CTNF 18/709,578 CTNF 80980 DETAILED ACTION This Non-Final action is responsive to the application and IDS filed 5/13/2024. In the application Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1 and 14-15 are the independent claims. 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/13/2024 has been entered, and considered by the examiner. Drawings 5. The Drawings filed on 5/13/2024 have been approved. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 6. 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. 7. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more . The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry. STEP 1 : the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03 , or STEP 2 : the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04 STEP 2A (PRONG 1) : Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1) STEP 2A (PRONG 2) : Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations. STEP 2B : Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05 101 Analysis – Step 1 Claim 1 is directed to “A computer implemented method…” (process). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c) Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Furthermore Claims 14-15 recite similar subject matter has in claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale. Claim 1. A greenhouse gas emission evaluation apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception] generate an analysis result including vehicle types of one or more vehicles by analyzing state information indicating states of the one or more vehicles traveling on a road [mental process] & [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity]; and evaluate an amount of greenhouse gas emission accompanying travel of the one or more vehicles by using an evaluation model for evaluating an amount of greenhouse gas emission accompanying travel of a vehicle with the analysis result as input data [mathematical concept]. The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute “mathematical concepts” & a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Claim 1 describes a mental process that involves analyzing state information of traveling vehicles and classifying them by type. For example, a user can observe vehicles on the road and classify them into groups such as trucks, SUV, sports vehicle etc. according to travel speeds. Furthermore, the step of evaluating gas emissions during travel according to an evaluation model is a mathematical concept that involves performing operations on collected data to determine emission values of a vehicle. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) . It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.): For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “ generate an analysis result ” . The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that amount to post-solution activity that involves generating results based on the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 101 Analysis – Step 2B Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claims does not include additional elements ( considered both individually and as an ordered combination ) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… processor configured to execute the instructions …”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (processor). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction). Dependent claims 2-9, 11 and 13, - do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe performing evaluations with identification of state information which falls under a mental process. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Dependent claims 3 and 10, - do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim describes taking a sum of evaluation values including use of training data in a machine learning model and falls under mathematical concepts. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Dependent claim 12, - do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claim are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim describes transmitting the results which falls under post solution activity [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, post-solution activity]. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA 8. Claim s 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAO (U.S. Pub 2022/0057297, filed Feb. 18, 2021) . Regarding Independent claims 1 and 14-15, HAO discloses A greenhouse gas emission evaluation apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: generate an analysis result including vehicle types of one or more vehicles by analyzing state information indicating states of the one or more vehicles traveling on a road (see paragraphs 37-40 & 57-60, discloses that vehicles are classified into types (light-duty, medium-duty, heavy-duty; passenger vs truck) as a predicate step to the entire emission evaluation framework. Furthermore, vehicle state information including speed and vehicle mass is measured while the vehicle is traveling and used to calculate vehicle specific power VSP. The VSP being used to allocate emission data to a corresponding bin per vehicle type.) ; and evaluate an amount of greenhouse gas emission accompanying travel of the one or more vehicles by using an evaluation model for evaluating an amount of greenhouse gas emission accompanying travel of a vehicle with the analysis result as input data (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, discloses a multi-step evaluation framework constituting an evaluation model that includes carbon balance and VSP bin-based statistical analysis using cumulative probability distribution) . HAO fails to explicitly teach a GHG evaluation model and instead measure the CO2. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have evaluated greenhouse gas emissions has Hao already suggests evaluation of pollutant concentrations in paragraph 19. Regarding Dependent claim 2, with dependency of claim 1, HAO discloses wherein the evaluation model includes a model for each vehicle type for evaluating an amount of greenhouse gas emission accompanying travel of a vehicle, and the amount of greenhouse gas emission accompanying travel of each of the one or more vehicle is evaluated by using the model based on a vehicle type of each of one or more vehicles included in the analysis result with the analysis result as input data (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 3, with dependency of claim 2, HAO discloses wherein the amount of greenhouse gas emission accompanying travel of a vehicle is evaluated by further finding a total sum of evaluation values of respective amounts of greenhouse gas emission accompanying travel of the one or more vehicles (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 4, with dependency of claim 1, HAO discloses wherein the state information includes at least one item out of image information acquired by capturing an image of the road and vehicle information about a vehicle traveling on the road, the vehicle information being generated by an on-vehicle apparatus equipped on the vehicle (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 5, with dependency of claim 1, HAO discloses wherein the analysis result further includes at least one item out of travel velocity of the vehicle, a rate of change of travel velocity of the vehicle, an idling-stop state of the vehicle, and a loaded amount being a total weight of a person on board the vehicle and baggage loaded on the vehicle (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 6, with dependency of claim 1, HAO discloses the at least one processor configured further to execute the instructions to: acquire travel environment information being information about a travel environment of the road, wherein the amount of greenhouse gas emission accompanying travel of the one or more vehicles is evaluated by using the evaluation model for evaluating the amount of greenhouse gas emission accompanying travel of the vehicle with the analysis result and the travel environment information as input data (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 7, with dependency of claim 6, HAO discloses wherein the travel environment information includes at least one item out of road information, weather information, a road surface state, and a vehicle state (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 8, with dependency of claim 1, HAO discloses wherein the vehicle type includes a type based on a composition of drive energy used by a vehicle (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 9, with dependency of claim 1, HAO discloses wherein the evaluation model includes a model evaluating the amount of greenhouse gas emission accompanying travel of the vehicle by using at least one of a generation cost and a transportation cost of drive energy supplied to a vehicle (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 10, with dependency of claim 1, HAO discloses acquire measurement data related to an amount of greenhouse gas emission from a vehicle; and generate the evaluation model, wherein the evaluation model is generated by performing, by using training data including an evaluation value based on the measurement data, machine learning in such a way as to output an evaluation value included in the training data in response to input of the analysis result (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 11, with dependency of claim 1, HAO discloses the at least one processor configured further to execute the instructions to: output display information including an evaluation map indicating a result of evaluation of the amount of greenhouse qas emission unit on a map in order to cause a display to display the display information (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 12, with dependency of claim 1, HAO discloses the at least one processor configured further to execute the instructions to: transmit individual evaluation information including a result of evaluation of the amount of greenhouse qas emission for each vehicle to a related vehicle (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). Regarding Dependent claim 13, HAO discloses A greenhouse gas emission evaluation system comprising: at least one of a camera that generates image information acquired by capturing an image of the road as the state information and an on-vehicle apparatus that generates vehicle information about a vehicle traveling on the road as the state information; and the greenhouse gas emission evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, (see paragraphs 40-45, 53 and 67-76, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim). It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]] Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 11 am to 7 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. 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. /Manglesh M Patel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665 5/29/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/709,578 Page 2 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/709,578 Page 3 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/709,578 Page 4 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/709,578 Page 5 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/709,578 Page 6 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/709,578 Page 7 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/709,578 Page 8 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/709,578 Page 9 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/709,578 Page 10 Art Unit: 3665 Application/Control Number: 18/709,578 Page 11 Art Unit: 3665
Prosecution Insights