DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response and amendments received on 19 September 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 3-6 have been amended.
Claim 2 is original / previously presented.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous objection to the drawings, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Applicant has amended Figs. 7, 10, and 13 to enlarge the text in certain text boxes to make the text boxes easier to read. Accordingly, the objection to the drawings should be withdrawn” (Remarks pg. 9). Examiner disagrees. There is still illegible text in Figures 7, 10, 13. In Figure 7, the column header after “Component Name” is not legible in both tables. In Figure 10, the column header after “Component Name” is not legible in both tables. In Figure 13, the text in decision block S107 is not legible. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1-6, the Applicant has successfully amended and/or cancelled the claims, and accordingly the rejection is rescinded.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the previous 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-6, the arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “the claim sets forth an improvement to the technology of identifying system components (e.g. storage drive and processor) to switch to reduce environmental loads when operating the components” (Remarks pg. 10). Examiner disagrees. First, identifying system components to switch to reduce environmental loads itself is a certain method of organizing human activity (i.e. managing personal behavior). This judicial exception is represented in the claimed activities of comparing configuration information…, detecting difference between system components…, comparing a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission..., comparing a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission…, displaying different system components as low environmental load components…, displaying a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission…, dividing system components into groups…, comparing a carbon dioxide emission amount…, comparing a lifecycle carbon dioxide amount…, displaying the system component that has the smaller carbon dioxide emission amount. Second, there are no particular technical means claimed to perform the steps to identify components beyond performing the judicial exception on a general purpose computer / general computer components (i.e. apply it), which is not an advancement in computer technology. This is similar to the ineligible claims in Electric Power Group v. Alstom Grid Inc (Fed. Cir. 2016) in which the courts determined the claims did not go beyond requiring collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field and stating those functions in general terms without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are an advance over conventional computer / network technology. Third, there is no actual switching of components performed in the claims regarding the judicial exception. There is no reduction of actual carbon dioxide emissions. The computer itself is not improved. At best the claims only analyze and report (i.e. display) information as part of the judicial exception, and no technology or technical field is improved. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “The improvement is a technical solution to a technical problem as explained in the specification. For example, ‘with a recent increase in attention to environment-friendliness, ideas associated with carbon neutrality are spreading. Accordingly, efforts for reducing environmental loads during system operation are attracting attention. One of these efforts conventionally known is a technology which presents to a user a carbon dioxide emission amount of a system operated by the user (e.g., see JP-2002-332463-A)…. Para [0004] However, in conventional technologies, the carbon generation amount is merely presented to the user in the form of display. Accordingly, the user is able to know the carbon dioxide emission amount, but is unable to, by mere knowledge of the carbon dioxide emission amount, recognize a total lifecycle carbon dioxide emission amount of the operating system… Para [0005] The presently claimed invention provides an environmental load reducing method for enabling a user desiring contribution to more reduction of environmental loads to examine a switch to a configuration which further reduces environmental loads’. The improvement is also recited in the claims. For example, claim 1 recites ‘display, on the display, one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components and display, a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed time period by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operation system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation’” (Remarks pg. 11-12). Examiner disagrees. First, the solution provided in the claims is not a technical solution that is a practical application or significantly more. The claims represent implementing a judicial exception (certain methods of organizing human activities) on a generic / general purpose computer (e.g. processor, memory, display) at a high level of detail, which is not a practical application or significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). Also, the claims do not improve the computer itself and at best only analyze and report information / data at a high level of detail. This is similar to the ineligible claims in Electric Power Group v. Alstom Grid Inc (Fed. Cir. 2016) in which the courts determined the claims did not go beyond requiring collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field and stating those functions in general terms without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are an advance over conventional computer / network technology. Second, the problem stated by the Applicant that “in conventional technologies, the carbon dioxide generation amount is merely presented to the user in the form of display. Accordingly, the user is able to know the carbon dioxide emission amount, but is unable to, by mere knowledge of the carbon dioxide emission amount, recognize a total lifecycle carbon dioxide emission amount of the operating system, or the presence or absence of a configuration which achieves performance substantially equivalent to performance of the operating system but has a smaller carbon dioxide emission amount” is at best is only an entrepreneurial problem (i.e. business decision making when knowing one piece of information and not knowing another piece of information) instead of a technical problem or computer technology problem. Hence, the claims do not present a technical solution to a technical problem. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Additionally, this is not a case like Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) where the computer is merely used as a tool to perform an existing process and the human mind is not practically capable of implementing the display aspects of the presently claimed invention. Further, the display aspects do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity” (Remarks pg. 13). Examiner disagrees. First, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (2014), identified that claims directed to an abstract idea that do not provide an element or combination of elements that are sufficient to provide an inventive concept outside the abstract idea are not significantly more than the ineligible concept itself. Like the claims in Alice, the Applicant’s claims are directed to an abstract idea (certain methods of organizing human activities: managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions), represented by the limitations of comparing…, dividing…, detect[ing]…, displaying…; and the additional elements present do not provide significantly more. The processor, memory, and display amount to applying the judicial exception on a generic / general purpose computer, which is not significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(f). The recited operating systems and components in the claims are recited at a high-level of detail and do not perform any active claimed steps, only representing the subject matter of the judicial exception steps (i.e. the subject matter being compared and displayed) which does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. computers, operating systems), and does not provide significantly more per MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, the claims are similar to the claims in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank Int’l (2014) in reciting a judicial exception without providing an inventive concept / significantly more. Second, the displaying steps (e.g. to display, on the display, one or more different system components, as low environmental load components…; display, a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount…; display the system component that has the smaller carbon dioxide emission amount to the user as the low environmental load component) are not identified as mental processes, rather these are certain methods of organizing human activities ‘applied’ on a generic computer. These steps represent both managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g. a person reports to another person information regarding components and carbon dioxide emissions), and following rules or instructions (e.g. a person reports on components based on results of the comparing). Hence, the activity of displaying is a certain method of organizing human activities. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “Similar to the concepts discussed in BASCOM, Applicant’s claim 1 includes additional elements that are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea” (Remarks pg. 14). Examiner disagrees. Note that the claims in BASCOM were eligible because they presented a non-generic arrangement of elements that amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea in an ordered combination. This is in contrast to the Applicant's claimed invention which only uses a generic computer / general computer components (i.e. processor, memory, display) to implement the invention without detailing any particular arrangement. This is no more than using the words “apply it” with the judicial exception or presenting mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general purpose / generic computer, and does not present a particular ordered combination of elements. Thus, the claims are not like the eligible claims in Bascom Global v. AT&T Mobility LLC, because they do not present a non-generic ordered combination of elements. This argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims are eligible because “These elements are significantly, at least because the claim includes a specific technique for identifying system components (e.g. storage drive and processor) to switch to reduce environmental loads when operating the components. Accordingly, the sum of the functions of the additional elements of Applicant’s claim 1, at least when viewed as an ordered combination, are significantly more than when each is taken alone” (Remarks pg. 15). Examiner disagrees. First, there is no physical step of switching components and no environmental load is reduced by the active steps in the claims. Second, the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components (e.g. processor, memory, display). The argued ‘specific technique’ for identifying system components (e.g. steps of comparing, dividing, detecting, displaying) are all part of the judicial exception representing certain methods of organizing human activities (managing personal behavior, following rules or instructions). There is nothing particular regarding the arrangement of the processor, memory, and display to implement the judicial exception that demonstrates these computer elements together are significantly more. This argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections of claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection (Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker in view of Roy).
Priority
The application 18/591,159 filed on 29 February 2024 claims priority from Japan patent application JP2023-068519 filed on 19 April 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 29 February 2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 19 September 2025 are objected to because Figures 7, 10, and 13 each contain text in blocks that is compressed such that it is difficult to read.
Figure 7: The column header after “Component Name” is not legible in both tables.
Figure 10: The column header after “Component Name” is not legible in both tables.
Figure 13: The text in decision block S107 is not legible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 2-4:
The term “substantially equivalent” in claim 2 (and its dependent claims 3-4) is a relative term. However, the Applicant Specification ¶[0045] and ¶[0052] include a standard for what represents ‘substantially equivalent’ by way of examples (e.g. +- 10% to performance values), so one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Hence, this term is not indefinite under 35 USC 112(b).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-6:
Step 1:
Claims 1-5 recite a system; and claims 6 recites a method. Since the claims recite either a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the claims satisfy Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Framework in MPEP 2106 and the 2019 Patent Examination Guidelines (PEG). Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A – Prong One:
Claim(s) 1-6 recite an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 recites to: compare configuration information associated with an operating system operated by a user with configuration information associated with a different operating system of a different user, to detect a difference between a plurality of system components of the operating system and the different operating system, for each of the plurality of system components, compare a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for a fixed period of time by continuous operation with a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation; for each of the plurality of system components, compare a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system with a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system, display, one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components and display, a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation. Independent claim 5 recites to: divide a plurality of system components mountable on an operating system operated by a user into groups according to single performance values of the system components, compare a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of each of the system components mounted on the operating system by continuous operation with a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of a system component in a group identical to the group of the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system by continuous operation, compare a life-cycle carbon dioxide amount emitted by each of the system components mounted on the operation system by continuous operation with a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of a system component in a group identical to the group of the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system by continuous operation, display, one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components and display, a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation, and when a system component that has a smaller carbon dioxide emission amount than the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system is included in the system components in the identical group, display the system component that has the smaller carbon dioxide emission amount to the user as the low environmental load component. Independent claim 6 recites: a step of comparing configuration information associated with an operating system operated by a user with configuration information associated with a different operating system of a different user, to detect a difference between a plurality of system components of the operating system and the different operating system; a step of comparing, for each of the plurality of system components, a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for a fixed period of time by continuous operation with a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation; a step of comparing, for each of the plurality of system components, a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system with a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system; and displaying, one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components and display, a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation.
The claim(s) as a whole recite methods of organizing human activities, and individual limitations also recite mental processes.
First, the limitations of (claim 1) compar[ing] configuration information associated with an operating system operated by a user with configuration information associated with a different operating system of a different user, to detect a difference between a plurality of system components of the operating system and the different operating system, for each of the plurality of system components, compar[ing] a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for a fixed period of time by continuous operation with a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation; for each of the plurality of system components, compar[ing] a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system with a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system, display[ing] one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components and display[ing], a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation; (claim 5) divid[ing] a plurality of system components mountable on an operating system operated by a user into groups according to single performance values of the system components, compar[ing] a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of each of the system components mounted on the operating system by continuous operation with a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of a system component in a group identical to the group of the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system by continuous operation, compar[ing] a life-cycle carbon dioxide amount emitted by each of the system components mounted on the operation system by continuous operation with a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of a system component in a group identical to the group of the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system by continuous operation, display[ing] one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components and display[ing], a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation, and when a system component that has a smaller carbon dioxide emission amount than the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system is included in the system components in the identical group, display[ing] the system component that has the smaller carbon dioxide emission amount to the user as the low environmental load component; (claim 6) comparing configuration information associated with an operating system operated by a user with configuration information associated with a different operating system of a different user, to detect a difference between a plurality of system components of the operating system and the different operating system; a step of comparing, for each of the plurality of system components, a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for a fixed period of time by continuous operation with a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation; a step of comparing, for each of the plurality of system components, a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system with a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system; and displaying, one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components and display, a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation are certain methods of organizing human activities. For instance, these limitations represent the sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and following rules or instructions. For example, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people includes comparing configuration information…, detecting difference between system components…, comparing a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission..., comparing a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission…, displaying different system components as low environmental load components…, displaying a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission…, dividing system components into groups…, comparing a carbon dioxide emission amount…, comparing a lifecycle carbon dioxide amount…, displaying the system component that has the smaller carbon dioxide emission amount; and following rules or instructions includes comparing configuration information…, detecting difference between system components…, comparing a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission..., comparing a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission…, displaying different system components as low environmental load components…, displaying a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission…, dividing system components into groups…, comparing a carbon dioxide emission amount…, comparing a lifecycle carbon dioxide amount…, displaying the system component that has the smaller carbon dioxide emission amount. The presence of generic computer components such as a processor, memory, display does not preclude the steps from reciting certain methods of organizing human activities, since the number of people involved in the activities is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping and instead it is based on whether an activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) regardless of the recitation of generic computer components or other machinery in its ordinary capacity, then it falls within the ‘Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Second, the limitations of (claim 1) compar[ing] configuration information associated with an operating system operated by a user with configuration information associated with a different operating system of a different user, to detect a difference between a plurality of system components of the operating system and the different operating system, for each of the plurality of system components, compar[ing] a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for a fixed period of time by continuous operation with a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation; for each of the plurality of system components, compar[ing] a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system with a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system; (claim 5) divid[ing] a plurality of system components mountable on an operating system operated by a user into groups according to single performance values of the system components, compar[ing] a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of each of the system components mounted on the operating system by continuous operation with a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of a system component in a group identical to the group of the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system by continuous operation, compar[ing] a life-cycle carbon dioxide amount emitted by each of the system components mounted on the operation system by continuous operation with a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of a system component in a group identical to the group of the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system by continuous operation; (claim 6) comparing configuration information associated with an operating system operated by a user with configuration information associated with a different operating system of a different user, to detect a difference between a plurality of system components of the operating system and the different operating system; a step of comparing, for each of the plurality of system components, a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for a fixed period of time by continuous operation with a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation; a step of comparing, for each of the plurality of system components, a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system with a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind (i.e. mental processes) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a processor and memory, nothing in the claim elements precludes these steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic / general purpose computer language, comparing in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating component configuration information, and evaluating calculation results of carbon dioxide emissions, and evaluating calculation results of life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amounts; detecting in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually judging differences in components; and dividing in the context of this claim encompasses a user manually evaluating components and performance values to judge groups. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (e.g. evaluation, judgment) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the ‘Mental Processes’ grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. First, claims 1-6 as a whole merely describe how to generally ‘apply’ the concept of certain methods of organizing human activities in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e. processor, memory, display) are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing manual process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic / general purpose computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2016.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Next, the additional element of operating systems in the limitations (e.g. an operating system operated by a user, a different operating system of a different user, system components mountable on an operating system) does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. computers, operating systems), and as such does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(h). The operating systems and components are not performing active claimed steps or configured functions. They are only the subject matter referenced by the judicial exception and thus only a general linkage as a field of use. Hence, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Also, while identified above as an organizing human activity in Step 2A Prong One, note that the activity of displaying (e.g. display, on the display, one or more different system components, as low environmental load components…; display, a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount…; display the system component that has the smaller carbon dioxide emission amount to the user as the low environmental load component) is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data as a result of the comparing and detecting), and also amounts to mere outputting data, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and not a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the display (generic computer / general computer component) is only being used as a tool in the displaying, which is also not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f). Note that there are no particular technical steps regarding displaying more than using computers as a tool in their ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit / output data). Accordingly, this element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers / general computer components (processor, memory, display); applied to a field of use (operating systems); and adding high-level extra-solution and/or post-solution activities (outputting data). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Hence, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Analysis proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor, memory, and display to perform comparing configuration information…, detecting difference between system components…, comparing a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission..., comparing a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission…, displaying different system components as low environmental load components…, displaying a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission…, dividing system components into groups…, comparing a carbon dioxide emission amount…, comparing a lifecycle carbon dioxide amount…, displaying the system component that has the smaller carbon dioxide emission amount are no more than mere instructions to ‘apply’ the exception using generic computers / general computer components. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
As discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element regarding operating systems does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use (i.e. computers, operating systems). The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use does not provide integration into a practical application in Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(h). See the Applicant’s specification ¶[0060] describing the element of an operating system with mounted components including a drive, memory module and CPU; and the background ¶[0003-4] describing that it is conventionally known in technology to present to a user a carbon dioxide emission amount of a system operated by a user, each at a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
Also, as discussed above in Step 2A Prong Two with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the Step 2A Prong One organizing human activity elements regarding the displaying are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of outputting data as a result of the comparing and detecting), and also amounts to the extra-solution activity of outputting data , which is not a practical application or an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The use of the computer (i.e. display) in these steps merely represents using a generic / general purpose computer as a tool in its ordinary capacity (i.e. to transmit / output data), and is not indicative of an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, these displaying steps are also claimed at a high level of generality, and/or as insignificant extra-solution activities (e.g. outputting data) representing computer functions that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions that do not present an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) in particular receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec), sending messages over a network (OIP Techs), a computer receives and sends information over a network (buySAFE). See the Applicant’s specification Fig 12, ¶[0100] describing the element of displaying output from the display unit at such a high level that indicates this element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars to satisfy 35 USC 112(a). Also note Applicant background ¶[0004] states that it is conventionally known in technology to present to a user carbon dioxide emission amount of a system. Hence, these features do not provide an inventive concept / significantly more.
The claims do not improve another technology or technical field. Instead the claims represent a generic implementation of organizing human activities ‘applied’ by generic / general purpose computers, applied to a field of use (computers, operating systems), and using general computer components in extra-solution capacities such as outputting data. The claims do not provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the user of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. At best, the claims are more directed towards solving a business / economic / entrepreneurial problem (i.e. how to recommend a more environmental friendly component / configuration), that is tangentially associated with a technology element (e.g. computers), rather than solving a technology based problem. See MPEP 2106.05(a). The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer itself. The claims are more directed towards improving a business / economic / entrepreneurial process rather than improving a computer outside of a business use, i.e. using computers a tool. The claims do not apply the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction to a particular article to a different state or thing. The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, and conventional in a way that confines the claim to a particular useful application.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at each of the claim limitations individually, both with respect to the independent claims 1, 5-6, and further considering the addition of dependent claims 2-4. Note that the combination of limitations and claim elements add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately, simply reciting implementation as performed by using generic computers / general computer components, see Alice (2014), and does not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components to achieve a technical improvement, see BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC (2016). Hence, the ordered combination of elements does not provide significantly more. With respect to the dependent claims:
Dependent claim 2: The limitation wherein the different operating system is a system that has a performance value substantially equivalent to a performance value of the operating system merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to the independent claims, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 3: The limitation wherein the processor is programmed to display the system component that is included in the different operating system and that is different from the corresponding system component of the operating system to the user, as the low environmental load component, when the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the different operating system is smaller than the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the operating system is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the processor is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea
Dependent claim 4: The limitation wherein the processor is programmed to display the system component that is included in the operating system and that is different from the corresponding system component of the different operating system to the different user, as the low environmental load component, when the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the operating system is smaller than the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the different operating system is further directed to a certain method of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, following rules or instructions) as described in the independent claim. The recitation of the processor is a computer component recited at a high level of generality and amounts to ‘applying’ the abstract idea on a generic computer. Similar to the independent claims, this recitation does not meaningfully integrate the abstract idea in a practical application, and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore claims 1, 5-6, and the dependent claims 2-4 and all limitations taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor do they include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claims 1-6 are ineligible.
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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication 2024/0037684 A1 to Aurongzeb et al. in view of “Quantifying greenhouse gas abatement delivered by alternative computer operating system displacement strategies” (SEIT 2022) to Sutton-Parker in view of US patent application publication 2023/0245009 A1 to Roy et al.
Claim 1:
Aurongzeb, as shown, teaches the following:
An environmental load reducing system comprising:
a processor (Aurongzeb Fig 1-2, ¶[0017-19] details a processor);
a display, coupled to the processor (Aurongzeb Fig 1-2, ¶[0017], ¶[0035], ¶[0062], ¶[0067] details a video display, visual processing unit, and GUI); and
a memory, coupled to the processor, storing instructions that when executed by the processor (Aurongzeb Fig 1-2, ¶[0047] details a memory used for storing data and software applications that display information in the GUI); configures the processor to:
compare configuration information associated with an operating system operated by a user with configuration information associated with a different operating system of a different user, to detect a difference between a plurality of system components of the operating system and the different operating system (Aurongzeb ¶[0035], ¶[0044], ¶[0048], ¶[0059], ¶[0062] details gathering data regarding the hardware / configuration / power consumption / software regarding first and second client information handling systems (e.g. Fig 2, ¶[0033]: 200, 270), and using one of the client information handling system as the benchmark for comparison, and comparisons may be made on a component-by-component basis),
With respect to the following:
for each of the plurality of system components, compare a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for a fixed period of time by continuous operation with a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation;
Aurongzeb, as shown in ¶[0044], ¶[0051-52], ¶[0059], ¶[0062] details determining the CO2 emissions of the first and second client information handling systems for a fixed period of time during a monitoring period (e.g. hour / day / week / month) and at intervals in which a known eCO2 emission may occur due to operation of a software application, where the first client information handling system estimated CO2 values are used as a benchmark / ideal operating environment, to compare the statistics regarding the performance the first / second information handling system, and comparisons may be made on a component-by-component basis; teaching for each of the plurality of system components, compare a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for a fixed period of time… with a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system for the fixed period of time; but does not explicitly state that the fixed period of time for carbon dioxide emission emitted by the operation of the operating system for a fixed period of time is by continuous operation. However, Sutton-Parker teaches this remaining limitation, measuring each device while subject to an ad hoc working day for 60 days between the hours of 9am and 5pm to reflect a natural working day including business style user operations including productivity and video based tasks (i.e. continuous operation), monitoring for energy consumption (kWh) and using the UK electricity conversion factor to generate a kilogramme carbon dioxide equivalent (kgCO2e) value, and extracting the annual greenhouse gas emissions values created in a standard business environment, and then comparing these results with different computing devices (e.g. HP EliteBook 8210, Dell Latitude 5450) and operating systems (Microsoft Windows 10, Google Chrome OS Flex) for the same annual period, noting a difference in emissions of 5.81, 4.63, 4.19, and 3.45 kgCO2e (Sutton-Parker pg. 256 section 2 Methodology, pg. 256-257 section 3 Results including Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include comparing a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for a fixed period of time by continuous operation with a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation as taught by Sutton-Parker with the teachings of Aurongzeb, with the motivation of reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by production processes with alternative operating systems “to reduce this environmental impact by repurposing computers” (Sutton-Parker Abstract). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include comparing a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for a fixed period of time by continuous operation with a calculation result of a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation as taught by Sutton-Parker in the system of Aurongzeb, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Sutton-Parker (of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker, applying that comparisons may be made on a component-by-component basis, as per Aurongzeb above), also teaches the following:
for each of the plurality of system components, compare a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system with a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system (Sutton-Parker pg. 259 section 3 Results and Figure 1 details a comparison of lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions of each of the six different devices with respect to the different operating systems (i.e. component) and their cumulative device emissions),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include comparing a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system with a calculation result of a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the different operating system as taught by Sutton-Parker with the teachings of Aurongzeb (in view of Sutton-Parker), with the motivation of reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by production processes with alternative operating systems “to reduce this environmental impact by repurposing computers” (Sutton-Parker Abstract).
With respect to the following:
display, on the display, one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components and
Aurongzeb, as shown in Fig 5, ¶[0044], ¶[0051], ¶[0059-60], ¶[0067] details a display, and using the analyzed carbon footprint data during the monitoring period and hardware component resource usage percentages consumed during execution of one or more software programs and hardware configuration (i.e. difference between system components) for the first and second client information handling systems and the comparison of the data; yielding recommendations for changes or alterations to the hardware or component configuration settings (e.g. use Bluetooth rather than WLAN / WWAN; adjust a mode of display / resolution) for either the first or second client information handling system, and displaying recommendations and results through the GUI, and the recommended changes / alterations to the hardware or components that may reduce emissions, highly suggesting but not explicitly stating one or more different system components as a low environmental load components. However, Roy teaches this remaining feature, when comparing two carbon footprints providing a recommendation to change the hardware, recommending exchanging the older computing devices / peripherals / network connected devices for more energy efficient models (i.e. a different low environmental load component) (Roy ¶[0026-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components as taught by Roy with the teachings of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker, with the motivation of “carbon footprint remediation” (Roy ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components as taught by Roy in the system of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
display, a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation (Sutton-Parker section 3 Results pg. 257 ¶1 details providing results that the alternative operating system deliveries an average energy efficiency gain and consequential use phase emissions abatement of 19%, when changing its operating system from Microsoft Windows to Google Chrome Flex, i.e. the low environmental load component).
Aurongzeb, as shown in ¶[0026-27], ¶[0089], ¶[0106] details displaying carbon dioxide emission amounts, including amounts emitted by operation of components for the fixed period of time, and making recommendations that may reduce the emissions including an amount of greenhouse gas emissions that may be attributable to usage at information handling system of software applications and power over time, but does not explicitly state (1) the reduction is associated with other low environmental load components, and (2) a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the other components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation.
Regarding (1) the reduction is associated with operation of other low environmental load components, Roy teaches this feature with a recommendation to change the hardware recommending exchanging the older computing devices / peripherals / network connected devices for more energy efficient models (i.e. different low environmental load component) (Roy ¶[0026-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the reduction is associated with operation of other low environmental load components as taught by Roy with the teachings of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker (in view of Roy), with the motivation of “carbon footprint remediation” (Roy ¶[0006]).
Regarding (2) a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation, Sutton-Parker teaches this feature providing results that the alternative operating system deliveries an average energy efficiency gain and consequential use phase emissions abatement of 19%, when changing its operating system from Microsoft Windows to Google Chrome Flex, i.e. the low environmental load component, per Roy (Sutton-Parker section 3 Results pg. 257 ¶1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation as taught by Sutton-Parker with the teachings of Aurongzeb (in view of Sutton-Parker in view of Roy), with the motivation of reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by production processes with alternative operating systems “to reduce this environmental impact by repurposing computers” (Sutton-Parker Abstract).
Claim 2:
Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker in view of Roy, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 1. Aurongzeb also teaches the following:
wherein the different operating system is a system that has a performance value substantially equivalent to a performance value of the operating system (Aurongzeb ¶[0059-61], ¶[0080], ¶[0087], ¶[0099] details averaging the CO2 emission values most recently gathered across all client information handling systems (e.g. first and second information handling systems in Fig 2: 200 and 270) and comparing to ensure they are in the norm and within a deviation threshold, e.g. 20% ‘though any other percentages are contemplated’).
Claim 3:
Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker in view of Roy, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 2. Roy (of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker in view of Roy, applying the first and second information handling systems represent the set of two systems, component-by-component analysis of CO2, display, and that the hardware configuration details of the systems are obtained, per of Aurongzeb Fig 2, ¶[0033], ¶[0044], ¶[0062] as shown above) also teaches the following:
wherein the processor is programmed to display the system component that is included in the different operating system and that is different from the corresponding system component of the operating system to the user, as the low environmental load component, when the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the different operating system is smaller than the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the operating system (Roy ¶[0026-29] details comparing two carbon footprints of sites (i.e. first / second information handling system, per Aurongzeb) and identifying which has the higher carbon footprint rate (i.e. identifying the first / second operating system with the higher calculation result of carbon dioxide and corresponding second / first operating system with the smaller calculation result of carbon dioxide) for a remediation recommendation that may include pushing a known system configuration (i.e. the other configuration of the first / second information handling system in the set of two systems, per Aurongzeb) to the fleet of devices (i.e. displaying), where the remediation configuration recommendations may include that notebook computers of a certain make and model be configured to run in low performance/energy saver mode, or to disable network connected devices in a low utilization area (i.e. component displayed as a low environmental load component) (Roy ¶[0026-29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the processor is programmed to display the system component that is included in the different operating system and that is different from the corresponding system component of the operating system to the user, as the low environmental load component, when the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the different operating system is smaller than the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the operating system as taught by Roy with the teachings of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker (in view of Roy), with the motivation of “carbon footprint remediation” (Roy ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the processor is programmed to display the system component that is included in the different operating system and that is different from the corresponding system component of the operating system to the user, as the low environmental load component, when the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the different operating system is smaller than the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the operating system as taught by Roy in the system of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker (in view of Roy), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 4:
Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker in view of Roy, as shown above, teach the limitations of claim 2. Roy (of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker in view of Roy, applying the first and second information handling systems represent the set of two systems, component-by-component analysis of CO2, display, and that the hardware configuration details of the systems are obtained, per of Aurongzeb Fig 2, ¶[0033], ¶[0044], ¶[0062] as shown above) also teaches the following:
wherein the processor is programmed to display the system component that is included in the operating system and that is different from the corresponding system component of the different operating system to the different user, as the low environmental load component, when the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the operating system is smaller than the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the different operating system (Roy ¶[0026-29] details comparing two carbon footprints of sites (i.e. first / second information handling system, per Aurongzeb) and identifying which has the higher carbon footprint rate (i.e. identifying the first / second operating system with the higher calculation result of carbon dioxide and corresponding second / first operating system with the smaller calculation result of carbon dioxide) for a remediation recommendation that may include pushing a known system configuration (i.e. the other configuration of the first / second information handling system in the set of two systems, per Aurongzeb) to the fleet of devices, where the remediation configuration recommendations may include that notebook computers of a certain make and model be configured to run in low performance/energy saver mode, or to disable network connected devices in a low utilization area (i.e. component presented as a low environmental load component) (Roy ¶[0026-29]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the processor is programmed to display the system component that is included in the operating system and that is different from the corresponding system component of the different operating system to the different user, as the low environmental load component, when the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the operating system is smaller than the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the different operating system as taught by Roy with the teachings of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker (in view of Roy), with the motivation of “carbon footprint remediation” (Roy ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the processor is programmed to display the system component that is included in the operating system and that is different from the corresponding system component of the different operating system to the different user, as the low environmental load component, when the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the operating system is smaller than the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount of the different operating system as taught by Roy in the system of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker (in view of Roy), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 5:
Aurongzeb, as shown, teaches the following:
An environmental load reducing system comprising:
a processor (Aurongzeb Fig 1-2, ¶[0017-19] details a processor);
a display, coupled to the processor (Aurongzeb Fig 1-2, ¶[0017], ¶[0035], ¶[0062], ¶[0067] details a video display, visual processing unit, and GUI); and
a memory, coupled to the processor, storing instructions that when executed by the processor (Aurongzeb Fig 1-2, ¶[0047] details a memory used for storing data and software applications that display information in the GUI); configures the processor to:
divide a plurality of system components mountable on an operating system operated by a user into groups according to single performance values of the system components (Aurongzeb ¶[0015], ¶[0062], ¶[0083], ¶[0102] details identifying each of the hardware components of an information handling system (i.e. computer) by component categories (e.g. GPU resources, display resources, network resources, memory resources) each associated with a stored resource threshold value indicating a maximum percentage of that components’ resources that should be consumed by any given software application, i.e. system components grouped according to performance values of the system components tied to component category; also ¶[0059], ¶[0062], ¶[0073], ¶[0078] details identifying the location for client information handling systems in order to retrieve distributed power CO2 emission values since GHGs emitted due to consumption of power vary based on geographic location, i.e. system components grouped according to performance values of the system components tied to location),
With respect to the following:
compare a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of each of the system components mounted on the operating system by continuous operation with a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of a system component in a group identical to the group of the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system by continuous operation,
Aurongzeb, as shown in ¶[0035], ¶[0051], ¶[0059-60], ¶[0062] details determining the CO2 emissions of a first and second client information handling system and comparing emissions at a component-by-component basis (e.g. processor, memory, network interface, display), with the components as hardware components of the computer systems; where the first client information handling system estimated CO2 values are used as a benchmark / ideal operating environment used to compare the statistics and emissions regarding the first / second information handling systems, and the first and second client information handling systems are transmitting similar telemetries indicating software application usage and power usage; and evaluating and comparing emissions over a period of a day / week / month; but does not explicitly state comparing carbon dioxide emission amounts emitted by operation of the system components by continuous operation. However, Sutton-Parker teaches this remaining feature, measuring each device while subject to an ad hoc working day for 60 days between the hours of 9am and 5pm to reflect a natural working day including business style user operations including productivity and video based tasks (i.e. continuous operation), monitoring for energy consumption (kWh) and using the UK electricity conversion factor to generate a kilogramme carbon dioxide equivalent (kgCO2e) value, and extracting the annual greenhouse gas emissions values created in a standard business environment, and then comparing these results with different computing devices (e.g. HP EliteBook 8210, Dell Latitude 5450) configured with the same voltage source / screen low power mode / screen brightness / sleep mode settings (i.e. identical groups) but different operating systems (Microsoft Windows 10, Google Chrome OS Flex) for the same annual period, noting a difference in emissions of 5.81, 4.63, 4.19, and 3.45 kgCO2e (Sutton-Parker pg. 256 section 2 Methodology, pg. 256-257 section 3 Results including Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of each of the system components… by continuous operation with a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of a system component in a group identical to the group of the corresponding system component… by continuous operation as taught by Sutton-Parker with the teachings of Aurongzeb, with the motivation of reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by production processes with alternative operating systems “to reduce this environmental impact by repurposing computers” (Sutton-Parker Abstract). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include comparing a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation… by continuous operation with a carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of a system component in a group identical to the group of the corresponding system component… by continuous operation as taught by Sutton-Parker in the system of Aurongzeb, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Sutton-Parker (of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker, applying that comparisons may be made on a component-by-component basis, as per Aurongzeb above), also teaches the following:
compare a life-cycle carbon dioxide amount emitted by each of the system components mounted on the operation system by continuous operation with a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of a system component in a group identical to the group of the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system by continuous operation (Sutton-Parker pg. 256 section 2 Methodology, pg. 259 section 3 Results and Figure 1 details a comparison of lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions of each of the six different devices with the different operating systems and their cumulative device emissions; the different computing devices (e.g. HP EliteBook 8210, Dell Latitude 5450) are configured with the same voltage source / screen low power mode / screen brightness / sleep mode settings (i.e. identical groups) but different operating systems (e.g. Microsoft Windows 10, Google Chrome OS Flex)),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include compare a life-cycle carbon dioxide amount emitted by each of the system components mounted on the operation system by continuous operation with a life-cycle carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of a system component in a group identical to the group of the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system by continuous operation as taught by Sutton-Parker with the teachings of Aurongzeb (in view of Sutton-Parker), with the motivation of reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by production processes with alternative operating systems “to reduce this environmental impact by repurposing computers” (Sutton-Parker Abstract).
With respect to the following:
display, on the display, one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components and
Aurongzeb, as shown in Fig 2, ¶[0044], ¶[0051], ¶[0059-60], ¶[0067] details a display, and using the analyzed carbon footprint data during the monitoring period and hardware component resource usage percentages consumed during execution of one or more software programs and hardware configuration (i.e. difference between system components) for the first and second client information handling systems and the comparison of the data; yielding recommendations for changes or alterations to the hardware or component configuration settings (e.g. use Bluetooth rather than WLAN / WWAN; adjust a mode of display / resolution) for either the first or second client information handling system, and displaying recommendations and results through the GUI, and the recommended changes / alterations to the hardware or components that may reduce emissions, highly suggesting but not explicitly stating the one or more different system components as a low environmental load components. However, Roy teaches this remaining feature, when comparing two carbon footprints presenting a recommendation to change the hardware recommending exchanging the older computing devices / peripherals / network connected devices for more energy efficient models (i.e. different low environmental load component) (Roy ¶[0026-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components as taught by Roy with the teachings of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker, with the motivation of “carbon footprint remediation” (Roy ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more different system components, as low environmental load components according to the difference between the system components as taught by Roy in the system of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to the following:
display, a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation, and
Aurongzeb, as shown in Fig 5, ¶[0026-27], ¶[0089], ¶[0106] details displaying carbon dioxide emission amounts, including amounts emitted by operation by components for the fixed period of time, and displaying recommendations that may reduce the emissions including an amount of greenhouse gas emissions that may be attributable to usage at information handling system of software applications and power over time, but does not explicitly state (1) the reduction is associated with other low environmental load components, and (2) a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the other components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation.
Regarding (1) the reduction is associated with operation of other low environmental load components, Roy teaches this feature with a recommendation to change the hardware recommending exchanging the older computing devices / peripherals / network connected devices for more energy efficient models (i.e. different low environmental load component) (Roy ¶[0026-27). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the reduction is associated with operation of other low environmental load components as taught by Roy with the teachings of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker (in view of Roy), with the motivation of “carbon footprint remediation” (Roy ¶[0006]).
Regarding (2) a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation, Sutton-Parker teaches this feature providing results that the alternative operating system deliveries an average energy efficiency gain and consequential use phase emissions abatement of 19%, when changing its operating system from Microsoft Windows to Google Chrome Flex, i.e. the low environmental load component, per Roy (Sutton-Parker section 3 Results pg. 257 ¶1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a total reduction amount of carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the low environmental load components for the fixed period of time by continuous operation with respect to the calculation result of the carbon dioxide emission amount emitted by operation of the operating system for the fixed period of time by continuous operation as taught by Sutton-Parker with the teachings of Aurongzeb (in view of Sutton-Parker in view of Roy), with the motivation of reducing greenhouse gas emissions caused by production processes with alternative operating systems “to reduce this environmental impact by repurposing computers” (Sutton-Parker Abstract).
Roy (of Aurongzeb in view of Sutton-Parker in view of Roy, applying that the system displays recommendations per Aurongzeb Fig 5 above) also teaches the following:
when a system component that has a smaller carbon dioxide emission amount than the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system is included in the system components in the identical group, display the system component that has the smaller carbon dioxide emission amount to the user as the low environmental load component (Roy ¶[0026-29] details pushing a known system configuration (i.e. the ‘corresponding system’ configuration of the other first / second client information handling system, per Aurongzeb) to the fleet of devices, where the remediation recommendations may include that notebook computers of a certain make and model be configured to run in low performance/energy saver mode, or to disable network connected devices in a low utilization area (i.e. presenting low environmental load components)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include when a system component that has a smaller carbon dioxide emission amount than the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system is included in the system components in the identical group, display the system component that has the smaller carbon dioxide emission amount to the user as the low environmental load component as taught by Roy with the teachings of Aurongzeb (in view of Sutton-Parker in view of Roy), with the motivation of “carbon footprint remediation” (Roy ¶[0006]). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include when a system component that has a smaller carbon dioxide emission amount than the corresponding system component mounted on the operating system is included in the system components in the identical group, display the system component that has the smaller carbon dioxide emission amount to the user as the low environmental load component as taught by Roy in the system of Aurongzeb (in view of Sutton-Parker in view of Roy), since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. See MPEP 2141 citing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim 6:
Claim 6 recites substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and therefore claim 6 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning presented above for claim 1.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US patent application publication 2024/0037566 A1 to Aurongzeb et al. details a carbon footprint optimized system and method for recommending a priority for replacement or workload redistribution for hardware across an enterprise system (note Fig 5, ¶[0093], ¶[0103] of relevance).
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 BRIAN TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
BRIAN TALLMAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/BRIAN A TALLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628