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
The Amendment filed on October 23, 2025 has been entered. The examiner
acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, the cancellation of claims 5, 7, 12, 14.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C § 112(b): Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13, have rendered those claims not indefinite, thus rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112(b) for these claims is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant argues that the improvement of effectively calculating carbon emissions in specific scenarios should be considered as an improvement to carbon technology. It notes that improvement to the carbon technology is an indication of integrating into a practical application. The Examiner questions the nature of the improvement claimed. The Examiner understands that the invention identifies an individual using an elevator and tracking which floor the individual enters and exits the elevator, that is, the individual’s conveyance between floors. The calculation of distance traveled in an elevator (usage information) is basic mathematics and would employ existing technology. The calculation of personal carbon emission appears to be a result of user distance traveled, an electric power (consumption) parameter of the elevator equipment an electric power carbon emission coefficient, and with an application providing a display of the personal carbon emission calculated. It is not evident how the personal carbon emission information is used or if the data is used by another system for a purpose or simply provided as an output to a user-operator of the carbon emission calculation system for another reason.
The Examiner disagrees that the invention demonstrates either an improvement to the technology, or that the process demonstrates a practical application or function, beyond the delivery of calculated information. The Examiner concludes that the invention implements abstract ideas on a computer and neither an improvement to the technology or a practical application has been explained. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 8 incorporating previously not rejected claims 7 and 14 render these claims not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Remaining dependent claims 2-4, 6, 9-11, and 13 are not rejected by virtue of their dependence on independent claims 1 and 8, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention
is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 are directed to a process (method), and machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of calculating the carbon emissions for individuals riding in an elevator and reporting out results by individual and the number of floors ascended to or descended to in the elevator.
Claim 8 discloses a carbon emission calculation method, comprising:
outputting inbound data when the detection element detects a user identity, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);
starting to calculate usage information according to the inbound data, (evaluation, judgment, opinion)
outputting outbound data when the detection element detects the user identity again; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);
finishing calculating the usage information according to the outbound data; (evaluation, judgment, opinion),
calculating a personal carbon emission of a user riding according to the inbound data, the outbound data, and the usage information; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);
calculating a total carbon emission according to maximum
usage information when detecting a plurality of user identities; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion); and
calculating average carbon emissions per person of different floors according to a plurality of inbound data and a plurality of outbound data corresponding to the user identities, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Additional limitations on the method include, wherein usage information includes usage time, and the step of calculating the personal carbon emission comprises: calculating the personal carbon emission according to a power [consumption] parameter, the usage time, and an electric power carbon emission coefficient, (following rules or procedures, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion- claim 9), usage include an electric power consumption record, and calculating personal carbon emissions comprises calculating the personal carbon emission according to the electric power consumption record and an electric power carbon emission coefficient, (following rules or procedures, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, mathematical calculations - claim 10), the carbon emission calculation method further comprises: recording the inbound data, the outbound data, and the personal carbon emission and (showing the) information of the personal carbon emission, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion- claim 11), wherein the inbound data is starting floor information, and the outbound data is arrival floor information, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion- claim 13),
Each of these claimed limitations employ: organizing human activity in the form of following rules or instructions, performing mental processes including, observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion; and applying mathematical concepts using mathematical formulas, equations, or calculations.
Claims 1 -4, 6 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 8-11, 13.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as system, comprising:
a processor; and a detection element coupled to the processor, a mobile vehicle, wherein the mobile vehicle is elevator equipment, a database, an application displaying information, a computing module, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
6. Claims 1 and 8 are not rejected by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11 and 13 are not rejected because of their inherent dependency on claims 1, and 8.
The closest prior art to the invention includes Wang, (US 20230122675 A1), “Estimation and Ranking Method for Carbon Emission of Individual Life,” in view of Gams, (SI 24485 A), “Process of Identifying the Person who Enters into the Space,” and in further view of Lieberman, (US 20100070316 A), “Methods and Systems for Monitoring and Recording Carbon Footprint Data.” None of the prior art alone or in combination teach the claimed invention as recited in this claim wherein the novelty is in the combination of all the limitations and not in a single limitation.
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 discloses a method, comprising: A carbon emission calculation system, Wang teaches, (Wang teaches, (an estimation and ranking method for carbon emission of individual life, [ ] and calculating carbon emissions corresponding to each behavior, [Abstract]), comprising:
a processor; (Wang does not teach, Gams teaches, (the processing of stored data and exfoliation of the characteristics of opening and closing the entry point (1) using the central processing unit ([Abstract]), and a detection element coupled to the processor and disposed in a mobile vehicle, wherein the mobile vehicle is an elevator equipment, The specification of a “vehicle” as a space in which to capture the carbon calculation data would be a design choice with no benefit to the utility of the invention. Regardless, Gams teaches the steps to achieve the purpose of the invention: Gams teaches, (Entry point, e.g. a door equipped with at least one sensor capable of detecting movement characteristics, [ ] and a central processing unit which performs the computational part of the proposed process, [ ] where features are extracted, which can be used to distinguish between entrances and exits of individuals through the entry point. The badges are extracted separately for each opening and closing event, [p.2]). It would be a design choice to include a vehicle or an space, and it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to rearrange parts of an invention, in this case identifying a person entering a [ ] space, Gams, [p.1] and for calculating carbon emissions corresponding to each behavior, [Abstract]),
wherein when the detection element detects a user identity, Gams teaches, (establishing (15) the identity of the person who opened and / or closed the entry point (1); the detection element outputs inbound data to the processor, (and (f) updating (16) the model with newly acquired information about the person who opened and / or closed the entry point, [Claim 1, p.5]) and the processor starts to calculate usage information according to the inbound data,
wherein when the detection element detects the user identity again, the detection element outputs outbound data to the processor, and the processor finishes calculating the usage information according to the outbound data, (establishing (15) the identity of the person who opened and / or closed the entry point (1); and (f) updating (16) the model with newly acquired information about the person who opened and / or closed the entry point (1), [Claim 1, p.5]),
wherein the processor calculates a personal carbon emission of a user riding on the mobile vehicle according to the inbound data, the outbound data, and the usage information, Wang teaches, (Fuzzy interval processing is performed on the collected food, clothing, housing and transportation data, and the carbon emission corresponding to each behavior expressed by the fuzzy interval number is calculated according to the carbon emission coefficient of each behavior; [0008]).
Wang and Gams are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are both in the field of collecting and processing data at the level of an individual person. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the carbon emission calculation method of Wang with the individual identification capabilities of Gams to ensure the analysis result is reasonable and accurate, Gams [Abstract].
wherein when the detection element detects a plurality of user identities, the processor calculates a total carbon emission of the mobile vehicle according to maximum usage information, Wang and Lieberman teach a carbon emission calculation/monitoring system. Lieberman teaches reporting carbon footprint data for an individual or group of individuals, as well as the precise carbon footprint for a flight (mobile vehicle) and calculates average carbon emissions per person of different floors according to a plurality of inbound data and a plurality of outbound data corresponding to the user identities. The average carbon emissions per person of different floors, according to data, was not found in prior art. The closest prior art for this portion of the claim is the combination of Wang, Gams, and Lieberman. These individually or in combination did not teach the complete scope of the claim.
Claim 8 is not rejected by prior art for reasons similar to those of claim 1, as the absence of system components do not change the reasons for claim 8 not being rejected.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 4:00.
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, Jerry O'Connor can be reached on (571)272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624