DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed 08 October 2025.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-13 and 16 have been amended.
Claims 3-4, 6-8, 14-15, and 17-20 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-24 have been added.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-13, 16, and 21-24 are pending and have been examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 August 2025 are being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue that the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection under the Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank Int’l be withdrawn; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial note, the arguments are not compliant under 37 CFR 1.111(b) as they amount to a mere allegation of patent eligibility based upon a bare assertion of improvement. The Examiner respectfully does not find the assertion persuasive because a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent is not sufficient to show an improvement (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) (discussing MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the Examiner does not find any evidence that the claimed aspects are any improvement over conventional systems. This argument appears to be whether or not the use of computer or computing components for increased speed and efficiency makes the claims eligible; however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible and the rejection not withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s) 1 and 12. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “stores, for each of a plurality of companies in a supply chain of a first product, product information that includes carbon footprint values on a product of each of the plurality of companies included in the supply chain of the final product” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. Even assuming arguendo, and as previously cited, Schoeneboom discusses the ability not only determine the carbon footprint of a product through a production facility, but also “Certain embodiments of the present invention comprise (b) gathering the carbon footprint of each raw material. For most raw materials, the carbon footprint can be obtained from the supplier provides or from public or private databases. Usually, different suppliers provide the same raw material with different carbon footprint due to differences in its production process or logistics. Therefore, preferably, the carbon footprints of a raw material are gathered for each supplier together with an identifier of the supplier. This information can then be used to calculate the carbon footprint of that particular raw material depending on how much of the raw material is used from which supplier. The result can be taken into account for determining the carbon footprint in the method of the present invention. In rare cases, no carbon footprints are available. In this case, the carbon footprint may be estimated, for example by comparison to very similar products on the market. The carbon footprint of each raw material is typically gathered through an interface. The carbon footprint of each raw material can be gathered through an interface to a local or a remote database or an ERP system, in particular its supply chain module (Schoeneboom ¶39)” which clearly is disclosing the ability to account for companies along a supply chain of a final product (i.e. the raw material etc. that goes into the product) and thus reads upon “stores, for each of a plurality of companies in a supply chain of a first product, product information that includes carbon footprint values on a product of each of the plurality of companies included in the supply chain of the final product.” As such, this argument is not persuasive and the rejection not withdrawn. The Examiner refers Applicant to the updated rejection below addressing the remaining arguments and amendments.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been addressed in the updated rejection below, as necessitated by amendments.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by the Applicants in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in the Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). The Examiner asserts that the Applicants only argue that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-13, 16, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices), and a manufacture (an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (Step 1). However, the claim(s) recite(s) collecting and updating product information including carbon footprint values of products for companies in a supply chain which is an abstract idea of organizing human activities.
The limitations of “collect, via a network interface an at a predetermined time, actual result data from each of the plurality of companies, the actual result data including the carbon footprint values for actual production of the product produced by each of the plurality of companies during a predetermined time period; update the carbon footprint values of the product information stored in the memory using the actual result data for each of the plurality of companies that sends the actual result data to the processor; update the carbon footprint values of the product information stored in the memory using alternative data for each of the plurality of companies that does not send the actual result data to the processor via the network interface, the alternative data including carbon footprint values previously; calculate a cumulative carbon footprint value for the final product from the carbon footprint values of the product information stored in the memory after the update using the actual result data and the alternative data; determines whether a fluctuation range of the actual test result data that was collected in the past is equal to or greater than a predetermined value;...uses the first type of the alternative data when the fluctuation rate that was determined is not equal to or greater than the predetermined value, and uses the second type of the alternative data when the fluctuation rate that was determined is equal to or greater than the predetermined value ” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activities--fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) but for the recitation of generic computer components (Step 2A Prong 1). That is, other than reciting “A server device comprising: a memory that stores, for each of a plurality of companies in a supply chain of a first product, product information that includes carbon footprint values on a product of each of the plurality of companies included in the supply chain of the final product; and a control unit including a processor configured to” in claim 1 or “An information processing method executed by a server device that includes (i) a memory that stores, for each of a plurality of companies in a supply chain of a final product, product information that includes carbon footprint values on a product of each of the plurality of companies included in the supply chain of the final product and (ii) a control unit including a processor, the method comprising:” in claim 12) nothing in the claim element precludes the step from the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. For example, but for the “A server device comprising: a memory that stores, for each of a plurality of companies in a supply chain of a first product, product information that includes carbon footprint values on a product of each of the plurality of companies included in the supply chain of the final product; and a control unit including a processor configured to” in claim 1 or “An information processing method executed by a server device that includes (i) a memory that stores, for each of a plurality of companies in a supply chain of a final product, product information that includes carbon footprint values on a product of each of the plurality of companies included in the supply chain of the final product and (ii) a control unit including a processor, the method comprising:” in claim 12) language, “collect,” “update,” “update,” “calculate,” and “determines” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually organizing product related data for a company or business which is business relation/fundamental economic practice/commercial or legal interaction. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as one of the methods for organizing human activities but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two). The “memory” in the claims is simply some sort of storage and “network interface” are elements that implement insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities. Next, the claim only recites one additional element – using a control unit including a processor of a server device or one or more processors to perform the steps. The control unit including a processor of a server device or one or more processors steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of electronic data storage, query, and retrieval) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Specifically the claims amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or invoking computers as tools by 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 2106.04(d)(I) discussing MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the combination of these additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, even when considered as a whole (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
The claim does not include a combination of additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong 2), the combination of additional elements of using control unit of a server device or one or more processors to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Reevaluating here in Step 2B, the “memory” and “network interface” in the step(s) which are performing insignificant extrasolution activities are also determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that the mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as is here)Therefore, when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim. As such, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible, even when considered as a whole (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 2, 5, 9-10, 13, and 16 are dependent on claims 1 and 12 and include all the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Therefore, claims 2, 5, 9-10, 13, and 16 recite the same abstract idea of “collecting and updating product information including carbon footprint values of products for companies.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further limiting the carbon footprint values and product information, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claim 11 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 recites the same abstract idea of “collecting and updating product information including carbon footprint values of products for companies.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including some sort of score which is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 21-24 are dependent on claims 1 and 12 and include all the limitations of claims 1 and 12. Therefore, claims 21-24 recite the same abstract idea of “collecting and updating product information including carbon footprint values of products for companies.” The claim(s) recite(s) the additional limitation(s) further including outputting of an image of the product tree, which is still directed towards the abstract idea previously identified and is not an inventive concept that meaningfully limits the abstract idea. Again, as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12, the claims are simply limitations which are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Accordingly, the additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Even when considered as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9-13, 16, and 21-24 are therefore not eligible subject matter, even when considered as a whole.
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 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, 5, 9-13, 16, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schoeneboom et al. (US PG Pub. 2022/0108327) and further in view of Roberts (US PG Pub. 2009/0171722) and Cooner (US PG Pub. 2020/0027096).
As per claims 1 and 12, Schoeneboom discloses a server device, the server comprising: a memory that stores, for each of a plurality of companies in a supply chain of a first product, product information that includes carbon footprint values on a product of each of the plurality of companies included in the supply chain of the final product; and a control unit including a processor configured to:; an information processing method executed by a server device that includes (i) a memory that stores, for each of a plurality of companies in a supply chain of a final product, product information that includes carbon footprint values on a product of each of the plurality of companies included in the supply chain of the final product and (ii) a control unit including a processor, the method comprising (apparatus, method, server, Schoeneboom ¶61-¶62; for a product along a production chain, interface, ¶39 and ¶55),
collect, via a network interface an at a predetermined time, actual result data from each of the plurality of companies, the actual result data including the carbon footprint values for actual production of the product produced by each of the plurality of companies during a predetermined time period ((a) gathering process data comprising information about the process steps from the required raw materials to the product, and/or (b) gathering the carbon footprint of each raw material, and/or (c) gathering energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step, (d) determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data, and (e) outputting the carbon footprint of the product obtained in step (d), preferably outputting the carbon footprint of the product and/or each contribution to it as obtained in step (d). In other words, a computer-implemented method for determining a carbon footprint of a product produced in a production process of a production plant is presented, the method comprising: (a) gathering process data comprising information about one or more process step(s) from the raw materials to the product, and/or (b) gathering the carbon footprint of one or more raw material(s), and/or (c) gathering energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for one or more process step(s), (d) determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data, Schoeneboom ¶15-¶16; Certain embodiments of the present invention comprise (b) gathering the carbon footprint of each raw material. For most raw materials, the carbon footprint can be obtained from the supplier provides or from public or private databases. Usually, different suppliers provide the same raw material with different carbon footprint due to differences in its production process or logistics. Therefore, preferably, the carbon footprints of a raw material are gathered for each supplier together with an identifier of the supplier. This information can then be used to calculate the carbon footprint of that particular raw material depending on how much of the raw material is used from which supplier. The result can be taken into account for determining the carbon footprint in the method of the present invention. In rare cases, no carbon footprints are available. In this case, the carbon footprint may be estimated, for example by comparison to very similar products on the market. The carbon footprint of each raw material is typically gathered through an interface. The carbon footprint of each raw material can be gathered through an interface to a local or a remote database or an ERP system, in particular its supply chain module, ¶39; In some embodiments, a method according to the present invention determines the carbon footprint of products. In the context of the present invention, “carbon footprint” relates to the amount of greenhouse gases emitted or removed in a production process of a production plant. The carbon footprint may relate to the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted or removed in the production process e.g. from extracting natural resources to the product as it leaves the production plant. In the context of the present invention, the carbon footprint may not include any greenhouse gas emission later on in the lifetime of a product. For example, for a car the carbon footprint in the context of the present invention is the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to produce the car, but not the emissions caused by using the car once it has left the production plant. The amount of the carbon footprint is typically expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents, so the amount of carbon dioxide with the same effect on global climate as the actually emitted greenhouse gases, Schoeneboom ¶21; origin of the energy, energy required for each process step, types of energy, ¶40-¶41 and ¶50-¶54),
update the carbon footprint values of the product information stored in the memory using the actual result data for each of the plurality of companies that sends the actual result data to the processor via the network interface (In the easiest case, one or multiple raw materials are processed in one process step to arrive at the product. An example could be that certain cables and plugs are the raw materials which are assembled to form a cable tree as a product which is sold to car manufacturers. In most cases, however, the production processes are more complicated. Multiple raw materials are processed into various intermediates which are processed into various products, wherein one raw material can be used to produce more than one intermediate and one intermediate may be used to produce more than one product. In such a situation, the final carbon footprint of one product become dependent on the amount of other products produced at the production plant. Hence, typically the process data comprise the information which reagents are required at which amounts for each process step for all products having at least one reagent or intermediate in common. For many production plants, the process data comprise the information which reagents are required at which amounts for each process step for at least two products having at least one reagent or intermediate in common. The process data may comprise the digital representation of one or more process step(s) of one or more production process(es). Such representation may include or may be associated with information which reagents are required at which amounts for one or more process step(s) for at least two products having at least one reagent or intermediate in common. For complex production plants the process data comprise the information which reagents are required at which amounts for each process step for at least five or at least ten products having at least one reagent or intermediate in common. The process data may comprise the digital representation of one or more process step(s) of one or more production process(es). Such representation may include or may be associated with information which reagents are required at which amounts for each process step for at least five or at least ten products having at least one reagent or intermediate in common, Schoeneboom ¶31; For process steps which cause direct greenhouse gas emissions, these direct emissions may be added to the carbon footprint of the process step. Hence, determining the carbon footprint of each process step can further comprise adding the emissions caused by direct greenhouse gas emissions. It is also possible to determine the contribution of direct emissions for the product along the production chain analogously to the raw material contribution and the energy contribution and finally add it to the other contributions, Schoeneboom ¶55), and
update the carbon footprint values of the product information stored in the memory using alternative data for each of the plurality of companies that does not send the actual result data to the processor via the network interface, the alternative data including carbon footprint values previously stored in the memory (The energy data may not be readily available for each process step, but may only be available in more aggregated form, for example the energy consumption of a factory in which multiple process steps are executed. In this case, the energy consumption for each process step has to be derived from such aggregated data. This can be achieved by determining the share of the energy consumption of each process step in the aggregated data. To this end, a suitable basis is defined, for example, in a simple approach, based on the share of the production volume, for example measured in physical quantity such as mass, of each of the process steps. A more precise way of allocating the energy consumption is by using data about the energy-related production costs at the product level, obtained for example from an ERP system, Schoeneboom ¶44; Determining the carbon footprint of the product can comprise adding the contribution of the energy required for each process step. For this reason, the required amount of energy may be attributed with an amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Usually, energy is provided by a distribution network, such as an electricity network or a hot water or steam network. Such networks are typically fed by different powerplants and sometimes other energy sources, for example heat generated by other process steps. In practice, it is hence not possible to determine, which portion is actually from which energy source, but only average values are accessible. Therefore, typically information about the greenhouse gas emissions are only available as average over the total energy consumption of the complete production plant. If all energy is supplied by an external supplier, such as an electricity company, the average greenhouse gas emission per energy unit is usually accessible from the energy supplier. However, in particular large production plants often own their own power plants. In this case, the amount of greenhouse gas emission of this power plant may be determined. The share of this total emission, which can be attributed to the process step under determination, can be derived from the ratio of the energy consumption of this process step divided by the total energy output or consumption of the power plant. In this way, each process step is assigned an energy carbon footprint, i.e. the amount of greenhouse gases originating from the energy usage of that process step, ¶50) (Examiner interprets the share of the total emissions as the actual result data which cannot be collected as per the specification [0100]-[0101] discussing values which can fluctuate and not easily be collected), and
calculate a cumulative carbon footprint value for the final product from the carbon footprint values of the product information stored in the memory after the update using the actual result data and the alternative data, (For process steps which cause direct greenhouse gas emissions, these direct emissions may be added to the carbon footprint of the process step. Hence, determining the carbon footprint of each process step can further comprise adding the emissions caused by direct greenhouse gas emissions. It is also possible to determine the contribution of direct emissions for the product along the production chain analogously to the raw material contribution and the energy contribution and finally add it to the other contributions, Schoeneboom ¶55; summation of carbon footprints, ¶47) wherein
the memory stores, for each of the plurality of companies, at least a first type of the alternative data and a second type of the alternative data, the first type of the alternative data is based on actual test result data that was collected in the past (It can be useful to average energy data over a certain period of time, for example over a period of 3 years, to compensate for example seasonal variations. The energy data is usually transformed into carbon footprints by taking into account the energy sources and their specific greenhouse gas emissions, Schoeneboom ¶40; carbon footprint already determined for intermediate, ¶48),
the second type of alternative data is based on predefined carbon footprint values (origin of the energy, energy required for each process step, types of energy, Schoeneboom ¶40-¶41; Depending on the energy source the contribution to the product carbon footprint can be quite different, for example essentially no contribution if the energy is received from a solar panel or a wind turbine or a significant contribution if the energy is received from a public power grid which provides energy from coal power plants. Therefore, preferably, the energy data also comprises information about the source the energy is received from. This information is typically obtained from sensors in the production plant or in a central power supply facility. The energy data preferably contains information of the carbon emissions caused by each energy source from which energy is received. In this way, it is possible to calculate the contribution of the energy to the product carbon footprint, ¶43; The energy data may not be readily available for each process step, but may only be available in more aggregated form, for example the energy consumption of a factory in which multiple process steps are executed. In this case, the energy consumption for each process step has to be derived from such aggregated data. This can be achieved by determining the share of the energy consumption of each process step in the aggregated data. To this end, a suitable basis is defined, for example, in a simple approach, based on the share of the production volume, for example measured in physical quantity such as mass, of each of the process steps. A more precise way of allocating the energy consumption is by using data about the energy-related production costs at the product level, obtained for example from an ERP system, ¶44; see also ¶50-¶54),
Schoeneboom does not expressly disclose wherein the traceability-related information includes a value representing a score regarding due diligence.
However, Roberts teaches wherein the traceability-related information includes a value representing a score regarding due diligence (Greenstar score, Roberts ¶15, ¶193, ¶199).
Both the Roberts and Schoeneboom references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with environmental impact with respect to companies and products. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Roberts’ ability to assign a score or rating for a product or company in Schoeneboom system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a carbon footprint management system that is able to provide an overall comparison of products and companies.
The motivation being that there is need of a means to assess the degree of "green-ness" of an entity, to compare it to other similar entities, and to allow the entity to maximize the return on its green investment by making use of it as a marketing tool. There is a need therefore, of a method of marketing which is based on the desire to reward those companies that have made significant efforts to become green (Roberts ¶18).
The combination of Schoeneboom and Roberts do not expressly disclose the processor determines whether a fluctuation range of the actual test result data that was collected in the past is equal to or greater than a predetermined value; the processor uses the first type of the alternative data when the fluctuation rate that was determined is not equal to or greater than the predetermined value, and uses the second type of the alternative data when the fluctuation rate that was determined is equal to or greater than the predetermined value.
However, Cooner teaches the processor determines whether a fluctuation range of the actual test result data that was collected in the past is equal to or greater than a predetermined value; the processor uses the first type of the alternative data when the fluctuation rate that was determined is not equal to or greater than the predetermined value, and uses the second type of the alternative data when the fluctuation rate that was determined is equal to or greater than the predetermined value (Consequently, the materiality decision ultimately becomes a matter for the validator or verifier's professional judgement. In order to ensure consistency and avoid unanticipated discrimination, some GHG schemes or internal programmes assist this decision-making process by including materiality thresholds. These may be defined at the overall level, such as 5% of an organization or GHG project's gross direct GHG emissions. They may also include varying thresholds depending on the level of disaggregation, such as 1% at the gross organizational level, 5% at the facility level and 10% at the source level. Further, a series of discrete errors or omissions identified within a particular disaggregation level, individually less than the materiality threshold may, when taken together, exceed the threshold and thus be considered material. Omissions or errors identified that represent amounts greater than the stipulated threshold are pre-determined as being a “material discrepancy”, that is, a non-conformity, Conner ¶726-¶727) (Examiner notes the materiality decision (whether or not to use certain data in the calculation) via varying thresholds as the ability to have a fluctuation range that determines whether or not to use alternative data).
The Cooner, Roberts, and Schoeneboom references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with environmental impact with respect to companies and products. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Cooner’s ability to account for materiality in Robert and Schoeneboom’s system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a carbon footprint management system that is able to provide an overall comparison of products and companies.
The motivation being that there is need to optimize energy consumption as a whole (Cooner ¶32) as well as greenhouse gas sample design should be treated as an iterative process, as the sampling approach or the information samples chosen may need to be changed, as weaknesses in control environments, GHG information and materiality issues are identified during the validation or verification. Revisions to the sample design should consider the sufficiency and appropriateness of evidence from testing methodologies together with any control evidence to support the organization or GHG project's GHG assertions (Cooner ¶759).
As per claims 2 and 13, Schoeneboom, Roberts and Cooner disclose as shown above with respect to claims 1 and 12. Schoeneboom further discloses wherein the processor is configured to periodically collect the actual result data and update the carbon footprint values of the product information stored in the memory (Certain embodiments of the present invention comprise (c) gathering energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step. Energy data typically comprises the amount of energy consumed, the energy form and its origin. The amount is often given as specific energy per piece or mass of the product or intermediate of that respective process step. The amount can be positive, i.e. if the energy is consumed, or negative, i.e. if the process step produces energy. An example for the latter is the production of sulfuric acid from sulfur. Sulfur is reacted with oxygen releasing thermal energy which can be used in a different process step. The energy form includes electricity, thermal energy, such as warm water or steam, cooling or fossil fuels such as gas or petrol. In the case of fossil fuels, these are also raw materials, but their carbon footprint only refers to the greenhouse gas emission for producing these. However, the exhaustion of carbon dioxide upon burning these may be taken into account as well. The origin of the energy refers to source where the energy is taken from. For example, thermal energy can originate from power plants, from other process steps or from solar panels. Hence, the origin can have a considerable effect on the greenhouse gas emission associated with the energy consumption. It can be useful to average energy data over a certain period of time, for example over a period of 3 years, to compensate for example seasonal variations. The energy data is usually transformed into carbon footprints by taking into account the energy sources and their specific greenhouse gas emissions, Schoeneboom ¶40).
As per claims 5 and 16, Schoeneboom, Roberts and Cooner disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1 and 12. Schoeneboom further discloses wherein the second type of the alternative data is an initial value of the carbon footprint values included in the product information received from the plurality of companies (a) gathering process data comprising information about the process steps from the required raw materials to the product, and/or (b) gathering the carbon footprint of each raw material, and/or (c) gathering energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step, (d) determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data, and (e) outputting the carbon footprint of the product obtained in step (d), preferably outputting the carbon footprint of the product and/or each contribution to it as obtained in step (d). In other words, a computer-implemented method for determining a carbon footprint of a product produced in a production process of a production plant is presented, the method comprising: (a) gathering process data comprising information about one or more process step(s) from the raw materials to the product, and/or (b) gathering the carbon footprint of one or more raw material(s), and/or (c) gathering energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for one or more process step(s), (d) determining the carbon footprint of the product taking into account the process data, the carbon footprint of each raw material and/or the energy data, Schoeneboom ¶15-¶16; Certain embodiments of the present invention comprise (c) gathering energy data comprising information about the energy consumption for each process step. Energy data typically comprises the amount of energy consumed, the energy form and its origin. The amount is often given as specific energy per piece or mass of the product or intermediate of that respective process step. The amount can be positive, i.e. if the energy is consumed, or negative, i.e. if the process step produces energy. An example for the latter is the production of sulfuric acid from sulfur. Sulfur is reacted with oxygen releasing thermal energy which can be used in a different process step. The energy form includes electricity, thermal energy, such as warm water or steam, cooling or fossil fuels such as gas or petrol. In the case of fossil fuels, these are also raw materials, but their carbon footprint only refers to the greenhouse gas emission for producing these. However, the exhaustion of carbon dioxide upon burning these may be taken into account as well. The origin of the energy refers to source where the energy is taken from. For example, thermal energy can originate from power plants, from other process steps or from solar panels. Hence, the origin can have a considerable effect on the greenhouse gas emission associated with the energy consumption. It can be useful to average energy data over a certain period of time, for example over a period of 3 years, to compensate for example seasonal variations. The energy data is usually transformed into carbon footprints by taking into account the energy sources and their specific greenhouse gas emissions, ¶40).
As per claim 9, Schoeneboom, Roberts and Cooner disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Schoeneboom further discloses wherein the carbon footprint values include a value regarding an amount of energy consumed when producing the first product (origin of the energy, energy required for each process step, types of energy, Schoeneboom ¶40-¶41 and ¶50-¶55).
As per claim 10, Schoeneboom, Roberts and Cooner disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Schoeneboom further discloses wherein the carbon footprint values include a value representing a recycling rate regarding a predetermined raw material (For process steps which yield by-products, their contribution to the carbon footprint may be taken into account. Often, by-products are burnt in an incineration and thereby emitting greenhouse gases. The amount can often relatively easily be determined, for example by calculating the carbon content of the by-product which gets converted into carbon dioxide in the incineration. In some cases, the by-product can be recycled involving further process steps until the outcome can be used as new raw material or intermediate. If the recycling is done in the same production plant, the recycling process steps can be subjected to the same analysis as the production process steps yielding a carbon footprint which is added to the process step yielding the by-product. However, often the by-products are recycled by recycling companies, so said analysis is not possible. Instead, the recycling company may provide carbon footprints of the recycling process. Otherwise, a reasonable value may be estimated. Hence, determining the carbon footprint of each process step can further comprise adding the emissions caused by disposing or recycling the by-products, Schoeneboom ¶54).
As per claim 11, Schoeneboom, Roberts and Cooner disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1. Schoeneboom does not expressly disclose wherein the product information includes a value representing a score regarding due diligence.
However, Roberts teaches wherein the product information includes a value representing a score regarding due diligence (Greenstar score, Roberts ¶15, ¶193, ¶199).
Both the Roberts and Schoeneboom references are analogous in that both are directed towards/concerned with environmental impact with respect to companies and products. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use Roberts’ ability to assign a score or rating for a product or company in Schoeneboom system to improve the system and method with reasonable expectation that this would result in a carbon footprint management system that is able to provide an overall comparison of products and companies.
The motivation being that there is need of a means to assess the degree of "green-ness" of an entity, to compare it to other similar entities, and to allow the entity to maximize the return on its green investment by making use of it as a marketing tool. There is a need therefore, of a method of marketing which is based on the desire to reward those companies that have made significant efforts to become green (Roberts ¶18).
As per claims 21 and 23, Schoeneboom, Roberts and Cooner disclose as shown above with respect to claim 1 and 12. Schoeneboom further discloses generate and output to the company terminal an image of a product tree showing information on the final product and the products in the supply chain of the final product, the image showing the carbon footprint value of the product produced by the company whose company terminal made the request and only the carbon footprint values of other ones of the companies in the supply chain that have granted access to their company's product information to the company whose company terminal made the request (origin of the energy, energy required for each process step, types of energy, Schoeneboom ¶40-¶41 and ¶50-¶54; For process steps which cause direct greenhouse gas emissions, these direct emissions may be added to the carbon footprint of the process step. Hence, determining the carbon footprint of each process step can further comprise adding the emissions caused by direct greenhouse gas emissions. It is also possible to determine the contribution of direct emissions for the product along the production chain analogously to the raw material contribution and the energy contribution and finally add it to the other contributions, Schoeneboom ¶55; materials and processes for product schematically collected and displayed in Fig. 1-Fig. 2, ¶32-¶33) (Examiner interprets Fig. 1-Fig. 2 as the equivalent to the image of a product tree).
Roberts further teaches wherein the processor is configured to, in response to a request from a company terminal of one of the plurality of companies included in the supply chain of the final product (search engine, query, data related to companies, Roberts ¶98-¶99).
While Shoeneboom does not expressly disclose the generation of the image as being in response to a request. However, the Examiner asserts that before the effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply the known technique of providing previously collected and generated information (i.e. the schematic representation of the product’s raw material and processes in Schoeneboom) in response to a request, as taught by Roberts.
As per claims 22 and 24, Schoeneboom, Roberts and Cooner disclose as shown above with respect to claim 21 and 23. Schoeneboom further discloses wherein the image shows the carbon footprint value of the product produced by the company whose company terminal made the request and only the carbon footprint values of other ones of the companies in the supply chain that are upstream of the company whose company terminal made the request (origin of the energy, energy required for each process step, types of energy, Schoeneboom ¶40-¶41 and ¶50-¶54; For process steps which cause direct greenhouse gas emissions, these direct emissions may be added to the carbon footprint of the process step. Hence, determining the carbon footprint of each process step can further comprise adding the emissions caused by direct greenhouse gas emissions. It is also possible to determine the contribution of direct emission