DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 15, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-11 have been amended. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claim 12 has been added. Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 15, 2026 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Preliminarily, it is noted that the claim amendments have overcome the previously-asserted rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). New rejections are found below (responsive to the claim amendments).
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant references the last limitation of the independent claims and concludes that “the present subject matter automatically estimates the measurement value with high accuracy and performs a complex process that reflects the dynamic flow of fluid within the plant. Accordingly, the present subject matter provides a technological improvement and is not directed to a mental process or, more generally, to an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.” (Page 9 of Applicant’s response) As explained in the rejection, these details (i.e., the last limitation of the independent claims) further limit the abstract ideas and do not present a technological improvement.
Applicant submits that the claims are not directed to a mental process because MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) lists “iii. an earring comprising a sensor for taking periodic blood glucose measurements and a memory for storing measurement data from the sensor” as a hypothetical example of claims that do not recite an abstract idea (page 9 of Applicant’s response). While Applicant’s claims use sensors to gather data, there are no specific technical details regarding the nature of the sensors presented in the claims, thus making the sensors in the claims generic processing devices that are only generally applied to perform the abstract ideas. Also, aside from the high-level recitation of the sensors being used to gather data, the claims recite other details directed to the various identified abstract ideas. In other words, unlike the hypothetical earring example, Applicant’s claims additionally recite abstract ideas beyond specific technical details of a sensor device.
Regarding the art rejections, Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments are deemed to be persuasive in overcoming the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1 and 8-10 each recite “wherein for the plant including a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows..” in the last limitation of each claim. There is no antecedent basis for “the plant including a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows.” It is not clear if “a plant” recited in the “automatically acquire…at a plant” limitation of each independent claim is meant to provide antecedent basis for “the plant including a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows” or not.
Dependent claim 11 recites “when the plant includes the flow path having the plurality of branches through which the fluid flows.” Claim 11 is dependent on claim 1, which implies that there is definitely a plant including a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows; however, claim 11 presents the inclusion of the flow path having the plurality of branches through which the fluid flows as a conditional statement (based on use of the word “when”). This raises questions as to whether or not the recitation of “wherein for the plant including a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows..” in the last limitation of independent method claim 1 and the same recitation in dependent claim 12 are meant to be conditional or not. Since method claims are defined by positively recited and performed steps, the question of whether or not these limitations are meant to present positively recited steps or are merely conditionally-performed steps makes it difficult to assess the metes and bounds of method claims 1-4, 6-7, and 11-12.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
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 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to predicting a future trend of greenhouse gas emissions based on a past trend without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Apparatus (claims 8, 9), Process (claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-12), Article of Manufacture (claim 10).
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claims 1, 8, 9, 10] An information processing method, the method comprising:
automatically acquiring a measurement value of a physical quantity on greenhouse gas emissions, the measurement value being measured at a plant for process manufacturing;
automatically acquiring, based on the acquired measurement value, an amount of the greenhouse gas emissions integrated in a predetermined period;
automatically predicting a future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions, based on a past trend; and
further comprising:
automatically estimating, using the measurement value of the physical quantity a measurement value of the physical quantity at a location at which the physical quantity has not been measured by the sensor; and
automatically acquiring the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions integrated in the predetermined period, based on the measurement value of the physical quantity and the estimated measurement value of the physical quantity, and
wherein for the plant including a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows, estimating comprises automatically estimating the measurement value of the physical quantity at the location at which the physical quantity has not been measured based on proration by a predetermined ratio defined based on an arrangement of the branches, the proration being performed on a remaining physical quantity obtained by subtracting from a total flow rate of the fluid upstream of the branches, at least one measurement value obtained from the branches to reflect a dynamic fluid flow within the plant.
Additionally, claim 1 automatically displays an image representing the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, claim 8 transmits an image representing the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, claim 9 transmits an image representing the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, claim 10 transmits an image representing the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions.
It is noted that “automatically” may simply mean “in response to.”
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(III), “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can gather the recited type of information, perform predictions, convey an image, present information on a display (e.g., using pen and paper), estimate measurements, etc. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Estimating the measurement value of the physical quantity at the location at which the physical quantity has not been measured based on proration by a predetermined ratio defined based on an arrangement of the branches, the proration being performed on a remaining physical quantity obtained by subtracting from a total flow rate of the fluid upstream of the branches (as recited in claims 1 and 8-10) is an example of a mathematical concept.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites that the method is for an information processing apparatus comprising a controller that generally performs some of the claim operations. Claim 1 recites that the measurement value is measured by a sensor. Claim 1 controls a display.
Claim 8 recites an information processing apparatus configured to be able to communicate with a client apparatus, the information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to generally perform the recited operations. Claim 8 recites the measurement value being measured by a sensor and the controller configured to transmit, by a communication interface to the client apparatus, an image representing the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions.
Claim 9 recites an information processing system comprising: a client apparatus; and an information processing apparatus configured to be able to communicate with the client apparatus, wherein the information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to generally perform the recited operations. Claim 9 recites the measurement value being measured by a sensor and the controller configured to transmit, by a communication interface to the client apparatus, an image representing the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions.
Claim 10 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to control an information processing apparatus configured to be able to communicate with a client apparatus, the information processing apparatus comprising a controller, the program configured to cause the controller to generally execute the recited operations.
Claim 10 recites the measurement value being measured by a sensor and the executed operations comprising transmitting, by a communication interface to the client apparatus, an image representing the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions.
Claims 1 and 8-10 recite at least one measurement value obtained from another operational sensor installed in the branches to reflect a dynamic fluid flow within the plant.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 51-63).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 2] calculating, based on the acquired measurement value, energy consumption at the plant, for each production lot, production line, or device in the plant; and
acquiring, based on the calculated energy consumption, the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions integrated in the predetermined period.
[Claim 3] notifying an alarm when the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions becomes greater than a reference value.
[Claim 4] controlling the display to display an image in which the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions are organized by each energy flow or scope category.
[Claim 6] calculating, based on the acquired measurement value, a diagnostic KPI related to the greenhouse gas emissions at a device used in the plant; and
controlling the display to further display an image representing the calculated diagnostic KPI.
[Claim 7] controlling the display to display the image representing the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions, so as to be distinguishable between energy consumption and energy loss.
[Claim 11] when the plant includes the flow path having the plurality of branches through which the fluid flows, automatically estimating the measurement value of the physical quantity at the location in the branches at which the physical quantity has not been measured by the sensor based on proration by the predetermined ratio defined based on the arrangement of the branches.
[Claim 12] wherein for the plant including a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows, the estimating comprises automatically estimating the measurement value of the physical quantity at the location at which the physical quantity has not been measured by the sensor by correction by data reconciliation operations, material balance operations, and/or heat balance operations.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas in regard to the independent claim(s).
It is noted that “automatically” may simply mean “in response to.”
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(III), “[t]he courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user can gather the recited type of information, perform predictions, convey an image, present information on a display (e.g., using pen and paper), estimate measurements, etc. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Estimating the measurement value of the physical quantity at the location at which the physical quantity has not been measured based on proration by a predetermined ratio defined based on an arrangement of the branches, the proration being performed on a remaining physical quantity obtained by subtracting from a total flow rate of the fluid upstream of the branches (as recited in claims 1 and 8-10) is an example of a mathematical concept.
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims include the additional elements of the independent claim from which they depend.
Furthermore, claims 2-4, 6-7, and 11-12 recite an information processing apparatus comprising a controller, wherein the controller is configured to generally perform the recited operations.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 51-63).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are allowed over the prior art of record. The claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). (Particularly regarding method claims 1-4, 6-7, and 11-12, these reasons for allowance are premised upon the presumption that the limitation “wherein for the plant including a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows..” is meant to present a positively recited action(s) in independent claim 1 as opposed to a conditionally-performed action(s).)
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Cousins et al. (US 2023/0065744) in view of Avadhani et al. (US 2023/0113009) in view of California Air Resources Board (California Air Resources Board. "Measurement Accuracy and Missing Data Provision for California’s Mandatory GHG Reporting Program." Retrieved from [URL: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/guidance/accuracy-missingdata.pdf] on 5/14/2026. Published on 1/11/2019) most closely address the various concepts recited in each of the independent claims, as seen in the last art rejection of claims 1 and 8-10 in the Office action dated May 18, 2026.
Additionally, Cobb et al. (US 2012/0097266) discusses errors that arise with active flow sensors determining flow (Cobb: ¶ 16). Cobb also mentions how one can infer the volume of a flow of one gas stream orifice compared to another based on a known ratio of the cross-sectional area of one of the orifices to that of the other (Cobb: ¶ 19).
However, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art prior to Applicant’s invention would not have, in light of the teachings of the aforementioned references, found it obvious to create the claimed invention with the level of detail and specific manner of integration of operations as they are presented in each of the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-12 are deemed to be allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A
