DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-19 as originally filed are currently pending and considered below.
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 .
Status of Claims
This Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on September 26, 2024. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/805,609 was filed on September 26, 2024 and claims foreign benefit to Japanese application JP2022-024220 filed 02/18/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on October 22, 2024 is in compliance with
the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the
examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are in “an acquisition unit”, “a selection unit”, “a decision unit”, “a derivation unit” in Claim 1 and Claim 16, “a presentation unit”, “a decision unit”, “a reception unit” in Claim 6, “reception unit” in Claim 7, “an extraction unit”, “decision unit”, “reception unit” in Claim 9 and Claim 17, “extraction unit” and “generation unit” in Claim 10, “extraction unit” in Claim 11, “an acquisition unit”, “a selection unit”, “a decision unit”, “a derivation unit”, “storage unit” in Claim 12, “extraction unit”, “decision unit”, “reception unit”, in Claim 13, “extraction unit” and “generation unit” in Claim 14 and Claim 18, “extraction unit” in Claim 15 and Claim 19. Additionally, the word “unit” is considered to be a generic placeholder coupled with the above functions but without a structural recitation.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For example, the specification [0042] discloses the corresponding structure of the claimed units that are performing the claimed functions as being a processing unit that is implementing the functions recited by the claimed units (implementing the algorithm that is part of the covered structure defined by a 112f limitation). Therefore, the covered structure that is defined by the invocation of 1112f for the various “units” that are executing the claimed functions is found to be a generic computer (a processing unit) that is implementing the algorithm that is being used to accomplish the claimed functions. The claims noted above use a generic placeholder term of “unit” that is coupled to a function(s) to be performed, and are not being modified by any structure in the claim itself; therefore, the claim language passes the 3 prong test for determining if 112f has been invoked.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-11 are directed to an apparatus (machine/apparatus), Claims 12-15 are directed to a method (process), and Claims 16-19 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (machine/apparatus). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 12 and 16. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A greenhouse gas (GHG) emission amount derivation apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit which acquires first activity amount data indicating an activity content and an activity amount for each activity content for which a GHG emission amount is derived; a selection unit which selects a first emission intensity format corresponding to a type of the first activity amount data from among a plurality of emission intensity formats predetermined for each type of activity amount data, the plurality of emission intensity formats indicating an emission intensity for each activity content; a decision unit which decides at least one emission intensity for each activity content indicated in the first activity amount data, based on the first emission intensity format; and a derivation unit which derives a GHG emission amount for each activity amount for each activity content indicated in the first activity amount data, based on the at least one emission intensity.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of calculating environmental impact (GHG emissions) using activity data and predefined emission intensity factors. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for greenhouse gas emissions management systems, this claim encompasses acquiring activity amount data, selecting an emission intensity format corresponding to the activity data type, determining at least one emission intensity for each activity content, which could all be done manually as part of environmental compliance or emissions reporting processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers legal and commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “an acquisition unit”, “a selection unit”, “a decision unit”, and “a derivation unit”, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1, 12, and 16 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites additional elements of “an acquisition unit”, “a selection unit”, “a decision unit”, and “a derivation unit”. Claim 12 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1 with the addition of “storage unit”. Claim 16 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1 with the addition of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium” and “a computer”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements are considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1, 12, and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1, 12, and 16 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claim 2 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein a type of the activity amount data corresponds to a type of an application used to create activity amount data. The dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 3-5 and 8 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein a type of the activity amount data further corresponds to an industry type of an activity entity, wherein the activity content includes vendor information regarding a vendor relating to an activity, wherein the activity content includes location information regarding a place relating to an activity, and the GHG emission amount includes at least another indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount emitted by an activity of a business operator, the another indirect emission amount not included in an indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount indirectly emitted by a business operator purchasing energy, and when an activity content corresponds to a target of the another indirect emission amount, the emission intensity format indicates at least one emission intensity corresponding to at least one category corresponding to an activity content of the another indirect emission amount. The dependent claims do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 6-7, 9, 13, and 17 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include not able to decide at least one emission intensity based on the first emission intensity format; receives, from a user, an emission intensity for the activity content presented, receives, from the user, designation of an emission intensity database to be referred to for deciding the emission intensity for the activity content presented, from among a plurality of emission intensity databases indicating an emission intensity for each activity content, and receives, from the user, the emission intensity for the activity content presented, from among emission intensities indicated in the emission intensity database received, and extracts, from another existing emission intensity format corresponding to the type of the first activity amount data, at least one set of at least one category and at least one emission intensity related to the another indirect emission amount, the at least one set corresponding to an activity content. In addition, the claims recites a new additional elements of “extraction unit”, “decision unit”, “presentation unit” and “reception unit” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claims 6-7, 9, 13, and 17 are patent ineligible.
Claims 10-11, 14-15, and 18-19, recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include extracts, from an existing emission intensity format corresponding to a type of new activity amount data, at least one set of at least one category and at least one emission intensity related to another indirect emission amount, the at least one set corresponding to each activity content indicated in the new activity amount data; and generates a new emission intensity format for new activity amount data by specifying, from among the at least one set, one set for each activity content indicated in the new activity amount data according to an instruction of a user, and the at least one set, a predetermined number of sets in descending order of reliability according to a learning model obtained by machine learning a combination of a type of activity amount data and an activity content which are specified from an existing emission intensity format. In addition, the claims recites a new additional elements of “extraction unit” and “generation unit” which is considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore claims 10-11, 14-15, and 18-19 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Gruber et al. (US 20220343229) in view of Sandor et al. (US).
With regards to Claim 1, Gruber et al. teaches a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission amount derivation apparatus comprising (See Abstract & FIG 1):
an acquisition unit which acquires first activity amount data indicating an activity content (See [00046]- Data collection module 315 may be configured to collect data associated with at least one process within a supply chain. For instance, data collection module 315 may be configured to receive data associated with a farmer's cultivation practices, a machine's use of fossil fuels vs. renewable energy, a fermentation technique, types of vehicles involved in the shipping process (e.g., whether they are electric vehicles or combustion-engine driven), and the like. Data collection module 315 may also be configured to query at least one database associated with historical processes in a supply chain. In some examples, the processes may be categorized according to product that is being produced and/or industry. The historical processes may include state information, including discrete processing steps and inputs used by certain participants in a supply chain.) and an activity amount for each activity content for which a GHG emission amount is derived; (See [0079]- Additionally, at farm 702, different “farms” may have different calculations based on soil differences, fuel availability, tillage differences, etc. In some examples, multiple farms may receive different CI (carbon intensity) scores based on each individual farm's unique inputs (e.g., fertilizer, pesticide, fuel, tillage, etc.). This is illustrated by the grouping of farms 2, 3, 4 . . . below the initial farm 702. Also See [0080]-Once the product (e.g., bushel of corn) is harvested and placed into a storage bin, an aggregate CI score may be assigned to the bin (or, in alternative scenarios, assigned to the bushel of corn directly, so as to prevent fraudulently replacing the actual goods in the bin to manipulate CI scores in the supply chain), which is reflected at bin 704. Bin 704 shows a single CI score assigned to a product that contains the inputs of fertilizer, pesticide, fuel, etc. Similarly, for farms 2-4 etc., the products may receive an aggregate CI score at the bin stage. Also See [0081]- the CI score formula may consider different factors, such as the amount of water used by the processing plant, whether the machinery is powered via gas or electricity, etc. in determining the CI score for that particular step in the supply chain.)
*Examiner is interpreting the “a farmer's cultivation practices” disclosed by the prior art to equate to the activity content recited in the claim and “bushel of corn and the amount of water used by the processing plant, whether the machinery is powered via gas or electricity, etc.” disclosed by the prior art to equate to an activity amount recited in the claim.
a decision unit which decides at least one emission intensity for each activity content indicated in the first activity amount data, based on the first emission intensity format; (See [0079]- Additionally, at farm 702, different “farms” may have different calculations based on soil differences, fuel availability, tillage differences, etc. In some examples, multiple farms may receive different CI (carbon intensity) scores based on each individual farm's unique inputs (e.g., fertilizer, pesticide, fuel, tillage, etc.). This is illustrated by the grouping of farms 2, 3, 4 . . . below the initial farm 702. Also See [0047]-] For example, a net-zero processing plant may be expected to obtain a particular CI score based on its inputs (e.g., that are recorded in a state within a state diagram on the blockchain). In one instance, a net-zero plant may be expected to utilize wind electricity, biogas generated onsite from waste, electricity generated from biogas that is also generated onsite, renewable natural gas brought to the site (which may be characterized by a different CI score than the biogas that is generated onsite), grid electricity, and fossil-fuel natural gas. Also See [0048]- Specifically, data collection module 315 may have access to at least one database of historical CI score data and up-to-date CI score data and analyses (e.g., analyses regarding the environmental impact—including predicted CI scores for particular products—of applying certain processes in a supply chain, etc.). Also See [0087]- The CI scores for each delivery state may be different depending on the input data received from the farm state.)
Gruber et al. teaches emission intensity but does not teach a selection unit which selects a first emission intensity format corresponding to a type of the first activity amount data from among a plurality of emission intensity formats predetermined for each type of activity amount data, the plurality of emission intensity formats indicating an emission intensity for each activity content or a derivation unit which derives a GHG emission amount for each activity amount for each activity content indicated in the first activity amount data, based on the at least one emission intensity .
Sandor et al. teaches:
a selection unit which selects a first emission intensity format corresponding to a type of the first activity amount data from among a plurality of emission intensity formats predetermined for each type of activity amount data, the plurality of emission intensity formats indicating an emission intensity for each activity content; (See [0267] -server 15 10 determines an emissions factor for each energy source based on the energy source type, the selected geographic location, and the selected consumption units (1750 in FIG. 17). Generally, server 1510 makes this determination based on querying the databases 1534 to determine whether they include an emission factor that is associated with the energy source type and the selected location. Based on finding the emissions factor, server 1510 proceeds to compute GHG emissions (1760 in FIG. 17). Also See [0270]-As previously described, the consumption data for an energy source can be expressed in a variety of consumption units. In some embodiments, therefore, server 1510 applies one or more rules from computation rules 1542 to modify the default units of the emission factor so that they are compatible with the units of the consumption data. In some of such embodiments, such as those embodiments in which the determined emissions factor is provided to client 1506, server 1510 applies those one or more rules prior to computing the GHG emissions. Also See [0271]- server 1510 may apply one or more rules from computation rules 1542 to the emissions factor and/or the consumption data so that their product has units of GHG emissions, e.g., tons of CO.sub.2 or another unit, such as a unit selected by and/or otherwise provided by a member.)
a derivation unit which derives a GHG emission amount for each activity amount for each activity content indicated in the first activity amount data, based on the at least one emission intensity (See [0271]-With continuing reference to FIG. 17, server 1510 computes the GHG emissions for each energy source type based on the product of the consumption data and the emissions factor that correspond to that energy source type (1760 in FIG. 17). server 1510 may apply one or more rules from computation rules 1542 to the emissions factor and/or the consumption data so that their product has units of GHG emissions, e.g., tons of CO.sub.2 or another unit, such as a unit selected by and/or otherwise provided by a member. In some embodiments, server 1510 computes total GHG emissions for a member based on the sum of the GHG emissions for each energy source type consumed (1770 in FIG. 17). Additionally, server 15 10 may compute the fraction of the total GHG emissions that are attributable to the consumption of each energy source type. In some embodiments, such as embodiment shown in FIG. 16, server 1510 provides the computed GHG emissions data, e.g., the GHG emissions that are computed for each energy source type and the total GHG emissions for the member, to client 1506 via computation region 1608 in calculator window 1600.)
Gruber et al. and Sandor et al. are both considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of amount indicating GHG emission amounts of all supply chains relating to business activities. Sandor et al. is directed to a computer-operated method for determining the present value of a futures contract for a commodity, the commodity is carbon dioxide and the futures contract includes carbon financial instruments (See [0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gruber et al. reference to further include a selection unit which selects a first emission intensity format corresponding to a type of the first activity amount data from among a plurality of emission intensity formats predetermined for each type of activity amount data, the plurality of emission intensity formats indicating an emission intensity for each activity content or a derivation unit which derives a GHG emission amount for each activity amount for each activity content indicated in the first activity amount data, based on the at least one emission intensity as taught by Sandor et al. This is desirable such that it allows for trading futures contracts for carbon financial instruments that includes the step of deriving a carbon market index from the method of determining the present value of a futures contract, and applying the index to facilitate trading of the futures contracts. (See Sandor, [0030]).
With regards to Claim 12, the Gruber-Sandor combination teaches the claimed invention similar to Claim 1 with the addition of:
Gruber et al. teaches:
A greenhouse gas (GHG) emission amount derivation method comprising: (See Abstract & FIG 1)
With regards to Claim 16, the Gruber-Sandor combination teaches the claimed invention similar to Claim 1 with the addition of:
Gruber et al. teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon a program for causing a computer to function as a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission amount derivation apparatus comprising: (See Abstract & FIG 1 and See [0055]- The machine-readable medium can store such machine instructions non-transitorily, such as for example as would a non-transient solid state memory or a magnetic hard drive or any equivalent storage medium. The machine-readable medium can alternatively or additionally store such machine instructions in a transient manner, such as for example as would a processor cache or other random access memory associated with one or more physical processor cores.)
With regards to Claim 2, the Gruber-Sandor combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Gruber et al. further teaches:
wherein a type of the activity amount data corresponds to a type of an application used to create activity amount data (See [0063]-At step 406, the system may receive input data from a step in the supply chain. For example, at Step #1 in the supply chain, the system may receive data regarding a farmer's harvesting techniques. If the product of interest is corn, then certain inputs may be received by the system regarding the types of machinery the farmer is deploying to harvest the corn, which pesticides (if any) the farmer applied to the corn, and the soil composition in which the corn is grown. Such inputs may be captured as a “state” of the farmer in the supply chain. This state data may be received by the system at step 406. State data may be updated as the farmer's processes are updated. For example, if the farmer changed their practices (e.g., tillage techniques), the soil composition, or applied a different type of pesticide to the corn, then such updates may be reflected in an updated “state” data block. Also See [0036]- [0036] Client devices 102, 104, and/or 106 may also be configured to run software that implements (and/or interacts with) a blockchain with at least one DeFi application for automatically generating and tracking a CI score associated with a product in a supply chain, as well as validating a CI score once it is finalized. Also See [0068]- an application running on top of a blockchain (e.g., a DeFi application) may provide users an interface to request and verify CI scores of certain products.)
With regards to Claim 3, the Gruber-Sandor combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Gruber et al. further teaches:
wherein a type of the activity amount data further corresponds to an industry type of an activity entity (See [0046]- data collection module 315 may also be configured to query at least one database associated with historical processes in a supply chain. In some examples, the processes may be categorized according to product that is being produced and/or industry. The historical processes may include state information, including discrete processing steps and inputs used by certain participants in a supply chain. Also See [0063]-At step 406, the system may receive input data from a step in the supply chain. For example, at Step #1 in the supply chain, the system may receive data regarding a farmer's harvesting techniques. If the product of interest is corn, then certain inputs may be received by the system regarding the types of machinery the farmer is deploying to harvest the corn, which pesticides (if any) the farmer applied to the corn, and the soil composition in which the corn is grown. Such inputs may be captured as a “state” of the farmer in the supply chain.).
With regards to Claim 4, the Gruber-Sandor combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Gruber et al. further teaches:
wherein the activity content includes vendor information regarding a vendor relating to an activity (See [0047]-As a certain product is transmitted and processed from step to step in the supply chain, more states of each participant are recorded and linked to each other. For instance, when the product is delivered from the farm to a shipping company, a delivery state (e.g., CornDeliveryState) may be created. The CornDeliveryState data block may include objects such as ID, source of delivery, CI score, timestamp, and owner. In one example aspect, when the corn is moved from one step in the supply chain (e.g., farm) to the next step (e.g., shipper), a CI score is updated and/or assigned. As illustrated in FIG. 9, the CornDeliveryState displays the first time a CI score is assigned to a product. The CI scores for each delivery state may be different depending on the input data received from the farm state.).
With regards to Claim 5, the Gruber-Sandor combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Gruber et al. further teaches:
wherein the activity content includes location information regarding a place relating to an activity (See [0045]- In addition to CI scores, other data related to a location may be captured and stored on the blockchain, including aerial images of farmland (e.g., to ensure that acreage has not increased or decreased). Also See [0046]- Data collection module 315 may be configured to collect data associated with at least one process within a supply chain. For instance, data collection module 315 may be configured to receive data associated with a farmer's cultivation practices… Other information that may be received by data collection module 315 may include locational data associated with commodity production. Such information may be received by data collection module 315 automatically through client devices and/or trusted third-party sources (e.g., a farmer may input data regarding a farming technique into a third-party application that then stores the data and transmits the data-to-data collection module 315 or, alternatively, makes the data available for observation and analysis via data collection module 315). Also See Claim 5 “5. The system of claim 1, wherein the input data comprises at least one of: a location”.).
With regards to Claim 6, the Gruber-Sandor combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Gruber et al. does not teach a presentation unit which presents, among activity contents indicated in the first activity amount data, an activity content for which the decision unit is not able to decide at least one emission intensity based on the first emission intensity format; and a reception unit which receives, from a user, an emission intensity for the activity content presented.
Sandor et al. further teaches:
a presentation unit which presents, among activity contents indicated in the first activity amount data, an activity content for which the decision unit is not able to decide at least one emission intensity based on the first emission intensity format; and a reception unit which receives, from a user, an emission intensity for the activity content presented (See [0268] -In some scenarios, the emissions factor for a combination of energy source type and selected location may not be available in databases 1534. In some embodiments, therefore, server 1510 may search for the emissions factor. For example, server 1510 may request the emissions factor from a database that is in communication with network 1512, such as a database that is maintained by a governmental agency, e.g., the E-GRID database hosted by the U.S. EPA, and/or may search one or more networks in communication with network 1512 for the emissions factor based on schemes known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively and/or in combination, in some embodiments, server 1510 queries the databases 1534 to determine whether they include an emissions factor that is associated with the energy source and a location that is less specific than the selected location (e.g., a country, instead of a geographic sub-division of a country). Based on finding such an emissions factor, server 1510 proceeds to compute GHG emissions (1760 in FIG. 17).)
Gruber et al. and Sandor et al. are both considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of amount indicating GHG emission amounts of all supply chains relating to business activities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gruber-Sandor combination to further include a presentation unit which presents, among activity contents indicated in the first activity amount data, an activity content for which the decision unit is not able to decide at least one emission intensity based on the first emission intensity format; and a reception unit which receives, from a user, an emission intensity for the activity content presented as taught by Sandor et al. This is desirable such that it allows for trading futures contracts for carbon financial instruments that includes the step of deriving a carbon market index from the method of determining the present value of a futures contract, and applying the index to facilitate trading of the futures contracts. (See Sandor, [0030]).
With regards to Claim 7, the Gruber-Sandor combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Gruber et al. further teaches:
wherein the reception unit receives, from the user, designation of an emission intensity database to be referred to for deciding the emission intensity for the activity content presented, (See [0079]- Additionally, at farm 702, different “farms” may have different calculations based on soil differences, fuel availability, tillage differences, etc. In some examples, multiple farms may receive different CI (carbon intensity) scores based on each individual farm's unique inputs (e.g., fertilizer, pesticide, fuel, tillage, etc.). This is illustrated by the grouping of farms 2, 3, 4 . . . below the initial farm 702. Also See [0047]-] For example, a net-zero processing plant may be expected to obtain a particular CI score based on its inputs (e.g., that are recorded in a state within a state diagram on the blockchain). In one instance, a net-zero plant may be expected to utilize wind electricity, biogas generated onsite from waste, electricity generated from biogas that is also generated onsite, renewable natural gas brought to the site (which may be characterized by a different CI score than the biogas that is generated onsite), grid electricity, and fossil-fuel natural gas. Also See [0048]- Specifically, data collection module 315 may have access to at least one database of historical CI score data and up-to-date CI score data and analyses (e.g., analyses regarding the environmental impact—including predicted CI scores for particular products—of applying certain processes in a supply chain, etc.). Also See [0087]- The CI scores for each delivery state may be different depending on the input data received from the farm state.)
Gruber et al. does not teach from among a plurality of emission intensity databases indicating an emission intensity for each activity content, and receives, from the user, the emission intensity for the activity content presented, from among emission intensities indicated in the emission intensity database received.
Sandor et al. further teaches:
from among a plurality of emission intensity databases indicating an emission intensity for each activity content, and receives, from the user, the emission intensity for the activity content presented, from among emission intensities indicated in the emission intensity database received (See [0267] -server 15 10 determines an emissions factor for each energy source based on the energy source type, the selected geographic location, and the selected consumption units (1750 in FIG. 17). Generally, server 1510 makes this determination based on querying the databases 1534 to determine whether they include an emission factor that is associated with the energy source type and the selected location. Based on finding the emissions factor, server 1510 proceeds to compute GHG emissions (1760 in FIG. 17). Also See [0253]- e U.S. EPA provides a database of emissions factors and other information for U.S. energy providers that is commonly referred to as E-GRID. Also See [0268] -In some scenarios, the emissions factor for a combination of energy source type and selected location may not be available in databases 1534. In some embodiments, therefore, server 1510 may search for the emissions factor.
Gruber et al. and Sandor et al. are both considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of amount indicating GHG emission amounts of all supply chains relating to business activities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gruber-Sandor combination to further include from among a plurality of emission intensity databases indicating an emission intensity for each activity content, and receives, from the user, the emission intensity for the activity content presented, from among emission intensities indicated in the emission intensity database received as taught by Sandor et al. This is desirable such that it allows for trading futures contracts for carbon financial instruments that includes the step of deriving a carbon market index from the method of determining the present value of a futures contract, and applying the index to facilitate trading of the futures contracts. (See Sandor, [0030]).
Claims 8-9, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Gruber et al. (US 20220343229) in view of Sandor et al. (US), further in view of Shi (US 20200372588).
With regards to Claim 8, the Gruber-Sandor combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Gruber et al. does not teach the emission intensity format. However, Sandor et al. teaches:
the emission intensity format (See [0267] -server 15 10 determines an emissions factor for each energy source based on the energy source type, the selected geographic location, and the selected consumption units (1750 in FIG. 17). Generally, server 1510 makes this determination based on querying the databases 1534 to determine whether they include an emission factor that is associated with the energy source type and the selected location. Also See [0270]-As previously described, the consumption data for an energy source can be expressed in a variety of consumption units. In some embodiments, therefore, server 1510 applies one or more rules from computation rules 1542 to modify the default units of the emission factor so that they are compatible with the units of the consumption data.)
Gruber et al. and Sandor et al. are both considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of amount indicating GHG emission amounts of all supply chains relating to business activities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gruber-Sandor combination to further include the emission intensity format as taught by Sandor et al. This is desirable such that it allows for computing the GHG emissions that result from the consumption of an energy source based on the most local emissions factor available, in which the most local emissions factor is the emissions factor that is associated with the provider of the energy source. (See Sandor, [0254]).
However, the Gruber-Sandor combination does not teach wherein the GHG emission amount includes at least another indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount emitted by an activity of a business operator, the another indirect emission amount not included in an indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount indirectly emitted by a business operator purchasing energy, and when an activity content corresponds to a target of the another indirect emission amount and the [emission intensity format] indicates at least one emission intensity corresponding to at least one category corresponding to an activity content of the another indirect emission amount.
Shi further teaches:
wherein the GHG emission amount includes at least another indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount emitted by an activity of a business operator, the another indirect emission amount not included in an indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount indirectly emitted by a business operator purchasing energy, and when an activity content corresponds to a target of the another indirect emission amount, (See [0029]- Further referring to FIG. 1, processes may calculate a past carbon tonnage, defined for the purposes of this disclosure as an amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by a local power grid over a period of time prior to a current moment at which a process is performed. Processes may calculate indirect emissions from generation of purchased energy from local grids by consumers. Processes may calculate a projected future carbon tonnage, defined for the purposes of this disclosure as a quantity of carbon that will be released into the atmosphere over some future interval between a present date and/or time and a future date and/or time, between two future dates and/or times, or the like. Also See [0043]-Continuing to refer to FIG. 3, emissions of an entity such as a company may be classified into three scopes. Scope 1 emissions may include direct emissions from on-site sources. Scope 2 emissions may include indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy from local grids. Scope 3 emissions may include other indirect emissions (not in Scope 2) that occur in a value chain.)
the [emission intensity format] indicates at least one emission intensity corresponding to at least one category corresponding to an activity content of the another indirect emission amount (See [0026]- “production-based carbon intensity”, as defined in this disclosure, is carbon intensity accounting for emissions of local power production. “Consumption-based carbon intensity,” as used herein, is carbon intensity accounting for indirect emissions caused by grid power consumed from a local grid by an entity such as a building, business, one or more items of machinery and/or power storage, or the like. Production-based carbon intensity measures the average emissions impact of every MWh produced by power generators on a local grid. Consumption-based carbon intensity measures the average emission impact of every MWh or similar unit consumed.).
Gruber et al., Sandor et al., and Shi are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of amount indicating GHG emission amounts of all supply chains relating to business activities. Shi is directed to methods and systems for machine-learning for prediction grid carbon emissions (See Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gruber-Sandor combination to further include wherein the GHG emission amount includes at least another indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount emitted by an activity of a business operator, the another indirect emission amount not included in an indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount indirectly emitted by a business operator purchasing energy, and when an activity content corresponds to a target of the another indirect emission amount and the [emission intensity format] indicates at least one emission intensity corresponding to at least one category corresponding to an activity content of the another indirect emission amount as taught by Shi et al. This is desirable such that it allows for incorporating new real-time carbon signals from the grid into the optimization of energy resources to minimize emission impacts while maximizing efficiency benefits.(See Shi, [0018]).
With regards to Claim 9, the Gruber-Sandor-Shi combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Gruber et al. does not teach an extraction unit which extracts, from another existing emission intensity format corresponding to the type of the first activity amount data, at least one set of at least one category. However, Sandor et al. further teaches:
an extraction unit which extracts, from another existing emission intensity format corresponding to the type of the first activity amount data, at least one set of at least one category (See [0267] -server 15 10 determines an emissions factor for each energy source based on the energy source type, the selected geographic location, and the selected consumption units (1750 in FIG. 17). Generally, server 1510 makes this determination based on querying the databases 1534 to determine whether they include an emission factor that is associated with the energy source type and the selected location. Based on finding the emissions factor, server 1510 proceeds to compute GHG emissions (1760 in FIG. 17). Also See [0253]- e U.S. EPA provides a database of emissions factors and other information for U.S. energy providers that is commonly referred to as E-GRID. Also See [0268] -In some scenarios, the emissions factor for a combination of energy source type and selected location may not be available in databases 1534. In some embodiments, therefore, server 1510 may search for the emissions factor.)
the at least one set corresponding to an activity content for which the decision unit is not able to decide at least one emission intensity based on the first emission intensity format among activity contents indicated in the first activity amount data; and a reception unit which receives, from a user, a set for the activity content for which a decision is not able to be made, from among the at least one set (See [0268] -In some scenarios, the emissions factor for a combination of energy source type and selected location may not be available in databases 1534. In some embodiments, therefore, server 1510 may search for the emissions factor. For example, server 1510 may request the emissions factor from a database that is in communication with network 1512, such as a database that is maintained by a governmental agency, e.g., the E-GRID database hosted by the U.S. EPA, and/or may search one or more networks in communication with network 1512 for the emissions factor based on schemes known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively and/or in combination, in some embodiments, server 1510 queries the databases 1534 to determine whether they include an emissions factor that is associated with the energy source and a location that is less specific than the selected location (e.g., a country, instead of a geographic sub-division of a country). Based on finding such an emissions factor, server 1510 proceeds to compute GHG emissions (1760 in FIG. 17).).
Gruber et al., Sandor et al., and Shi are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of amount indicating GHG emission amounts of all supply chains relating to business activities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gruber-Sandor-Shi combination to further include an extraction unit which extracts, from another existing emission intensity format corresponding to the type of the first activity amount data, at least one set of at least one category and the at least one set corresponding to an activity content for which the decision unit is not able to decide at least one emission intensity based on the first emission intensity format among activity contents indicated in the first activity amount data; and a reception unit which receives, from a user, a set for the activity content for which a decision is not able to be made, from among the at least one set as taught by Sandor et al. This is desirable such that it allows for computing the GHG emissions that result from the consumption of an energy source based on the most local emissions factor available, in which the most local emissions factor is the emissions factor that is associated with the provider of the energy source. (See Sandor, [0254]).
However, the Gruber-Sandor combination does not teach at least one emission intensity related to the another indirect emission amount.
Shi further teaches:
at least one emission intensity related to the another indirect emission amount (See [0026]- “production-based carbon intensity”, as defined in this disclosure, is carbon intensity accounting for emissions of local power production. “Consumption-based carbon intensity,” as used herein, is carbon intensity accounting for indirect emissions caused by grid power consumed from a local grid by an entity such as a building, business, one or more items of machinery and/or power storage, or the like. Production-based carbon intensity measures the average emissions impact of every MWh produced by power generators on a local grid. Consumption-based carbon intensity measures the average emission impact of every MWh or similar unit consumed.).
Gruber et al., Sandor et al., and Shi are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of amount indicating GHG emission amounts of all supply chains relating to business activities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gruber-Sandor combination to further include at least one emission intensity related to the another indirect emission amount as taught by Shi et al. This is desirable such that it allows for incorporating new real-time carbon signals from the grid into the optimization of energy resources to minimize emission impacts while maximizing efficiency benefits.(See Shi, [0018]).
With regards to Claim 13 and 17, the Gruber-Sandor combination teaches the claimed invention as recited in the independent claim above.
Gruber et al. does not teach wherein the GHG emission amount includes at least another indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount emitted by an activity of a business operator, the another indirect emission amount not included in an indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount indirectly emitted by a business operator purchasing energy, and when an activity content corresponds to a target of the another indirect emission amount, the emission intensity format indicates at least one emission intensity corresponding to at least one category corresponding to an activity content of the another indirect emission amount, the GHG emission amount derivation method further comprising: extracting, by an extraction unit, from another existing emission intensity format corresponding to the type of the first activity amount data,
Sandor et al. teaches:
wherein the GHG emission amount includes at least another indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount emitted by an activity of a business operator, the another indirect emission amount not included in an indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount indirectly emitted by a business operator purchasing energy, and when an activity content corresponds to a target of the another indirect emission amount, the emission intensity format indicates at least one emission intensity corresponding to at least one category corresponding to an activity content of the another indirect emission amount, the GHG emission amount derivation method further comprising: extracting, by an extraction unit, from another existing emission intensity format corresponding to the type of the first activity amount data, (See [0267] -server 15 10 determines an emissions factor for each energy source based on the energy source type, the selected geographic location, and the selected consumption units (1750 in FIG. 17). Generally, server 1510 makes this determination based on querying the databases 1534 to determine whether they include an emission factor that is associated with the energy source type and the selected location. Based on finding the emissions factor, server 1510 proceeds to compute GHG emissions (1760 in FIG. 17). Also See [0253]- e U.S. EPA provides a database of emissions factors and other information for U.S. energy providers that is commonly referred to as E-GRID. Also See [0268] -In some scenarios, the emissions factor for a combination of energy source type and selected location may not be available in databases 1534. In some embodiments, therefore, server 1510 may search for the emissions factor.)
at least one set of at least one category, the at least one set corresponding to an activity content for which the decision unit is not able to decide at least one emission intensity based on the first emission intensity format among activity contents indicated in the first activity amount data; receiving, by a reception unit, from a user, a set for the activity content for which a decision is not able to be made, from among the at least one set. (See [0268] -In some scenarios, the emissions factor for a combination of energy source type and selected location may not be available in databases 1534. In some embodiments, therefore, server 1510 may search for the emissions factor. For example, server 1510 may request the emissions factor from a database that is in communication with network 1512, such as a database that is maintained by a governmental agency, e.g., the E-GRID database hosted by the U.S. EPA, and/or may search one or more networks in communication with network 1512 for the emissions factor based on schemes known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively and/or in combination, in some embodiments, server 1510 queries the databases 1534 to determine whether they include an emissions factor that is associated with the energy source and a location that is less specific than the selected location (e.g., a country, instead of a geographic sub-division of a country). Based on finding such an emissions factor, server 1510 proceeds to compute GHG emissions (1760 in FIG. 17).).
Gruber et al. and Sandor et al. are both considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of amount indicating GHG emission amounts of all supply chains relating to business activities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gruber-Sandor combination to further include wherein the GHG emission amount includes at least another indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount emitted by an activity of a business operator, the another indirect emission amount not included in an indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount indirectly emitted by a business operator purchasing energy, and when an activity content corresponds to a target of the another indirect emission amount, the emission intensity format indicates at least one emission intensity corresponding to at least one category corresponding to an activity content of the another indirect emission amount, the GHG emission amount derivation method further comprising: extracting, by an extraction unit, from another existing emission intensity format corresponding to the type of the first activity amount data and at least one set of at least one category, the at least one set corresponding to an activity content for which the decision unit is not able to decide at least one emission intensity based on the first emission intensity format among activity contents indicated in the first activity amount data; receiving, by a reception unit, from a user, a set for the activity content for which a decision is not able to be made, from among the at least one set as taught by Sandor et al. This is desirable such that it allows for computing the GHG emissions that result from the consumption of an energy source based on the most local emissions factor available, in which the most local emissions factor is the emissions factor that is associated with the provider of the energy source. (See Sandor, [0254]).
However, the Gruber-Sandor combination does not teach at least one emission intensity related to the another indirect emission amount.
Shi further teaches:
at least one emission intensity related to the another indirect emission amount (See [0026]- “production-based carbon intensity”, as defined in this disclosure, is carbon intensity accounting for emissions of local power production. “Consumption-based carbon intensity,” as used herein, is carbon intensity accounting for indirect emissions caused by grid power consumed from a local grid by an entity such as a building, business, one or more items of machinery and/or power storage, or the like. Production-based carbon intensity measures the average emissions impact of every MWh produced by power generators on a local grid. Consumption-based carbon intensity measures the average emission impact of every MWh or similar unit consumed.).
Gruber et al., Sandor et al., and Shi are all considered to be analogous are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of amount indicating GHG emission amounts of all supply chains relating to business activities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Gruber-Sandor combination to further include at least one emission intensity related to the another indirect emission amount as taught by Shi et al. This is desirable such that it allows for incorporating new real-time carbon signals from the grid into the optimization of energy resources to minimize emission impacts while maximizing efficiency benefits.(See Shi, [0018]).
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the
features found within dependent claims 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19. However, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the limitations of
“wherein the GHG emission amount includes at least another indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount emitted by an activity of a business operator, the another indirect emission amount not included in an indirect emission amount indicating a GHG emission amount indirectly emitted by a business operator purchasing energy, the GHG emission amount derivation apparatus further comprising: an extraction unit which extracts, from an existing emission intensity format corresponding to a type of new activity amount data, at least one set of at least one category and at least one emission intensity related to another indirect emission amount, the at least one set corresponding to each activity content indicated in the new activity amount data; and a generation unit which generates a new emission intensity format for new activity amount data by specifying, from among the at least one set, one set for each activity content indicated in the new activity amount data according to an instruction of a user.”
“wherein the extraction unit extracts, as the at least one set, a predetermined number of sets in descending order of reliability according to a learning model obtained by machine learning a combination of a type of activity amount data and an activity content which are specified from an existing emission intensity format, and at least one category and at least one emission intensity related to another indirect emission amount, the combination being as training data.”
when the claim is considered as a whole, which is present dependent claims 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams et al. (US 20250265602) discloses methods of generating upstream cradle-to-gate carbon footprints for physical products based on minimal user inputs, and associated systems and devices.
Chen et al. (US 20250068991) discloses an allocating method and device of carbon emission allowance, and a computer-readable storage medium. The allocating method includes: obtaining a maximum value and a minimum value in a first time period of carbon emission intensity values of a plurality of manufacturing entities, wherein the manufacturing entities has at least one process type of the same; determining a relative carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity according to a carbon emission intensity value of each manufacturing entity.
Takahashi et al. (US 20240184261) discloses an activity amount calculation apparatus, which includes a processor; a storage unit; and an interface configured to acquire information from a piece of equipment used for an operation of a process in a manufacturing line.
REICH-WEISER et al. (US 20110178938) discloses the environmental footprint assessment system determines the environment footprint of an entity by analyzing financial information regarding the entity.
All sources listed above are relevant to the disclosed and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626