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 . 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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filled on 12/09/2025.
Status of Claims
- Claims 1,4,5 have been amended and Claim 2 has been canceled by Applicant.
- Claims 1, 3-16 are currently pending of which:
= Claims 6-16 remain withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected inventions.
= Claims 1 and 3-5 are under examination and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments / Arguments
Applicant’s 12/09/2025 amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection in this act.
A. Response to Applicant’s amendment of the Title
Objection to the Title of the Invention in the prior act is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amending the Title of the invention as suggested by Examiner.
B. Response to Applicant’s response to objection to claim 2
Examiner submits that there was no objection to Claim 2 in the prior art. Moreover, as Claim 2 has now been canceled such purported objection would have been rendered moot.
C, D, F Repose to Applicant’s amending to avoid 112(f) interpretation
112(a) and (b) rejections based of 112(f) interpretation are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amending independent Claim 5 to no longer invoke 112(f) proposed by Examiner in the prior act.
F. Response to Applicant’s rebuttal arguments with respect to 35 USC 101
#1. Step 2A prong 1: Remarks 12/09/2025 p.11-p.13 ¶1 argues the claims do not comprise mental process because they cannot be practically performed in the mind. For example, Remarks 12/09/2025 p.12 ¶2 cites Original Specification ¶ [0006] to state that it is difficult to confirm all greenhouse gas emissions associated with a product at the time of product manufacturing. Similarly, Remarks 12/09/2025 p.12 ¶3 cites Original Specification ¶ [0042] to argue that it is difficult to calculate the carbon footprint using primary data, and in general, pre-registered numerical values (secondary data), such as average values for each industry, are often used to calculate carbon footprints. When calculating carbon footprints that include Scope 2 emissions and Scope 3 emissions, the use of primary data becomes even more difficult.
Examiner fully considered the Step 2A prong one argument but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by reincorporating herein all the findings and rationales of Non-Final Act 09/10/2025 p.7 to submit that here, the claims still recite, describe or set forth the computer-aided mental processes of MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #1,#2,#3 such as by the evaluation judgment and observation enunciated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2. For example, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2 cites FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where the Federal Circuit has found that even the “inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability. As we have explained, “the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter” Bancorp Servs., 687 F.3d at 1278. Thus, although not conceded here, the Examiner submits, in the arguendo, just for the sake of argument, that even if it would be difficult to confirm gas emissions associated with a product at the time of product manufacturing, as alleged by Applicant at Remarks 12/09/2025 p.12, solving such difficultly of computation, calculation, estimation or confirmation would still not by itself, guarantee patent eligibility. This is because in Fairwarning as cited by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C #2 above, the Federal Circuit found that accessing, compiling and combining disparate information sources to make it possible to generate a full picture of user’s activity, identity, frequency of activity, and the like in a computer environment, was representative of merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and announcement which did not differentiate the process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from 101 undergirds the information based category of abstract ideas citing Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1350, [2016 BL 247416], 2016 WL 4073318 at *4. It then follows that here, an analogous argument of compilation and combination of information about different unconfirmed and confirmed emissions of different scopes to make it possible to allegedly generate a full picture of emission activity, as reflected in the Applicant’s response at Remarks 12/09/2025 p.12 would similarly represent an example of selecting information, by content or source [here confirmed and unconfirmed of different scopes], for collection, analysis, which would analogously not differentiate the process from mental processes. To further justify such rationale, the Examiner submits that the Federal Circuit’s rationale in FairWarning supra was corroborated by Planet Bingo LLC v. VKGS LLC U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2013-1663 August 26,2014, 576 Fed Appx 1005, 2014 BL 235907, where it was found that Planet Bingo unpersuasively argued that handling millions of preselected Bingo numbers by computer program makes it impossible for the invention to be carried out manually.
The claims in Planet Bingo remained patent ineligible despite such argument.
Here, as in Plant Bingo, the claims require two sets of information namely “unconfirmed” and “confirmed” information of the “emissions” to performed as abstract processes. Moreover, both “FairWarning” and “Planet Bingo” follow the Supreme Court’s decisions which made it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long-prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5. In fact, even an alleged improvement in the calculating algorithm would not guarantee eligibility. For example, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I. A iv. cites Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging,Inc, 758 F.3d 1344,1350,111 USPQ2d 1717,1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) to state that organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlation are still examples of abstract, mathematical relationships. Here, such abstract mathematical correlations or manipulations are set forth at the two contingent limitations of: i. “generating”, “unconfirmed portion data indicating the unconfirmed portion of the emissions in addition to confirmed portion data indicating a confirmed portion of the emissions as the emissions information of the target object” “when there is the unconfirmed portion of the emissions”; and ii. “generating”, “updated confirmed data by adding the emissions based on the confirmed information to the confirmed portion data” “when there is confirmed information to confirm the unconfirmed portion of the emissions” as recited at Claims 1,4,5.
Similarly, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I cites SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163-65, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1598-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2018) to show that performing a resampled statistical analysis to generate a resampled distribution, still describe or sets forth the abstract exception. Here, as in SAP Am, Inc v InvestPic, LLC, 890 F3d 1016, 126 U.S.P.Q.2d 1638 (Fed. Cir. 2018), “no matter how much of an advance in the field the claims” [would] “recite the" [alleged] “advance” [would still] “lie entirely in the realm of abstract ideas” with no plausibly alleged innovation in non-abstract application realm. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the challenged patent in “SAP” proposed utilization of resampled statistical methods for analysis of financial data, which did not assume a normal probability distribution. One such method is a bootstrap method, which estimated distribution of data in a pool (a sample space) by repeated sampling of the data in the pool. A sample space in a boot-strap method can be defined by selecting a specific investment or a particular period of time. Data samples are drawn from the sample space with replacement: samples are drawn from the sample space and then returned to the pool before next sample is drawn. Yet, the Federal Circuit noted: “Dependent method claims 2-7 and 10 add limitations… [that] require the resampling method to be a bootstrap method." SAP, 260 F. Supp. 3d at 715 . Likewise, "[c]laims 8 and 9 add limitations that the statistical method is a jackknife method and a cross validation method." Id. at 716. Because bootstrap, jack-knife, and cross-validation methods are all "particular methods of resampling," those features simply provide further narrowing of what are still mathematical operations. They add nothing outside the abstract realm. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 88-89 (stating that narrow embodiments of ineligible matter, citing mathematical ideas as an example, are still ineligible); buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353 (same). Dependent method claims 12-21 are no different”.
Since implementation of sample space, through multiple mathematical models such as boot-strap, jackknife, cross validation, and resampling on financial data did not save the claims in SAP from patent ineligibility, the Examiner reasons that the “generating, unconfirmed portion data” “when there is the unconfirmed portion of the emissions” “and” “generating” “updated confirmed data” “when there is confirmed information” detailed in the current independent Claims 1,4,5 should similarly be patent ineligible. Also, the Court’s findings in “SAP” were corroborated by Versata Dev Grp, Inc v SAP Am, Inc 115 USPQ2d 1681 Fed Cir 2015 again undelaying the difference between improvement to entrepreneurial goal objective and actual improvement to actual technology. MPEP 2106.04.
More to the point, as stressed by MPEP 2106.04 I ¶ 3 and MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), a claim is not patent eligible merely because it applies an abstract idea in a narrow way. That is, an “improvement in the judicial exception itself” “is not an improvement in technology”. Thus here, as tested above, the alleged improvement in the abstract confirmation or estimating as limited to narrowed to greenhouse emission would also not represent an improvement in technology. In fact, such confirmation of greenhouse emission can be viewed from the prism of a fundamental, environmental-conscious, practices, with the term fundamental, not used in the sense of necessarily being old or well-known but rather as a building block of modern economy when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II A ¶2
It is also clear that, as articulated by, MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, the Supreme Court made it clear that judicial exceptions need not be old or long prevalent, and that even newly discovered or novel judicial exceptions are still exceptions. For example, both Myriad supra and Flook, were all novel, but nonetheless considered by the Supreme Court to be judicial exceptions because they were basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that lie beyond the domain of patent protection. Indeed, looking closer at Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451, 198 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), the Examiner finds that the Court found that use of computers for automatic monitoring-alarming including monitoring of chemical process variables, along with the recomputing and readjusting of alarm limits at selected time intervals, where in each updating computation, the most recently calculated alarm base and the current measurement of the process variable will be substituted for the corresponding numbers in the original calculation, did not save the claims from patent ineligibility. It then follows that here, using “confirmed portion data indicating a confirmed portion of the emissions as the emissions information of the target object”, akin to Flook’s limit, for “generating” “updated confirmed data by adding the emissions based on the confirmed information to the confirmed portion data” “when there is confirmed information to confirm the unconfirmed portion of the emissions”, would similar to Flook represent, improvement in the abstract, solution and thus, similar to Flook, would not render the claims patent eligible.
Accordingly, Examiner provided a preponderance of legal evidence showing the claims’ character as a whole is undeniably abstract. Hence, Step 2A prong 1 argument is unpersuasive.
# 2. Step 2A prong two: Remarks 12/09/2025 p.13 ¶2-p.19 ¶3 argues that the claims recite additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer and an improvement to a technology or technical field. For example, Remarks 12/09/2025 p.14 last ¶-p.18 cites Original Specification ¶ [0006]-¶ [0008], ¶ [0042]-¶ [0044], ¶ [0075]-¶ [0083] to argue that the invention accurately and fairly determining emission of a product.
Examiner fully considered the step 2A prong two argument but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive by reincorporating herein all findings and rationales above.
First, the Examiner notes the Applicant extensively relies on the Original Specification such as Original Specification ¶ [0006]-¶ [0008], ¶ [0042]-¶ [0044], ¶ [0075]-¶ [0083], and reminds that the “101 inquiry must focus on language of Asserted Claims themselves” as in “Synopsys, Inc. v Mentor Graphics Corp, U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, No 2015-1599, October 17 2016 2016 BL 344522 839 F3d 1138” citing “Accenture Global Servs., GmbH
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Guidewire Software, Inc. 728
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
F.3d
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1336, 1345 108 USPQ2d 1173 Fed Cir. 2013: admonishing that the important inquiry for a 101 analysis is to look to the claim”, citing “Content Extraction & Transmission LLC
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
v.
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n 776
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
F3d
PNG
media_image1.png
1
1
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1343, 1346 113 USPQ2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014): We focus here on whether the claims of the asserted patents fall within the excluded category of abstract ideas”, cert. denied, 136 S Ct 119, 193 L. Ed. 2d 208 2015). This is consistent with MPEP 2103 I.C stating that “claims define the property rights provided by patent, thus require careful scrutiny. The goal of claim analysis is to identify boundaries of protection sought by applicant and to understand how claims relate to and define what applicant indicated is the invention. USPTO personnel must first determine the scope of a claim by thoroughly analyzing the language of claim before determining if claim complies with each statutory requirement for patentability”. Simply said “[T]he name of the game is the claim”. MPEP 2103 I.C citing In re Hiniker Co 150 F3d 1362 1369 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 Fed Cir 1998.
Second, the Examiner notes that all or nearly all of the features argued by Applicant at Remarks 12/09/2025 p.13 ¶2-p.19 ¶3, are elements that remain integral to the abstract itself because reflect entrepreneurial or abstract concepts of fairness in the extremely unfair allocation of emissions as recognized by Remarks 12/09/2025 p.15 ¶2-¶3,p.17 ¶2,p.18 ¶2, where it is allegedly difficult to confirm the greenhouse emissions, per Remarks 12/09/2025 p.14 ¶7 to p.15 ¶1 etc. Such abstract elements or even improvement of such abstract elements to address the equally abstract unfairness and difficulty of estimation, were previously tested, and found abstract at Step 2A prong one of the analysis. Thus, such abstract elements are not, and should not, be considered as additional elements to what otherwise is integral to the abstract exception above.
In summary, as demonstrate above, the claims’ character as a whole remains undeniably abstract, with any alleged improvement being entrepreneurial and/or cognitively analytical or mathematical as opposed to technological. Also, the instructed “processor” of Claims 1,4,5 and associated units of Claim 5, can be argued as a computer-aid(s) to perform the aforementioned abstract steps right from the onset. The use of such “processor” and associated units would not preclude said Claims 1,4,5 from reciting, describing or setting forth the abstract exception.
Yet, the Examiner submits in the arguendo, that even when more granularly tested, as an additional element at step 2A prong two of the analysis, such instructed “processor” would represent mere invocation of a computer element or tool to apply the abstract exception. Specifically, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i), such “processor” would represent a computer component on which the confirming algorithm, as identified above, is being applied. Yet, according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i), applying such “processor” would not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application.
Next, per the Applicant’s reliance on Amdocs, Finjan and Core Wireless case law at Remarks 05/16/2025 p.19 ¶ 1, the Examiner finds that the current legal findings of the present claims are irreconcilably different than what was found eligible in Amdocs, Finjan and Core Wireless. This is because here, the limitations argued above, focus not on improvement to actual technology or the computer itself but rather on answering an entrepreneurial, cognitive, or analytical question or confirming unconfirmed portion of greenhouse gas emissions.
At no point do the amended claims provide anything remotely analogous to minimizing impact on network and system resources through a distributed architecture by collecting and processing data close to its source, followed by enabling load distribution to allow data to reside close to the information sources, thereby reducing congestion in network bottlenecks, while still allowing data to be accessible from a central location, as was the case in Amdocs above.
Also, at no point do the amended claims provide anything remotely analogous to generating of a security profile and obfuscated code, that acted in concert, to identify hostile and potentially hostile operations in virus screening, to protect against both unknown viruses and obfuscated code as in Finjan above.
Last but not least, at no point do the amended claims provide anything remotely analogous to the improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application as in Core Wireless above.
Based on all the findings and rationales above, the Examiner finds the Step 2A prong 2 argument unpersuasive.
#3 Step 2B: Remarks 12/09/2025 p19 ¶3-p20 argues the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception because the claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer and an improvement to a technology or technical field. For example, Remarks 12/09/2025 p.20 ¶4 argues that similar to the improved data compression in DDR, the current improvement in accurately determining stage 3 GHG emissions of a product, demonstrate an improvement in computer-functionality that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Also, similar to the reduce under- and over-curing problems in Diamond, the improvement in localizing the center of an intersection, which are provided by the features of Claim 1, demonstrate improvement in the technical field of determining stage 3 GHG emissions of a product that also amount to significantly more than the alleged judicial exception
Examiner fully considered the Step 2B argument above but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive. Examiner reincorporates herein all the findings and rationales above.
Examiner also follows MPEP 2106.05(d) II guidelines and carries over the findings tested per MPEP 2106.05(f) above to submit that, the additional computer-based elements, merely apply the already recited abstract idea and thus also do not provide significantly more.
As per Applicant’s reliance on DDR and Diamond, case law at Remarks 05/16/2025 p.20 ¶ 4, the current legal findings of the present claims are irreconcilably different than what was found eligible in DDR and Diamond, because here, the limitations argued above, focus on confirming unconfirmed portion of greenhouse gas emissions.
At no point do the amended claims provide anything remotely analogous to the systems and methods of generating a composite webpage that combines certain visual elements of a host website with the content of a third-party merchant, as was the case in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 113 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014), as cited by MPEP 2106.05(d) and argued by Applicant at Remarks 12/09/2025 p.20 ¶4. Digging deeper into DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1248,113 USPQ2d at 1099, the Examiner finds the Court ruled that the eligible claim had additional elements that amounted to significantly more than the abstract idea, because it modified conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, which differed from the conventional operation of Internet hyperlink protocol that transported the user away from the host’s webpage to the third party’s webpage when the hyperlink was activated. Here however, there is nothing similar to such patent eligible technological arrangement.
Furter, at no point do the amended claims provide anything remotely analogous to constantly measuring of temperature in the mold, and automatically opened the press at the proper time, in Diamond v. Diehr. The claims also have nothing to do with localizing the center of an intersection as asserted by Applicant at Remarks 12/09/2025 p.20 ¶4
Based on the preponderance of all of the legal arguments above, the Examiner submits that the claims’ character as a whole remains undeniably abstract with no additional computer- based element or combination of additional elements capable to integrate the abstract exception into a practical appclaition or provide significantly more. Thus, the claims are patent ineligible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Applicant’s response to the 35 USC 102 rejection
# 1. Remarks 12/09/2025 p. 21 ¶1 argues that for a prior art reference to anticipate a claim under 35 USC 102, every element of the claimed subject matter must be identically shown in a single reference. Examiner ads: While the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, that is identity of terminology is not required1. MPEP 2131
# 2. Remarks 12/09/2025 p.21 ¶6 argues that under the Office's interpretation that “unconfirmed portion of the emissions” at Claim 1 is disclosed by the data prediction of Ding US 20120278270 A1 it is unclear how such data prediction would be confirmed as amended.
Examiner considered the G2 argument but respectfully disagrees finding it unpersuasive.
Examiner starts from MPEP 2111, and first submits that as an issue of claim construction or claim interpretation, at no point did the former dependent Claim 2, and now independent Claims 1,4,5 recite how the “unconfirmed portion of the emissions” is confirmed. What Applicant seems to acknowledge at Claims 1,4,5, is the existence at the last limitation of “confirmed information to confirm the unconfirmed portion of the emissions”. But the use of the verb “is” as in “when there is confirmed information to confirm the unconfirmed portion of the emissions” merely shows at said contingent clause, the possible existence of “when there is confirmed information to confirm the unconfirmed portion”. It says nothing about how the “unconfirmed portion” itself is confirmed as argued at Remarks 12/09/2025 p.21 ¶6. Thus, the Applicant’s argument appears to be flawed right from the onset based on an improper, overly narrow claim interpretation.
To be clear, here, the existence of “confirmed information” at Claims 1,4,5, is met by the exitance of historical records of actual [or confirmed] measurements, at Ding ¶ [0034] 3rd,5th sentences: “Table 1 shows structure of historical records of carbon emission. In Table 1, demands for carbon emission saved in the demand field are presented in the form of vectors, where each element of a vector represents, concrete” [or confirmed] “values in respective specific demand aspects. In addition, values of carbon emissions obtained by actual” [or confirmed] “measurement means are saved in the actual” [or confirmed] “measurement field, whose unit can be ton or any proper measuring unit”. Indeed per Ding ¶ [0008] 1st sentence: After a project is put into practice, actual measurements of carbon emission can be measured by various means
Next, the existence of such actual, concrete or confirmed information is used to confirm the predicted or unconfirmed portion of emission as taught by Ding ¶ [0008] 2nd sentence: “Subsequently, a prediction precision” [thus how precise the predicted or unconfirmed portion is] “can be obtained by comparing” [as an example of how to] “ the actual” [concrete or confirmed] “measurements of carbon emission with the prediction” [or unconfirmed] “result”. This is further explained by Ding ¶ [0040] 5th sentence the historical [or actual] records, data prediction knowledge repository, and rule prediction knowledge repository can be implemented in conjunction [in addition or together] with one another. ¶ [0043] 3rd sentence: after the best matching historical record with respect to the current demand is located, a quantized demand gap therebetween can be calculated and a data prediction precision and a rule prediction precision are treated as functions of the demand gap. ¶ [0046] 3rd sentence-¶ [0047]: after the demand gap is calculated and used for locating the best matching historical record, it is no more discarded but recorded and retained [or added] for subsequent use. The method 200 then proceeds to step S208 where a data prediction precision of carbon emission is calculated, the data prediction precision being a function of the demand gap. According to embodiments of the present invention, the calculation of the data prediction precision can be based on the above-mentioned data prediction knowledge repository. According to embodiments of the present invention, each entry in the data prediction knowledge repository corresponds to one entry in the historical records of carbon emission, and can include a data prediction result field and a best matching demand gap field. ¶ [0049] 4th-5th sentences: when a data prediction precision is needed, it can be calculated in real time according to an actual measurement stored in the historical record and a value stored in the data prediction result field. Table 2 shows an exemplary structure of the data prediction knowledge repository. Indeed, per ¶ [0039] 4th-5th sentences, ¶ [0052] 5th sentence: the rule prediction precision” [how precise the predicted or unconfirmed portion is] can be calculated and stored when an actual carbon emission measurement can be obtained. This is reflected at, per Figs. 3A-B and ¶ [0063] 1st-3rd sentence: Responsive to the best matching demand gap G falling between G1 and G2, according to some embodiment of the present invention, a data prediction solution or a rule prediction solution can be selected according to the actual carbon emission measurement, the rule prediction result, and the data prediction result with respect to the best matching historical record (located in step S204). For example, the selection can be made by comparing which one of the data prediction result and the rule prediction result is more approximate to the actual carbon emission measurement. In other words, with respect to the best matching historical record, if the difference between the data prediction result and the actual carbon emission measurement is less than the difference between the rule prediction result and the actual carbon emission measurement, then a data prediction solution is selected for carbon emission prediction with respect to the current demand; otherwise, a rule prediction solution is selected. These are further summarized at Ding ¶ [0059] and ¶ [0073]. Other details at Ding ¶ [0024] 2nd-3rd sentences, ¶ [0025], ¶ [0042] 2nd-3rd sentences.
Thus, the Examiner submits, that by precision or confirmation of predicted, non-actual and thus “unconfirmed” “emissions” using concrete or confirmed and thus “actual measurements of carbon emission”, Ding teaches the confirmation of predicted or unconfirmed data as contested by Remarks 12/09/2025 p.21 ¶6. Also, although not required by the claim language, the Examiner submits that as demonstrated above, Ding also teaches how the predicted or “unconfirmed portion of the emissions” is confirmed or selected, under Applicant’s much narrower claim interpretation.
In conclusion, Ding provides many examples that meet the broadly recited and contested limitation of independent Claims 1,4,5. Thus the prior art argument #2 is found unpersuasive.
# 3. Remarks 12/09/2025 p. 22 ¶1 argues that independent Claims 4,5 have been amended similarly to sister independent Claim 1 and thus allowable under same rationales.
Examiner fully considered the argument #3 but respectfully disagrees reincorporating herein all findings and rationales above.
# 4. Remarks 12/09/2025 p.22 ¶2 argues that dependent claims 2,3 dependent from parent independent Claim 1 and thus should be allowed for incorporating the allowable subject matter of parent independent Claim 1.
Examiner fully considered the argument #4 but respectfully disagrees reincorporating herein all findings and rationales above. Examiner also notes that Claim 2 is now canceled.
PNG
media_image2.png
509
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ding Fig.3B in support of rejection arguments
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, here abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) describe or set forth the abstract “processing emissions information related to an amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with a target object” as summarized at the preamble of each of independent Claims 1,4,5, and then detailed as: “determining whether there is an unconfirmed portion of the emissions associated with the target object; and generating, when there is the unconfirmed portion of the emissions, unconfirmed portion data indicating the unconfirmed portion of the emissions in addition to confirmed portion data indicating a confirmed portion of the emissions as the emissions information of the target object” at the body of each of said then detailed as “generating, when there is confirmed information to confirm the unconfirmed portion of the emissions, updated confirmed data by adding the emissions based on the confirmed information to the confirmed portion data” at independent Claims 1,4,5, and “wherein the generating of the unconfirmed portion data includes using, as the unconfirmed portion data, a provisional approximate value prepared in advance” at dependent Claim 3.
These limitations are tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C. and found to fall within the abstract grouping of computer-aided mental processes. Specifically, Examiner follows MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C to submit: #1 Performing a mental process on generic computer, 2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment, and 3. Using a computer as tool to perform a mental process, do not preclude the claims to recite, describe or set forth the abstract idea.
It then follows that here, when tested per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C # 1, #3 the broad recitation of “a processor” at independent Claims 1,4,5 and “an unconfirmed portion determination unit” and “a data generation unit” at independent Claim 5, can perhaps be argued to represent #1 generic computer components or, #3 computer tools to aid in performing the aforementioned abstract processes, which when aided by pen and paper or computer equivalents as identified above, fall well within the cognitive capabilities of one of ordinary skills in the art, such as by computer aided evaluation judgment and observation as enunciated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III ¶2. Specifically, Examiner, as a person of ordinary skills in art, finds that here, nothing would have precluded a skilled artisan to perform by aid of such computer the aforementioned computer-aided evaluating set forth as “determining whether there is an unconfirmed portion of the emissions associated with the target object” (independent Claims 1,4,5) for subsequent judgement based on evaluating, set forth as “generating, when there is the unconfirmed portion of the emissions, unconfirmed portion data indicating the unconfirmed portion of the emissions in addition to confirmed portion data indicating a confirmed portion of the emissions as the emissions information of the target object”, “generating, when there is confirmed information to confirm the unconfirmed portion of the emissions, updated confirmed data by adding the emissions based on the confirmed information to the confirmed portion data” (independent Claims 1,4,5), “the generating of the unconfirmed portion data includes using, as the unconfirmed portion data, a provisional approximate value prepared in advance” (dependent Claim 3).
This finding is corroborated by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. A., 5th bullet point2, stating that the combination of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, still falls within the abstract mental processes. Here such certain results of the collection and analysis, result from “addition” of “unconfirmed” and “confirmed portion of the emissions as the emissions information of the target object”.
Thus, here, there is a preponderance of legal evidence, showing that the claims recite, or at a minimum describe or set forth the abstract exception, with the computer-aided abstract processes as identified above, arguable under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, #1,#2, #3, as tools or generic computer components that aid in the execution of the aforementioned abstract idea. Step 2A prong one. Next, in an abundance of caution the Examiner will more granularly test such computer components below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because per Step 2A prong two, because the individual or combination of the additional, computer-based elements is/are found to merely apply the abstract idea identified above [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow it to a field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. Specifically here, the “processor” of independent Claims 1,4,5 and “an unconfirmed portion determination unit” and “a data generation unit” of independent Claim 5, even if considered as additional computer-based elements rather than the above identified computer aids, would still provide nothing more than applying the aforementioned abstract processes by mere invocation of computer components or machinery as tools, which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), would not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. For example, when tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i)3, the capabilities of the “processor” of independent Claims 1,4,5 and “an unconfirmed portion determination unit” and “a data generation unit” of independent Claim 5, in “determining whether there is an unconfirmed portion of the emissions associated with the target object” , “generating, when there is the unconfirmed portion of the emissions, unconfirmed portion data indicating the unconfirmed portion of the emissions in addition to confirmed portion data indicating a confirmed portion of the emissions as the emissions information of the target object” at independent Claims 1,4,5, represent algorithmic mitigation of a practice being applied on a general purpose computer to perform the aforementioned abstract or existing processes, which according to MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool that would not integrate the abstract exception into a practical application. Step 2A prong two.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, Examiner follows MPEP 2106.05(d) II guidelines and carries over the above findings tested per MPEP 2106.05 (f) and/or (h) to submit that as shown above, the additional computer-based elements, merely apply the already recited abstract idea [MPEP 2106.05(f)] and/or narrow the abstract exception to a field of use or technological environment [MPEP 2106.05(h)]. For these same reasons, said computer-based additional elements also do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, in light of MPEP 2106.05(f) and/or (h) as sufficient option(s) for evidence without even having to rely on the well understood routine and conventional test of MPEP 2106.05(d). Yet, assuming arguendo, that additional evidence would now be required at Step 2B to demonstrate said conventionality, Examiner would further point to MPEP 2106.05(d) I. 2 and rely on Applicant’s own Original Disclosure to demonstrate conventionality of the additional computer-based elements as follows:
- Original Specification ¶ [0068] 2nd sentence reciting at high level of generality … the functional unit of the processor 11 that executes S107 corresponds to an "unconfirmed portion determination unit”,
- Original Specification ¶ [0071] 2nd sentence reciting at high level of generality … functional unit of the processor 11 that executes S111 corresponds to a "data generation unit",
- Original Specification ¶ [0101] reciting at high level of generality: “Each processor in the above embodiments may include at least one arithmetic core such as a central processing unit (CPU) and a graphics processing unit (GPU). The processor may further include a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), a neural network processing unit (NPU), an IP core with other dedicated functions, and the like. The processor may be individually mounted on a printed circuit board. Alternatively, a configuration implemented in an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a system on chip (SoC), an FPGA, or the like may correspond to the processor”.
- Original Specification ¶ [0102] reciting at high level of generality: “The form of the storage medium (non-transitory tangible storage medium) which is employed as each storage unit in the above embodiments and stores each program may be changed as appropriate. For example, the storage medium is not limited to a configuration provided on a circuit board, but may be provided in the form of a memory card or the like, inserted into a slot portion, and electrically connected to a bus of a computer. The storage medium may be an optical disc, a hard disk drive, or the like used as a source for copying or distributing a program to a computer”.
In conclusion, Claims 1 and 3-5 although directed to statutory categories (“method” or process, at Claims 1,3, “non-transitory, computer readable storage medium” or product or article of manufacture at independent Claim 4, and “system” or machine at independent Claim 5) they still recite, or at least set forth the abstract idea (Step 2A prong one), with their additional, computer-based elements not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) or providing significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B).
Therefore, the Claims 1 and 3-5 are not patent eligible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention as disclosed by: Ding US 20120278270 A1. As per,
Claims 1,4,5 Ding teaches “An information processing method for processing emissions information related to an amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with a target object, the information processing method comprising: by at least one processor, (independent Claim 1) / “A non-transitory, computer readable storage medium storing an information processing program for processing emissions information related to an amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with a target object, the information processing program causing at least one processor to execute: (independent Claim 4) / “A data processing system for processing emissions information related to an amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with a target object, the data processing system comprising a processor”: (independent Claim 5)
(Ding ¶ [0006] 2nd sentence: In the context of the disclosure, term demand refers to any carbon emissions-related requirement, provision, standard or other aspect in production, manufacture, transport and other projects [interpreted as target object] , including but not limited to amount of coal used, amount of power used, amount of fuel used, amount of natural gas used, storage area (e.g., warehouse area), amount of machine used, moving distance of machine, heating time, lighting time, and so on. ¶ [0021] Although there exist two types of solutions for carbon emission prediction in the prior art it is usually impossible to determine in advance whether a data prediction solution or a rule prediction solution can be used for achieving a more accurate prediction result (i.e., more approximate to actual measurement to be obtained subsequently) for a given demand. In view of this, embodiments of the present invention provide a method, apparatus, and system for selecting a solution for carbon emission prediction. Specifically, per
Ding ¶ [0087] the present invention can be implemented as a computer program product used by computers or accessible by computer-readable media that provide program code for use by or in connection with a computer or any instruction executing system. For the purpose of description, a computer-usable or computer-readable medium can be any tangible means that can contain, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. ¶ [0088] 2nd sentence: Examples of the medium can include: a semiconductor or solid memory device, a magnetic tape, a portable computer diskette, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), a hard disk, and optical disk. ¶ [0089] A data processing system adapted for storing and/or executing program code can include at least one processor that is coupled to a memory element directly or via a system bus. The memory element can include a local memory usable during actually executing the program code, a mass memory, and a cache that provides temporary memory for at least one portion of program code so as to decrease the number of times for retrieving code from the mass memory during execution. Details are disclosed by
Ding ¶ [0077] Referring to Fig.6, a block diagram of system 600 for selecting a solution for carbon emission prediction according to one embodiment is illustrated. the system 600 includes: apparatus 601 for selecting a solution for carbon emission prediction, which corresponds to the apparatus 401 described with reference to Fig.4 or apparatus 501 described with reference to Fig.5 in terms of structure and function, and a carbon emission database 602 for storing historical records of carbon emission, where each historical record includes a demand description and an actual carbon emission measurement. ¶ [0078] According to some embodiments of, the system further include: a data prediction knowledge repository 604 to store a prediction result obtained by a data prediction solution, a demand gap with best matching historical record stored in the carbon emission database, and a data prediction precision, and a rule prediction knowledge repository 606 configured to store a prediction result obtained by a rule prediction solution and a rule prediction precision. ¶ [0079] According to some embodiments, the system 600 include: a data prediction engine 608 configured to perform carbon emission prediction for the current demand by using a data prediction solution selected by the apparatus for selecting a solution for carbon emission prediction, and a rule prediction engine 610 configured to perform carbon emission prediction for the current demand by using a rule prediction solution that is selected by the apparatus for selecting a solution for carbon emission prediction)
- “determining / an unconfirmed portion determination unit executed by the processor to determine / “whether there is an unconfirmed portion of the emissions associated with the target object”; (Ding ¶ [0071] 1st sentence: apparatus 501 include demand gap calculating means 508 configured to calculate a demand gap between the current demand and the best matching historical record as a best matching demand gap. For example, at ¶ [0047] step S208 where a data prediction precision of carbon emission is calculated, being a function of demand gap and based on above mentioned data prediction knowledge repository. each entry in data prediction knowledge repository corresponds to one entry in historical records of carbon emission and include data prediction [or unconfirmed] result field and a best matching demand gap field. Then
¶ [0048] For any given entry in data prediction knowledge repository, the data prediction [or unconfirmed] result field store result of carbon emission prediction [or unconfirmed portion] obtained by the data prediction solution, and the best matching demand gap field can store a demand gap (i.e. best matching demand gap) between demand corresponding to entry and the best matching historical record among the historical records of carbon emission. Here, the best matching historical record and best matching demand gap can be determined in a similar manner described with reference to steps S204,206. ¶ [0016] Fig.3B illustrates a schematic view of a prediction precision that is a function of a demand gap according to embodiments of the present invention. ¶ [0059] 1st-3rd sentences: in Fig.3B, the determining a data prediction precision in step S208 includes determining an upper limit and a lower limit of the data prediction precision, so as to make a more accurate comparison between a data prediction precision and a rule prediction precision. In other words, unlike curve-fitting respective points to obtain a single data prediction precision in Fig.3A, points distributed in the coordinate plane are considered as a plane point set in the example of Fig.3B. Then, a plane bounding box of the point set is calculated to obtain an upper limit and a lower limit of the point set, namely the upper limit D1 and the lower limit D2 of the data prediction precision. For additional details see ¶ [0060] - ¶ [0062]) “and”
- “generating”, / “a data generation unit that executed by the processor to generate” / “when there is the unconfirmed portion of the emissions, unconfirmed portion data indicating the unconfirmed portion of the emissions in addition to confirmed portion data indicating a confirmed portion of the emissions as the emissions information of the target object” (Ding Fig.3B, ¶ [0063] 2nd-3rd sentences: … comparing which one of the data prediction [or unconfirmed] result and the rule prediction [or unconfirmed] result is more approximate to the actual [or confirmed] carbon emission measurement. In other words, with respect to best matching historical record, if the difference between data prediction [or unconfirmed] result and the actual [or confirmed] carbon emission measurement is less than the difference between the rule prediction [or unconfirmed] result and the actual [or confirmed] carbon emission measurement, then a data prediction solution is selected for carbon emission prediction with respect to the current demand; otherwise, a rule prediction solution is selected. Other details ¶ [0071] 2nd sentence, ¶ [0079])
- “generating, when there is confirmed information to confirm the unconfirmed portion of the emissions, updated confirmed data by adding the emissions based on the confirmed information to the confirmed portion data” (Ding ¶ [0034] 3rd,5th sentences Table 1 shows structure of historical records of carbon emission. In Table 1, demands for carbon emission saved in the demand field are presented in the form of vectors, where each element of a vector represents, concrete [or confirmed] values in respective specific demand aspects. In addition, values of carbon emissions obtained by actual [or confirmed] measurement means are saved in the actual [or confirmed] measurement field, whose unit can be ton or any proper measuring unit.
Indeed per ¶ [0008] 1st-2nd sentences: After a project is put into practice, actual measurements of carbon emission can be measured by various means. Subsequently a prediction precision [thus how precise the predicted or unconfirmed portion is] can be obtained by comparing the actual [concrete or confirmed] measurements of carbon emission with the prediction [or unconfirmed] result. This is further explained by ¶ [0040] 5th sentence the historical [or actual] records, data prediction knowledge repository, and rule prediction knowledge repository can be implemented in conjunction [in addition or together] with one another. ¶ [0043] 3rd sentence: after the best matching historical record with respect to the current demand is located, a quantized demand gap therebetween can be calculated and a data prediction precision and a rule prediction precision are treated as functions of the demand gap. ¶ [0046] 3rd sentence-¶ [0047]: after the demand gap is calculated and used for locating the best matching historical record, it is no more discarded but recorded and retained [or added] for subsequent use. The method 200 then proceeds to step S208 where a data prediction precision of carbon emission is calculated, the data prediction precision being a function of the demand gap. According to embodiments of the present invention, the calculation of the data prediction precision can be based on the above-mentioned data prediction knowledge repository. According to embodiments of the present invention, each entry in the data prediction knowledge repository corresponds to one entry in the historical records of carbon emission, and can include a data prediction result field and a best matching demand gap field. ¶ [0049] 4th-5th sentences: when a data prediction precision is needed, it can be calculated in real time according to an actual measurement stored in the historical record and a value stored in the data prediction result field. Table 2 shows an exemplary structure of the data prediction knowledge repository. Indeed, per ¶ [0039] 4th-5th sentences, ¶ [0052] 5th sentence: the rule prediction precision [thus how precise the predicted or unconfirmed portion is] can be calculated…when an actual carbon emission measurement can be obtained. This is reflected at, per Figs. 3A-B and ¶ [0063] 1st-3rd sentence: Responsive to the best matching demand gap G falling between G1 and G2, according to some embodiment of the present invention, a data prediction solution or a rule prediction solution can be selected according to the actual carbon emission measurement, the rule prediction result, and the data prediction result with respect to the best matching historical record (located in step S204). For example, the selection can be made by comparing which one of the data prediction result and the rule prediction result is more approximate to the actual carbon emission measurement. In other words, with respect to the best matching historical record, if the difference between the data prediction result and the actual carbon emission measurement is less than the difference between the rule prediction result and the actual carbon emission measurement, then a data prediction solution is selected for carbon emission prediction with respect to the current demand; otherwise, a rule prediction solution is selected. These are further summarized at ¶ [0059] and ¶ [0073]).
PNG
media_image3.png
604
878
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ding Fig.3B in support of rejection arguments
Claim 3. Ding teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Ding further teaches “the generating of the unconfirmed portion data includes using, as the unconfirmed portion data, a provisional approximate value prepared in advance.”
(Ding ¶ [0008] 4th sentence for some demands, a data prediction solution obtains a more approximate prediction result to actual measurements than a rule prediction solution, while for other demands, a rule prediction solution obtains a more approximate prediction result to actual measurements than data prediction. ¶ [0040] 1st sentence: such data prediction precision and rule prediction precision are calculated and stored in advance. ¶ [0063] 2nd-3rd sentences: For example selection can be made by comparing which one of the data prediction result and rule prediction result is more approximate to the actual carbon emission measurement. In other words, with respect to the best matching historical record, if difference between data prediction result and actual carbon emission measurement is less than the difference between rule prediction result and actual carbon emission measurement, then a data prediction solution is selected for carbon emission prediction with respect to current demand; otherwise, a rule prediction solution is selected. ¶ [0046] 3rd sentence: after t demand gap is calculated and used for locating best matching historical record, it is no more discarded but retained for subsequent use).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Sarkisian et al US 20110191071 A1 ¶ [0055] 1st-2nd sentences: In step 330, CFAT 110 estimates the emissions generated by the materials used in the construction of the building including the emissions generated by the manufacturing of each of the materials used in constructing the structure based on the material information gathered in step 310. The CFAT 110 estimates the emissions totaled over the entire time spent from initial manufacturing of materials to the completion of the structure, with additional regard for material replacement after damage or reconstruction ¶ [0065] 1st sentence: In step 332, the CFAT 110 estimates the emissions resulting from the construction of the structure including the delivery of materials and laborers to and from the construction site and the emissions from the operation of any equipment used in the construction of the structure. ¶ [0090] 1st sentence In another embodiment consistent with the present invention, the CFAT 110 displays a detailed report 500 showing the estimated amount of carbon emission attributed to each component of the system.
PNG
media_image4.png
798
622
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
622
592
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Sarkisian Annotated excerpts of Fig.5B (left) and Fig.6B (shown right) showing the addition, or summing, or totaling, of actual or confirmed carbon emissions CO2e to probabilistic or unconfirmed carbon emissions
- He Bin et al, Product carbon footprint for product life cycle under uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production,187, pp459-472, Jun 20, 2018
- WO 2011094258 A1 teaching the estimating of amount of carbon greenhouse gas emissions GHG
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.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OCTAVIAN ROTARU whose telephone number is (571)270-7950. The examiner can normally be reached on 571.270.7950 from 9AM to 6PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, PATRICIA H MUNSON, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Octavian Rotaru/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624 A
December 27th, 2025
1 In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
2 “Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54,119 USPQ2d 1739,1741-42 (Fed Cir 2016)
3 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673,674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,1334,115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015);