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 .
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 1-16 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) without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “A process for calculating a carbon emission reduction, comprising:
calculating a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) output associated with a quantity of wellhead gas delivered as a fuel supply to a generator that produces electricity;
determining a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emission associated with flaring the same quantity of wellhead gas via a flare stack system;
calculating the carbon emission reduction based on a comparison between the calculated CO2e output and the determined CO2e emission;
determining, by a user, an emissions output based on the calculated carbon emission reduction, the emissions output defining an environmental footprint; and
determining, by the user, based on the emissions output whether to use the quantity of wellhead gas as the fuel supply to the generator to produce electricity instead of flaring the same quantity of wellhead gas to the atmosphere.”
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claim is directed to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process for claim 1).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the bold type portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions).
In claim 1, the steps of “calculating a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) output associated with a quantity of wellhead gas delivered as a fuel supply to a generator that produces electricity”;
“calculating the carbon emission reduction based on a comparison between the calculated CO2e output and the determined CO2e emission” are mathematical concepts, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
The steps of “determining a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emission associated with flaring the same quantity of wellhead gas via a flare stack system”;
“determining an emissions output based on the calculated carbon emission reduction, the emissions output defining an environmental footprint”; and
“determining based on the emissions output whether to use the quantity of wellhead gas as the fuel supply to the generator to produce electricity instead of flaring the same quantity of wellhead gas to the atmosphere” are a combination of a mathematical concept and a mental process, therefore, they are considered to be an abstract idea.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. However, the claim does not comprise any additional elements.
In conclusion, the claim limitations, considered individually and in combination with the other claims elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not reflect improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, do not recite a particular machine, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
The above claim, does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generically recited and are well-understood/conventional.
The claim, therefore, is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 recites subject matter that is similar or analogous to that of claim 1, and therefore, the claims are also patent ineligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-13 and 15-16 provide additional features/steps which are considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims, and do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
The dependent claims are, therefore, also not patent eligible.
Examiner' s Note
Regarding Claims 1-16, the most pertinent prior arts are “Whikehart US 20220042406”, “Normand US 20220207552”,“Gogerty US 20230298042”, “Zhang CN118037082A”, “Hunt US 20100038907”, “Leslie US 20160149468”, “Young US 20170292077”, “Cavness US 20240063641”, and “Nezhadfard et al. (Power generation as a useful option for flare gas recovery: Enviro-economic evaluation of different scenarios), Elsevier, published May 26, 2020”.
As to claims 1 and 14, Whikehart teaches calculating a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) output associated with a quantity of wellhead gas delivered as a fuel supply to a generator that produces electricity (Whikehart, [0014], [0065], [0102]).
Normand teaches determining, by a user, an emissions output based on the calculated carbon emission reduction, the emissions output defining an environmental footprint (Normand, [0026], [0029],[0033], [0049]).
However, the prior arts of record, alone or in combination, do not fairly teach or suggest “determining a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emission associated with flaring the same quantity of wellhead gas via a flare stack system”;
“calculating the carbon emission reduction based on a comparison between the calculated CO2e output and the determined CO2e emission”;
“determining, by the user, based on the emissions output whether to use the quantity of wellhead gas as the fuel supply to the generator to produce electricity instead of flaring the same quantity of wellhead gas to the atmosphere” including all limitations as claimed.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-16 are also distinguished over the prior art for at least the same reason as claims 1 and 14.
Examiner notes, however, that claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, and therefore, not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Raisz US 20110039956” teaches “The invention is related to the preparation of low-tar syngas from organic wastes and optionally to the preparation of methanol from the syngas or from the separated carbon dioxide. The process is characterized by introducing the secondary raw material comprising preferably solid communal waste, sludge and/or biomass waste into a double-flow one-body generator, comprising an inner pyrolysing, oxidizing and reducing zone and converting the obtained pyrolysis coke, pyrolysis water and tar formed by the aid of the heat content of the gas flowing upwards in the outer gas space by blowing oxygen into the fix-bed, to a raw syngas comprising carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and hydrogen, on the fix bed of the pyrolysis coke and optionally a liquid containing liquid hydrocarbons or a powder of high carbon content are added in order to control the temperature and hydrohalides are removed from the obtained raw syngas on a calcium carbonate bed at 200-700° C., the heat content of the raw syngas is utilized, carbon dioxide is removed by a method known per se, and carbon dioxide is converted to methanol by using an external hydrogen source and optionally the obtained syngas is also converted to methanol by a method known per se.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAL CE MANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday- 8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30 EST.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/LAL CE MANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights