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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/18/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 have been presented for examination based on the amendment filed on 8/18/2026.
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.
Rejection for claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is WITHDRAWN in view of amendment.
This action is made Non-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
There is no indication what investment changes are made based on the computation of the Net Carbon Savings. Instead the proposed energy efficiency investment to add a heatpump to the system is perfunctory, and simply arbitrary so that a efficiency number can be made available to be used in the formula. In other words, the computation of net carbon savings simply computes a number based on current proposed solution (to add a heat pump) and does not improve on the designing of the (HVAC) system. Simply estimating efficiency of a system does not improve the functioning on the system (as under MPEP 2106.05(a)). The computation of efficiency remains an abstract idea (mathematical concept) based on collected data (e.g. electrical efficiency number related to heatpump).
Therefore the claim at best is field of use and does not improve the heating or cooling aspects of the building.
Applicants are encouraged to request an interview before responding to this action to show how the computation of efficiency leads to improvement in the system and the selection of heatpump is not arbitrary.
---- 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_image2.png
526
589
media_image2.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_image3.png
1188
586
media_image3.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_image4.png
956
800
media_image4.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 a proposed electric energy efficiency investment that changes the cooling system via an installation of an electric heat pump into the building and that reduces an electricity consumption associated with the building as a function of the reduction in the 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_image5.png
298
553
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the proposed 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.
The use of proposed electric energy efficiency investment that changes the cooling system is simply an input to compute the savings (based on heat pump addition). The decision to add heat pump so that evaluation of net carbon emission is affected is user input.
This step can be further reviewed under Step 2A Prong 2.
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 a proposed electric energy efficiency investment that changes the cooling system via an installation of an electric heat pump into the building and that reduces an electricity consumption associated with the building as a function of the reduction in the 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_image5.png
298
553
media_image5.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.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) the addition of heat pump adds efficiency to the formula for computation. The addition of heatpump (adding to electrical efficiency for mathematical formula) is data gathering step.
Further Under MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), the addition of heat pump to improve electrical efficiency is an idea of solution because there are no steps or mechanism claimed how the efficiency for the heat pump (which heat pump) is determined. Arbitrary selection of heat pump (say 2 Ton heat pump an associated SEER rating for efficiency) is merely data gathering not including any analysis why a proposed solution was selected.
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.
Proposing a heat pump (without analysis why this specific heatpump/efficiency was chosen) as proposed solution is simply field of use of the efficiency rating of heatpump in net carbon emissions savings formula.
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 proposed electric energy efficiency/ calculate with the computer net fuel savings associated with the implementation of the proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed electric energy efficiency investment and a reduction in waste heat associated with the implementation of the proposed 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 ----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 Wednesday, September 2, 2026
1 Most Documents here are from PE2E Search String L87/L86(compact version).
Prosecution Insights