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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-13, 15-18, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed April 14, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because various limitations cannot be performed in the mind. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because those limitations were not rejected as reciting a mental process.
Second, Applicant asserts the claims enable an improvement because the claims avoid the use of blockchain. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because it is not clear how the claims avoid the use of blockchain or how avoiding a technology like blockchain reflects an improvement.
Third, Applicant asserts the claims reflect an improvement for managing emissions. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, it is not clear how the claims are superior to existing systems or solve a technological problem. Accordingly the 101 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
Regarding the 103 rejections, the rejections are maintained for the following reasons. First, Applicant asserts the cited references do not teach a token enabling the workload. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Vangara teaches using certification to perform authentication, e.g. ¶¶[0024], [0040].
Second, Applicant asserts the cited references do not modifying a sticky bit to reflect the offset. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because Applicant does not explain how or why the combination of Liu and Vangara does not teach the claimed limitations. Accordingly the 103 rejections are maintained, please see below for the complete rejections of the claims as amended.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-10 are directed to a process; and claims 11-20 are directed to a machine.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…identifying a token corresponding to embodied emissions for an information technology (IT) hardware component of a computing system, wherein the token enables the computing system to execute an IT workload using the IT hardware component and offset a portion of the embodied emissions for the IT hardware component when executing the IT workload;
determining a portion of the embodied emissions for the IT hardware component that has been offset, based on the token, wherein the offset of the portion of the embodied emissions is obtained from an operating system (OS) of the computing system associated with the IT hardware component, wherein the offset is managed by the OS;
digitally recording the offset of the embodied emissions for the IT hardware component, comprising:
modifying a sticky bit for the IT hardware component,
wherein the modification of the sticky bit reflects the offset of the portion of embodied emissions,
wherein the modification of the sticky bit is irreversible,
wherein the sticky bit is integrated into the IT hardware component;
and wherein the offset of the portion of the embodied emissions is immutably memorialized in a logic circuit of the IT hardware component using the sticky bit, and
digitally self reporting the offset memorialized in the logic circuit to select a given IT hardware component for IT workloads.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e., mitigation). These limitation’s encompass fundamental economic principles or practices (i.e., mitigation) because these limitations essentially encompass determining and reporting mitigations amounts based on carbon emissions. Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of the independent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…identifying a token corresponding to embodied emissions for an information technology (IT) hardware component of a computing system, wherein the token enables the computing system to execute an IT workload using the IT hardware component and offset a portion of the embodied emissions for the IT hardware component when executing the IT workload;
determining a portion of the embodied emissions for the IT hardware component that has been offset, based on the token, wherein the offset of the portion of the embodied emissions is obtained from an operating system (OS) of the computing system associated with the IT hardware component, wherein the offset is managed by the OS;
digitally recording the offset of the embodied emissions for the IT hardware component, comprising:
modifying a sticky bit for the IT hardware component,
wherein the modification of the sticky bit reflects the offset of the portion of embodied emissions,
wherein the modification of the sticky bit is irreversible,
wherein the sticky bit is integrated into the IT hardware component;
and wherein the offset of the portion of the embodied emissions is immutably memorialized in a logic circuit of the IT hardware component using the sticky bit, and
digitally self reporting the offset memorialized in the logic circuit to select a given IT hardware component for IT workloads.
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the token relating to emissions, enabling the computing system, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., blockchain, distributed ledgers or cryptographic techniques) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Second, the additional elements of the offset being obtained from an operating system, recording the offset of the embodied emissions for the IT hardware component, wherein the sticky bit reflects the offset of the embodied emissions and is immutably memorialized in a logic circuit of the IT hardware component, and digitally reporting the offset, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements encompass a generic computer function of receiving and storing data (e.g. storing and storing user input), see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) (noting the use of computers in their ordinary capacity to receive, store, or transmit data does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Third, the additional elements of the modifying a sticky bit that is irreversible and integrated into the IT hardware component, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., user permissions) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Fourth, Claims 11 and 14 further recite "one or more computer processors; and a memory containing a program" and a "computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith", respectively. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and general links to field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and general links to field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 11, and 16 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claims 2, 12 and 17 recites the additional elements of modifying a sticky bit that reflects the offset. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., user permissions) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 3, 4, 13, 14, 18, and 19 into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation recite the additional elements of pseudo-Boolean logic and Heyting algebra. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., data designs) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 5, 15 and 20 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the offset comprising all of the emissions is a part of mitigation.
Claims 5, 15 and 20 further recite the additional elements of modifying a sticky bit that reflects the offset. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are only a general link to a field of use or technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h) (discussing Affinity Labs). That is, although these additional elements do limit the use of the abstract idea, this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., user permissions) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add an inventive concept to the claims.
Claims 6-8 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because the emissions including CO2 equivalents, relating to the various claimed processes, and being certified is a part of the mitigation.
Claims 9 and 10 recite the additional elements of using the IT hardware and using it in a cloud computing environment. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9-12, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al, US Pub. No. 2015/0350195, herein referred to as “Liu”, in view of Vangara et al, US Pub. No. 2015/0350195, herein referred to as “Vangara”.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches:
determining a portion of the embodied emissions for the IT hardware component that has been offset, based on the token (when carbon reduction is negative, a net amount of carbon increase has occurred, ¶[0095], and tokens are adjusted to reflect offsets, ¶[0053]),
wherein the offset of the portion of the embodied emissions is obtained from the computing system associated with the IT hardware component (process determines carbon offset, ¶¶[0093]-[0095]);
digitally recording the offset of the portion of the embodied emissions for the IT hardware component, comprising (records environmentally beneficial activity, ¶¶[0042], [0049]):
reflects the offset of the portion of the embodied emissions (tokens are adjusted to reflect offsets, ¶[0053]);
integrated into the IT hardware component (is attached to decarbonized product, ¶[0089]);
and wherein the offset of the portion of the embodied emissions is immutably memorialized in a logic circuit of the IT hardware component (token is stored in blockchain, ¶[0049]),
and digitally self reporting the offset memorialized in the logic circuit to select a given IT hardware component for IT workloads (provide proof of work of beneficial activity, ¶¶0041]-[0042]).
However Liu does not teach but Vangara does teach:
wherein the token enables the computing system to execute an IT workload using the IT hardware component (uses certification to perform authentication, e.g. ¶¶[0024], [0040], to establish session, ¶[0044])
an operating system (OS) of the computing system associated with the IT hardware component, managed by the OS (operating system, e.g., ¶¶[0022], [0026])
modifying a sticky bit for the IT hardware component (modifies sticky bit, e.g., ¶[0022]; see also e.g., ¶[0040] discussing authentication),
wherein the modification of the sticky bit (modifies sticky bit, e.g., ¶[0022]; see also e.g., ¶[0040] discussing authentication),
wherein the modification of the sticky bit is irreversible (cannot change the metadata, ¶[0022]);
wherein the sticky bit is integrated into the IT hardware component (authentication component is integrated, ¶[0035]);
memorialized in a logic circuit of the IT hardware component using the sticky bit (stores information the sticky bit, e.g., ¶[0029]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the proof of work for carbon reduction of Liu with the sticky bits for authentications of Vangara because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the sticky bits would be useful for proving the carbon offsets are authentic.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Liu and Vangara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Liu further teaches:
reflects a respective portion of embodied emissions offset (tokens are adjusted to reflect offsets, ¶[0053]).
However Liu does not teach but Vangara does teach:
wherein the sticky bit comprises one or more of a plurality of sticky bits integrated into the IT hardware component (authentication component is integrated, ¶[0035]),
and wherein modifying each of the one or more of the plurality of the sticky bits (modifies sticky bit, e.g., ¶[0022]; see also e.g., ¶[0040] discussing authentication).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the proof of work for carbon reduction of Liu with the sticky bits for authentications of Vangara because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the sticky bits would be useful for proving the carbon offsets are authentic.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liu and Vangara teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and Liu further teaches:
determining that an entirety of the embodied emissions for the IT hardware component has been offset (when carbon reduction difference is positive, then a net amount of carbon reduction has been achieved with respect to these factors, ¶[0095]);
reflects that the IT hardware component is net-zero for embodied emissions determining that all embodied emissions for the IT hardware component have been offset (when carbon reduction difference is positive, then a net amount of carbon reduction has been achieved with respect to these factors, ¶[0095]).
However Liu does not teach but Vangara does teach:
and setting a further sticky bit for the IT hardware component, wherein the further sticky bit (modifies sticky bit, e.g., ¶[0022]; see also e.g., ¶[0040] discussing authentication).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the proof of work for carbon reduction of Liu with the sticky bits for authentications of Vangara because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the sticky bits would be useful for proving the carbon offsets are authentic.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Liu and Vangara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and Liu further teaches:
wherein the IT hardware component relates to execution of workloads in a distributed computing system, the method further comprising: executing a first workload using the IT hardware component based on the token (performs various operations based on the token, e.g., ¶¶[0110], [0113]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Liu and Vangara teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and Vangara further teaches:
wherein the distributed computing system comprises a cloud computing environment, and wherein the IT hardware component is one of a plurality of hardware components used in the cloud computing environment (cloud computing, e.g., ¶¶[0045], [0053]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the proof of work for carbon reduction of Liu with the sticky bits for authentications of Vangara because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the sticky bits would be useful for proving the carbon offsets are authentic.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, claims 11 and 16 recite similar limitations as claim 1 and further recite “one or more computer processors; and a memory containing a program which when executed by the one or more computer processors performs an operation” and a “computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer-readable program code executable by one or more computer processors to cause the one or more computer processors to perform an operation”, respectively, which are taught by Liu in e.g., ¶¶[0179], [0181] and Fig. 21. Accordingly claims 11 and 16 are rejected to similar reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claims 12, 15, 17, and 20, claims 12, 15, 17, and 20 recite similar limitations as claims 2 and 5 and accordingly are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13, 14, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Vangara, further in view of Hayes. "Pseudo-Boolean logic circuits." IEEE Transactions on Computers 100.7 (1986): 602-612, herein referred to as “Hayes”
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Liu and Vangara teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and does not teach but Hayes does teach:
wherein the logic circuit in the IT component comprises a pseudo-boolean logic circuit (pseudo-boolean logic circuit, pgs. 602-603).
and wherein modifying the sticky bit for the IT hardware component comprises: modifying the pseudo-boolean logic circuit using the one or more of the plurality of the sticky bits (pseudo-boolean logic circuit, pgs. 602-603).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the proof of work for carbon reduction with the sticky bits of Liu and Vangara with the pseudo-boolean logic circuit of Haynes because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have modified Liu and Vangara to use pseudo-boolean logic circuit for situation where they would be advantageous (e.g., where increased efficiency is desirable).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Liu, Vangara and Hayes teaches all the limitations of claim 3 and Hayes further teaches:
wherein the pseudo-boolean logic circuit implements Heyting algebra (Heyting algebra, pgs. 603, 605).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the proof of work for carbon reduction with the sticky bits of Liu and Vangara with the pseudo-boolean logic circuit of Haynes because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have modified Liu and Vangara to use pseudo-boolean logic circuit for situation where they would be advantageous (e.g., where increased efficiency is desirable).
Regarding claims 13, 14, 18 and 19, claims 13, 14, 18 and 19 recite similar limitations as claims 3 and 4 and accordingly are rejected for similar reasons as claims 3 and 4.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Vangara, further in view of Gogerty et al, US Pub. No. 2023/0196459, herein referred to as “Gogerty”.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liu and Vangara teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Gogerty does teach:
wherein the embodied emissions comprise estimated CO2 equivalent (CO2e) emissions relating to manufacture of the IT hardware component (tracks carbon dioxide equivalent, ¶[0100]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the proof of work for carbon reduction with the sticky bits of Liu and Vangara with the estimated CO2 equivalent (CO2e) of Gogerty because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Liu and Vangara would not only be interested in tracking carbon dioxide but would also be interested in CO2 equivalent produced.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Liu, Vangara and Gogerty teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Gogerty further teaches:
wherein the embodied emissions relate to all of: (i) raw material extraction, (ii) manufacture, (iii) transportation, (iv) packaging, and (v) end of life for the IT hardware component (extraction, manufacture, distribution, use and final disposition, ¶[0172]).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the proof of work for carbon reduction with the sticky bits of Liu and Vangara with the life cycle analysis of carbon dioxide emissions of Gogerty because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized users of Liu and Vangara would likely be interested in tracking carbon dioxide through all aspects of the product.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Liu, Vangara and Gogerty teaches all the limitations of claim 7 and Liu further teaches:
wherein the embodied emissions are certified by a third party entity, prior to the offset (carbon credits are granted by government, ¶[0035]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights