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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on August 7, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “entity analysis circuitry”, “fleet analysis circuitry”, “fleet electrification circuitry”, recited in claims 12 and 14-19; “entity improvement circuitry” recited in claim 19; and “prediction circuitry” recited in claim 22.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (The Specification described in paragraph [0039] that “Although components 202-216 are described in part using functional language, it will be understood that the particular implementations necessarily include the use of particular hardware. It should also be understood that certain of these components 202-216 may include similar or common hardware. For example, entity analysis circuitry 208, fleet analysis circuitry 210, fleet electrification circuitry 212, entity improvement circuitry 214, and/or prediction circuitry 216 may each at times leverage use of processor 202, memory 204, or communications hardware 206, such that duplicate hardware is not required to facilitate operation of these physical elements of the apparatus 200 (although dedicated hardware elements may be used for any of these components in some embodiments, such as those in which enhanced parallelism may be desired). Use of the terms “circuitry” and “engine” with respect to elements of the apparatus 200 therefore shall be interpreted as necessarily including the particular hardware configured to perform the functions associated with the particular element being described. Of course, while the terms “circuitry” and “engine” should be understood broadly to include hardware, in some embodiments, the terms “circuitry” and “engine” may in addition refer to software instructions that configure the hardware components of the apparatus 200 to perform the various functions described herein”; and in paragraph [0040] that “Although the entity analysis circuitry 208, fleet analysis circuitry 210, fleet electrification circuitry 212, entity improvement circuitry 214, and prediction circuitry 216 may leverage processor 202, memory 204, or communications hardware 206 as described above, it will be understood that any of entity analysis circuitry 208, fleet analysis circuitry 210, fleet electrification circuitry 212, entity improvement circuitry 214, and prediction circuitry 216 may include one or more dedicated processor, specially configured field programmable gate array (FPGA), or application specific interface circuit (ASIC) to perform its corresponding functions, and may accordingly leverage processor 202 executing software stored in a memory (e.g., memory 204) or communications hardware 206 for enabling any functions not performed by special-purpose hardware. In all embodiments, however, it will be understood that entity analysis circuitry 208, fleet analysis circuitry 210, fleet electrification circuitry 212, entity improvement circuitry 214, and prediction circuitry 216 comprise particular machinery designed for performing the functions described herein in connection with such elements of apparatus 200”).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, which are analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a method for generating a fleet transition climate impact report. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a method for generating a fleet transition climate impact report for an entity. The claim recites the steps: determining a current entity fleet metric set…; determining a current vehicle estimate metric set…; generating a plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…, wherein the plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules are generated in parallel; selecting a recommended fleet electrification schedule from the plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; determining a plurality of projection metrics…; and generating the fleet transition climate impact report…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites “generating a plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules using a scheduling optimization model” and “selecting a recommended fleet electrification schedule using the scheduling optimization model”, which are directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving, by communication hardware, a fleet transition climate impact report request from a user device” and “providing, by the communication hardware, the fleet performance dashboard to the user device, wherein the fleet performance dashboard causes the user device to display the fleet transition climate impact report and a live indication of a current entity fleet performance across a metric category.” The claim also recites that the steps of determining a current entity fleet metric set…; determining a current vehicle estimate metric set…; generating a plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; selecting a recommended fleet electrification schedule from the plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; determining a plurality of projection metrics…; and generating the fleet transition climate impact report…, are performed by entity analysis circuitry, fleet analysis circuitry, fleet electrification circuitry (may leverage processor 202, see Specification para [0040]).
The additional elements “receiving, by communication hardware, a fleet transition climate impact report request from a user device” and “providing, by the communication hardware, the fleet performance dashboard to the user device, wherein the fleet performance dashboard causes the user device to display the fleet transition climate impact report and a live indication of a current entity fleet performance across a metric category” are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting, and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the communication hardware/the user device, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, and outputting data.
Further, the limitations “determining a current entity fleet metric set…; determining a current vehicle estimate metric set…; generating a plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; selecting a recommended fleet electrification schedule from the plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; determining a plurality of projection metrics…; and generating the fleet transition climate impact report” are recited as being performed by the entity analysis circuitry, fleet analysis circuitry, fleet electrification circuitry (may leverage processor 202). The entity analysis circuitry, fleet analysis circuitry, fleet electrification circuitry (may leverage processor 202) are recited at a high level of generality and are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components The entity analysis circuitry, fleet analysis circuitry, fleet electrification circuitry (may leverage processor 202), computer-readable medium and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
The additional elements “receiving, by communication hardware, a fleet transition climate impact report request from a user device” and “providing, by the communication hardware, the fleet performance dashboard to the user device, wherein the fleet performance dashboard causes the user device to display the fleet transition climate impact report and a live indication of a current entity fleet performance across a metric category” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data transmitting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “receiving, by communication hardware, a fleet transition climate impact report request from a user device” and “providing, by the communication hardware, the fleet performance dashboard to the user device, wherein the fleet performance dashboard causes the user device to display the fleet transition climate impact report and a live indication of a current entity fleet performance across a metric category” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting and receiving data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the entity analysis circuitry, fleet analysis circuitry, fleet electrification circuitry (may leverage processor 202) to perform limitations “determining a current entity fleet metric set…; determining a current vehicle estimate metric set…; generating a plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; selecting a recommended fleet electrification schedule from the plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; determining a plurality of projection metrics…; and generating the fleet transition climate impact report”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 12 and 20, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 12 directed to an apparatus, independent claim 20 directed to a medium are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent method claim 1.
Dependent claims 3-11 and 14-22, have been given the full two-part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent- ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding dependent claims 3 and 14, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting generating… one or more insights…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4 and 15, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein a target fleet electrification goal corresponds to a particular percentage…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5 and 16, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting identifying one or more vehicles…, and determining a vehicle category…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Moreover, the claims recite the additional element receiving, by the communications hardware, an entity fleet report, which is are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting, and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the communication hardware/the user device, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, and outputting data (see claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 6 and 17, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting extracting vehicle information…, and determining one or more vehicle parameter estimates…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 7 and 18, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein determining the one or more vehicle parameter estimates is further base on the entity fleet report, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Moreover, the claims recite the additional element receiving, by the communications hardware, an entity fleet report, which is are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting, and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the communication hardware/the user device, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, and outputting data (see claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 8 and 19, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting determining on or more recommended products…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 9, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting determining an implementation cost estimate…, generating or more implementation service offers…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Moreover, the claims recite the additional element providing, by the communication hardware the implantation service offers to the user device, which is are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting, and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the communication hardware/the user device, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, and outputting data (see claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 10, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting determining one or more predicted inventory events…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 11, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting determining on or ore predicted fleet electrification external events…, and determining one or more predicted inventory values…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 21, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting determine an implementation cost estimate for a recommended fleet electrification event, and generate an implementation service offer, wherein the implementation service offer comprises a financial instrument offer and a value of the financial instrument offer covers at least a portion of the implementation cost estimate…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Moreover, the claims recite the additional elements wherein the communications hardware is further configured to provide the implementation service offer to the user device, which are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting, and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the communication hardware/the user device, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, and outputting data (see claim 1 above). Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claim 22, the claim simply refines the abstract idea by further reciting determine, based on the recommended fleet electrification schedule, a predicted inventory event…, that fall under the category of Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 1. Thus, the dependent claim does not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
7. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “generating, by fleet electrification circuitry and using a scheduling optimization model, a plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules based on (a) the current entity fleet metric set, (b) the current vehicle estimate metric set, and (c) the emission target goal, wherein the plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules are generated in parallel;
selecting, by the fleet electrification circuitry and using the scheduling optimization model, a recommended fleet electrification schedule from the plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules based on at least one of (a) a cost efficiency, (b) a resource efficiency, (c) regulatory compliance, and (d) an inferred social benefit associated with each candidate fleet electrification schedule, wherein (i) the recommended fleet electrification schedule comprises one or more recommended fleet electrification events and (ii) each recommended fleet electrification event is associated with a recommended event time frame and a target fleet electrification goal” recited in the independent claims 1, 12, and 20.
Response to Arguments/Amendment
8. Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
I. Interpretation Under - 35 USC § 112(f)
The Applicant stated that “will not substantively respond at this time.”
II. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (see more details above).
1. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “As an initial matter, the claims Invention do not recite a judicial exception”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claim recites a method for generating a fleet transition climate impact report for an entity. The claim recites the steps: determining a current entity fleet metric set…; determining a current vehicle estimate metric set…; generating a plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…, wherein the plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules are generated in parallel; selecting a recommended fleet electrification schedule from the plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; determining a plurality of projection metrics…; and generating the fleet transition climate impact report…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Moreover, the claim recites “generating a plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules using a scheduling optimization model” and “selecting a recommended fleet electrification schedule using the scheduling optimization model”, which are directed to mathematical relationships, falls within “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “the claims integrate any allegedly recited judicial exception into a practical application, and thus the claims are eligible at Step 2A, prong two”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claim recites the additional elements “receiving, by communication hardware, a fleet transition climate impact report request from a user device” and “providing, by the communication hardware, the fleet performance dashboard to the user device, wherein the fleet performance dashboard causes the user device to display the fleet transition climate impact report and a live indication of a current entity fleet performance across a metric category” are mere data gathering, transmitting, and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering, transmitting, and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the communication hardware/the user device, they are just merely used as general means for collecting, transmitting, and outputting data.
Further, the limitations “determining a current entity fleet metric set…; determining a current vehicle estimate metric set…; generating a plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; selecting a recommended fleet electrification schedule from the plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; determining a plurality of projection metrics…; and generating the fleet transition climate impact report” are recited as being performed by the entity analysis circuitry, fleet analysis circuitry, fleet electrification circuitry (may leverage processor 202). The entity analysis circuitry, fleet analysis circuitry, fleet electrification circuitry (may leverage processor 202) are recited at a high level of generality and are used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components The entity analysis circuitry, fleet analysis circuitry, fleet electrification circuitry (may leverage processor 202), computer-readable medium and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
While the Applicant argued that “The amended claims address this technical problem by implementing specific, technical operations to efficiently optimize the transition of an entity’s vehicle fleet to meet a defined emission target goal before a goal completion date. This is a technical improvement over conventional planning methods, that rely on manual calculations,” there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer nor to any other technology. At best, the claimed combination amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea of generating a fleet transition climate impact report for an entity as claimed.
Even when viewed in combination, the claims do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
3. In response to the Applicant’s arguments that “the combinations of features recited in the claims amount to “significantly more” than any allegedly recited judicial exception. The claims provide combinations of elements that are not well-understood, conventional, or routine and which provide a technical solution to a technical problem that no human or any prior system are able to provide”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that:
Step 2B:
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “receiving, by communication hardware, a fleet transition climate impact report request from a user device” and “providing, by the communication hardware, the fleet performance dashboard to the user device, wherein the fleet performance dashboard causes the user device to display the fleet transition climate impact report and a live indication of a current entity fleet performance across a metric category” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to transmitting and receiving data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely genetic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: 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).
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the entity analysis circuitry, fleet analysis circuitry, fleet electrification circuitry (may leverage processor 202) to perform limitations “determining a current entity fleet metric set…; determining a current vehicle estimate metric set…; generating a plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; selecting a recommended fleet electrification schedule from the plurality of candidate fleet electrification schedules…; determining a plurality of projection metrics…; and generating the fleet transition climate impact report”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Accordingly, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
9. 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 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 date of this final action.
10. Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 are rejected.
11. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Roberts, III et al. (US 10,592,871) disclose a method is provided for supporting maintenance of a fleet of vehicles with intuitive display of repair analytics.
Iyer et al. (US 9,552,567) disclose a method for determining fleet conditions and operational management thereof, performed by a central system includes receiving fleet data from at least one distributed data repository.
Parthasarathy et al. (US 8,676,943) disclose architectures and techniques to manage a site according to the content of a number of documents.
Dubey et al. (US 2022/0391807) disclose a scalable digital fleet management system may be leveraged by organizations with high-volume high-value assets. In such scenarios, predictive analytics for tool health enables decision-making in terms of planning, maintenance, end-of-life replacement, tool selection, etc.
Mojtahedzadeh et al. (US 2020/0160208) disclose systems and methods for generating an optimized maintenance plan. An approved maintenance plan for an apparatus type is received, which includes one or more intervals at which maintenance tasks are to be performed.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 November 19, 2025