DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/444,122 filed on 02/16/2024. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are pending in this application, and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 18/444,122 filed 02/16/2024 claims foreign priority to China Patent Application No. 202311080050.0, filed 08/24/2023.
Response to Amendment
In the response filed December 19, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 10-11, and 13, and cancelled claims 2 and 12. No new claim was presented for examination.
Applicant's amendments to claim 10 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim objection; accordingly, this objection has been removed.
Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103; accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 19, 2025, have been fully considered.
Applicant submits “First, claims 1 and 11 are not directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One. Claim 1 as amended is directed to an allocating method of carbon emission allowance that involves using an I/O interface to obtain a maximum value and a minimum value in a first time period of carbon emission intensity values of a plurality of manufacturing entities having at least one process type of the same, using a processor to determine a relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity and to allocate a carbon emission allowance for a second time period after the first time period to each manufacturing entity, and using the I/O interface to control the carbon emission of each manufacturing entity based on the allocated carbon emission allowance. Therefore, the recited method is not directed to an abstract idea that is carried out mentally in the human mind or by pencil-and-paper alone, but it requires the structural components of an I/O interface and a processor.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/19/2025, page 8]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong One, claim 1 recites a mental process involving collecting emission data, identifying maximum and minimum values, calculating relative emission intensity values, and allocating carbon emission allowance based on those calculations and policy factors. These steps constitute mathematical evaluation and judgment based decision making that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The recitation of an I/O interface and a processor does not change the abstract nature of the claim, as these components are generic and merely automate the mental steps.
Furthermore, the recited step of “controlling” carbon emissions does not impose a concrete technological limitation. The claim does not specify any technical mechanism or physical control of emissions. As claimed, “controlling” can include administrative or regulatory actions, such as setting limits or monitoring compliance, which are consistent with an abstract allocation scheme. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
10. Applicant submits “Secondly, under Step 2A, Prong Two, claims 1 and 11 integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves the rationality of carbon emission allowance allocation by a computer and reduces the cost involved in implementing energy conservation and emission reduction for a higher-emission manufacturing entity by controlling the carbon emission of each manufacturing entity.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/19/2025, page 9]
In response to Applicant’s argument that “under Step 2A, Prong Two, claims 1 and 11 integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves the rationality of carbon emission allowance allocation by a computer and reduces the cost involved in implementing energy conservation and emission reduction for a higher-emission manufacturing entity by controlling the carbon emission of each manufacturing entity,” it is noted that the additional elements in amended claim 1 are: an I/O interface and a processor, which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05. Applicant has provided no facts/evidence nor provided a persuasive line of reasoning showing how the additional elements are integrated with the abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It is also noted that the claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no I/O interface, processor, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. Instead, the result produced by the claims is simply information relating to a carbon emission allowance, which is not a technical result or improvement thereof.
Furthermore, the additional 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 apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, 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.
Moreover, in response to Applicant’s argument that “claims 1 and 11 integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application that improves the rationality of carbon emission allowance allocation by a computer and reduces the cost involved in implementing energy conservation and emission reduction for a higher-emission manufacturing entity by controlling the carbon emission of each manufacturing entity,” it is noted that improving the “rationality” of carbon emission allowance allocation and reducing costs for higher-emission manufacturing entities reflects an improvement to a regulatory or economic decision making scheme, not an improvement to computer technology or another technical field. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “Claims 1 and 11 each recite, in part, "wherein the plurality of manufacturing entities has at least one process type of the same, and different types of processes produce different carbon emissions." It is provided in the Specification that, "since different types of processes produce different carbon emissions, and the plurality of manufacturing entities has at least one process type of the same, the relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity reflects the carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity relative to other manufacturing entities of the same type. This method of determining the carbon emission allowance of each manufacturing entity based on the relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity takes into account the process differences of different manufacturing entities, which improves the rationality of the carbon emission allowance allocation, thereby reducing the cost involved in implementing energy conservation and emission reduction for a higher-emission manufacturing entity." Specification, I [0052]. In other words, the recited processor determines the relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity based on the carbon emission intensity values of multiple manufacturing entities with at least one process type of the same obtained by the I/O interface, and allocates corresponding carbon emission allowance to each manufacturing entity based on their relative carbon emission intensity values to control their carbon emissions.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 12/19/2025, page 9]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s argument it is noted that limiting the comparison to manufacturing entities sharing at least one process type, merely narrows the set of data being analyzed and does not change the abstract nature of the claim. Determining relative carbon emission intensity values based on similar process types is still an act of data comparison and evaluation that falls within a mental process. Moreover, the asserted benefits (i.e. improved rationality of allocation and reduce compliance costs) are results of the abstract calculation itself, not of any technological improvement, The claim does not recite any specific technical means for controlling emissions. Therefore, the claim remains directed to an abstract idea and is not integrated into a practical application. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
12. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are
directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
13. 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.
14. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
15. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1, 3-10), device (claims 11, 13-19), and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 20) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture, respectively). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” abstract idea set forth in the MPEP 2106 because the claims recite steps for managing allocations, which encompasses activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions), and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping. With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: obtaining, by an I/O interface, a maximum value and a minimum value in a first time period of carbon emission intensity values of a plurality of manufacturing entities, wherein the plurality of manufacturing entities has at least one process type of the same, and different types of processes produce different carbon emissions; determining, by a processor, a relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity according to a carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity, the maximum value and the minimum value; allocating, by the processor, a carbon emission allowance for a second time period after the first time period to each manufacturing entity according to the relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity, a production plan of each manufacturing entity in the second time period and a regulating coefficient, wherein the regulating coefficient is determined based on a change of a carbon emission allowance of the plurality of manufacturing entities in the second time period relative to a carbon emission allowance of the plurality of manufacturing entities in the first time period; and controlling, by the I/O interface, carbon emission of each manufacturing entity according to the carbon emission allowance for the second time period allocated to each manufacturing entity.
These steps describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., social activities, following rules or instructions) and are part of the abstract idea falling under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and steps that can be performed in the human mind, and therefore fall under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping.
Because the above-noted limitations recite steps falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping and the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping, they have been determined to recite at least one abstract idea when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry. Claims 11 and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and are therefore determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. With respect to claims 1, 11 and 20, the additional elements are: an I/O interface and a processor (claim 1), a memory, a processor coupled to the memory and configured, based on instructions stored in the memory (claim 11); computer program instructions and a processor (claim 20). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). In addition, these limitations 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 apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, 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.
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. With respect to claims 1, 11 and 20, the additional elements are: an I/O interface and a processor (claim 1), a memory, a processor coupled to the memory and configured, based on instructions stored in the memory (claim 11); computer program instructions and a processor (claim 20). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes that generic computer devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (Specification at paragraph [0112). Accordingly, the generic computer involvement in performing the claim steps merely serves to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claim. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976.).
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 generic 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, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 11-19 recite the same abstract ideas as recited in the independent claims by reciting steps/details for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions (e.g., following rules or instructions) and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, dependent claims 3-10 recite “wherein the carbon emission allowance of each manufacturing entity in the second time period is determined according to a product of the relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity, a planned industrial output value of each manufacturing entity in the second time period and the regulating coefficient,” “wherein the relative carbon emission intensity value is negatively correlated with a first difference between the maximum value and the minimum value,” “wherein the relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity is positively correlated with a second difference between the carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity and the minimum value, or positively correlated with a third difference between the maximum value and the carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity,” “wherein the relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity is determined according to a ratio of one of the second difference and the third difference to the first difference,” “wherein process types of the plurality of manufacturing entities are the same,” “wherein each group of manufacturing entities of a plurality of groups of manufacturing entities comprises the plurality of manufacturing entities, and different groups of manufacturing entities have completely different process types,” “wherein the at least one process type comprises one or more of a blanking process, a molding process, a welding process, a machining process, a surface treatment process, a painting process, an assembly process, a debugging process and a carbon emission reduction technology,” “wherein the plurality of manufacturing entities belongs to a same manufacturing group,” which are details that merely refine the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims. The other dependent claims have been evaluated as well, but similar to dependent claims 3-10, recite details/steps that merely refine the same abstract idea recite in the independent claims. Accordingly, these steps are part of the same abstract idea(s) set forth in the independent claims. The additional elements are directed to generic computing elements and instructions/software that serve to tie the abstract to a particular technological environment, similar to simply adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
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 generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claims 1 and 11, the closest prior art, Trout et al. (Pub. No.: US 2006/0020502 A1) and ZHOU DEQUN, (Entropy-based Carbon Emission Allowance Allocation among Enterprises in the Region, Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition), Vol.17 No.3, May. 2015, 7 Pages), collectively teach features for obtaining, by an I/O interface, a maximum value and a minimum value in a first time period of carbon emission intensity values of a plurality of manufacturing entities, wherein the plurality of manufacturing entities has at least one process type of the same; determining, by a processor, a relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity according to a carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity, the maximum value and the minimum value; and allocating, by the processor, a carbon emission allowance for a second time period after the first time period to each manufacturing entity according to the relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity [See Office Action mailed 09/25/2025 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter]
However, with respect to the amended limitations, while Trout describes “The model is used to formulate equitable benchmarking of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from industrial sources for the purposes of allocating GHG emission allowances, permits, licenses, etc.” (paragraph 0011) and King, Patent No.: US 8,214,249 B2 describes that “estimate carbon emission information associated with the manufacturing of the product, wherein the carbon emission information is based on at least a first amount of carbon emission based on the manufacturing of the product, a second amount of carbon emission based on a usage of the product, and a third amount of carbon emission based on a disposal of the product; compare the estimate to a predefined level of carbon emission for the manufacturing of the product, and adjust the master schedule when the estimate exceeds the predefined level, wherein the adjust comprises revising resource requirements for manufacturing the product and revising production schedules for manufacturing the product” (King, claim 1), the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach “allocating, by the processor, a carbon emission allowance for a second time period after the first time period to each manufacturing entity according to the relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity, a production plan of each manufacturing entity in the second time period and a regulating coefficient, wherein the regulating coefficient is determined based on a change of a carbon emission allowance of the plurality of manufacturing entities in the second time period relative to a carbon emission allowance of the plurality of manufacturing entities in the first time period; and controlling, by the I/O interface, carbon emission of each manufacturing entity according to the carbon emission allowance for the second time period allocated to each manufacturing entity,” as recited in amended claim 1 (and as similarly encompassed by independent claim 11).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “An allocating method of carbon emission allowance, comprising: obtaining, by an I/O interface, a maximum value and a minimum value in a first time period of carbon emission intensity values of a plurality of manufacturing entities, wherein the plurality of manufacturing entities has at least one process type of the same, and different types of processes produce different carbon emissions; determining, by a processor, a relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity according to a carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity, the maximum value and the minimum value; allocating, by the processor, a carbon emission allowance for a second time period after the first time period to each manufacturing entity according to the relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity, a production plan of each manufacturing entity in the second time period and a regulating coefficient, wherein the regulating coefficient is determined based on a change of a carbon emission allowance of the plurality of manufacturing entities in the second time period relative to a carbon emission allowance of the plurality of manufacturing entities in the first time period; and controlling, by the I/O interface, carbon emission of each manufacturing entity according to the carbon emission allowance for the second time period allocated to each manufacturing entity,” as recited in amended claim 1, and “An allocating device of carbon emission allowance, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured, based on instructions stored in the memory, to: obtain a maximum value and a minimum value in a first time period of carbon emission intensity values of a plurality of manufacturing entities, wherein the plurality of manufacturing entities has at least one process type of the same, and different types of processes produce different carbon emissions; determine a relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity according to a carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity, the maximum value and the minimum value; allocate a carbon emission allowance for a second time period after the first time period to each manufacturing entity according to the relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity, a production plan of each manufacturing entity in the second time period and a regulating coefficient, wherein the regulating coefficient is determined based on a change of a carbon emission allowance of the plurality of manufacturing entities in the second time period relative to a carbon emission allowance of the plurality of manufacturing entities in the first time period; and control carbon emission of each manufacturing entity according to the carbon emission allowance for the second time period allocated to each manufacturing entity,” as recited in amended claim 11, thus rendering claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 as allowable over prior art. However, 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are not allowable because they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 1 remains objected to due to typographical errors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Simpson, Pub. No.: US 2023/0123620 A1 – describes a system and method for trading emissions units.
Cogen et al., Pub. No.: US 2004/0088179 A1 – describes a technique for generating an emissions reduction portfolio.
Zhao, Rui, et al. "Allocation of carbon emissions among industries/sectors: An emissions intensity reduction constrained approach." Journal of cleaner production 142 (2017): 3083-3094 – describes a study that allocates the CO2 emissions to China's 41 industries/sectors under the constraint of carbon emission intensity in reaching the 2030 reduction target. An integrated method based on input-output analysis and entropy weighting is proposed for the allocation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
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 M. Epstein can be reached on (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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625