DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119 and/or 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that groups I and II are closely related and have a common utility and there is no excess burden on the Examiner to search all groups. This is not found persuasive because Group I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if itis shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instance case, Group I has separate utility such as calculate a measurement/value related to greenhouse gas emissions. Group II has separate utility such receive a first input wherein the first input includes a selection of a first product, receive greenhouse gas emissions data relating to the first product, and display a net greenhouse gas emissions output for the first product based on the greenhouse gas emissions data, See MPEP § 806.05(d). The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to the response received on 11/17/2025.
In response to applicant's elections to claims received on 11/17/2025, Group I (claim 1-19) are elected.
Claims 1-19 are being considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/11/2024, 07/18/2024, 08/20/2024, 10/24/2024, 11/13/2024, 12/09/2024, 03/19/2025, 05/23/2025, 08/21/2025, 10/29/2025, 01/07/2026, and 02/06/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13-15 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “the sensors is...”, the claims should read “the sensors are...”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the Computer Program Product (claims 1-18) and the method (claim 19) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of MPEP 2106, it is next noted that the claims(1-18) recite an abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, aggerating, and calculating greenhouse gas emissions information for a product which constitutes data collection and mathematical evaluation of information which fall within “mental process” and “mathematical concept” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) wherein the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: A computer program product comprising computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium that when executed by a processor instruct the processor to: receive greenhouse gas emissions data from sensors associated with respective particular units of a particular product; process the greenhouse gas emissions data over all of the respective particular units; allocate at least a portion of the greenhouse gas emissions data to the particular product; aggregate the at least a portion of the greenhouse gas emissions data to previously measured greenhouse gas emissions data of the particular units of the product; and calculate a lifetime measurement of greenhouse gas emissions data for the particular units of the particular product based on the aggregation.
It is next noted that the claim 19 recite an abstract idea of calculating a net greenhouse emission value and initiating a transaction based on determination which fall within “mathematical concept” and a commercial transaction within “certain method of organizing human activity” within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 19, are: A method, comprising: receiving greenhouse gas emissions data from sensors; process the greenhouse gas emissions data to determine a total greenhouse gas emissions output; calculate a net greenhouse gas emissions output by comparing the total greenhouse gas emissions output to a predetermined allowance; when the net greenhouse gas emissions output results in a positive net, initiate a sell transaction to sell carbon credits to a carbon credit sensing network based on the positive net; and when the net greenhouse gas emissions output results in a negative net, initiate a buy transaction to purchase carbon credits from the carbon credit sensing network to offset the negative net.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the MPEP 2106, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a computer program product comprising computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium that when executed by a processor instruct the processor to: receive greenhouse gas emissions data from sensors associated with respective particular units of a particular product (recited at high level of generality amounts to data gathering step) and receiving greenhouse gas emissions data from sensor(recited at high level of generality amounts to data gathering step). However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [02033] describe high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. With respect to receiving sensor data which is recited at high level of generality which amounts to data gathering step, MPEP2106.04(a)(2) states that claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: a computer program product comprising computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium that when executed by a processor instruct the processor to: receive greenhouse gas emissions data from sensors associated with respective particular units of a particular product (recited at high level of generality amounts to data gathering step) and receiving greenhouse gas emissions data from sensor(recited at high level of generality amounts to data gathering step). to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [02033] describe high-level general-purpose computer) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. With respect to receiving sensor data which is recited at high level of generality which amounts to data gathering step, MPEP2106.04(a)(2) states that claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims recite the following additional elements: a processor in claims 8-10 and claims 11-18 recite the following the sensors are formed from a three-dimensional (3D) monolithic carbonaceous growth, a resonant frequency of the 3D monolithic carbonaceous growth is based at least in part on either or both of a permittivity and a permeability of a material associated with the sensors, the sensors is a split-ring resonator (SRR) on or embedded in a material, wherein the SRR includes a resonance portion, wherein the resonance portion is configured to resonate at a first frequency in response to an electromagnetic ping when a state of the material exceeds a threshold, and is configured to resonate at a second frequency in response to the electromagnetic ping when the state of the material is beneath the threshold, the sensors is integrated within a label configured to be removably printed onto a surface of a package or container, and the label comprises one or more carbon-based inks, the sensors is carbon-based and is functionalized with a material configured to react with each analyte of a first group of analytes, he sensors include a three-dimensional (3D) graphene layer, wherein the 3D graphene layer is biofunctionalized with a molecular recognition element configured to alter one or more electrical properties of the 3D graphene layer in response to exposure of the molecular recognition element to an analyte, the molecular recognition element is a biological material configured to selectively bind with the analyte, and the sensors are a three-dimensional (3D) carbon-based structure configured to guide a migration of electrically charged electrophoretic ink particles dispersed throughout the 3D carbon-based structure, the electrically charged electrophoretic ink particles responsive to application of a voltage to the 3D carbon-based structure. The examiner notes the sensor-structure recitations in claims 11-18 are treated as field of use/ technological environment limitations and as data source/data-gathering limitations specifying where the data come from, while the claimed focus remain the abstract idea of collecting/processing/aggerating/calculating emissions. MPEP 2106.05(h) states limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Examples of limitations that the courts have described as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception include: iv. Specifying that the abstract idea of monitoring audit log data relates to transactions or activities that are executed in a computer environment, because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer, FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
These additional elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [02033] describe high-level general-purpose computer) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo. With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (Applicant’s Specification paragraphs [02033] describe high-level general-purpose computer) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well, however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of certain method of organizing human activity, a mental process, and mathematical concept, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general-purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robert S. McConnell (US 2010/0070423 A1, hereinafter “McConnell”) in view of Geng Zhu (US 2016/0034909 A1, hereinafter “Zhu”).
Claim 1
McConnell teaches:
A computer program product comprising computer executable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium that when executed by a processor instruct the processor([0007] tracking with software emissions of the direct emission sources and indirect emission sources based on the plurality of characteristics. [0037] In one implementation, the central processor 52 includes software programs or instructions that run on the server-side to process requests and responses from an enterprise processor 54. These software programs or instructions send information to the enterprise processor 54, perform compilation and storage functions, and generate reports.) to: receive greenhouse gas emissions data from sensors associated with respective particular units of a particular product([0032] accept input from emissions sensors. [0059] The equipment interface allows the system to automatically track information related to the amount of emissions produced by a certain emission source without any manual input or effort by a user. [0060] all of the information gathered such that the system accumulates all of the information relating to the amount of emissions produced by each emission source);
process the greenhouse gas emissions data over all of the respective particular units([0061]tracking emissions include calculating the amount of emissions produced by an emission source or sources (block 14). That is, the amount of emissions produced, particularly the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and more particularly the amount of CO2 and CO2 equivalents, produced by a particular source or group of sources can be calculated for any desired time period );
aggregate the at least a portion of the greenhouse gas emissions data to previously measured greenhouse gas emissions data of the particular units of the product([0055] the timing of the emissions information collection (block 72) and the number of such collections can vary significantly. That is, the collection can be performed daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, or at any other known interval. [0061] tracking emissions include calculating the amount of emissions produced by an emission source or sources (block 14). That is, the amount of emissions produced, particularly the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and more particularly the amount of CO2 and CO2 equivalents, produced by a particular source or group of sources can be calculated for any desired time period).
While McConnell teaches in [0061] the system calculates the emissions produced by an entire site and/or the entire enterprise. In other embodiments, the system automatically performs calculations and or reports emission totals at recurring predetermined intervals, such as every month or every year. McConnell does not the explicitly teach the following limitation, however analogous reference in the field of emission tracking and calculation, Zhu teaches:
allocate at least a portion of the greenhouse gas emissions data to the particular product ([0102] teaches non-transitory computer readable medium[0046] An item-properties-scoring module 360 may be configured to determine or generate an item properties green score for the item. The item properties green score may take into account various aspects of the item based on its environmental-friendliness, including environmental-friendliness of its production, packaging, operation, and disposal. Information related to the environmental-friendliness of a product (e.g., carbon emissions associated with a product, packaging associated with a product, the organic nature of a product, etc.) may be retrieved from an external system and analyzed to generate the item properties green score for the item);
and calculate a lifetime measurement of greenhouse gas emissions data for the particular units of the particular product based on the aggregation ([0046] The item properties green score may take into account various aspects of the item based on its environmental-friendliness, including environmental-friendliness of its production, packaging, operation, and disposal. Information related to the environmental-friendliness of a product (e.g., carbon emissions associated with a product, packaging associated with a product, the organic nature of a product, etc.) may be retrieved from an external system and analyzed to generate the item properties green score for the item).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell incorporate the teachings of Zhu to include allocate at least a portion of the greenhouse gas emissions data to the particular product and calculate a lifetime measurement of greenhouse gas emissions data for the particular units of the particular product based on the aggregation. Doing so would help to incorporating green scores based on carbon emissions associated with a product into a network-based publication system to encourage users of the system to choose actions with respect to the system that will result in a more positive (or a less negative) impact on the environment than other actions. [0002].
Claim 4
While McConnell teaches in [0061] the system calculates the emissions produced by an entire site and/or the entire enterprise. In other embodiments, the system automatically performs calculations and or reports emission totals at recurring predetermined intervals, such as every month or every year. McConnell does not the explicitly teach the following limitation, however analogous reference in the field of emission tracking and calculation, Zhu teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the greenhouse gas emissions data is based on emissions from using the particular product ([0046] The item properties green score may take into account various aspects of the item based on its environmental-friendliness, including environmental-friendliness of its production, packaging, operation, and disposal. carbon emissions associated with the production, use, or disposal of the product may be considered in the item properties green score calculation. information related to the environmental-friendliness of a product (e.g., carbon emissions associated with a product, packaging associated with a product, the organic nature of a product, etc.) may be retrieved from an external system and analyzed to generate the item properties green score for the item).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell incorporate the teachings of Zhu to include the greenhouse gas emissions data is based on emissions from using the particular product. Doing so would help to incorporating green scores based on carbon emissions associated with a product into a network-based publication system to encourage users of the system to choose actions with respect to the system that will result in a more positive (or a less negative) impact on the environment than other actions. [0002].
Claim 6
While McConnell teaches in [0061] the system calculates the emissions produced by an entire site and/or the entire enterprise. In other embodiments, the system automatically performs calculations and or reports emission totals at recurring predetermined intervals, such as every month or every year. McConnell does not the explicitly teach the following limitation, however analogous reference in the field of emission tracking and calculation, Zhu teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the greenhouse gas emissions data is based on direct emissions associated with the particular product([0046] The item properties green score may take into account various aspects of the item based on its environmental-friendliness, including environmental-friendliness of its production, packaging, operation, and disposal. carbon emissions associated with the production, use, or disposal of the product may be considered in the item properties green score calculation. information related to the environmental-friendliness of a product (e.g., carbon emissions associated with a product, packaging associated with a product, the organic nature of a product, etc.) may be retrieved from an external system and analyzed to generate the item properties green score for the item).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell incorporate the teachings of Zhu to include the greenhouse gas emissions data is based on direct emissions associated with the particular product. Doing so would help to incorporating green scores based on carbon emissions associated with a product into a network-based publication system to encourage users of the system to choose actions with respect to the system that will result in a more positive (or a less negative) impact on the environment than other actions. [0002].
Claim 7
McConnell further teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the greenhouse gas emissions data is based on indirect emissions associated with the particular product([0019] emissions can include emissions that originate from both direct and indirect emission sources. e system 10 tracks emissions from both direct and indirect sources. Alternatively, the system 10 can track solely the emissions from direct emission sources or solely the emissions from indirect emission sources).
Claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Zhu, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of David Probst (US 2010/0036693 A1, hereinafter “Probst”).
Claim 2
While McConnell teaches [0019] emissions can include emissions that originate from both direct and indirect emission sources. e system 10 tracks emissions from both direct and indirect sources. Alternatively, the system 10 can track solely the emissions from direct emission sources or solely the emissions from indirect emission sources. McConnell does not the explicitly teach the following limitation, however analogous reference in the field of emission tracking and calculation, Probst teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the greenhouse gas emissions data include scope 3 emissions ([0015] The tracking of indirect processes allows an organization to track its overall impact on the environment. The environmental tracking system allows each process to be modeled by its input substances and its resulting output substances. [0017] Once the model of the processes of an organization and surrounding processes of the environment, vendors, customers, and so on is established, the environmental tracking system can track the flow of substances through an organization based on the model. By tracking the flow of substances according to the established model, the environmental impact system can provide an organization with an overall impact that the organization has on the environment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of Probst to include the greenhouse gas emissions data include scope 3 emissions. Doing so would help tracking the flow of substances according to the established model, the environmental impact system can provide an organization with the overall impact that the organization has on the environment to encourage users of the system to choose actions with respect to the system that will result in a more positive (or a less negative) impact on the environment than other actions. [0006].
Claim 3
While McConnell teaches [0019] emissions can include emissions that originate from both direct and indirect emission sources. e system 10 tracks emissions from both direct and indirect sources. Alternatively, the system 10 can track solely the emissions from direct emission sources or solely the emissions from indirect emission sources. McConnell does not the explicitly teach the following limitation, however analogous reference in the field of emission tracking and calculation, Probst teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the greenhouse gas emissions data are based on two or more of: raw materials emissions, manufacturing emissions, distributing emissions, using emissions disposing, or recycling emissions ([0003] In addition to tracking the release of substances into the ecosphere, organizations may want to track the resources they have consumed or extracted from the ecosphere. The resources may include energy, raw materials, transportation resources, and so on. [0018] For example, process 104 inputs a substance from process 103 and outputs substances to processes 105, 106, 109, and 110. The model includes an initial input flow from an ecosphere general process 101, which may represent the extraction of a raw material (e.g., coal or iron) from the environment. The ecosphere general process outputs the raw material, which is input into a vendor process 102. The vendor process may convert the raw material into a manufactured substance that is output from the vendor process 102 and input into a company receipt process 103. The vendor process 102 may also output a substance (e.g., CO.sub.2) that is input into an ecosphere air process 108. The company receipt process 103 may represent the receipt and inventorying of the manufactured substance and eventual output of the manufactured substance as input into a production floor processes 104. The production floor process 104 may represent the conversion of the manufactured substance into a finished product, which is then input into a customer base process 106 when it is sold. The production floor process 104 may also output greenhouse gases that are input into a scrubber process 105 with its output greenhouse gases being released in to the ecosphere air process 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of Probst to include the greenhouse gas emissions data are based on two or more of: raw materials emissions, manufacturing emissions, distributing emissions, using emissions disposing, or recycling emissions. Doing so would help tracking the flow of substances according to the established model, the environmental impact system can provide an organization with the overall impact that the organization has on the environment to encourage users of the system to choose actions with respect to the system that will result in a more positive (or a less negative) impact on the environment than other actions. [0006].
Claim 5
While McConnell teaches [0019] emissions can include emissions that originate from both direct and indirect emission sources. e system 10 tracks emissions from both direct and indirect sources. Alternatively, the system 10 can track solely the emissions from direct emission sources or solely the emissions from indirect emission sources. McConnell does not the explicitly teach the following limitation, however analogous reference in the field of emission tracking and calculation, Probst teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the greenhouse gas emissions data is based on chain supply emissions relating to the particular product ([0006] the environmental tracking system can track the flow of substances through an organization. The environmental tracking system allows a user to specify initial input flows of incoming substances and from where the incoming substances are purchased, acquired, extracted, returned from customers, and/or measured or metered to be used in the model. The environmental tracking system uses the incoming substance information as an initial input flow for a process of the organization that is defined by the model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of Probst to include wherein the greenhouse gas emissions data is based on chain supply emissions relating to the particular product. Doing so would help tracking the flow of substances according to the established model, the environmental impact system can provide an organization with the overall impact that the organization has on the environment to encourage users of the system to choose actions with respect to the system that will result in a more positive (or a less negative) impact on the environment than other actions. [0006].
Claims 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Zhu, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Ilya William Slutsker (US 2014/0316964 A1, hereinafter “Slutsker”).
Claim 8
While McConnell teaches in [0061] the system calculates the emissions produced by an entire site and/or the entire enterprise. In other embodiments, the system automatically performs calculations and or reports emission totals at recurring predetermined intervals, such as every month or every year. McConnell does not the explicitly teach the following limitation, however analogous reference in the field of emission tracking and calculation, Slutsker teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, further comprising computer executable instructions that instruct the processor to calculate a net greenhouse gas emission output by comparing the lifetime measurement of greenhouse gas emissions data to a predetermined allowance([0044] The carbon emission module may also have a record of how much GHG for which a user is allowed to account. Carbon Allowances 110 may be allotted by a regional body that tracks compliance with the carbon emissions standards (said body herein after referred to as the Regional Body 114), while [0018] With this information, carbon reduction programs determine the allowable amount of greenhouse gases the participant have generated and compare the value to the participant carbon allowances (Carbon Allowance). ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of Slutsker to include calculate a net greenhouse gas emission output by comparing the lifetime measurement of greenhouse gas emissions data to a predetermined allowance. Doing so would help providing a comprehensive solution for the trading, position analysis, and reporting of emissions transactions that can be used to minimize harmful emissions while allowing participants to avoid unnecessary penalties and identify underutilized assets. [0016].
Claim 9
McConnell further teaches:
The computer program product of claim 8, further comprising computer executable instructions that instruct the processor to, when the net greenhouse gas emission output results in a positive net, initiate a sell transaction to sell carbon credits to a carbon credit sensing network based on the positive net([0075] and figure 6 the system provides for comparing the emissions totals to the predetermined quota for the site or enterprise (or other measure, as discussed above) and calculating whether the emissions for that site or enterprise exceed the quota (block 94). Based on this calculation, the system or method provides for calculating the carbon credit debt or surplus (block 96). That is, if the site or enterprise has exceeded its emissions quota, then it has a carbon credit debt. In contrast, if the site or enterprise has emitted less than its quota, then it has a carbon credit surplus. [0076] the system 90 then allows for the purchase, sale, or reallocation of credits (block 98) depending on whether there is a surplus or debt).
Claim 10
McConnell further teaches:
The computer program product of claim 8, further comprising computer executable instructions that instruct the processor to, when the net greenhouse gas emission output results in a negative net, initiate a buy transaction to purchase carbon credits from a carbon credit sensing network to offset the negative net([0075] and figure 6 the system provides for comparing the emissions totals to the predetermined quota for the site or enterprise (or other measure, as discussed above) and calculating whether the emissions for that site or enterprise exceed the quota (block 94). Based on this calculation, the system or method provides for calculating the carbon credit debt or surplus (block 96). That is, if the site or enterprise has exceeded its emissions quota, then it has a carbon credit debt. In contrast, if the site or enterprise has emitted less than its quota, then it has a carbon credit surplus. [0076] the system 90 then allows for the purchase, sale, or reallocation of credits (block 98) depending on whether there is a surplus or debt).
Claims 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Zhu, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Michael Stowell (US 2021/0348909 A1, hereinafter “Stowell”).
Claim 11
While McConnell teaches [0007] tracking with software emissions of the direct emission sources and indirect emission sources based on the plurality of characteristics and [0032] accept input from emissions sensors. [0059] The equipment interface allows the system to automatically track information related to the amount of emissions produced by a certain emission source without any manual input or effort by a user. [0060] all of the information gathered such that the system accumulates all of the information relating to the amount of emissions produced by each emission source, McConnell does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of gathering and analyzing sensor data, Stowell teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the sensors are formed from a three-dimensional (3D) monolithic carbonaceous growth([0029] deploying durable sensors (e.g., split-ring resonators, SRRs), made from carbonaceous microstructures. [0030] the carbonaceous materials may be innately grown (e.g., self-nucleated) in a reactor from a carbon-containing gaseous species without requiring a seed particle to generate ornate 3D structures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of Stowell to include the sensors are formed from a three-dimensional (3D) monolithic carbonaceous growth as part of the sensors taught in McConnell. Doing so would provide a durable sensor which will aid in capturing emission data. [0029].
Claim 12
While McConnell teaches [0007] tracking with software emissions of the direct emission sources and indirect emission sources based on the plurality of characteristics and [0032] accept input from emissions sensors. [0059] The equipment interface allows the system to automatically track information related to the amount of emissions produced by a certain emission source without any manual input or effort by a user. [0060] all of the information gathered such that the system accumulates all of the information relating to the amount of emissions produced by each emission source, McConnell does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of gathering and analyzing sensor data, Stowell teaches:
The computer program product of claim 11, wherein a resonant frequency of the 3D monolithic carbonaceous growth is based at least in part on either or both of a permittivity and a permeability of a material associated with the sensors([0029] deploying durable sensors (e.g., split-ring resonators, SRRs), made from carbonaceous microstructures. [0030] the carbonaceous materials may be innately grown (e.g., self-nucleated) in a reactor from a carbon-containing gaseous species without requiring a seed particle to generate ornate 3D structures [0065] The material properties of permeability, permittivity and conductivity can also be considered when formulating a compound to be tuned to a particular electrical impedance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of Stowell to include the sensors are formed from a three-dimensional (3D) monolithic carbonaceous growth as part of the sensors taught in McConnell. Doing so would provide a durable sensor which will aid in capturing emission data. [0029].
Claim 13
While McConnell teaches [0007] tracking with software emissions of the direct emission sources and indirect emission sources based on the plurality of characteristics and [0032] accept input from emissions sensors. [0059] The equipment interface allows the system to automatically track information related to the amount of emissions produced by a certain emission source without any manual input or effort by a user. [0060] all of the information gathered such that the system accumulates all of the information relating to the amount of emissions produced by each emission source, McConnell does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of gathering and analyzing sensor data, Stowell teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the sensors is a split-ring resonator (SRR) on or embedded in a material, wherein the SRR includes a resonance portion, wherein the resonance portion is configured to resonate at a first frequency in response to an electromagnetic ping when a state of the material exceeds a threshold, and is configured to resonate at a second frequency in response to the electromagnetic ping when the state of the material is beneath the threshold ([0006]the SRRs may include a first split-ring resonator (SRR) with first carbon particles., the first carbon particles may uniquely resonate in response to an electromagnetic ping. The unique resonation may be based at least in part on a concentration level of the first carbon particles within the first SRR. the SRRs may include a second SRR adjacent to the first SRR, where the second SRR includes second carbon particles that may uniquely resonate in response to the electromagnetic ping. The unique resonation may be based at least in part on a concentration level of the second carbon particles within the second SRR. [0007] The first SRR may resonate at a first frequency in response to the electromagnetic ping, and the second SRR may resonate at a second frequency in response to the electromagnetic ping, where the first frequency may be different than the second frequency. [0008] each of the first SRR and the second SRR may have an attenuation point, which may be associated with a frequency response to the electromagnetic ping.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of Stowell to include the sensors is a split-ring resonator (SRR) on or embedded in a material, wherein the SRR includes a resonance portion, wherein the resonance portion is configured to resonate at a first frequency in response to an electromagnetic ping when a state of the material exceeds a threshold, and is configured to resonate at a second frequency in response to the electromagnetic ping when the state of the material is beneath the threshold as part of the sensors taught in McConnell. Doing so would provide a durable sensor and detect internal defects, delamination, or damage of sensors. [0029].
Claims 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Zhu, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Bruce Lanning (US 2021/0181145 A1, hereinafter “Lanning”).
Claim 14
While McConnell teaches [0007] tracking with software emissions of the direct emission sources and indirect emission sources based on the plurality of characteristics and [0032] accept input from emissions sensors. [0059] The equipment interface allows the system to automatically track information related to the amount of emissions produced by a certain emission source without any manual input or effort by a user. [0060] all of the information gathered such that the system accumulates all of the information relating to the amount of emissions produced by each emission source, McConnell does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of gathering and analyzing sensor data, Lanning teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the sensors is integrated within a label configured to be removably printed onto a surface of a package or container, and the label comprises one or more carbon-based inks([0008] the substrate and the sensor array may be integrated within a label configured to be removably printed onto a surface of a package or container. In some aspects, each of the carbon-based sensors may be printed on the substrate using a different carbon-based ink, and the pairs of electrodes may be printed on the substrate using an ohmic-based ink).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of Lanning to include the sensors is integrated within a label configured to be removably printed onto a surface of a package or container, and the label comprises one or more carbon-based inks as part of the sensors taught in McConnell. Doing so would provide a durable sensor and reduce a susceptibility of a respective carbon-based sensor to humidity. [0009].
Claim 15
While McConnell teaches [0007] tracking with software emissions of the direct emission sources and indirect emission sources based on the plurality of characteristics and [0032] accept input from emissions sensors. [0059] The equipment interface allows the system to automatically track information related to the amount of emissions produced by a certain emission source without any manual input or effort by a user. [0060] all of the information gathered such that the system accumulates all of the information relating to the amount of emissions produced by each emission source, McConnell does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of gathering and analyzing sensor data, Lanning teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the sensors is carbon-based and is functionalized with a material configured to react with each analyte of a first group of analytes([0010] the carbon-based sensors may be configured to react with unique groups of analytes in response to an electromagnetic signal received from an external device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of Lanning to include the sensors is carbon-based and is functionalized with a material configured to react with each analyte of a first group of analytes as part of the sensors taught in McConnell. Doing so would provide a durable sensor and reduce a susceptibility of a respective carbon-based sensor to humidity. [0009].
Claims 16-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Zhu, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Sung H. Lim (US 2021/0396709 A1, hereinafter “Lim”).
Claim 16
While McConnell teaches [0007] tracking with software emissions of the direct emission sources and indirect emission sources based on the plurality of characteristics and [0032] accept input from emissions sensors. [0059] The equipment interface allows the system to automatically track information related to the amount of emissions produced by a certain emission source without any manual input or effort by a user. [0060] all of the information gathered such that the system accumulates all of the information relating to the amount of emissions produced by each emission source, McConnell does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of gathering and analyzing sensor data, Lim teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the sensors include a three-dimensional (3D) graphene layer, wherein the 3D graphene layer is biofunctionalized with a molecular recognition element configured to alter one or more electrical properties of the 3D graphene layer in response to exposure of the molecular recognition element to an analyte([0033] biological field-effect transistors (BioFETs) are a type of biosensor that includes a transistor for electrically sensing biomolecules or bio-entities. [0040] The 3D graphene layer may be deposited on an insulating layer (such as silicon dioxide) of the BioFET. The 3D graphene layer may be positioned within a well region containing an electrolyte solution that may receive an analyte (e.g., 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene, “TNT”), and thereby potentially contact the analyte. Further, the 3D graphene layer may provide exposed surfaces that can be biofunctionalized with one or more molecular recognition elements that selectively bind with the analyte. [0111] The operation 1700A continues in block 1712A with biofunctionalizing the carbonaceous dispersion with a molecular recognition element configured to alter one or more electrical properties of the BioFET in response to exposure of the molecular recognition element to the analyte).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of Lim to include the sensors include a three-dimensional (3D) graphene layer, wherein the 3D graphene layer is biofunctionalized with a molecular recognition element configured to alter one or more electrical properties of the 3D graphene layer in response to exposure of the molecular recognition element to an analyte as part of the sensors taught in McConnell. Doing so would provide a durable sensor and provide an improved exposed surface area per unit volume, which results in improved binding of the molecular recognition elements with the analyte thereby improving sensitivity when compared to other, less structurally organized sensing materials. [0039-0040].
Claim 17
While McConnell teaches [0007] tracking with software emissions of the direct emission sources and indirect emission sources based on the plurality of characteristics and [0032] accept input from emissions sensors. [0059] The equipment interface allows the system to automatically track information related to the amount of emissions produced by a certain emission source without any manual input or effort by a user. [0060] all of the information gathered such that the system accumulates all of the information relating to the amount of emissions produced by each emission source, McConnell does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of gathering and analyzing sensor data, Lim teaches:
The computer program product of claim 16, wherein the molecular recognition element is a biological material configured to selectively bind with the analyte ([0033] biological field-effect transistors (BioFETs) are a type of biosensor that includes a transistor for electrically sensing biomolecules or bio-entities. [0040] the 3D graphene layer may provide exposed surfaces that can be biofunctionalized with one or more molecular recognition elements that selectively bind with the analyte).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of Lim to include the molecular recognition element is a biological material configured to selectively bind with the analyte as part of the sensors taught in McConnell. Doing so would provide a durable sensor and provide an improved exposed surface area per unit volume, which results in improved binding of the molecular recognition elements with the analyte thereby improving sensitivity when compared to other, less structurally organized sensing materials. [0039-0040].
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Zhu, as applied in claim 1, and further in view of Sung H. Lim (US 2020/0292488 A1, hereinafter “H. Lim”).
Claim 18
While McConnell teaches [0007] tracking with software emissions of the direct emission sources and indirect emission sources based on the plurality of characteristics and [0032] accept input from emissions sensors. [0059] The equipment interface allows the system to automatically track information related to the amount of emissions produced by a certain emission source without any manual input or effort by a user. [0060] all of the information gathered such that the system accumulates all of the information relating to the amount of emissions produced by each emission source, McConnell does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference in the field of gathering and analyzing sensor data, H. Lim teaches:
The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the sensors are a three-dimensional (3D) carbon-based structure configured to guide a migration of electrically charged electrophoretic ink particles dispersed throughout the 3D carbon-based structure, the electrically charged electrophoretic ink particles responsive to application of a voltage to the 3D carbon-based structure([0005] as a three-dimensional (3D) carbon-based structure configured to guide a migration of electrically charged electrophoretic ink particles dispersed therein that are configured to be responsive to application of a voltage to the first electrode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell and Zhu incorporate the teachings of H. Lim to include the sensors are a three-dimensional (3D) carbon-based structure configured to guide a migration of electrically charged electrophoretic ink particles dispersed throughout the 3D carbon-based structure, the electrically charged electrophoretic ink particles responsive to application of a voltage to the 3D carbon-based structure as part of the sensors taught in McConnell. Doing so would provide a durable sensor and reduce a susceptibility of a respective carbon-based sensor to humidity.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McConnell in view of Slutsker.
Claim 19
McConnell teaches:
A method, comprising: receiving greenhouse gas emissions data from sensors([0032] accept input from emissions sensors. [0059] The equipment interface allows the system to automatically track information related to the amount of emissions produced by a certain emission source without any manual input or effort by a user. [0060] all of the information gathered such that the system accumulates all of the information relating to the amount of emissions produced by each emission source); process the greenhouse gas emissions data to determine a total greenhouse gas emissions output([0061] the system calculates the emissions produced by an entire site and/or the entire enterprise. In other embodiments, the system automatically performs calculations and or reports emission totals at recurring predetermined intervals, such as every month or every year. [0061]tracking emissions include calculating the amount of emissions produced by an emission source or sources (block 14). That is, the amount of emissions produced, particularly the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, and more particularly the amount of CO2 and CO2 equivalents, produced by a particular source or group of sources can be calculated for any desired time period);
when the net greenhouse gas emissions output results in a positive net, initiate a sell transaction to sell carbon credits to a carbon credit sensing network based on the positive net; and when the net greenhouse gas emissions output results in a negative net, initiate a buy transaction to purchase carbon credits from the carbon credit sensing network to offset the negative net([0075] and figure 6 the system provides for comparing the emissions totals to the predetermined quota for the site or enterprise (or other measure, as discussed above) and calculating whether the emissions for that site or enterprise exceed the quota (block 94). Based on this calculation, the system or method provides for calculating the carbon credit debt or surplus (block 96). That is, if the site or enterprise has exceeded its emissions quota, then it has a carbon credit debt. In contrast, if the site or enterprise has emitted less than its quota, then it has a carbon credit surplus. [0076] the system 90 then allows for the purchase, sale, or reallocation of credits (block 98) depending on whether there is a surplus or debt).
While McConnell teaches in [0061] the system calculates the emissions produced by an entire site and/or the entire enterprise. In other embodiments, the system automatically performs calculations and or reports emission totals at recurring predetermined intervals, such as every month or every year. McConnell does not the explicitly teach the following limitation, however analogous reference in the field of emission tracking and calculation, Slutsker teaches:
calculate a net greenhouse gas emissions output by comparing the total greenhouse gas emissions output to a predetermined allowance([0044] The carbon emission module may also have a record of how much GHG for which a user is allowed to account. Carbon Allowances 110 may be allotted by a regional body that tracks compliance with the carbon emissions standards (said body herein after referred to as the Regional Body 114), while [0018] With this information, carbon reduction programs determine the allowable amount of greenhouse gases the participant have generated and compare the value to the participant carbon allowances (Carbon Allowance). ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of McConnell incorporate the teachings of Slutsker to include calculate a net greenhouse gas emissions output by comparing the total greenhouse gas emissions output to a predetermined allowance. Doing so would help providing a comprehensive solution for the trading, position analysis, and reporting of emissions transactions that can be used to minimize harmful emissions while allowing participants to avoid unnecessary penalties and identify underutilized assets. [0016].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
CN 118966854 A
Carbon footprint checking method and system of power battery product
REQUEST, Names Not Be Published et al.
US 11555761 B1
Vehicle component for detecting physical characteristics changes of vehicle components, has split-ring resonator embedded within material of main body, where split-ring resonator is configured to provide resonance frequency shift based on change in elastomeric property of material
BRUCE L et al.
US 20220276625 A1
ENHANCED SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR OBSERVING, MEASURING, AND CONTROLLING EMISSIONS
Metzger; Stefan
US 20220108327 A1
Method for Determining the Carbon Footprint of a Product in Production Processes of a Production Plant
Schoeneboom; Jan et al.
US 20210232935 A1
METHODS AND SYSTEMS FOR AUTOMATING CARBON FOOTPRINTING
MEINRENKEN; Christoph Johannes et al.
US 20210199065 A1
A METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE AGEING OF AN EXHAUST GAS SENSOR AND AN INDUSTRIAL VEHICLE FOR IMPLEMENTING THIS METHOD
RODRIGUES; Patrick et al.
US 20090307037 A1
Resource Planning System With Carbon Emission Input
King; Nigel
US 20090171975 A1
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TRACKING CARBON CREDITS AND OTHER CARBON VALUATION UNITS
McConnell; Robert S. et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571)-270-5389. 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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3625