utilization of busses, trains, shopping habits, food habits, etc. As another example, the high-level data could indicate typical work from home frequency (e.g., days per week, days per month, days per year, work from home occurrences per unit time, etc.), work from home duration (e.g., hours per day, hours per week, hours per month, etc.), work from home hardware and energy consumption (e.g., energy consumptions attributed to desktop computer use, laptop computer use, external monitor use, home office lighting usage, home office air conditioning usage, home office internet usage, etc.)” In Scaramellino: para. [0018], [0071], [0149] discloses receiving or accepting user inputs such as zip code, residence type, household income, equipment types, lifestyle habits, appliance setting, and energy usage, these are similar to “high-level sustainability data” provided in the specification, from an end user (i.e., second entities));
generate a plurality of sustainability indicators for a plurality of categories for the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities based on the high-level sustainability data and the one or more modeling assumptions associated with the group of entities (Fig. 2 and Claim 4, para. [0063], and [0068], discloses generating a plurality of indicators (e.g., Home Footprint 128, Travel Footprint 130, Work Footprint 132, and Shopping Footprint 134) for a plurality categories (e.g., home, work, travel and shopping) using model assumption in form of multivariate regression model. Specifically in para. [0072] discloses plugging the user’s high-level inputs into the previously determined regression model (modelling assumptions) to generate estimations for various categories);
aggregate the plurality of sustainability indicators into a single sustainability indicator (Abstract, Claim 4, Fig. 2 item 136, and para. [0059], [0063] discloses estimate an overall greenhouse gas emission (i.e., single sustainability indicator) from greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage from the end user's home (Home Footprint 128), travel (Travel Footprint 130), work (Work Footprint 132), and shopping habits (Shopping Footprint 134) which are various categories of sustainability indicators);
generate a graphical user interface including the single sustainability indicator (Fig. 1, user interface 12; Para. [0043] disclosing customizable user interface. Para. [0045] “displays relating to the overall greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage and subcategories of the overall greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage;”); and
perform an action to improve the single sustainability indicator (para. [0010], [0146]-[0151] disclosing the “Personal Energy Advisor is an energy use, physical resource and greenhouse gas emissions calculator that provides high-resolution, user-adaptable and personalized estimates of the amount of energy, greenhouse gas (including carbon dioxide), dollars, water, electricity, oil, gasoline, jet fuel, natural gas, coal and other resources consumers or organizations emit and/or save by engaging in specific behaviors, taking specific actions, or making specific purchases” which discloses the user selected actions that improves the overall greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., single sustainability indicator)).
however, Scaramellino fails to expressly disclose cause one or more devices to perform an action to improve the single sustainability indicator (italic emphasis included).
Nonetheless, Davis in the similar field for a building management system with sustainability improvement, which specifically teaches (italic emphasis included),
cause one or more devices to perform an action to improve the single sustainability indicator (Claim 1, para. [0111], [0218]-[0219] teaches the building management that generates a plurality of control actions to control a plurality of building equipment to reach sustainability goals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Scaramellino for analyzing high-level sustainability data to calculate a footprint and provide recommendations for improvement to a user via a GUI, to include the feature of automating in a system that generates control actions and automatically controls building equipment to meet a sustainability goal, as taught by Davis. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the recommendation engine of Scaramellino by incorporating the automated control functionality taught by Davis for the motivation of improving the efficacy of Scaramellino’s system by automating the implements of its recommendations to ensure the calculated sustainability improvements are actually implemented and achieved. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar greenhouse gas management field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same greenhouse gas management related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Davis, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 2, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 1. Scaramellino further discloses, wherein causing the one or more devices to perform the action to improve the single sustainability indicator comprises:
updating at least one setting of the one or more devices to lower an energy consumption of the one or more devices (Scaramellino: para. [0010] disclosing resource saving based on individual’s action. In para. [0168] and [0210] disclosing lowering the water temperature for dishwasher).
Scaramellino discloses the user input and change of the setting. However, Scaramellino does not disclose the causing of the device to perform the action comprising the updating of the setting of the device.
Specifically, Scaramellino fails to disclose (italic emphasis), wherein causing the one or more devices to perform the action to improve the single sustainability indicator comprises: updating at least one setting of the one or more devices to lower an energy consumption of the one or more devices.
Nonetheless, Davis in the similar field for a building management system with sustainability improvement, which specifically teaches (italic emphasis included),
wherein causing the one or more devices to perform the action to improve the single sustainability indicator comprises: updating at least one setting of the one or more devices to lower an energy consumption of the one or more devices (Claim 1 teaches the control actions to control a plurality of building equipment to reach sustainability goals. In para. [0152], [0315], [0323] teaching the control action includes adjusting/lowering temperature setpoint for the building equipment, resulting energy reduction and reducing carbon emission production to the established target sustainability level).
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Scaramellino with/and the teachings of Davis are presented in the examining of independent claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 3, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 1. Davis further teaches, wherein the telemetry data is first telemetry data, and wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to:
collect second telemetry data from a plurality of devices associated with the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities (para. [0115]-[0118] teaching various sensors to monitor and control building subsystems and equipment such as HVAC, lighting, lifts, and power distribution for energy consumption and demand. Claim 1 and para. [0150]-[0151] teaches operational data which is collected form the buildings being controlled (the one or more second entities) is the second telemetry data that is historical data collected from devices within the entities); and
generate at least one of the plurality of sustainability indicators based at least in part on the second telemetry data (para. [0147] and [0150]-[0151], teaching analyzer identifies sustainability data (i.e., indicator) for carbon emission of the building from electricity consumption. In claim 5, Davis teaches receiving second operational data after control actions have applied and using it to determine a current sustainability performance).
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Scaramellino with/and the teachings of Davis are presented in the examining of independent claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 4, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 3. Davis further teaches,
wherein at least one of the first telemetry data or the second telemetry data is collected from at least one of a vehicle telematics system, a wearable device, an airline system, or a residential computing system (para. [0116]-[0118] teaching building automation system including BAS controllers and subsystems with various sensor to monitor and control operation data, which is representative of telemetry data collected by a residential computing system).
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Scaramellino with/and the teachings of Davis are presented in the examining of independent claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Claim 5, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 1. Scaramellino further discloses, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to:
retrieve, from the one or more devices, an indication of a geographic region that a building of the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities is located in (para. [0018]-[0019] and [0067], “zip code” and “census division” as indication of geographic region);
retrieve, from the one or more devices, a region-based modeling assumption based on the indication of the geographic region (para. [0019]-[0020], [0068]-[0072] disclosing by linking to a corresponding weather location and applying specific regression models and data for the region); and
generate at least one sustainability indicator based on the region-based modeling assumption (para. [0019]-[0020], [0068]-[0072] disclosing by linking to a corresponding weather location and applying specific regression models and data for the region to generate or estimate emission and energy consumption).
Claim 6, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 1. Scaramellino further discloses, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to:
retrieve, from the one or more devices, data indicating an activity performed by the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities that reduces carbon emissions production of the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities; retrieve, from the one or more devices, an offset value based on the activity performed by the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities; and offset the single sustainability indicator based on the offset value (para. [0259] disclosing, retrieving of user activity such purchase of carbon credits, install solar panel, or install energy saving bulbs, that reduces carbon emission production of the entity for an offset value. This is consistent with the applicant’s specification in paragraphs [0122]-[0127]).
Claim 7, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 1. Scaramellino further discloses, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to:
retrieve, from the one or more devices, a sustainability indicator limit based on an indication of a geographic location of the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities (Para. [0166] discloses “Personal Energy Advisor Savings Planner, which allows the user to set goal of saving a particular amount. The user set goal is representative of the sustainability indicator limit. In para. [0018]-[0019], [0067], and [0154] “zip code” and “census division” as indication of geographic location of the entity which the location-based user zip code is used to determine behavior, action or product to maximize to meet user’s end goal (i.e., sustainability indicator limit) including maximizing carbon dioxide emissions reductions, maximizing dollar savings, maximizing the savings of particular resources, maximizing the cost per carbon dioxide reduced ratio, and others); and
generate the single sustainability indicator based on a comparison of the aggregated plurality of sustainability indicators with the sustainability indicator limit (In para. [0257] discloses user is able to view its initial footprint, current footprint, reductions, offsets, and quantity away from carbon neutrality for each of the simultaneous outputs).
Claim 9, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 1. Scaramellino further discloses, wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to:
offset the single sustainability indicator based on one or more values associated with a location of the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities (para. [0257] disclosing the footprint value can be offset by purchasing additional, verifiable renewable energy or energy efficiency credits. In para. [0018], [0077], [0154] disclosing the footprint calculation is location-based using input of zip code and NERC subregion level emission factor); and
display, via a user interface, the offset sustainability indicator on at least one device associated with the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities (para. [0257], disclosing that a user is able to view its initial footprint, current footprint, reductions, offsets, and quantity away from carbon neutrality for each of the simultaneous outputs).
Claim 10, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 1. Scaramellino further discloses, wherein the one or more modeling assumptions are for modeling low-level sustainability data and the instructions cause the one or more processors to:
select the one or more modeling assumptions for modeling low-level sustainability data based on high-level sustainability data of multiple entities including the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities (para. [0064]-[0065], [0068]-[0069], and [0072] disclosing the “Bottom-Up Energy Mapping Model” explicitly designed to take high-level inputs and use models to estimate more granular, low-level outcomes like energy use for space heating, cooling, etc. of the entity).
Claim 11, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 1. Scaramellino further discloses,
wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to display the graphical user interface on a display of at least one device associated with the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities (Para. [0058], [0059] and Fig. 1 disclosing user interface 12 on a user workstation 10 for displaying information).
Claim 13, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 1. Scaramellino further discloses,
wherein the plurality of sustainability indicators include at least one of: an emissions indicator, an engagement indicator, a plastic use indicator, or a water use indicator (para. [0062]-[0063] disclosing the plurality of sustainability indicator (i.e., footprints) are emissions indicators).
Claim 14 is rejected under the same rejection and reasons as claim 1. The claims recite the same process steps, which are taught or rendered obvious by the combination of the references, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 15, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the method of claim 14. Claim 15 is rejected under the same rejection analysis as claim 2, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 16, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the method of claim 14. Claim 16 is rejected under the same rejection analysis as claim 3, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 17, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the method of claim 14. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rejection analysis as claim 9, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 18, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the method of claim 14. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rejection analysis as claim 10, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Claim 19, Scaramellino discloses one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon (para. [0043], downloadable application may be adapted to run on a cellular phone, a personal digital assistant, a laptop computer, a desktop computer), when executed by one or more processors (Fig. 1 and para. [0059], processing means 14 may include multiple computer processors), cause the one or more processors to:
collect telemetry data associated with multiple first entities (para. [0068], “multivariate regression analysis of the most recent Department of Energy Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) data to identify factors significant in determining total energy use”. The RECS dataset is a large detailed collection of granular energy consumption and household characteristic data from thousands of U.S. households which is the multiple first entities. The detailed survey data collected from a plurality of sources/households to build a model is analogous to telemetry data);
select one or more modeling assumptions for modeling low-level sustainability data based the telemetry data associated with the multiple first entities (para. [0064]-[0065], [0068]-[0069], and [0072] disclosing the “Bottom-Up Energy Mapping Model” explicitly designed to take high-level inputs and use models to estimate more granular, low-level outcomes like energy use for space heating, cooling, etc. of the entity. Scaramellino’s system determines regression functions which involves selecting a model type, relevant variables and calculating coefficients for estimating low-level outcomes (e.g., energy use of space heating) from high-level inputs);
receive high-level sustainability data associated with at least one of one or more of the multiple first entities or one or more second entities (in view of applicant’s specification in paragraph [0101], “high-level data can indicate high-level behaviors, characteristics, preferences, or a profile of consumption for the entities of the corpus or group of entities in various categories (e.g., commuting, food, shopping, business travel, additional consumption from remote work, remote work behaviors, work from home setups, work from home frequency, work from home durations, etc.). For example, the high-level data could indicate typical commute distance, typical commute day per week, average size of a vehicle driven, utilization of busses, trains, shopping habits, food habits, etc. As another example, the high-level data could indicate typical work from home frequency (e.g., days per week, days per month, days per year, work from home occurrences per unit time, etc.), work from home duration (e.g., hours per day, hours per week, hours per month, etc.), work from home hardware and energy consumption (e.g., energy consumptions attributed to desktop computer use, laptop computer use, external monitor use, home office lighting usage, home office air conditioning usage, home office internet usage, etc.)” In Scaramellino: para. [0018], [0071], [0149] discloses receiving or accepting user inputs such as zip code, residence type, household income, equipment types, lifestyle habits, appliance setting, and energy usage, these are similar to “high-level sustainability data” provided in the specification, from an end user (i.e., second entities));
generate a plurality of sustainability indicators for a plurality of categories for the at least one of one or more of the multiple first entities or one or more second entities based on the high-level sustainability data and one or more modeling assumptions (Fig. 2 and Claim 4, para. [0063], and [0068], discloses generating a plurality of indicators (e.g., Home Footprint 128, Travel Footprint 130, Work Footprint 132, and Shopping Footprint 134) for a plurality categories (e.g., home, work, travel and shopping) using model assumption in form of multivariate regression model. Specifically in para. [0072] discloses plugging the user’s high-level inputs into the previously determined regression model (modelling assumptions) to generate estimations for various categories);
aggregate the plurality of sustainability indicators into a single sustainability indicator (Abstract, Claim 4, Fig. 2 item 136, and para. [0059], [0063] discloses estimate an overall greenhouse gas emission (i.e., single sustainability indicator) from greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage from the end user's home (Home Footprint 128), travel (Travel Footprint 130), work (Work Footprint 132), and shopping habits (Shopping Footprint 134) which are various categories of sustainability indicators);
generate a graphical user interface including the single sustainability indicator (Fig. 1, user interface 12; Para. [0043] disclosing customizable user interface. Para. [0045] “displays relating to the overall greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage and subcategories of the overall greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage;”); and
perform an action to improve the single sustainability indicator (para. [0010], [0146]-[0151] disclosing the “Personal Energy Advisor is an energy use, physical resource and greenhouse gas emissions calculator that provides high-resolution, user-adaptable and personalized estimates of the amount of energy, greenhouse gas (including carbon dioxide), dollars, water, electricity, oil, gasoline, jet fuel, natural gas, coal and other resources consumers or organizations emit and/or save by engaging in specific behaviors, taking specific actions, or making specific purchases” which discloses the user selected actions that improves the overall greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., single sustainability indicator)).
however, Scaramellino fails to expressly disclose cause one or more devices to perform an action to improve the single sustainability indicator (italic emphasis included).
Nonetheless, Davis in the similar field for a building management system with sustainability improvement, which specifically teaches (italic emphasis included),
cause one or more devices to perform an action to improve the single sustainability indicator (Claim 1, para. [0111], [0218]-[0219] teaches the building management that generates a plurality of control actions to control a plurality of building equipment to reach sustainability goals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the system and method of Scaramellino for analyzing high-level sustainability data to calculate a footprint and provide recommendations for improvement to a user via a GUI, to include the feature of automating in a system that generates control actions and automatically controls building equipment to meet a sustainability goal, as taught by Davis. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to modify the recommendation engine of Scaramellino by incorporating the automated control functionality taught by Davis for the motivation of improving the efficacy of Scaramellino’s system by automating the implements of its recommendations to ensure the calculated sustainability improvements are actually implemented and achieved. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar greenhouse gas management field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same greenhouse gas management related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Davis, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claims 8, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaramellino et al. (US 20100042453 A1) in view of Davis et al. (US 20230152763 A1) and further in view of Kahn et al. (US 20220358515 A1).
Claim 8, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 1. Scaramellino discloses a “Personal Energy Advisory” predictive tool that calculates the “potential change” resulting from “potential actions” (para. [0010]. Scaramellino also teaches offsetting the footprint via purchasing credits (para. [0257]). However, the combination does not expressly teach the forecasting trajectory.
Specifically, the combination fails to teach,
record a plurality of values of the single sustainability indicator over time to generate a trajectory of the single sustainability indicator;
generate a prediction of a value of the single sustainability indicator at a future time based on the trajectory; and
generate a predictive indicator based at least in part on the prediction of the value and one or more offset values based on an indication of a geographic location of the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities.
Nonetheless, Kahn is in the similar field of carbon emissions management system, which specifically teaches,
record a plurality of values of the single sustainability indicator over time to generate a trajectory of the single sustainability indicator (Para. [0038], The system analyzes emission data over time to generate forecasts and roadmaps. In Fig. 2H and para. [0054] depicts a graph explicitly labeled “Forecast over time” (284B). The resulting line graph itself is a visual representation of the trajectory of the single sustainability indicator. Further see Fig. 1E shows a “roadmap” with emissions values projected for the years);
generate a prediction of a value of the single sustainability indicator at a future time based on the trajectory (para. [0022], [0024] and [0033] disclosing the processing of data include “forecasting” and “scenario simulations” for future projections and emissions; See illustration in Fig. 1E for future projection years of 2031); and
generate a predictive indicator based at least in part on the prediction of the value and one or more offset values based on an indication of a geographic location of the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities (Fig. 1E and para. [0033], [0038] teaches carbon emissions data analytics which includes abatement breakdown view for projecting years that provides predictive emissions impact (i.e., indicator) and carbon compensation (i.e., offset value) with reference to country “PR Canada” as indication of geographic location. In Fig. 2D and 2H provides selection of “location” and “Country”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the predictive system and method of Scaramellino for analyzing high-level sustainability data to calculate a footprint and provide recommendations for improvement to a user to include feature of provide forecast based on user historical performance trends and projections as taught by Kahn for the motivation to improve the accuracy and sophistication of prediction of Scaramellino to provide more robust predictive indicator. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar greenhouse gas management field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same greenhouse gas management related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Kahn, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 12, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the system of claim 1. Scaramellino discloses a system that allows a user to offset footprint by purchasing offset credits (para. [0257]) and provides a framework for recommending products and services (para. [0045] and [0154]), which strongly suggests a user a user can select and purchase offset items.
However, the combination fails to expressly teach,
receive a selection of at least one selectable offset item;
offset the single sustainability indicator based on the selection; and
display the offset sustainability indicator on a display of at least one device associated with the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities.
Nonetheless, Kahn is in the similar field of carbon emissions management system, which specifically teaches,
receive a selection of at least one selectable offset item (Kahn, claim 4, “selecting one or more of the plurality of abatement levers” and para. [0033] and [0038] for carbon offsetting);
offset the single sustainability indicator based on the selection (Fig. 1E and para. [0033] and [0038]); and
display the offset sustainability indicator on a display of at least one device associated with the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities (Fig. 1C and 1E provides Carbon Compensation which is offset sustainability indicator).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling of the invention to modify the predictive system and method of Scaramellino for analyzing high-level sustainability data to calculate a footprint and provide recommendations for improvement to a user to include feature of above-mentioned limitations as taught by Kahn for the motivation to improve the accuracy and sophistication of prediction of Scaramellino to provide more robust predictive indicator. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar greenhouse gas management field of endeavor. In such combination each element merely would have performed the same greenhouse gas management related function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Kahn, the results of the combination were predictable (See MPEP 2143 A).
Claim 20, the combination of Scaramellino and Davis make obvious of the one or more memory devices of claim 19. Claim 20 is rejected under the same rejection analysis as claim 12, mutatis mutandis respectively.
Response to Remarks
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection:
The Examiner asserts that the Applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the amended amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the Applicant’s arguments.
On pages 9-10, the Applicant asserts:
“The features recited in the claims provide technical improvements to the technical field of emissions tracking systems as described in paragraph [0009] of the specification, according to non-limiting example implementations: "collect[ing] a small amount of telemetry data for a small portion of entities of [a] corpus or group of entities and utiliz[ing] the learned modeling assumptions 204 to make accurate determinations of the low-level consumption data 226 for entities of the corpus or group of entities that do not have telemetry data," thereby reducing data storage and resource processing requirements and improving processing speeds associated with the emissions tracking systems (as compared to emissions tracking systems that collect, store, and process telemetry data for the entire group of entities).”
The Applicant believes the provided paragraph is supposed to be [0090] not [0009]. Still, in numerous court decisions have found the use of computer to perform computer process in a convenience (e.g., more efficient, faster, and etc.) has been held not be an “inventive concept” or specific improvement, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). A process for monitoring audit log data that is executed on a general-purpose computer where the increased speed in the process comes solely from the capabilities of the general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
That is, “the reducing data storage and resource processing requirements and improving processing speeds associated with the emissions tracking systems” is the expected result of utilizing a computer system to implement the abstract idea of the claimed invention, the specification nor the claim provide technical detail to how the data storage and resource processing requirements are reduced or processing speeds associated with the emissions tracking systems are improved. Thus, the computer system itself or specific technology is not improved in anyway other than being applied as a tool/instrument for the judicial exception (abstract idea). As discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) - The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Thus, the 101 rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection:
The Examiner asserts that the Applicant’s arguments are directed towards amended claim limitations and are, therefore, considered moot. However, the Examiner has responded to the amended amendments, which the arguments are directed to, in the rejection above, thereby addressing the Applicant’s arguments.
Applicant's arguments on pages 10-12 regarding the 103 rejection fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The Examiner asserts in Scaramellino, at least para. [0068], discloses the amended limitation, collect telemetry data associated with one or more first entities of a group of entities.
In Scaramellino at least para. [0069] discloses the amended limitation, determine one or more modeling assumptions for the group of entities based on the telemetry data associated with the one or more first entities.
In Scaramellino at least para. [0018], [0071], [0149] discloses the amended limitation, receive high-level sustainability data associated with at least one of the one or more first entities or one or more second entities of the group of entities.
In Scaramellino at least Fig. 2 and Claim 4, para. [0063], [0068], and [0072], discloses the amended limitation, generate a plurality of sustainability indicators for a plurality of categories for the at least one of the one or more first entities or the one or more second entities based on the high-level sustainability data and the one or more modeling assumptions associated with the group of entities.
Detail analysis is provided in the 103 rejection above. Thus, the 103 rejection is maintained.
Relevant Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The additional cited art, including but not limited to the excerpts below, further establishes the state of the art at the time of Applicant’s invention and shows the following was known:
X. Wang, J. Chen, Y. Guo and C. Lai, "Prediction of Regional Carbon Emission Path Based on CEE Adaptive Linkage Model," 2022 IEEE 10th Joint International Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence Conference (ITAIC), Chongqing, China, 2022, pp. 1116-1120, doi: 10.1109/ITAIC54216.2022.9836795.
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 WENREN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM - 6PM.
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, Nathan C Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/WENREN CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626