DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 3/24/2026.
Claims 3 & 13 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and updated for amended limitations.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph and updated for amended limitations.
Rejection for claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 that were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view amendment to independent claims 1 & 11.
This action is made Final.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Priority
PNG
media_image1.png
128
856
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 only has priority till Application No. 15/096185.
Response to Arguments
(Argument 1) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.10-11:
PNG
media_image2.png
458
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) The mere allegation that these elements are present in the claim is not substantiated by mapping in the claim to show how the additional elements improve the technology or improve the functioning of the computer.
(Argument 2) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.12:
PNG
media_image3.png
646
578
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Response 2) There is no indication what investment changes are made based on the computation of the Net Carbon Savings. Further the investment are made ahead of the computation (QEnergyEfficiency is input). There is no physical transformation claimed (physical change from one state to another, this is not product by process claim). The claim is purely directed to gather (efficiency data) and compute Net Carbon Savings (mathematical concept) and does nothing with the results to improve or suggest improvement in the heating and cooling systems or improvement. Therefore the claim at best is field of use and does not improve the heating or cooling aspects of the building.
(Argument 3) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.13:
PNG
media_image4.png
268
598
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Response 3) The above does not address the concerns raised in the rejection. Applicant has not stated how the amendment overcomes the rejection and the rejection is respectfully maintained.
The rejection under 35 USC 103 is withdrawn for specific use of Net Carbon Savings computation incorporated from claim 3 (into claim 1).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Relevant Prior Art of Record1
US PGPUB No. US 20140222665 A1 by Kamel; Michel Roger et al. discloses
PNG
media_image5.png
526
589
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Here the energy efficiency based on the investment (energy improving measures/energy saving measures) is disclosed in terms of carbon footprint/energy savings. Additionally see Fig.5-7. Kamel however does not teach specific Net Carbon Savings as claimed in the claim 1.
PNG
media_image6.png
1188
586
media_image6.png
Greyscale
US PGPUB No. US 20130060471 A1 by Aschheim; Mark A. et al. discloses carbon offset as shown in the Fig.7:
PNG
media_image7.png
956
800
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Aschheim however also does not teach specific Net Carbon Savings as claimed in the claim 1.
US PGPUB No. US 20100042453 A1 by Scaramellino; Thomas Joseph et al. discloses Net Annual Carbon Savings based on the various improvements like house blinds on windows and window direction ([0169]-[0196]), reduced consumption of clothes washer ([0197]-[0209]), reduced dishwasher temperature ([0210]-[0224]), Double Pane Window (0225]-[0245]), cleaning dryer lint filter ([0246]-[0252]). Scaramellino however also does not teach specific Net Carbon Savings as claimed in the claim 1.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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, 4-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 1 & 11:
Step 1: the claims are drawn to a system and method respectively, falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. The limitations are bolded for abstract idea/judicial exception identification.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
1. A system for estimating seasonal net carbon emissions savings with the aid of a digital computer, comprising the steps of:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program code;
a computer processor interfaced to the storage medium and configured to execute the program code to performs steps to:
obtain efficiencies of electricity generation as supplied to a building and of the building's cooling and heating systems;
obtain carbon emissions of electricity and natural gas consumption;
define with the computer a cooling season duration and a heating season duration that together define a time period during which seasonal changes affecting the building occur; and
evaluate net carbon emissions savings afforded by an electric energy efficiency investment associated with the building as a function of a reduction in electricity consumption afforded by the electric energy efficiency investment times the electricity consumption carbon emissions plus an inverse of the cooling system efficiency based on the cooling season duration less the natural gas consumption carbon emissions over the heating system efficiency based on the heating season duration in accordance with,
PNG
media_image8.png
298
553
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein the electric energy efficiency investment is implemented based on the evaluation.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The system of estimating as a whole recites mathematical formula/equations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B))/mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)).
The steps also recites mental process as mapped below (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
See Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
See Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
See Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
See Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: The defining is a mental step that defines seasonal change duration and can be done as a mental step (e.g. 4 month cooling and 4 month heating season with seasonal change being 8 month based on some observation or user opinion/judgement). (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept/Mental Process: The system of estimating/evaluating recites mathematical formula/function (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B))/mathematical calculations (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)) in prose form. The energy efficiency investment appears to be an input/observation.
Abstract Idea/Mathematical Concept: The limitation discloses a mathematical formula & equation, for net carbon savings based on parameters provided in the previous steps. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(B) & (C).
See Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components (non-transitory computer readable storage medium & a computer processor) . Also the mathematical concepts disclosed may also be performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As per (1) the additional elements are identified as bolded parts of the limitations in column 1 of the table below, and as per (2) the evaluation is shown in the mapping section of the table.
In accordance with this step, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
1. A system for estimating seasonal net carbon emissions savings with the aid of a digital computer, comprising the steps of:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program code;
a computer processor interfaced to the storage medium and configured to execute the program code to performs steps to:
obtain efficiencies of electricity generation as supplied to a building and of the building's cooling and heating systems;
obtain carbon emissions of electricity and natural gas consumption;
define with the computer a cooling season duration and a heating season duration that together define a time period during which seasonal changes affecting the building occur; and
evaluate net carbon emissions savings afforded by an electric energy efficiency investment associated with the building as a function of a reduction in electricity consumption afforded by the electric energy efficiency investment times the electricity consumption carbon emissions plus an inverse of the cooling system efficiency based on the cooling season duration less the natural gas consumption carbon emissions over the heating system efficiency based on the heating season duration in accordance with,
PNG
media_image8.png
298
553
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein the electric energy efficiency investment is implemented based on the evaluation.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) the claim invokes additional elements of computers (processor/storage medium) merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In this case the obtaining steps are mere data gathering.
See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
See Step 2A Prong 1 above.
Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem (electric energy efficiency investment is implemented) 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".
In this case how electric energy efficiency investment, a number, is implemented, is not disclosed. Implementation would require determining what would change (e.g. HVAC system, utilization etc).
Under MPEP 2106.05(h), this is also a field of use as the evaluation is a number (like alarm limit in In re Flook) and it does improve the HVAC system. Notice there is no mention of application specifically (HVAC system) in the claim. The “cooling and heating system” are only used to gather efficiency data.
In particular, the claim(s) recites the additional elements of a processor/storage medium for the system claim, at a high-level of generality (i.e. a generic processor performing generic functions of computing and executing information such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, here the additional element of using a computer/processor/storage medium to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer/processing component and do not contribute significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the limitation wherein the electric energy efficiency is implemented based on the evaluation amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment of field of use which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea(See MPEP 2106.05(h)) because the steps may lead to better algorithm to evaluate efficiency, but it does not implementation of electric efficiency based on evaluation (of electrical efficiency). The claims 1 & 11 are therefore considered to be patent ineligible.
Claims 2 & 12 recite recording various datum and are generally considered extra solution activity and an attempt to link the measurements/recordings to field of use. This type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (adjusting performance/production of well based on simulation) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. MPEP 2106.05(g) & (h).
Claims 3 & 13 are (Cancelled).
Claims 4-5 & 14-15 recite calculate with the computer net cost savings associated with the implementation of the electric energy efficiency/ calculate with the computer net fuel savings associated with the implementation of the electric energy efficiency investment, is considered as an abstract idea (mathematical concept/mathematical formula in prose – ( see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)). The claim further recites wherein the implementation of the electric energy efficiency investment is further based on the net cost savings/ wherein the implementation of the electric energy efficiency is further based on the net cost/fuel savings, which is considered as idea of solution (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) as it does not disclose how the implementation of the electric energy efficiency is further based on the net cost savings. The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B). Claims 5 & 15 are rejected with similar rationale as claims 4 and 5.
Claims 6 & 16 recite “obtain a net carbon emissions savings associated with associating the building with renewable distributed power generation” (mapped as data gathering step under step 2A Prong 2 and 2B under MPEP 2106.05(g)); “and compare the renewable distributed power generation net carbon emission savings with the electric energy efficiency investment net carbon savings,” (mapped as abstract idea/mathematical concept under step 2A Prong 1 under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)), “wherein the electric energy efficiency investment is further implemented based on the comparison”, which is considered as idea of solution (See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) as it does not disclose how the electric energy efficiency is further implemented based on the comparison. The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 7 & 17 recites wherein the net carbon emissions savings is dependent on a reduction in fuel use associated with the implementation of the electric energy efficiency investment and a reduction in waste heat associated with the implementation of the electric energy efficiency investment, which is an abstract idea/mathematical concept further detailing the mathematical function or generic statement under mental step (judgement based on observation of reduction in fuel use associated with the implementation of the electric energy/ a reduction in waste heat associated with the implementation of the electric energy efficiency). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) and (III)(A). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 8 & 18 recites wherein the reduction in waste heat reduces a burden on the cooling system during a cooling season and increases a burden on the heating system during a heating season. This is an idea of a solution and field of use limitation under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B. The claim does not detail how the reduction in waste heat is achieved only that it leads to solution that reduces a burden on the cooling system during a cooling season. Similar argument is made for heating season. This is a field of use as reduction in waste heat is presumably a number associated with HVAC field. This however does not show how it is an improvement in field of improving HVAC efficiency. The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 9 & 19 recite wherein the natural gas is used for heating of the building and the electricity is used for heating of the building. This is simply a field of use limitation, where it does not tie to how the HVAC efficiency is improved. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 10 & 20 recite wherein a carbon emissions decrease due to the reduction in fuel use and the reduction in the burden on the cooling system are partially offset by a carbon emissions increase due to an increase in use of the natural gas due to the increased burden on the heating system. This is simply a field of use limitation, where it does not tie to how the HVAC efficiency is improved. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
----- This page is left blank after this line -----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite:
1. A system for estimating seasonal net carbon emissions savings with the aid of a digital computer, comprising the steps of: a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program code; a computer processor interfaced to the storage medium and configured to execute the program code to performs steps to: obtain efficiencies of electricity generation as supplied to a building and of the building's cooling and heating systems [1]; obtain carbon emissions of electricity and natural gas consumption; define with the computer a cooling season duration and a heating season duration that together define a time period during which seasonal changes affecting the building occur; and evaluate net carbon emissions savings afforded by an electric energy efficiency investment [2] associated with the building as a function of a reduction in electricity consumption afforded by the electric energy efficiency investment times the electricity consumption carbon emissions plus an inverse of the cooling system efficiency based on the cooling season duration less the natural gas consumption carbon emissions over the heating system efficiency based on
PNG
media_image9.png
354
553
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It is unclear how the electric efficiency investment is implemented. First, the electric efficiency investment (presumably QEnergyEfficiency in the equation) is an input to the claimed system (See [1]), and it appears to be unmodified by the evaluate net carbon emissions savings (See [2]). Merely computing the evaluate net carbon emissions savings does not improve the efficiency or compute the efficiency. Therefore the goal of the claim is unclear. Claim 11 is further indefinite for the same reasons. The claim appears to be missing steps regarding how the computing the carbon emissions leads to implementation of electric energy efficiencies. If the goal is to evaluate how much (more) electric efficiency investment is needed to achieve the carbon credits (net carbon emissions savings in preamble), this is not achieved by claim language. Applicant are welcome to request interview to clarify.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10 and 12, 14-20 are rejected for not curing this deficiency.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
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.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Friday, May 15, 2026
1 Most Documents here are from PE2E Search String L87/L86(compact version).
Prosecution Insights