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 .
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) determining the amount of carbon dioxide emissions for a first print job and a prediction value for a second print job.
The limitation of acquiring order information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “from a first terminal”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed manually. Similarly, the limitation of transmitting the first job information, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “circuitry” language, “transmitting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user physically moving (inputting) the information to the management apparatuses. In addition, the limitation of acquire the result information, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Furthermore, the limitation of calculating an actual value, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes the performance of the limitation in the mind. And lastly, the limitation of calculating a predicted value of carbon dioxide emissions, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for generic computer components.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites a few generic computer elements, such as circuitry, memory, and terminal. The elements in the limitations are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic components. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art has been considered by the examiner but not found to be teaching the claimed subject matter:
Talbert (US 2010/0315667) discloses a system may include a processor, a printing device, a communication interface operably connected to the processor, and a computer-readable storage medium in communication with the processor. The computer-readable storage medium may include one or more programming instructions for identifying a carbon credit account associated with at least a user, receiving a print job request from the user, receiving a carbon emission value for the print job request, determining whether to accept the print job request based on the carbon emission value and the carbon credit amount, and performing, via the printing device, the print job request in response to accepting the print job request. The carbon credit account may include a carbon credit amount (Abstract);
Podmayersky et al. (US 2011/0029340) discloses a system and method for calculating environmental savings achievable as a result of using environmentally friendly paper and environmental printing methodologies when completing a printing job. The system and method receives information describing the characteristics of a given printing job. This information, is used as the basis to calculate one or more environmental savings. The environmental savings could include, but are not limited to, number of trees saved, amount of water saved, amount of energy saved, number of household equivalent power saved, amount of carbon emissions saved, number of automobile equivalent carbon emissions saved, and number of acres saved (Abstract);
Yasuda (US 2011/0317196) discloses the CO2 information contains both the amount of CO2 emissions when a printing process is performed by using the corresponding print conditions, and the amount of CO2 reduction which indicates the decrement from the amount of CO2 emissions when a printing process is performed by using the standard set of print conditions. The amount of CO2 emissions is computed based on the basic data (including a theoretical value and an experimental value) with respect to a standard document, depending on the use of color/monochrome, the number of surfaces being printed, the paper size, etc. (paragraph [0036]);
Rai et al. (US 2013/0128303) discloses a processing state carbon dioxide emissions level associated with a print device may be determined. A processing state carbon dioxide emissions level may be an amount of carbon dioxide emitted by a print device while the print device is operating in a processing state for a period of time. In an embodiment, a processing state carbon dioxide emissions level may be determined by multiplying a carbon dioxide emissions rate associated with a print device by the total processing time of the print device. For example, if a carbon dioxide emission rate associated with Cutter 2 of is 60 g/hour, a processing state carbon dioxide emission level associated with Cutter 2 during the processing of Print Job 1, Print Job 2 and Print Job 3 may be 213 g (i.e., 60 g/hour*3.55 hours) (paragraph [0042]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENNIN R RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-7:00pm.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/LENNIN R RODRIGUEZGONZALEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights