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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 9/5/2025, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-18 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: data acquisition unit that, computation unit that, credit management unit that, change presentation unit that, presentation unit that, credit issuance request unit that, improvement point detection unit, in claims 1-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof -i.e. the various units represent generic computing elements.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: acquires measurement data, the measurement data being time-series data related to an operation of a device / computes an index of power efficiency of the device based on the measurement data / compares the index before and after a change is made to the device and calculates credits as compensation for reducing an emission of greenhouse gas / associates part of the calculated credits with a user of the device / associates part of the calculated credits with an operator of the management system or a producer of the device/ detecting improvement points of the device / outputs the calculated credits when the improvement is made / calculates the calculated credits when the improvement detected is implemented / the change to the device reduces the emission of greenhouse gas by the device. Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: computes an index of power efficiency based on the measurement data / compares the index before and after a change is made to the device and calculates credits as compensation for reducing an emission of greenhouse gas / associates part of the calculated credits with a user of the device / associates part of the calculated credits with an operator of the management system or a producer of the device. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements- see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of an acquisition unit / a device/computation unit/calculation unit/management unit/ improvement pint detection unit, which represent generic computing elements. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Remaining dependent claims 2-18 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of the independent claims themselves. The claims recite the additional elements of a fluid machine / air compressor and gathering data pertaining to the fluid machine and air compressor , a change presentation unit, a presentation unit, an interface, a credit issuance request unit, a database. The various units/interface/database represent generic computing elements ; they are recited at a high level of generality. The fluid machine/air compressor and gathering data pertaining to the fluid machine and air compressor do no more than applying or linking the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Prior art analysis
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of
claims 1-18. Playfair (WO2011069262A1) teaches acquiring measurement data related to a device operation, computing an index based on the data, comparing the index before and after a change is made to the device and calculating credits as compensation for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, associating part of the credits with a device user and an operator of the management system/device producer. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claim. Benjamin (20110015973) teaches disaggregation and attachment of carbon credits to individual seller items, through a unique identifier, including: determining a set of attributes associated with a bundled inventory of carbon credits based on a meta-data provided along with the bundled inventory through the analysis server, and determining a source, a time of a creation and a geo-spatial location of each discrete unit of carbon credit of the bundled inventory through the set of attributes. The method also includes calculating a number of discrete units of carbon credit associated with an item of a seller based on a carbon footprint of the item, allocating the number of discrete units to the item, and generating a unique identifier of the item and allocated discrete units thereof such that no other item includes the same allocated discrete units. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claim. When taken as a whole, the pending independent claims and thus their respective dependent claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
Claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea by integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites a system that effects a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the device. This is a practical application of the abstract idea. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not a mental process since it cannot be performed in the human mind.
As noted above, the pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not , alone or in combination, integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claimed invention, when implemented, does not improve the functioning of the computing device itself, or other technology/technical field; the claimed invention, when implemented, does not effect a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the device – i.e. instead, the claimed invention recites calculating credits as compensation “for reducing an emission of greenhouse gas”, and detecting when a change is made to the device, a change that “reduces the emission of greenhouse gas by the device”. Calculating credits based on device changes/changes that reduce device greenhouse gas emissions , associating the credits with the device user and with an operator of the system or device producer, and outputting the calculated credits based on criteria, represents a business practice/goal; thus, improving this practice pertains to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
In response to the rejections under § 102 and § 103, Applicant submits that Playfair does not disclose all the limitations of amended claim 1. Specifically, Playfair does not expressly or inherently disclose "an index computation unit that computes an index of power efficiency of the device based on the measurement data." Playfair does not disclose anything about computing an index based on the measurement data. Moreover, Playfair does not disclose anything about computing an index of power efficiency of a device. Playfair does not consider the power efficiency of the device at all; Playfair merely recognizes that some devices are more efficient than others. See p. 11, lines 24-26; p. 21, lines 28-30. Additionally, Playfair does not expressly or inherently disclose the configuration of amended claim 1 for detecting necessary improvement items from among multiple possible improvements and calculating the amount of credits generated before and after the improvement. This configuration enables identification of improvement items and calculation of credits, which represent actual benefits for the user. Therefore, in addition to simply presenting the amount of greenhouse gas emissions after the improvement, this approach enhances the motivation toward making improvements. Furthermore, among the improvement items, there are cases where greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced but credits cannot be calculated. Accordingly, the user can understand whether the detected improvement results will lead to credit-based benefits, which is another expected effect of the configuration. Playfair does not provide the configuration or the associated advantages of the management system according to amended claim 1. Therefore, amended claim 1 is patentable over Playfair. Claims 2-18 are patentable due to their dependence from claim 1.
The prior art rejection has been overcome and has been withdrawn. The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 1-18. Playfair (WO2011069262A1) teaches acquiring measurement data related to a device operation, computing an index based on the data, comparing the index before and after a change is made to the device and calculating credits as compensation for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, associating part of the credits with a device user and an operator of the management system/device producer. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claim. Benjamin (20110015973) teaches disaggregation and attachment of carbon credits to individual seller items, through a unique identifier, including: determining a set of attributes associated with a bundled inventory of carbon credits based on a meta-data provided along with the bundled inventory through the analysis server, and determining a source, a time of a creation and a geo-spatial location of each discrete unit of carbon credit of the bundled inventory through the set of attributes. The method also includes calculating a number of discrete units of carbon credit associated with an item of a seller based on a carbon footprint of the item, allocating the number of discrete units to the item, and generating a unique identifier of the item and allocated discrete units thereof such that no other item includes the same allocated discrete units. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claim. When taken as a whole, the pending independent claims and thus their respective dependent claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
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 extension fee 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 ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
10/27/2025