DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 21 January 2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 21 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Zolezzi (US 2009/0164264 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi et al. (US 2019/0087757 A1) in view of Allred et al. (US 2023/0153752 A1) and further in view of Zolezzi (US 2009/0164264 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Tyagi discloses a method comprising: defining a map of an area, the map having boundary lines for a plurality of geographic regions within the area; (Figure 4D and paragraph 0094, map having regions defined by boundaries) for each geographic region, defining a display characteristic such that the display characteristic is dependent on a carbon intensity in the geographic region; (Figure 4D and paragraphs 0094-0095, displaying of data including different carbon footprint levels in the different regions in a map) Tyagi does not clearly disclose a carbon intensity of growing a crop. Allred discloses data including gross carbon emissions for a crop at crop locations (Paragraph 0014) that can be displayed (Paragraph 0118). Allred’s technique of displaying data including gross carbon emissions of a crop at crop locations would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the display of data in a map including different carbon footprint levels in different regions of Tyagi and the results would have been predictable in the display of data in a map including gross carbon emissions for a crop at crop locations. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Tyagi in view of Allred further discloses using the display characteristics of the plurality of geographic regions to render the map such that at least two geographic regions with different carbon intensities appear different from each other in the rendered map, (Tyagi, Figure 4D, legend of carbon emission ranges with different colors for the carbon data are used to represent values on the map including the data for carbon emissions for crops, Allred, paragraph 0014) receiving a designation of a sub-area within the rendered map; (Tyagi, Figure 4D and paragraphs 0094-0095, selection of state and district levels of the map) determining a carbon intensity for growing a crop in the sub-area based on the carbon intensity of growing the crop in each geographic region within the sub-area; (Allred, paragraph 0014, carbon emissions for the crop) and displaying the carbon intensity for the sub-area (Tyagi, Figure 4D and paragraph 0094, display of carbon data on the map). Tyagi in view of Allred does not clearly disclose determining a carbon intensity for growing a crop in the sub-area based on a crop acreage in each geographic region within the sub-area. Zolezzi discloses various factors that may be incorporated into a carbon footprint rating including acreage production (Paragraph 0008). Zolezzi’s technique of incorporating various factors into a carbon footprint including acreage production would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the carbon emissions data for a crop at state and district levels of a displayable map of Tyagi in view of Allred and the results would have been predictable in the incorporation of acreage production with carbon emissions data for a crop at state and district levels for determining a carbon footprint data that can be displayed on a map. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Tyagi discloses wherein the display characteristic of a geographic region is a color of an area in the rendered map that represents the geographic region (Figure 4D, different colors representing carbon values in the regions on the map).
Regarding claim 12, Tyagi discloses wherein the map of the area comprises a map of a country (Paragraph 0022, map information is based on a Geographic Information System (GIS) of Survey of India).
Regarding claim 21, Tyagi discloses a method comprising: receiving a designation of an area on a displayed map; (Paragraph 0093, user defining a geographical region at a state and district level) identifying a plurality of geographic regions that together span the area on the displayed map; (Figure 4D and paragraphs 0094-0095, display of different regions in a map including villages in the district) for each geographic region, obtaining a carbon intensity in the geographic region to form a plurality of carbon intensities (Figure 4D and paragraphs 0094-0095, displaying of data including different carbon footprint levels in the different regions in a map). Tyagi does not clearly disclose a carbon intensity for a crop grown in the geographic region. Allred discloses data including gross carbon emissions for a crop at crop locations (Paragraph 0014) that can be displayed (Paragraph 0118). Allred’s technique of displaying data including gross carbon emissions of a crop at crop locations would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the display of data in a map including different carbon footprint levels in different regions of Tyagi and the results would have been predictable in the display of data in a map including gross carbon emissions for a crop at crop locations. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Tyagi in view of Allred further discloses using the plurality of carbon intensities to determine a carbon intensity for the crop across the area; (Tyagi, Figure 4D, legend of carbon emission ranges for the carbon data including the data for carbon emissions for crops, Allred, paragraph 0014) and displaying the carbon intensity for the crop across the area (Tyagi, Figure 4D, display of carbon data on the map).
Tyagi in view of Allred does not clearly disclose for each geographic region, obtaining an acreage of the crop grown in the geographic region to form a plurality of crop acreages; and using the plurality of crop acreages to determine a carbon intensity of the crop across the area. Zolezzi discloses various factors that may be incorporated into a carbon footprint rating including acreage production (Paragraph 0008). Zolezzi’s technique of incorporating various factors into a carbon footprint including acreage production would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the carbon emissions data for a crop at state and district levels of a displayable map of Tyagi in view of Allred and the results would have been predictable in the incorporation of acreage production with carbon emissions data for a crop at state and district levels for determining a carbon footprint data that can be displayed on a map. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi et al. (US 2019/0087757 A1) in view of Allred et al. (US 2023/0153752 A1) in view of Zolezzi (US 2009/0164264 A1) and further in view of Alvarez et al. (US 2021/0149930 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Tyagi in view of Allred and further in view of Zolezzi discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Tyagi in view of Allred and further in view of Zolezzi does not clearly disclose wherein receiving the designation of the sub-area comprises receiving the designation around a facility site. Alvarez discloses selection of a geographic area using a circle on a map to define an area (Paragraph 0048) where the area can have various types of buildings (Paragraph 0045). Alvarez’s technique of selecting a geographic area using a circle on a map to define an area having buildings would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the user selections for a geographical area for displaying data of Tyagi in view of Allred and further in view of Zolezzi and the results would have been predictable in user selection of a geographical area having buildings for displaying data using a circle on a map to define an area. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, Alvarez discloses obtaining the locations of facilities that process the crop; and displaying indicators of the locations of the facilities on the rendered map (Paragraphs 0045 and 0048, circling areas for display of data including data related to various buildings).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi et al. (US 2019/0087757 A1) in view of Allred et al. (US 2023/0153752 A1) in view of Zolezzi (US 2009/0164264 A1) in view of Alvarez et al. (US 2021/0149930 A1) and further in view of Fanning et al. (US 2023/0384106 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Tyagi in view of Allred in view of Zolezzi and further in view of Alvarez discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 14. Tyagi in view of Allred in view of Zolezzi and further in view of Alvarez does not clearly disclose obtaining the locations of transportation infrastructure; and displaying indicators of the locations on the rendered map. Fanning discloses displaying transportation lines on a map (Paragraph 0021). Fanning technique of displaying transportation lines on a map would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the map for displaying carbon data of Tyagi in view of Allred in view of Zolezzi and further in view of Alvarez and the results would have been predictable in the displaying of a map with carbon data and transportation lines. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not clearly disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 4-9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 22-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method of claim 21 wherein using the plurality of carbon intensities and the plurality of acreages to determine a carbon intensity for the crop across the area comprises: for each geographic region, modifying the carbon intensity of the geographic region based on the crop acreage of the geographic region to form a modified carbon intensity; and using the modified carbon intensities for the geographic regions to form the carbon intensity across the area.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kleppe et al. (US 2024/0273547 A1) discloses carbon profile data that includes planted acreage.
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 PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619