DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
The Amendment filed on 10/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant patent application. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10, 12-13 and 19-20 are amended. This Final Office Action is in response to the claims filed.
Response to Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and per guidelines for 101 analysis (PEG 2019).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections. The rejections remain pending and are updated and addressed below in light of the amendments and newly cited art.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §101 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that the amendments are sufficient in overcoming the current 101 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments further recite an abstract idea utilizing concepts that can be practically performed by a human with pen/paper or in their mind.
Examiner respectfully reminds Applicant, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed invention, used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instruction implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, the courts have found claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind.
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.
Regarding Claims 1-9, they are directed to a system, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-9 are directed to the abstract idea of emissions data management.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 1, claim 1 recites to receive high level data of categories for a corpus of entities, the high level data indicating characteristics of the corpus of entities that indicate emissions production of each entity of the corpus of entities; select one or more modeling assumptions for the categories, the one or more modeling assumptions modeling low level consumption data based on the high level data; generate emissions indicators for each of the categories for each entity of the corpus of entities for a plurality of points in time based on the high level data and the one or more modeling assumptions; sort the emissions indicators into a plurality of buckets based on the categories; generate category-based recommendations for the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the categories generate entity-level recommendations for one or more individual entities of the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the one or more individual entities and generate data causing to display the emissions indicators sorted into the plurality of buckets, the category-based recommendations, and the entity-level recommendations.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 2-9 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of one or more memory devices, a computing device and one or more processors. The one or more memory devices, computing device and one or more processor are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 3-9 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include one or more memory devices, computing device, one or more processors and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0090-0094. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 3-9, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 10-18, they are directed to a system, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 10-18 are directed to the abstract idea of emissions data management.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 10, claim 10 recites receiving, high level data of categories for a corpus of entities, the high level data indicating characteristics of the corpus of entities that indicate emissions production of each entity of the corpus of entities; selecting, one or more modeling assumptions for the categories, the one or more modeling assumptions modeling low level consumption data based on the high level data; generating, emissions indicators for each of the categories for each entity of the corpus of entities for a plurality of points in time based on the high level data and the one or more modeling assumptions; sorting, the emissions indicators into a plurality of buckets based on the categories; and generating category-based recommendations for the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the categories; generating entity-level recommendations for one or more individual entities of the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the one or more individual entities and generate data causing to display the emissions indicators sorted into the plurality of buckets, the category-based recommendations, and the entity-level recommendations.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 11-18 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a processing circuit and a computing device. The processing circuit and computing device are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial- exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 10 and 12-18 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include one or more memory devices, one or more processors and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0090- 0094. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claims 10 and 12-18, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 19-20, they are directed to a non-transitory memory devices, however the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 19-20 are directed to the abstract idea of emissions data management.
Performing the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis while referring specifically to independent Claim 19, claim 19 recites to receive high level data of categories for a corpus of entities, the high level data indicating characteristics of the corpus of entities that indicate emissions production of each entity of the corpus of entities; select one or more modeling assumptions for the categories, the one or more modeling assumptions modeling low level consumption data based on the high level data; generate emissions indicators for each of the categories for each entity of the corpus of entities for a plurality of points in time based on the high level data and the one or more modeling assumptions; sort the emissions indicators into a plurality of buckets based on the categories; generate category-based recommendations for the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the categories generate entity-level recommendations for one or more individual entities of the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the one or more individual entities and generate data causing to display the emissions indicators sorted into the plurality of buckets, the category-based recommendations, and the entity-level recommendations.
These claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas for they are concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind and/or with pen/paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea and dependent claims 19-20 further recite the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claim recites the elements of a computing device and one or more processors. The computing device and one or more processors are merely generic computing devices and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With respect to 2B, the claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 19-20 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea under 2A. These elements include a computing device, a plurality of computing devices, one or more processors and the generic computing elements described in the Applicant's specification in at least Para 0090-0094. These elements do not amount to more than the abstract idea because it is a generic computer performing generic functions.
Therefore, Claims 19-20, alone or in combination, are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Response to 35 U.S.C. §103 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Furthermore, arguments are moot in light of the amended language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 10-11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaramellino et al. (US 2010/0042453 A1) in view of Bridge et al. (US 2020/0273047 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Scaramellino teaches the limitations of Claim 1 which state
one or more memory devices storing instructions thereon, that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to (Scaramellino: Para 0007, 0059 via Fig 1 explanation):
receive high level data of categories for a corpus of entities, the high level data indicating characteristics of the corpus of entities that indicate emissions production of each entity of the corpus of entities (Scaramellino: Para 0014, 0064, 0067-0076 via The software is not only a comprehensive carbon footprint calculator but also very granular. For instance, the software is not only capable of estimating a user's home energy and carbon dioxide footprint, but it can also categorize that footprint into various components, for example, space heating, space cooling, water heating, lighting, large appliances, small appliances, and the like. The same level of granularity applies to the other three usage categories as well.... a Top-Down Bill Disaggregation Model 108 in cases where there is access to user utility bills (e.g., electricity bills 104 and natural gas bills 106), and a Bottom-Up Energy Mapping Model 110 cases where there is not, where specific user inputs 100 and zip code defaults 102 are utilized. In FIG. 2, the dashed lines reflect relationships that may or may not occur based on specific end user characteristics or user inputs 100. In addition, it should be appreciated that outputs for electricity 112 and natural gas 114 from the Top-Down Bill Disaggregation Model 108 supersede those of the Bottom-Up Energy Mapping Model 110 when available... To produce a viable personalized energy use calculation in the absence of available utility bills or user inputs, the energy use mapping software employs a Bottom-Up Model 110 to estimate the mode household energy use for space heating 124, cooling 120, water heating 126, and appliances 122 for every zip code in the country... In cases where there is access to billing data, a Top-Down Bill Disaggregation Model 108 is used. Instead of inferring how much energy is used in home heating, cooling, water heating, and appliances based on home characteristics alone (as is done with the Bottom-Up Energy Mapping Model 110 described above), the present invention may alternatively use home characteristics to disaggregate the provided bills into the four major use categories through a methodology adapted from that used in producing the RECS category estimates... To disaggregate bills into end-use categories, the bills provided in dollars must first be translated into kilowatt hours, therms of natural gas, and gallons of fuel oil used (e.g., by the processing means 14 of FIG. 1). This requires up-to-date energy price data for each user. For electricity, since this differs on the utility level, a way is needed to assign each user to a specific utility. Therefore, a database (e.g., one of databases A, B, . .. N of FIG. 1) of all of the utilities serving each zip code in the country was created, and a list of potential utilities for each user can be populated based on their home zip code. When a user selects a utility, the system is able to look up the latest monthly rate when it is available (as the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency (EIA) only publishes monthly rates for about 500 of the 3500 utilities in the country, though they include most of the largest regulated ones));
select one or more modeling assumptions for the categories, the one or more modeling assumptions modeling low level consumption data based on the high level data (Scaramellino: Para 0074-0076 via it is noted that this approach also holds for the other categories such as travel, work and shipping. See also general teaching taught in Para 0064);
generate emissions indicators for each of the categories for each entity of the corpus of entities for a plurality of points in time based on the high level data and the one or more modeling assumptions (Scaramellino: Para 0063, 0077 via the Energy Mapping software incorporates all aspects of a user's lifestyle, and provides an estimate of overall greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage 136, which includes but is not limited to greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage from the end user's home (Home Footprint 128), travel (Travel Footprint 130), work (Work Footprint 132), and shopping habits (Shopping Footprint 134). The estimates, for example the estimates in each of these four categories--home, work, travel and shopping--span direct carbon dioxide emissions, such as burning gasoline in your car, and indirect emissions, like those associated with manufacturing the products that are bought or with delivering fuel to households. Accordingly, the software incorporates direct and indirect carbon dioxide emissions across the entire range of a user's affect on the climate... Because local generation sources are connected to the larger grid, it is impractical to determine an individual's electricity fuel mix based on their proximity to specific generators. Rather, the footprint calculator uses NERC subregion level emission factors based on fuel mix and generation efficiency data from the EPA's eGRID. Emission factors also include transmission losses based on data from the EIA and indirect emissions associated with the fuel-cycle, plant construction, and plant decommissioning of natural gas, nuclear, oil, coal, solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydro);
sort the emissions indicators into a plurality of buckets based on the categories (Scaramellino: Para 0063 via Referring to FIG. 2, the Energy Mapping software incorporates all aspects of a user's lifestyle, and provides an estimate of overall greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage 136, which includes but is not limited to greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage from the end user's home (Home Footprint 128), travel (Travel Footprint 130), work (Work Footprint 132), and shopping habits (Shopping Footprint 134). The estimates, for example the estimates in each of these four categories--home, work, travel and shopping--span direct carbon dioxide emissions, such as burning gasoline in your car, and indirect emissions, like those associated with manufacturing the products that are bought or with delivering fuel to households. Accordingly, the software incorporates direct and indirect carbon dioxide emissions across the entire range of a user's affect on the climate).
However, Scaramellino does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 1 which state generate category-based recommendations for the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the categories; generate entity-level recommendations for one or more individual entities of the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the one or more individual entities.
Bridge though, with the teachings of Scaramellino, teaches of
generate category-based recommendations for the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the categories (Bridge: Para 0184, 0192, 0194 via The second emission data is received after implementing a certain change within the monitored entity 305 or within another entity that affects the greenhouse gas generation at the monitored entity 305. For example, the monitored entity 305 may be equipped with a CO.sub.2 scrubber to remove or reduce the amount of CO.sub.2 generated by the entity 305. In another example, the monitored entity 305 as well as other entities affecting the greenhouse gas generation at the monitored entity 305 may undergo maintenance and repair to remove inefficient/old equipment. Such emission reduction changes may be recommended by the emission tracking system 310, a regulation system 340 or any other third party system… At step 618, the emission tracking system 310 recommends one or more emission reduction techniques that can be implemented within the entity being monitored or other entities that affect the greenhouse gas generated, directly or indirectly, by the monitored entity… In some cases, the emission tracking system 310 may transmit the emission output values, such as the first emission output value, to the regulation system 340, and the regulation system 340 may recommend appropriate emission reduction techniques based on factors such as type of entity, greenhouse gas emissions being monitored, generated emission output values, and amount of offset needed to balance the emission outputs etc.);
generate entity-level recommendations for one or more individual entities of the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the one or more individual entities (Bridge: Para 0195, 0201 via In some other cases, the emission tracking system 310 may receive many emission reduction technique recommendations from the regulation system 340, and the emission tracking system 310 may shortlist the suitable emission reduction techniques based on factors such as type of entity, greenhouse gas emissions being monitored, generated emission output values, and amount of offset needed to balance the emission outputs etc.…The emission tracking system 310 may, alternatively or additionally, also recommend maintenance programs to reduce carbon emissions. For example, emission tracking system 310 may recommend periodic greasing of the parts in motion on an entity, such as a vehicle or a machine, etc. This technique may increase the efficiency of the entity, and over time, reduce energy consumption by the entity. This reduction of energy may correspond to a reduction of greenhouse gas emission by the entity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scaramellino with the teachings of Bridge in order to have generate category-based recommendations for the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the categories; generate entity-level recommendations for one or more individual entities of the corpus of entities based on the emissions indicators for the one or more individual entities. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of tracking emissions associated with an entity. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The combination of Scaramellino/Bridge further teaches the limitations of Claim 1 which state
generate data causing a computing device to display the emissions indicators sorted into the plurality of buckets, the category-based recommendations, and the entity-level recommendations (Scaramellino: Para 0045 via the present invention may provide at least one of: updates on the selected individuals or companies greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage status; real-time chats with the selected individuals or individuals at the selected companies; energy saving product and service updates; energy and cost savings planning information; fuel cost updates from various regional suppliers, informational material regarding energy savings and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; community event information; online shopping for recommended products and services; displays relating to the overall greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage and subcategories of the overall greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage; access to custom product and action recommendations tailored to the end user based on the user inputs; energy saving actions recommended based on actions taken by users with similar demographic characteristics; energy savings actions prioritized based on payback period and discount rate, and similar features and functionality).
Regarding Claim 2, Scaramellino/Bridge teaches the limitations of Claim 2 which state
wherein the categories include a vehicle type category indicating a vehicle that includes one or more tractive components that operate to transport the vehicle between geographic locations (Scaramellino: Para 0028, 0080 via The user inputs for the travel category may comprise at least one of vehicle information, flight history information, vehicle rental information, taxi usage history, public transportation usage habits, and the like. Yearly fuel consumption for each vehicle identified in the vehicle information may be determined based on one of historical mileage data or user input actual mileage data for each of the identified vehicles. The yearly fuel consumption may then be converted to yearly greenhouse gas emissions for each vehicle using conversion factors for converting fuel type to carbon dioxide... For personal vehicles 166, the user inputs 100 regarding the year/make/model of the vehicle are correlated with a database from the EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory that provides the car's fuel efficiency in miles per gallon. Dividing the annual mileage of the car by the average fuel efficiency in miles per gallon yields gallons of gasoline consumed (gasoline 167). The system then divides the gallons of gasoline by the average number of passengers in the car to yield per person gallons of gasoline. The number of gallons used per year is converted to pounds of carbon dioxide using conversion factors from the Technical Guidelines Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (DOE, 2006). For users who know their own vehicles actual miles per gallon, they can choose to overwrite the default fuel economy of their vehicle with an actual fuel economy input. This number (in miles per gallon) simply replaces the value assigned from the EPA year/make/model database).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, they are analogous to Claims 1 and 2 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 19, is it analogous to Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3-5, 12-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaramellino et al. (US 2010/0042453 A1) in view of Bridge et al. (US 2020/0273047 A1) further in view of Bellowe (US 2017/0351978 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, while Scaramellino/Bridge teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 3 which state wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: establish a communication connection with a plurality of computing devices that collect telemetry data, the telemetry data indicating the low level consumption data; collect the telemetry data from the computing device via the communication connection.
Bellowe though, with the teachings of Scaramellino/Bridge, teaches of
establish a communication connect with a plurality of computing devices that collect telemetry data, the telemetry data indicating the low level consumption data; collect the telemetry data from the computing device via the communication connection (Bellowe: Para 0010-0011, 0096-0097 via providing a plurality of sensors, each sensor detecting in real time one of a plurality of different real world activities and generating sensor signals therefrom indicative of said plurality of different real world activity engaged in by a user, said real world activities having an associated carbon footprint impact; a processor receiving said sensor signals from each of said plurality of sensors and generating a user profile therefrom indicative of carbon footprint impact for each of said real world activities; said processor communicatively coupling said sensor signals from each of said plurality of sensors to a central hub configured to communicate with a user device associated with the use... The devices and sensors can include lighting devices in the user's home, user's mobile device such as a cellular phone, wearable devices, and devices coupled to an automobile which can provide information such as diagnostic information. Devices can also include home devices such as refrigerators, thermostats, the sprinkler system, the user's computers, assistant devices, stoves, ovens, dishwashers, washing machines and dryers, pool heaters, and other devices which can generate information which can assist in calculating a carbon footprint associated with the user and/or the user's environment... the devices and/or sensors can collect, via sensor signals, information such as characteristics associated with the user such as devices usage information or location. These characteristics can include the status of the device/sensor signals, the geographical user associated with the device, automobile starter such as the average speed of an automobile during a time period, the speed of the automobile, automobile battery use, throttle status, distance driven, the vehicle location, and/or driving habits).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scaramellino with the teachings of Bellowe in order to have wherein the instructions cause the one or more processors to: establish a communication connect with a plurality of computing devices that collect telemetry data, the telemetry data indicating the low level consumption data; collect the telemetry data from the computing device via the communication connection. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of an overall carbon impact and corresponding offset. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The combination of Scaramellino/Bridge/Bellowe further teaches the limitation of Claim 3 which states
generate the emissions indicators based on the telemetry data (Scaramellino: Para 0080 via For personal vehicles 166, the user inputs 100 regarding the year/make/model of the vehicle are correlated with a database from the EPA's National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory that provides the car's fuel efficiency in miles per gallon. Dividing the annual mileage of the car by the average fuel efficiency in miles per gallon yields gallons of gasoline consumed (gasoline 167). The system then divides the gallons of gasoline by the average number of passengers in the car to yield per person gallons of gasoline. The number of gallons used per year is converted to pounds of carbon dioxide using conversion factors from the Technical Guidelines Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases (DOE, 2006). For users who know their own vehicles actual miles per gallon, they can choose to overwrite the default fuel economy of their vehicle with an actual fuel economy input. This number (in miles per gallon) simply replaces the value assigned from the EPA year/make/model database).
Regarding Claim 4, while Scaramellino/Bridge teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 4 which state receive an event from the computing device, the event identifying a vehicle consuming energy to power one or more tractive components of the vehicle to transport the vehicle between geographic locations; generate an emissions indicator for the vehicle transporting between the geographic locations.
Bellowe though, with the teachings of Scaramellino/Bridge, teaches of
receive an event from the computing device, the event identifying a vehicle consuming energy to power one or more tractive components of the vehicle to transport the vehicle between geographic locations; generate an emissions indicator for the vehicle transporting between the geographic locations (Bellowe: Para 0058, 0113 via Data Acquisition Unit 230: The data acquisition unit 230 may receive data from sensors that provide advisory information regarding the location and/or activities in which the traveler is engaged. An example may be a GPS unit in a traveler's mobile device or car receiving latitude and longitude identifying the location of the device. It may also be possible to gather more fine grained information about the carbon impact of an automobile trip between point A and point B from the car itself, taking into consideration driving speed, starts and stops, and elevation changes to determine and record a person's location over time, which can include information regarding a path taken, speed, and an amount of time in transit... the accelerometer sensor built into the device associated with the user (i.e., phone, fitness tracking device, etc.) and it can keep track of the user's movements. The information gathered by the accelerometer sensor can be further used to determine activities, for example, when it is determined that the user is moving 15 miles an hour over land the accelerometer sensor can assist in distinguishing, for example, between the user running, the user biking and/or roller-skating. In some embodiments, the user's vehicle may collect travel information this information can be used to determine the carbon footprint of the trips associated with the car. In at least one embodiment, an interface can be created to automatically import the trip information from the automobile to the application. In at least one embodiment, this interface can be created to other sources which can provide information about a trip, for example, a carbon footprint interface located on ships, planes, hotels, and restaurant. The carbon footprint interface can be associated with a venue (i.e., hotel, restaurant) and/or transportation (i.e., plane, cruise, car). The interface can be set to provide patrons with information about the carbon footprint (e.g., electricity used) on average by patrons or it can be tailored to the specific patron. For example, a user who stays in a hotel room can use the carbon footprint interface to determine her actual carbon footprint by connecting to the hotel's carbon footprint interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scaramellino/Bridge with the teachings of Bellowe in order to have receive an event from the computing device, the event identifying a vehicle consuming energy to power one or more tractive components of the vehicle to transport the vehicle between geographic locations; generate an emissions indicator for the vehicle transporting between the geographic locations. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of an overall carbon impact and corresponding offset. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 5, while Scaramellino/Bridge teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 5 which state receive a selection of a carbon offset from the computing device; establish a communication channel with one or more external systems to select the carbon offset responsive to receiving the selection of the carbon offset from the computing device; and modify one or more of the emissions indicators based on the carbon offset.
Bellowe though, with the teachings of Scaramellino/Bridge, teaches of
receive a selection of a carbon offset from the computing device; establish a communication channel with one or more external systems to select the carbon offset responsive to receiving the selection of the carbon offset from the computing device; and modify one or more of the emissions indicators based on the carbon offset (Bellowe: Para 0078-0080 via Once the trip itinerary is planned, the user may select the Offset tab 720. Example contents of the Offset tab 720 is shown in FIG. 8, according to an embodiment of the invention. For each transportation related event, the user may select a transportation type such as driving, taking the train, walking, etc. The type of an explicit transportation event, such as flying from LA to Portland, is already known to the system. In the example, once Greg arrives in Portland, he drives from one activity to the next. For example, Greg drives from the Elephants Delicatessen to the start of the bike trail (see itinerary event 810). When the user selects the Calculate Trip's Footprint button 820, the trip planner automatically calculates distances between the starting location and ending location of each itinerary event, and based on the distance and the transportation type, determines the carbon footprint for the transportation portion of each itinerary event. The trip planner also looks up the carbon impact of other kinds of activities such as lodging and food. Certain giveback activities may be associated with a negative carbon footprint that may offset the carbon footprint of the trip before calculating a monetary offset amount. However, this may be supported only by activities sponsored by organizations that can quantify the amount of giveback associated with your completed activity and its effect on improving the environment. For example, planting a tree or participating in a coastal or river cleanup may provide a credit that may reduce the environmental impact of an overall trip... FIG. 9 shows example contents of the offset tab after calculating the carbon offsets, according to an embodiment of the invention. For example, for itinerary event 810, the drive from the Elephants Delicatessen to the Huckleberry Mountain Trail is 198.2 miles, having a carbon footprint of 1.7680. The flight from LAX to Portland is a distance of 834.55 miles requiring an offset of 0.3422. A onenight hotel stay at the Heathman Hotel on May 30 (see 910) is determined to require an offset for 0.0227 units of carbon footprint that includes the transportation to travel from Tree Planting with Friends of Trees as well as the carbon footprint of the night's lodging at the hotel (0.0136 which is seen in the first line item for each day). In an embodiment, one unit of carbon footprint may represent one ton of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere... FIG. 10 is an example screenshot showing the totals for the units of carbon offsets required to offset all activities of the entire trip, according to an embodiment of the invention. In this example, a total of 5.1855 units is needed to offset the example itinerary (see 1010). A configured price per unit of carbon offset configured into the tool is used to determine the amount of money needed to offset the carbon footprint. In the example, the tool determines that $20.74 is needed (see 1030). When the user selects the Offset your trip for $20.74 button, a form may be provided for supplying credit card information for paying the $20.74, according to an embodiment of the invention (see 1020). When the user types in a credit card number which is authorized, the trip offset amount may be deposited into the user's trip planner account which may be funneled to one or more selected not-for-profit organizations that work to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, for example, Nature Conservancy or another not-for-profit that plants trees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scaramellino/Bridge with the teachings of Bellowe in order to have receive a selection of a carbon offset from the computing device; establish a communication channel with one or more external systems to select the carbon offset responsive to receiving the selection of the carbon offset from the computing device; and modify one or more of the emissions indicators based on the carbon offset. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of an overall carbon impact and corresponding offset. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 12-14, they are analogous to Claims 3-5 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 20, it is analogous to Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scaramellino et al. (US 2010/0042453 A1) in view of Bridge et al. (US 2020/0273047 A1) further in view of Kawamori et al. (US 2022/0230251 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, while Scaramellino/Bridge teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 6 which state generate a plurality of first aggregations of the emissions indicators in each of the categories; and generate a second aggregation by aggregating the plurality of first aggregations.
Kawamori though, with the teachings of Scaramellino/Bridge, teaches of
generate a plurality of first aggregations of the emissions indicators in each of the categories; and generate a second aggregation by aggregating the plurality of first aggregations (Kawamori: Para 0071 via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) 700 of the sustainability reporting interface 124 to display carbon activities is shown according to some embodiment of the present disclosure. The GUI 700 displays CO.sub.2e activities which are considered to be the data gathered for calculating the carbon footprint of the enterprise. A GUI section 702 displays the CO.sub.2e activities of the enterprise. The CO.sub.2e activity ledger is displayed an activity selection field 704. A time period for carbon footprint such as weekly, monthly, yearly, or all-time can be selected from a time selection drop-down menu 708. CO.sub.2e activities can be selected from an activity tab 706. Filters related to several selections are provided in filter section 710. Resource groups can be selected from a resource drop-down list 712. Investments can be selected from financed entities drop-down list 714. Emissions of categories, subcategories, and sources are selected from respective drop-down lists 716, 718, and 720. The CO.sub.2e activities corresponding to the enterprises are displayed in enterprise activity section 722. Selection fields for the enterprise activity section 722 include an activity identifier (ID), organization name, emissions category, subcategory, and source, activity start and activity end, GHG scope, accounting standard, and calculation method of the carbon emissions are listed along with filters for selection of the respective selection fields).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scaramellino/Bridge with the teachings of Kawamori in order to have generate a plurality of first aggregations of the emissions indicators in each of the categories; and generate a second aggregation by aggregating the plurality of first aggregations. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of an accountability management system for determining an aggregate offset for each layer of a hierarchical network of an enterprise as it pertains to carbon emissions. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 7, while Scaramellino/Bridge teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 7 which state generate a plurality of first aggregations of the emissions indicators in each of the categories; generate a second aggregation by aggregating the plurality of first aggregations; generate the data to cause the computing device to display an interface element, the interface element including the second aggregation; receive, via the computing device, an input to drill down from the second aggregation to a specific category of the categories; generate second data to cause the computing device to drill down from displaying the second aggregation to one of the plurality of first aggregations of the specific category without switching to another interface element.
Kawamori though, with the teachings of Scaramellino/Bridge, teaches of
generate a plurality of first aggregations of the emissions indicators in each of the categories; generate a second aggregation by aggregating the plurality of first aggregations; generate the data to cause the computing device to display an interface element, the interface element including the second aggregation; receive, via the computing device, an input to drill down from the second aggregation to a specific category of the categories; generate second data to cause the computing device to drill down from displaying the second aggregation to one of the plurality of first aggregations of the specific category without switching to another interface element (Kawamori: Para 0071 via a Graphical User Interface (GUI) 700 of the sustainability reporting interface 124 to display carbon activities is shown according to some embodiment of the present disclosure. The GUI 700 displays CO.sub.2e activities which are considered to be the data gathered for calculating the carbon footprint of the enterprise. A GUI section 702 displays the CO.sub.2e activities of the enterprise. The CO.sub.2e activity ledger is displayed in an activity selection field 704. A time period for carbon footprint such as weekly, monthly, yearly, or all- time can be selected from a time selection drop-down menu 708. CO.sub.2e activities can be selected from an activity tab 706. Filters related to several selections are provided in filter section 710. Resource groups can be selected from a resource drop-down list 712. Investments can be selected from financed entities drop-down list 714. Emissions of categories, subcategories, and sources are selected from respective drop-down lists 716, 718, and 720. The CO.sub.2e activities corresponding to the enterprises are displayed in enterprise activity section 722. Selection fields for the enterprise activity section 722 include an activity identifier (ID), organization name, emissions category, subcategory, and source, activity start and activity end, GHG scope, accounting standard, and calculation method of the carbon emissions are listed along with filters for selection of the respective selection fields).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scaramellino/Bridge with the teachings of Kawamori in order to have generate a plurality of first aggregations of the emissions indicators in each of the categories; generate a second aggregation by aggregating the plurality of first aggregations; generate the data to cause the computing device to display an interface element, the interface element including the second aggregation; receive, via the computing device, an input to drill down from the second aggregation to a specific category of the categories; generate second data to cause the computing device to drill down from displaying the second aggregation to one of the plurality of first aggregations of the specific category without switching to another interface element. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of an accountability management system for determining an aggregate offset for each layer of a hierarchical network of an enterprise as it pertains to carbon emissions. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 8, while Scaramellino/Bridge teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 8 which state generate the data causing the computing device to display an interface element for one category of the categories, the interface element displaying an aggregation emissions indicator of the one category and a plurality of second aggregations of emissions indicators of sub-categories of the one category.
Kawamori though, with the teachings of Scaramellino/Bridge, teaches of
generate the data causing the computing device to display an interface element for one category of the categories, the interface element displaying an aggregation emissions indicator of the one category and a plurality of second aggregations of emissions indicators of sub-categories of the one category (Kawamori: Para 0065-0066, 0069-0071 via Referring next to FIGS. 6A-6B, Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) of the sustainability reporting interface 124 is shown according to some embodiment of the present disclosure. In FIG. 6A, GUI 600 displays to a user an example of accountability related to carbon emissions by the enterprise. In another embodiment, other types of accountabilities, for example, pollution, waste generation, expenditure, or electricity use can be displayed on the GUI 600...Greenhouse emissions include CO.sub.2, CH.sub.4, N.sub.20, HFCs, SF.sub.6, NF.sub.3, PFCs as carbon equivalents to create a carbon footprint. A GUI section 602 displays the carbon emissions attributable to a company "Wayne Enterprises". A link section 604 provides a web link to load the sustainability reporting interface 124 of the accountability management system 100. The organization can be selected using a selection tab 606. For example, the selection tab 606, the enterprise can be selected. Different webpages related to the enterprise are displayed in a start tab 608. The start tab 608 displays webpages associated with an overview, sites, assets, people activity, financed emissions, and supply chain. The GUI section 602 is a webpage corresponding to the financed emissions as selected from the start tab 608...In FIG. 6B, GUI 638 displays various graphs related to business entities of an enterprise to a user. The graphs display the accountability of the business entities in terms of carbon emissions expressed MtCO.sub.2e. A GUI section 640 displays the financed emissions attributable to a company "Wayne Enterprises". A link section 642 provides a web link to load the sustainability reporting interface 124 of the accountability management system 100. The organization can be selected using a company tab 644. The different in webpages related to the enterprise are displayed in a start tab 646. The start tab 646 displays webpages associated with an overview, sites, assets, people activity, financed emissions, and supply chain. The GUI section 640 is a webpage corresponding to the financed emissions as selected from the start tab 646. A time period for carbon footprint such as weekly, monthly, yearly, or all-time can be selected from a time selection drop-down menu 650. Graph 648 shows carbon emissions corresponding to business loan listed, graph 652 shows carbon emissions corresponding to business loan unlisted, and graph 654 shows carbon emissions corresponding to commercial real estate. The CO.sub.2e activities of the respective business entities can be viewed from the graphs. Graph 656 shows carbon emissions corresponding to a corporate bond listed, graph 658 shows carbon emissions corresponding to corporate bond unlisted, and graph 660 shows carbon emissions corresponding to equity listed. Similarly, graph 662 show carbon emissions corresponding to equity unlisted, graph 664 shows carbon emissions corresponding to mortgages, and graph 666 shows carbon emissions corresponding to a motor vehicle. Referring next to FIG. 7, a Graphical User Interface (GUI) 700 of the sustainability reporting interface 124 to display carbon activities is shown according to some embodiment of the present disclosure. The GUI 700 displays CO.sub.2e activities which are considered to be the data gathered for calculating the carbon footprint of the enterprise. A GUI section 702 displays the CO.sub.2e activities of the enterprise. The CO.sub.2e activity ledger is displayed in an activity selection field 704. A time period for carbon footprint such as weekly, monthly, yearly, or all-time can be selected from a time selection drop-down menu 708. CO.sub.2e activities can be selected from an activity tab 706. Filters related to several selections are provided in filter section 710. Resource groups can be selected from a resource drop-down list 712. Investments can be selected from financed entities drop-down list 714. Emissions of categories, subcategories, and sources are selected from respective drop-down lists 716, 718, and 720. The CO.sub.2e activities corresponding to the enterprises are displayed in enterprise activity section 722. Selection fields for the enterprise activity section 722 include an activity identifier (ID), organization name, emissions category, subcategory, and source, activity start and activity end, GHG scope, accounting standard, and calculation method of the carbon emissions are listed along with filters for selection of the respective selection fields).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scaramellino/Bridge with the teachings of Kawamori in order to have generate the data causing the computing device to display an interface element for one category of the categories, the interface element displaying an aggregation emissions indicator of the one category and a plurality of second aggregations of emissions indicators of sub-categories of the one category. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of an accountability management system for determining an aggregate offset for each layer of a hierarchical network of an enterprise as it pertains to carbon emissions. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 9, while Scaramellino/Bridge teaches the limitations of Claim 1, it does not explicitly disclose the limitations of Claim 9 which state generate the data causing the computing device to display an interface element for one category of the categories, the interface element displaying an aggregation emissions indicator of the one category and a plurality of second aggregations of emissions indicators of sub-categories of the one category; wherein the data causes the computing device to render the interface element representing the plurality of points in time, the aggregation emissions indicator for each time of the plurality of points in time, and a breakdown of the aggregation emissions indicator into the plurality of second aggregations of emissions indicators at each time of the plurality of points in time.
Kawamori though, with the teachings of Scaramellino/Bridge, teaches of
generate the data causing the computing device to display an interface element for one category of the categories, the interface element displaying an aggregation emissions indicator of the one category and a plurality of second aggregations of emissions indicators of sub-categories of the one category; wherein the data causes the computing device to render the interface element representing the plurality of points in time, the aggregation emissions indicator for each time of the plurality of points in time, and a breakdown of the aggregation emissions indicator into the plurality of second aggregations of emissions indicators at each time of the plurality of points in time (Kawamori: Para 0065-0066, 0069-0071 via Referring next to FIGS. 6A-6B, Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) of the sustainability reporting interface 124 is shown according to some embodiment of the present disclosure. In FIG. 6A, GUI 600 displays to a user an example of accountability related to carbon emissions by the enterprise. In another embodiment, other types of accountabilities, for example, pollution, waste generation, expenditure, or electricity use can be displayed on the GUI 600...Greenhouse emissions include CO.sub.2, CH.sub.4, N.sub.20, HFCs, SF.sub.6, NF.sub.3, PFCs as carbon equivalents to create a carbon footprint. A GUI section 602 displays the carbon emissions attributable to a company "Wayne Enterprises". A link section 604 provides a web link to load the sustainability reporting interface 124 of the accountability management system 100. The organization can be selected using a selection tab 606. For example, the selection tab 606, the enterprise can be selected. Different webpages related to the enterprise are displayed in a start tab 608. The start tab 608 displays webpages associated with an overview, sites, assets, people activity, financed emissions, and supply chain. The GUI section 602 is a webpage corresponding to the financed emissions as selected from the start tab 608...In FIG. 6B, GUI 638 displays various graphs related to business entities of an enterprise to a user. The graphs display the accountability of the business entities in terms of carbon emissions expressed in MtCO.sub.2e. A GUI section 640 displays the financed emissions attributable to a company "Wayne Enterprises". A link section 642 provides a web link to load the sustainability reporting interface 124 of the accountability management system 100. The organization can be selected using a company tab 644. The different webpages related to the enterprise are displayed in a start tab 646. The start tab 646 displays webpages associated with an overview, sites, assets, people activity, financed emissions, and supply chain. The GUI section 640 is a webpage corresponding to the financed emissions as selected from the start tab 646. A time period for carbon footprint such as weekly, monthly, yearly, or all-time can bе selected from a time selection drop-down menu 650. Graph 648 shows carbon emissions corresponding to business loan listed, graph 652 shows carbon emissions corresponding to business loan unlisted, and graph 654 shows carbon emissions corresponding to commercial real estate. The CO.sub.2e activities of the respective business entities can be viewed from the graphs. Graph 656 shows carbon emissions corresponding to a corporate bond listed, graph 658 shows carbon Page 32 emissions corresponding to corporate bond unlisted, and graph 660 shows carbon emissions corresponding to equity listed. Similarly, graph 662 show carbon emissions corresponding to equity unlisted, graph 664 shows carbon emissions corresponding to mortgages, and graph 666 shows carbon emissions corresponding to a motor vehicle. Referring next to FIG. 7, a Graphical User Interface (GUI) 700 of the sustainability reporting interface 124 to display carbon activities is shown according to some embodiment of the present disclosure. The GUI 700 displays CO.sub.2e activities which are considered to be the data gathered for calculating the carbon footprint of the enterprise. A GUI section 702 displays the CO.sub.2e activities of the enterprise. The CO.sub.2e activity ledger is displayed in an activity selection field 704. A time period for carbon footprint such as weekly, monthly, yearly, or all-time can be selected from a time selection drop-down menu 708. CO.sub.2e activities can be selected from an activity tab 706. Filters related to several selections are provided in filter section 710. Resource groups can be selected from a resource drop-down list 712. Investments can be selected from financed entities drop-down list 714. Emissions of categories, subcategories, and sources are selected from respective drop-down lists 716, 718, and 720. The CO.sub.2e activities corresponding to the enterprises are displayed in enterprise activity section 722. Selection fields for the enterprise activity section 722 include an activity identifier (ID), organization name, emissions category, subcategory, and source, activity start and activity end, GHG scope, accounting standard, and calculation method of the carbon emissions are listed along with filters for selection of the respective selection fields).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Scaramellino/Bridge with the teachings of Kawamori in order to have generate the data causing the computing device to display an interface element for one category of the categories, the interface element displaying an aggregation emissions indicator of the one category and a plurality of second aggregations of emissions indicators of sub-categories of the one category; wherein the data causes the computing device to render the interface element representing the plurality of points in time, the aggregation emissions indicator for each time of the plurality of points in time, and a breakdown of the aggregation emissions indicator into the plurality of second aggregations of emissions indicators at each time of the plurality of points in time. The motivations behind this being to incorporate the teachings of an accountability management system for determining an aggregate offset for each layer of a hierarchical network of an enterprise as it pertains to carbon emissions. Furthermore, in addition to being in the same CPC class, the teachings, suggestions, and motivations in this prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 15-18, they are analogous to Claims 6-9 respectively and are rejected for the same reasons.
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 TYRONE E SINGLETARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1684. The examiner can normally be reached 9 - 5:30.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/T.E.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 3623 /RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623