DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed January 28, 2026. Claims 1 and 8-10 have been amended. Claim 5 has been cancelled and claim 11 has been added. Claims 1-4 and 6-11 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 January 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Preliminarily, it is noted that the amendments to claim 1 have overcome the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); however, the rejections are maintained for dependent claims 2-4 and 6-7 since the language introduced in claims 2-4 and 6-7 was not clarified like the language in claim 1 has been.
Applicant argues that “the present subject matter of claim 1 includes an additional feature ‘wherein when the plant includes a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows, the controller automatically estimates the measurement value of the physical quantity at the location at which the physical quantity has not been measured by the sensor based on proration by a predetermined ratio defined based on an arrangement of the branches.’” (Page 8 of Applicant’s response) First, it is noted that “when the plant includes a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows” is a conditional statement and the corresponding estimating operation is only performed in method claims 1 and 11 when the condition is met. Second, aside from the general use of a sensor and a controller, a measurement value is estimated of a physical quantity on greenhouse gas emissions and this is an operation that a human could perform. For example, a human user may visually estimate an amount of fluid flow related to greenhouse gas emissions and/or read the output of a sensor that performs such a measurement. The human can also perform the calculation of prorating a quantity by a predetermined ratio.
On pages 8-9 of the response, Applicant argues:
Even if the present subject matter were considered to relate to an "abstract idea," the above additional feature provides a specific technical advantage in that, in a plant having complex flow paths with a plurality of branches, information on greenhouse gas emissions can be provided even when sensors are not comprehensively installed or when not all sensors are operating normally (please see paragraphs [0020]-[0021], [0080]-[0082] of the specification). Therefore, this additional feature improves the computer interface or computer functionality.
Furthermore, the present subject matter reflects the arrangement of branches of flow paths included in the plant to estimate measurement values of physical quantities, and automatically acquires and displays greenhouse gas emission amounts integrated over a predetermined period, thereby reflecting the actual state of the plant immediately and substantially simultaneously. Such processing requires complex and high-speed calculations that cannot be performed by the human mind. Accordingly, the present subject matter contributes to an improvement in technology relating to the operation and maintenance management of plants.
The ability to glean information on greenhouse gas emissions when sensors are not installed or operating normally further supports the Examiner’s assertion that a human user could estimate measurements. The claims do not provide a specific technical approach (much less a specific technical improvement) to perform measurements when the sensors are not available, for example.
Also, the claims are not necessarily limited to scenarios in which calculations are too complex and high-speed for a human to perform. For example, a human may know that a plant typically outputs x amount of greenhouse gas emissions through 2 pipes, one of which has twice the diameter of the other pipe. The relative volume of one pipe to the other may be a relatively simple calculation to prorate an estimated amount of greenhouse gas emissions split into a flow through each pipe. 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)).
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant submits that the cited references do not address the claims as currently amended (pages 10-13 of Applicant’s response). The California Air Resources Board reference has been introduced into the rejections in order to help address the claim amendments.
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 2-4 and 6-7 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.
The preambles of claims 2-4 and 6-7 recite the “information processing method according to claim 1”; however, the body of each claim solely recites what the controller is configured to perform. Method claims are defined by positively recited steps, but the bodies of each of claims 2-4 and 6-7 present operations that the controller is configured to perform (as opposed to positively reciting the operations as actively performed steps of the method). It is not clear if the operations introduced in claims 2-4 and 6-7 are meant to limit the scope of the method or not. 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 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 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?
** Claim 10 presents a program that is not embodied in a non-transitory medium; therefore, the program is software per se, which is non-statutory subject matter. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 10 will continue to be examined as an article of manufacture; however, appropriate correction is required.
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). For examination purposes, claim 10 will be treated as an article of manufacture claim (see ** above).
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
automatically estimates, 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 acquires 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 when the plant includes a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows, estimates 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.
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 (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 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.
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] calculate, based on the acquired measurement value, energy consumption at the plant, for each production lot, production line, or device in the plant; and
acquire, based on the calculated energy consumption, the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions integrated in the predetermined period.
[Claim 3] notify an alarm when the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions becomes greater than a reference value.
[Claim 4] 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] calculate, based on the acquired measurement value, a diagnostic KPI related to the greenhouse gas emissions at a device used in the plant; and
display an image representing the calculated diagnostic KPI.
[Claim 7] 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] wherein when the plant includes the flow path having the plurality of branches through which the fluid flows, automatically estimates 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.
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.
Various calculating steps are recited in claims 2 and 6 and these are examples of mathematical concepts.
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 recite an information processing apparatus comprising a controller, wherein the controller is configured to generally perform the recited operations. Claims 4 and 6-7 control a display. Claim 11 recites that the controller automatically estimates the measurement value of the physical quantity.
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.
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, 4, 6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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).
[Claim 1] Cousins discloses an information processing method for an information processing apparatus comprising a controller (¶¶ 28-29), the information processing method comprising:
automatically acquiring a measurement value of a physical quantity on greenhouse gas emissions, the measurement value being measured by a sensor at a plant for process manufacturing (¶ 18 – “Examples of such gaseous byproducts can include methane, propane, and carbon dioxide. The gaseous byproduct may be emitted into the atmosphere or the surrounding environment. It may be desirable to monitor and control these emissions.”; ¶ 10 – “Certain aspects and features of the present disclosure relate to a graphical user interface (GUI) system for assisting operators (e.g., oil and gas operators) in abating emissions of gaseous byproducts at their hydrocarbon facilities. The gaseous byproducts may be unwanted emissions of gaseous pollutants. The GUI system can allow a user to upload data collected from a variety of detection data sources, such as satellites, airplanes, airborne drones, and ground-level sensors. The data can include measurements quantifying the amount of a gaseous byproduct released at one or more sites. The GUI system can then execute a classification module to determine how to assign the measurements to different types of equipment at the one or more sites. For example, the classification module can classify each measurement in the data as belonging to a particular type of equipment at a specific site. With the measurements assigned, the GUI system can generate an emissions estimate for each of the different types of equipment at the one or more sites. An emissions estimate is an estimate of how much of the gaseous byproduct is output by a particular type of equipment during a particular timespan.”);
automatically acquiring, based on the acquired measurement value, an amount of the greenhouse gas emissions integrated in a predetermined period (¶ 10 – “With the measurements assigned, the GUI system can generate an emissions estimate for each of the different types of equipment at the one or more sites. An emissions estimate is an estimate of how much of the gaseous byproduct is output by a particular type of equipment during a particular timespan.”);
automatically predicting a future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions, based on a past trend (¶ 11 – “Having determined the emissions estimates, the GUI system can next use the emissions estimates to determine how much of the gaseous byproduct is emitted in total by each type of equipment at a target site or a target asset, which can be selected by the user. For example, the user can input one or more types of equipment present at the target site. Based on the emissions estimates, the GUI system can determine and output values indicating how much of the gaseous byproduct is emitted in total by each type of equipment. In some examples, the values can be predictions indicating how much of the gaseous byproduct will be emitted by each type of equipment in total during a future timespan. These values can allow an operator to gain greater insight into how the gaseous byproduct was or will be emitted at the target site, so that the operator can take preemptive steps or remedial steps to abate such emissions.”; ¶ 24 – “More specifically, the computing system 120 can receive measurements collected from the sensing equipment over a period of time. The computing system 120 may receive the measurements directly from or indirectly from (e.g., via the data acquisition systems 114) the sensing equipment. The computing system 120 can then process the measurements to create a historical dataset. Processing the measurements can include normalizing and removing outliers from the measurements. Normalizing the measurements can involve standardizing their metrics, units, frequencies, or any combination of these. The computing system 120 can then apply machine learning or other analysis techniques to the historical dataset to generate emissions estimates at the equipment level. For example, the computing system 120 can determine an emissions estimate for each individual type of equipment, where the emissions estimate for a given type of equipment is an estimate of gaseous byproduct emissions by that type of equipment during a particular time interval. Based on how many pieces of each type of equipment are located at the target site, the computing system 120 can compute the expected total emissions output from each individual type of equipment at the target site during a selected time interval. This information can then be provided to an operator in a GUI, which can also provide additional insights into gaseous byproduct emissions at the target site.”).
Cousins does not explicitly disclose automatically controlling a display to display an image representing the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions. Avadhani explains that “the client device 1300 displays a plurality of options for viewing information associated with past and forecast emissions data. To illustrate, the client device 1300 displays historical emissions values 1304 for a plurality of physical emissions sources corresponding to an entity. The client device 1300 can display, in response to an interaction with a graphical user interface element, the historical emissions values 1304 to allow the entity to view physical emissions source data or other parameters associated with emissions produced by the entity.” (Avadhani: ¶ 163) Avadhani further states, “The series of acts 1400 further includes an act 1408 of providing the action recommendations for display within a graphical user interface. For example, act 1408 involves providing the one or more action recommendations for display via a graphical user interface of a client device of the entity. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a combined future time period corresponding to a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can also involve providing the one or more action recommendations for display with historical data associated with the plurality of physical emissions sources and forecasted emissions data for a future time period. In one or more embodiments, the emissions forecasting system 102 or the entity management system 110 performs act 1408, as described above with respect to FIGS. 1, 13A, and 13B.” (Avadhani: ¶ 183) The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cousins to automatically control a display to display an image representing the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions because, “by managing an entity's emissions consistent with other operational data of the entity, the emissions optimizer system provides up-to-date, detailed emissions data that allows entity's [sic] to easily generate a plan for reducing emissions” (Avadhani: ¶ 26).
Cousins estimates emissions based on sensor data (Cousins: ¶ 24 – “More specifically, the computing system 120 can receive measurements collected from the sensing equipment over a period of time. The computing system 120 may receive the measurements directly from or indirectly from (e.g., via the data acquisition systems 114) the sensing equipment. The computing system 120 can then process the measurements to create a historical dataset. Processing the measurements can include normalizing and removing outliers from the measurements. Normalizing the measurements can involve standardizing their metrics, units, frequencies, or any combination of these. The computing system 120 can then apply machine learning or other analysis techniques to the historical dataset to generate emissions estimates at the equipment level. For example, the computing system 120 can determine an emissions estimate for each individual type of equipment, where the emissions estimate for a given type of equipment is an estimate of gaseous byproduct emissions by that type of equipment during a particular time interval. Based on how many pieces of each type of equipment are located at the target site, the computing system 120 can compute the expected total emissions output from each individual type of equipment at the target site during a selected time interval. This information can then be provided to an operator in a GUI, which can also provide additional insights into gaseous byproduct emissions at the target site.”).
Cousins does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller:
automatically estimates, using the measurement value of the physical quantity measured by the sensor, a measurement value of the physical quantity at a location at which the physical quantity has not been measured by the sensor; and
automatically acquires the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions integrated in the predetermined period, based on the measurement value of the physical quantity measured by the sensor and the estimated measurement value of the physical quantity, and
wherein when the plant includes a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows, the controller automatically estimates the measurement value of the physical quantity at the location at which the physical quantity has not been measured by the sensor based on proration by a predetermined ratio defined based on an arrangement of the branches.
As explained in detail below, California Air Resources Board discloses wherein the controller:
automatically estimates, using the measurement value of the physical quantity measured by the sensor, a measurement value of the physical quantity at a location at which the physical quantity has not been measured by the sensor; and
automatically acquires the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions integrated in the predetermined period, based on the measurement value of the physical quantity measured by the sensor and the estimated measurement value of the physical quantity, and
wherein when the plant includes a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows, the controller automatically estimates the measurement value of the physical quantity at the location at which the physical quantity has not been measured by the sensor based on proration by a predetermined ratio defined based on an arrangement of the branches.
From California Air Resources Board:
2.7.6 Examples for Using the Missing Data Provisions
The examples in this section are provided as additional guidance for the application of the missing data substitution procedures specified in section 95129. Each example describes whether the requirements in section 95129 are triggered for the specific scenario and provides an explanation of how the requirements would apply, if applicable. In the scenarios that follow, a “Failed meter” is a meter in which no data are available from the meter due to a failure. A “Fuel meter without accuracy demonstration” is a functioning meter, but the accuracy of the meter has not been established, or has not met the meter accuracy requirements specified in section 95103(k).
PNG
media_image1.png
368
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Description of scenario: In this scenario, Meters 1 and 2 have met all accuracy requirements or are financial transaction meters. Meters A and B have failed the accuracy requirements, and the accuracy of Meters C, D, and E is unknown.
Are section 95129(d)(1)-(3) requirements triggered for this time period? No. The total facility fuel consumption is completely and accurately known during this time period because Meter 1 is in proper operation. The operator may use engineering estimation methods to calculate the combined fuel consumption of Unit A and Unit B. Acceptable estimation methods may include (but are not limited to) calculating the difference between Meter 1 and Meter 2 measurements. If Unit A and Unit B are individually reported (i.e. not aggregated), then proportioning the difference between Meter 1 and Meter 2 by the ratio of historical fuel use or production data of Unit A and Unit B can be used to estimate the unit-specific fuel use. The operator must be able to demonstrate to the verifier that the estimation method is reasonable and based on good engineering principles, and the estimated fuel quantities at Unit A and Unit B and Meter 2 add up to the accurate total measured by Meter 1. (California Air Resources Board: pp. 29-30, Emphasis added)
PNG
media_image2.png
360
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Description of scenario: In this scenario, the facility-level meter is accurate, but a downstream meter does not have an accuracy determination, and a unit meter failed.
Are section 95129(d)(1)-(3) requirements triggered during this time period? No. The total facility fuel consumption is completely and accurately known during this time period because Meter 1 is working properly. The operator may calculate the fuel consumption of Unit C using an unbiased estimation method which may be satisfied by one of the following two methods:
Fuel consumption of Unit C = Meter 1 – Meter A – Meter B – Meter D – Meter E
Fuel consumption of Unit C = Meter 2 – Meter D – Meter E
The calculated fuel values at the unit-level must be computed, using appropriate ratios and scaling, such that they add up to the accurate total upstream measured fuel use. The operator must be able to demonstrate to the verifier that the estimation method is reasonable and based on good engineering principles. (California Air Resources Board: p. 34, Emphasis added)
PNG
media_image3.png
360
502
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Description of scenario: In this scenario, the facility-level meter is accurate, but some of the unit-level meters have failed.
Are section 95129(d)(1)-(3) requirements triggered during this time period? No. The total facility fuel consumption is completely and accurately known during this time period because the facility-level upstream meter (Meter 1) provides accurate data. To apportion the total fuel use to units with missing data, the operator may calculate the sum of fuel consumptions of Unit D and Unit E as follows:
Unit D + Unit E = Meter 1 – Meter A – Meter B – Meter C
Next, the operator may use engineering estimation methods to calculate the fuel consumption of Unit D and Unit E during this time period because Meter 1 is working properly. Acceptable estimation methods may include (but are not limited to) calculating the difference between Meter D and Meter E measurements, and proportionating the difference by the ratio of historical fuel use or other production data at Unit A and Unit B. The operator must be able to demonstrate to the verifier that the estimation method is reasonable and the estimated fuel quantities at Unit D and Unit E, when combined with Meter A, B, and C data, add up to the accurate total measured by Meter 1. (California Air Resources Board: p. 36, Emphasis added)
California Air Resources Board further explains that the disclosed reporting program is for complying with regulations for reporting greenhouse gas emissions, including provisions for missing data (California Air Resources Board: p. 1 – “This document provides guidance for complying with the measurement accuracy requirements and the missing data substitution provisions of the Regulation for the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (title 17, California Code of Regulations, sections 95100-95158) (MRR).”). Refineries and hydrogen plants are specifically referenced as possible environments in which meters are used (California Air Resources Board: p. 18).
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cousins wherein the controller:
automatically estimates, using the measurement value of the physical quantity measured by the sensor, a measurement value of the physical quantity at a location at which the physical quantity has not been measured by the sensor; and
automatically acquires the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions integrated in the predetermined period, based on the measurement value of the physical quantity measured by the sensor and the estimated measurement value of the physical quantity, and
wherein when the plant includes a flow path having a plurality of branches through which a fluid flows, the controller automatically estimates the measurement value of the physical quantity at the location at which the physical quantity has not been measured by the sensor based on proration by a predetermined ratio defined based on an arrangement of the branches
in order to ensure compliance with government and other regulatory body requirements, including with provisions for missing data (e.g., due to sensor malfunctions and other sources of potential measurement errors), as suggested on page 1 of California Air Resources Board.
[Claim 4] Cousins discloses wherein the controller is configured to control the display to display an image in which the trends in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions are organized by each energy flow or scope category (¶ 24 – “More specifically, the computing system 120 can receive measurements collected from the sensing equipment over a period of time. The computing system 120 may receive the measurements directly from or indirectly from (e.g., via the data acquisition systems 114) the sensing equipment. The computing system 120 can then process the measurements to create a historical dataset. Processing the measurements can include normalizing and removing outliers from the measurements. Normalizing the measurements can involve standardizing their metrics, units, frequencies, or any combination of these. The computing system 120 can then apply machine learning or other analysis techniques to the historical dataset to generate emissions estimates at the equipment level. For example, the computing system 120 can determine an emissions estimate for each individual type of equipment, where the emissions estimate for a given type of equipment is an estimate of gaseous byproduct emissions by that type of equipment during a particular time interval. Based on how many pieces of each type of equipment are located at the target site, the computing system 120 can compute the expected total emissions output from each individual type of equipment at the target site during a selected time interval. This information can then be provided to an operator in a GUI, which can also provide additional insights into gaseous byproduct emissions at the target site.”; ¶ 67 – “The statistical confidence drill-down box 602 can display, for example, the number of measurements assigned to each piece of equipment used to calculate the aggregate emissions estimate 616. The data display 606 can include both numerical data 612 as well as a graphical portrayal 614 of that data, for example, a bar graph. The data display 606 can indicate if sufficient data 608 was available to make an emissions estimate for a particular type of equipment. The data display 606 can also indicate if insufficient data 610 was available to make an emissions estimate for a particular type of equipment.” A type of category is an example of a scope category.).
Cousins does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control 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. Avadhani explains that “the client device 1300 displays a plurality of options for viewing information associated with past and forecasted emissions data. To illustrate, the client device 1300 displays historical emissions values 1304 for a plurality of physical emissions sources corresponding to an entity. The client device 1300 can display, in response to an interaction with a graphical user interface element, the historical emissions values 1304 to allow the entity to view physical emissions source data or other parameters associated with emissions produced by the entity.” (Avadhani: ¶ 163) Avadhani further states, “The series of acts 1400 further includes an act 1408 of providing the action recommendations for display within a graphical user interface. For example, act 1408 involves providing the one or more action recommendations for display via a graphical user interface of a client device of the entity. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a combined future time period corresponding to a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can also involve providing the one or more action recommendations for display with historical data associated with the plurality of physical emissions sources and forecasted emissions data for a future time period. In one or more embodiments, the emissions forecasting system 102 or the entity management system 110 performs act 1408, as described above with respect to FIGS. 1, 13A, and 13B.” (Avadhani: ¶ 183) The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cousins wherein the controller is configured to control 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 because, “by managing an entity's emissions consistent with other operational data of the entity, the emissions optimizer system provides up-to-date, detailed emissions data that allows entity's [sic] to easily generate a plan for reducing emissions” (Avadhani: ¶ 26).
[Claim 6] Cousins discloses wherein the controller is configured to:
calculate, based on the acquired measurement value, a diagnostic KPI related to the greenhouse gas emissions at a device used in the plant (¶ 16 – “In some examples, the GUI system can also enable operators to monitor for potential problem assets. For example, the GUI can include alerting functionality for outputting alerts. The GUI system can output the alerts, for example, if certain types of equipment or certain hydrocarbon facilities emit an amount of a gaseous byproduct that meets or exceeds an alerting threshold. The alerts and alert thresholds may be selectable and customizable by the user.“; ¶ 20 – “The mobile sensing equipment can include sensors for collecting images or other data about how much of a gaseous byproduct is released at the sites 102a-d.”); and
control the display to further display an image representing the calculated diagnostic KPI (¶ 16 – “In some examples, the GUI system can also enable operators to monitor for potential problem assets. For example, the GUI can include alerting functionality for outputting alerts. The GUI system can output the alerts, for example, if certain types of equipment or certain hydrocarbon facilities emit an amount of a gaseous byproduct that meets or exceeds an alerting threshold. The alerts and alert thresholds may be selectable and customizable by the user.“).
[Claim 11] Claim 11 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1 above; therefore, the same rejection applies. Regarding the specific limitation “of the physical quantity at the location in the branches,” California Air Resources Board depicts physical quantity at locations specifically in the branches (California Air Resources Board: Figures 1, 5, 7).
The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cousins wherein when the plant includes the flow path having the plurality of branches through which the fluid flows, the controller automatically estimates 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 in order to ensure compliance with government and other regulatory body requirements, including with provisions for missing data (e.g., due to sensor malfunctions and other sources of potential measurement errors), as suggested on page 1 of California Air Resources Board.
[Claim 8] Claim 8 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1 above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Furthermore, Cousins discloses an information processing apparatus configured to be able to communicate with a client apparatus, the information processing apparatus comprising a controller configured to performed its respectively disclosed operations (Cousins: ¶¶ 20-21, 26, 28-29, 43).
Cousins transmits, by a communication to the client apparatus, an image representing greenhouse gas emissions (Cousins: ¶¶ 45, 66-69); however, Cousins does not explicitly 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. Avadhani explains that “the client device 1300 displays a plurality of options for viewing information associated with past and forecasted emissions data emissions data. To illustrate, the client device 1300 displays historical emissions values 1304 for a plurality of physical emissions sources corresponding to an entity. The client device 1300 can display, in response to an interaction with a graphical user interface element, the historical emissions values 1304 to allow the entity to view physical emissions source data or other parameters associated with emissions produced by the entity.” (Avadhani: ¶ 163) Avadhani further states, “The series of acts 1400 further includes an act 1408 of providing the action recommendations for display within a graphical user interface. For example, act 1408 involves providing the one or more action recommendations for display via a graphical user interface of a client device of the entity. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a combined future time period corresponding to a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can also involve providing the one or more action recommendations for display with historical data associated with the plurality of physical emissions sources and forecasted emissions data for a future time period. In one or more embodiments, the emissions forecasting system 102 or the entity management system 110 performs act 1408, as described above with respect to FIGS. 1, 13A, and 13B.” (Avadhani: ¶ 183) The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cousins 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 because, “by managing an entity's emissions consistent with other operational data of the entity, the emissions optimizer system provides up-to-date, detailed emissions data that allows entity's [sic] to easily generate a plan for reducing emissions” (Avadhani: ¶ 26)
[Claim 9] Claim 9 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1 above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Furthermore, Cousins discloses 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 performed its respectively disclosed operations (Cousins: ¶¶ 20-21, 26, 28-29, 43).
Cousins transmits, by a communication to the client apparatus, an image representing greenhouse gas emissions (Cousins: ¶¶ 45, 66-69); however, Cousins does not explicitly 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. Avadhani explains that “the client device 1300 displays a plurality of options for viewing information associated with past and forecasted emissions data emissions data. To illustrate, the client device 1300 displays historical emissions values 1304 for a plurality of physical emissions sources corresponding to an entity. The client device 1300 can display, in response to an interaction with a graphical user interface element, the historical emissions values 1304 to allow the entity to view physical emissions source data or other parameters associated with emissions produced by the entity.” (Avadhani: ¶ 163) Avadhani further states, “The series of acts 1400 further includes an act 1408 of providing the action recommendations for display within a graphical user interface. For example, act 1408 involves providing the one or more action recommendations for display via a graphical user interface of a client device of the entity. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a combined future time period corresponding to a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can also involve providing the one or more action recommendations for display with historical data associated with the plurality of physical emissions sources and forecasted emissions data for a future time period. In one or more embodiments, the emissions forecasting system 102 or the entity management system 110 performs act 1408, as described above with respect to FIGS. 1, 13A, and 13B.” (Avadhani: ¶ 183) The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cousins 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 because, “by managing an entity's emissions consistent with other operational data of the entity, the emissions optimizer system provides up-to-date, detailed emissions data that allows entity's [sic] to easily generate a plan for reducing emissions” (Avadhani: ¶ 26).
[Claim 10] Claim 10 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1 above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Furthermore, Cousins discloses 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 execute operations, the operations comprising its respectively disclosed operations (Cousins: ¶¶ 20-21, 26, 28-29, 43, 87-90).
Cousins transmits, by a communication to the client apparatus, an image representing greenhouse gas emissions (Cousins: ¶¶ 45, 66-69); however, Cousins does not explicitly perform the operation of 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. Avadhani explains that “the client device 1300 displays a plurality of options for viewing information associated with past and forecasted emissions data emissions data. To illustrate, the client device 1300 displays historical emissions values 1304 for a plurality of physical emissions sources corresponding to an entity. The client device 1300 can display, in response to an interaction with a graphical user interface element, the historical emissions values 1304 to allow the entity to view physical emissions source data or other parameters associated with emissions produced by the entity.” (Avadhani: ¶ 163) Avadhani further states, “The series of acts 1400 further includes an act 1408 of providing the action recommendations for display within a graphical user interface. For example, act 1408 involves providing the one or more action recommendations for display via a graphical user interface of a client device of the entity. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a combined future time period corresponding to a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can also involve providing the one or more action recommendations for display with historical data associated with the plurality of physical emissions sources and forecasted emissions data for a future time period. In one or more embodiments, the emissions forecasting system 102 or the entity management system 110 performs act 1408, as described above with respect to FIGS. 1, 13A, and 13B.” (Avadhani: ¶ 183) The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cousins to perform the operation of 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 because, “by managing an entity's emissions consistent with other operational data of the entity, the emissions optimizer system provides up-to-date, detailed emissions data that allows entity's [sic] to easily generate a plan for reducing emissions” (Avadhani: ¶ 26).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mizumori et al. (US 2010/0138758) in view of Komada et al. (US 2024/0069533).
[Claim 2] Cousins discloses wherein the controller is configured to:
calculate, based on the acquired measurement value, greenhouse gas emission at the plant, for each production lot, production line, or device in the plant (¶ 11 – “Having determined the emissions estimates, the GUI system can next use the emissions estimates to determine how much of the gaseous byproduct is emitted in total by each type of equipment at a target site or a target asset, which can be selected by the user. For example, the user can input one or more types of equipment present at the target site. Based on the emissions estimates, the GUI system can determine and output values indicating how much of the gaseous byproduct is emitted in total by each type of equipment. In some examples, the values can be predictions indicating how much of the gaseous byproduct will be emitted by each type of equipment in total during a future timespan. These values can allow an operator to gain greater insight into how the gaseous byproduct was or will be emitted at the target site, so that the operator can take preemptive steps or remedial steps to abate such emissions.”; ¶ 24 – “More specifically, the computing system 120 can receive measurements collected from the sensing equipment over a period of time. The computing system 120 may receive the measurements directly from or indirectly from (e.g., via the data acquisition systems 114) the sensing equipment. The computing system 120 can then process the measurements to create a historical dataset. Processing the measurements can include normalizing and removing outliers from the measurements. Normalizing the measurements can involve standardizing their metrics, units, frequencies, or any combination of these. The computing system 120 can then apply machine learning or other analysis techniques to the historical dataset to generate emissions estimates at the equipment level. For example, the computing system 120 can determine an emissions estimate for each individual type of equipment, where the emissions estimate for a given type of equipment is an estimate of gaseous byproduct emissions by that type of equipment during a particular time interval. Based on how many pieces of each type of equipment are located at the target site, the computing system 120 can compute the expected total emissions output from each individual type of equipment at the target site during a selected time interval. This information can then be provided to an operator in a GUI, which can also provide additional insights into gaseous byproduct emissions at the target site.”); and
acquire, based on the greenhouse gas emission, the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions integrated in the predetermined period (¶ 24 – “For example, the computing system 120 can determine an emissions estimate for each individual type of equipment, where the emissions estimate for a given type of equipment is an estimate of gaseous byproduct emissions by that type of equipment during a particular time interval.”).
Cousins does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to:
calculate, based on the acquired measurement value, energy consumption at the plant, for each production lot, production line, or device in the plant; and
acquire, based on the calculated energy consumption, the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions integrated in the predetermined period.
Mizumori explains that the amount of a CO2 emissions may be determined from a determination of energy consumed by a machine (Mizumori: ¶¶ 116, 183) and Komada explains that, similarly, a CO2 emission amount may be calculated based on the amount of energy consumed by a production line (Komada: ¶ 4). As discussed above, Cousins assesses greenhouse gas emissions produced in a certain time period. The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cousins wherein the controller is configured to:
calculate, based on the acquired measurement value, energy consumption at the plant, for each production lot, production line, or device in the plant; and
acquire, based on the calculated energy consumption, the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions integrated in the predetermined period
in order to provide a convenient conversion ratio for estimating an amount of greenhouse gas emissions when correlated energy consumption information is more readily available.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Weldemariam et al. (US 2022/0398095).
[Claim 3] Cousins discloses wherein the controller is configured to notify an alarm when the trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions becomes greater than a reference value (¶ 16 – “In some examples, the GUI system can also enable operators to monitor for potential problem assets. For example, the GUI can include alerting functionality for outputting alerts. The GUI system can output the alerts, for example, if certain types of equipment or certain hydrocarbon facilities emit an amount of a gaseous byproduct that meets or exceeds an alerting threshold.”). Cousins does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to notify an alarm when the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions becomes greater than a reference value. Weldemariam discloses that a user may be alerted if a predicted carbon emission meets or exceeds a predetermined carbon threshold (Weldemariam: ¶ 23). The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cousins wherein the controller is configured to notify an alarm when the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions becomes greater than a reference value so that a user can work to prevent an excess of greenhouse gas emissions beyond an allowable amount and meeting greenhouse gas reduction goals is a goal of Cousins (as suggested in ¶ 16 of Cousins).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Shi (US 2020/0372588).
[Claim 7] Cousins does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control 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.
Avadhani explains that “the client device 1300 displays a plurality of options for viewing information associated with past and forecasted emissions data. To illustrate, the client device 1300 displays historical emissions values 1304 for a plurality of physical emissions sources corresponding to an entity. The client device 1300 can display, in response to an interaction with a graphical user interface element, the historical emissions values 1304 to allow the entity to view physical emissions source data or other parameters associated with emissions produced by the entity.” (Avadhani: ¶ 163) Avadhani further states, “The series of acts 1400 further includes an act 1408 of providing the action recommendations for display within a graphical user interface. For example, act 1408 involves providing the one or more action recommendations for display via a graphical user interface of a client device of the entity. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can involve providing the one or more action recommendations for a combined future time period corresponding to a plurality of future time periods. Act 1408 can also involve providing the one or more action recommendations for display with historical data associated with the plurality of physical emissions sources and forecasted emissions data for a future time period. In one or more embodiments, the emissions forecasting system 102 or the entity management system 110 performs act 1408, as described above with respect to FIGS. 1, 13A, and 13B.” (Avadhani: ¶ 183) The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cousins wherein the controller is configured to control the display to display the image representing the past trend and the predicted future trend in the amount of the greenhouse gas emissions because, “by managing an entity's emissions consistent with other operational data of the entity, the emissions optimizer system provides up-to-date, detailed emissions data that allows entity's [sic] to easily generate a plan for reducing emissions” (Avadhani: ¶ 26).
Regarding “so as to be distinguishable between energy consumption and energy loss”, Shi states, “FIGS. 8-11 are screenshots of a user interface, showing, respectively, graphs tracking net energy consumption against a peak energy consumption value, past cost, consumption, and carbon dioxide emission year to date and projected, for instance as calculated above, a graphical comparison of cost and carbon savings as calculated using optimization algorithms as described above, and a scatter plot indicating a distribution of daily power peaks by month, measured against a projected maximal peak.” (Shi: ¶ 84) Shi evaluates past and forecasted carbon tonnage and carbon intensity (Shi: ¶ 36). Carbon-related emissions are examples of waste from energy. The Examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention to modify Cousins wherein the controller is configured to control 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 because, “by managing an entity's emissions consistent with other operational data of the entity, the emissions optimizer system provides up-to-date, detailed emissions data that allows entity's [sic] to easily generate a plan for reducing emissions” (Avadhani: ¶ 26).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights