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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communications received on 2/11/26.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are now pending and have been addressed below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/11/26 has been entered.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Identifying Statutory Categories
In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a method, claims 11-12, 13-16 are directed to a system and claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory medium. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 1 Identifying a Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, prong 1, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 1, 11, 13 and 17 recite methods for accounting product carbon footprint based on ICM, comprising: acquiring data of carbon footprint within a predetermined system boundary range on a production line of battery recycling for several times within one period at a predetermined acquisition interval, according to an obtained acquisition instruction, wherein the acquisition instruction comprises the predetermined acquisition interval, a duration of the period, and the predetermined system boundary range and the data of carbon footprint comprises regional development index, utilization rate of green product and recovery rate of recycled material; and accounting the carbon footprint according to the data of carbon footprint and a predetermined accounting formula for carbon footprint, to obtain an amount of carbon emission within the period, wherein the amount of carbon emission is in negative correlation with a carbon right factor obtained according to the regional development index, the utilization rate of green product and the recovery rate of the recycled material; reducing green-house gas emissions on the production line according to the amount of carbon emission by setting, for the production line, at least one production parameter based on the amount of carbon emission, wherein the at least one production parameter comprises a proportion of recycled material put into production on the production line.
These limitations as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (including commercial interactions such as business relations, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) including interaction between person and computer), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements (such as a device, a data acquisition unit, a unit for accounting carbon footprint (Claim 11), an electronic device, processor, memory (claim 13), storage medium (Claim 17)), the claims are directed to accounting product carbon footprint. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 - This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing product carbon footprint. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – a device, a data acquisition unit, a unit for accounting carbon footprint (Claim 11), an electronic device, processor, memory (claim 13), storage medium (Claim 17). The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these 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.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Considering Additional Elements
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims describe how to generally “apply” to; provide product carbon footprint. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims are not significantly more because they are part of the identified judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to a device, a data acquisition unit, a unit for accounting carbon footprint (Claim 11), an electronic device, processor, memory (claim 13), storage medium (Claim 17)), these limitations are described in Applicant’s own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Fig 3 #31, 32 details “data acquisition unit and carbon footprint accounting unit, [0034]-[0035]processor, memory.” These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above, receiving, analyzing, transmitting and displaying data. Furthermore, the use of such generic computers to receive or transmit data over a network has been identified as a well understood, routine and conventional activity by the courts. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AVAuto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); Also see MPEP 2106.05(d) discussing elements that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional activities in particular fields. Lastly, the additional elements provides only a result-oriented solution which lacks details as to how the computer performs the claimed abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these steps/components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be construed at the highest level of generality and amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, the claimed invention does not demonstrate a technologically rooted solution to a computer-centric problem or recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the function of any computer itself, applying the exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment such as computing. Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. Taking the additional claimed elements individually and in combination, the computer components at each step of the process perform purely generic computer functions. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-10, 12, 14-16, 18-20 add additional limitations, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as Independent claims.
Claims 2-4, 14-16, 18-20 recites a carbon right factor obtained according to the regional development index, the utilization rate of green product and the recovery rate of the recycled material, wherein: the carbon right factor is obtained by multiplying the regional development index representing development level in different regions, by the utilization rate of green product representing contribution degree for carbon dioxide peaking and carbon neutrality, and by the recovery rate of the recycled material representing a technique for saving resource; and a carbon right is obtained according to the carbon right factor as well as carbon emission of a first unit performing production from a raw material and carbon emission of a second unit performing production from a recycled material, so that the carbon right is in negative correlation with the amount of carbon emission, wherein the data of carbon footprint includes the carbon emission of the first unit and the carbon emission of the second unit. the carbon right is in negative correlation with the amount of carbon emission, specifically: the carbon right as an absolute value for a portion of negative number in the accounting formula for carbon footprint is in negative correlation with the amount of carbon emission, and the carbon emission from production as a portion of positive number in the accounting formula for carbon footprint is in positive correlation with the amount of carbon emission, so that the accounting formula for carbon footprint is obtained, wherein the data of carbon footprint includes the carbon emission from production.an amount of carbon emission for the raw material is obtained according to a proportion of the raw material put into production and the carbon emission of the first unit, and an amount of carbon emission for the recycled material is obtained according to a proportion of the recycled material and the carbon emission of the second unit; and the carbon emission from production is obtained according to a sum of the amount of carbon emission for the raw material and the amount of carbon emission for the recycled material. These limitations are directed to abstract idea of organizing human activity. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5-10, 9-11 recites equation and formulas for calculating product carbon footprints, which is abstract idea of mathematical calculations. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 recites receive acquisition instruction sent by a user, and to send the acquisition instruction to the unit for accounting carbon footprint, wherein the acquisition instruction comprises the acquisition interval, duration of the period and the system boundary range, preferably, the device further comprises analytical interaction unit, configured to create an analysis report after receiving the amount of carbon emission sent by the unit for accounting carbon footprint, and to send the analysis report to the user. Is simply further narrowing the abstract idea of independent claim by creating a report. The claims do not provide any new additional elements beyond abstract idea. Therefore, whether analyzed individually or as an ordered combination, they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, The dependent claims do not integrate into a practical application. As such, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application, but rather, the recitation of any additional element amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are merely used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. These limitations do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05d. Thus, the claims do not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The claims are ineligible. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See (Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejection, applicant states claims are not directed to abstract idea, integrate exception into practical application and recites significantly more. Examiner has considered all arguments and they are not persuasive. The claims recite judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving data, analyzing it, and providing product carbon footprint. In particular, the claims only recites the additional element – a device, a data acquisition unit, a unit for accounting carbon footprint (Claim 11), an electronic device, processor, memory (claim 13), storage medium (Claim 17). The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these 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. Further, the limitations reciting “the acquisition instruction comprises the predetermined acquisition interval, a duration of the period, and the predetermined system boundary range and the data of carbon” is simply instructions with data and overall acquiring data of carbon footprint is data gathering. The claims are directed to an abstract idea. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a), applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b), effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c), or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Trout (US 7,693,725) discusses the analysis model calculates the equivalency factors for use in one embodiment in performance measurement and equitable benchmarking of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from industrial facilities for the purposes of allocating GHG emission allowances for permits, licenses, etc.
Cooner (US2020/0027096) discusses Carbon credits can be generated by any process that conforms to ISO 14064-66 standards. Once generated, carbon credits can be stored in a distributed, Cloud-based ledger. The ledger entries can serve as a registry for carbon credits as well as the data source for an Internet-enabled trading system or financial exchange that allows the carbon credits to be sold and bought as part of the same system.
CN115564125A discusses collecting historical energy consumption of the region over the years; calculating to obtain the historical carbon emission by an IPCC coefficient conversion method; screening main influence factors of regional carbon emission through a dynamic time reduction algorithm; according to the regional historical carbon emission and the main influence factors of the carbon emission, a regional carbon emission regression prediction model is constructed by comprehensively using a principal component analysis method and a STIRPAT model; selecting the main influence of various carbon emission as a core element to carry out quantization to generate various contextual models; and inputting the corresponding influence factors under the contextual model into a carbon emission regression prediction model, and calculating the future carbon emission amount of the region to be detected, the regional carbon peak value and the occurrence time.
CN117194845 discuses a system for calculating carbon emission of all elements of a green building, wherein the method comprises the following steps: acquiring carbon emission factors related to green buildings, and establishing a carbon emission factor library in a multi-level classification mode; establishing a carbon emission amount calculation model, wherein the carbon emission amount calculation model is used for realizing carbon emission amount calculation in five dimensions of safety, durability, health, comfort, convenience in life, resource saving and environmental suitability; determining carbon emission elements related to each dimension and carbon emission sources contained in the carbon emission elements, traversing a carbon emission factor library according to the carbon emission sources, and obtaining carbon emission factors corresponding to the carbon emission sources; inputting the carbon emission source related data and the corresponding carbon emission factors into a carbon emission amount calculation model to obtain the carbon emission amount of the green building
Pandey, “Carbon footprint current method of estimation”, 2011 discusses calculating carbon footprint.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGEETA BAHL whose telephone number is (571)270-7779. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 4PM.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/SANGEETA BAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626