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 .
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of 06/30/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1, 3-7, 9, are pending.
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, 3-7,9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1, 3-6, and 9, recite a system and claim 7 recites a method; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of calculating the amount of CO(2) emissions that have been emitted due to the transportation cost for a material used for logistics with identification of the cosigner. .
Using claim 7 as a representative example that is applicable to claim 1, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
a calculating step of calculating, CO2 emissions based on a transportation cost related to procurement and disposal of a material used for the logistics, by multiplying a payment amount of trade information for a predetermined period by an environmental load intensity associated with the material; and
an identifying step of identifying a consignor that produced the calculated CO2 emissions, based on trade information comprising a payment amount for transportation costs related to procurement and disposal of the material,
the trade information being acquired,
wherein the calculating step calculates CO2 emissions for each payment department that manages trade for the material, by multiplying the payment amount of trade information of each payment department by the environmental load intensity, and
the identifying step identifies a consignor that produced the calculated CO2 emissions based on department information containing the consignor assigned to each payment department
The above limitations are reciting a process by which CO2 emissions for payment departments is being calculated with identification of a consignor that produced the calculated emissions. This is considered to be a commercial practice that is done for numerous reasons in business, and/or is considered to be reciting a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind. People can use data to calculate CO2 emissions and can identify the consignor as claimed so that CO2 emissions for payment departments is determined, etc. as claimed. With respect to the calculation of CO2 emissions being a commercial practice, it is known that businesses determine emission amounts for the production and shipping of products, which is called a product carbon footprint in the art, and it determines the CO2 emissions for a product at various stages of its life and/or over its entire lifecycle. Determining CO2 emissions as claimed for payment departments that manage the trade material can be performed for carbon credit trading systems and can be performed in the context of green marketing where a company markets the environmental benefits of a given product, such as for 1 product being marketed as one that has a lower carbon footprint than others. This concept was addressed in the specification in paragraph 007 as far as a company having environmental measures that determines CO2 emissions for the logistics involved with a product/item. The claimed abstract idea is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea that is a commercial practice of attributing CO2 emissions to payment departments with identification of a consignor who is responsible for the emissions. Additionally, as was briefly addressed above, the claimed steps can be performed mentally by a person. A person can make a mental determination of CO2 emissions based on a review of emissions data, and a person can mentally make the identification of who the cosigner is that produced the emissions (who the person or entity is that is responsible for the creation of the emissions). The steps that define the abstract idea are fully capable of being performed mentally by a human being and for that reason the claims also represent a mental process type of abstract idea. The claims represent both a certain method of organizing human activities and a mental process, both of which are rejections that stand on their own.
For claim 1, the additional elements are the claimed processor and memory that stores a program to execute the claimed functions/steps, a transmitting and receiving unit that is for acquiring information from a collection and aggregation system. The collection and aggregation system is reciting the source of the information and where it was received from but is otherwise not executing anything in the claimed system or method. Based on the amendment to the claims the recited units that are being implemented by the processor are software executed by the processor and are not invoking 112f such that they are also reciting hardware elements. The claimed additional elements are reciting that a processor and memory with a program is being used to execute the abstract idea and that a transmitting and receiving unit (inherent to all computers that can send and receive data) to collect information from a collection and aggregation system (another computer).
For claim 7, the additional elements are the claimed processor that is recited as being used to execute the claimed functions/steps, a transmitting and receiving unit that is for acquiring information from a collection and aggregation system. The collection and aggregation system is reciting the source of the information and where it was received from but is otherwise not executing anything in the claimed system or method. The claimed additional elements are reciting that a processor is being used to execute the abstract idea and that a transmitting and receiving unit (inherent to all computers that can send and receive data) I used to collect information from a collection and aggregation system (another computer).
For claims 1 and 7, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (the processor and memory that is executing the abstract idea, transmitting/receiving unit, collection and aggregation system), where the processor is being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a processor and a computer program to perform steps that define the abstract idea. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer that is connected to another computer (the collection and aggregation system) and that has the ability to send and receive data via a transmitting and receiving unit (something all computers have). The totality of the claimed additional elements is that the abstract idea is being implemented by a computer(s) that is being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea that can otherwise be practiced with no technology at all. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) 1 and 7 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amount to the use of a computing device (the processor and memory that is executing the abstract idea, transmitting/receiving unit, collection and aggregation system), where the processor, transmitting/ receiving unit and collection and aggregation system (the source for the data, not actually used in any manner in the claim) are being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a computing device to perform steps that define the abstract idea as was set forth above for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test. Computer implementation of the abstract idea does not amount to reciting significantly more than the abstract idea at step 2B.
Therefore, for the above reasons claims 1 and 7 do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 3 the abstract idea is being further defined by:
calculates C02 emissions based on energy consumed by transportation of an item using a ton-kilometer method based on fuel consumption of a transport vehicle
calculates C02 emissions based on energy consumed by travel of an item in a warehouse site using a fuel method based on fuel consumption and electricity consumption of a vehicle used in the warehouse site and
calculates C02 emissions based on energy consumed by management of the item in the warehouse site using electricity consumption of a facility in the warehouse,
identifies a consignor that produced the C02 emissions calculated
The above elements of the claim are part of the abstract idea that is calculating CO2 emissions for various entities or part of a lifecycle for a product. This is simply a further embellishment of the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claimed units have been treated as additional elements and have been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 3 does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 4, the abstract idea is being further defined by:
calculates C02 emissions for each the item,
calculates C02 emissions for each vehicle used in travel of the item in the warehouse site,
calculates C02 emissions for each recording department that recorded energy consumed by management of the item, and
identifies a consignor that produced C02 emissions calculated by the second calculation unit based on shipping information containing a purchase order number and a company number identifying a consignor for each the item,
identifies a consignor that produced C02 emissions calculated by the third calculation unit based on vehicle information containing a consignor for each the vehicle, and
identifies a consignor that produced C02 emissions calculated based on recording department information containing a consignor assigned to each the recording department
These functions are also considered to be part of the abstract idea that is calculating CO2 emissions for various entities or part of a lifecycle for a product. This is simply a further embellishment of the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claimed units have been treated as additional elements and have been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible
For claim 5, the abstract idea is being further defined by:
acquires information on the consumed energy
acquires information on the consumed energy
These functions are also considered to be part of the abstract idea that is calculating CO2 emissions for various entities or part of a lifecycle for a product. This is simply a further embellishment of the same abstract idea of claim 1. The claimed units have been treated as additional elements and have been treated in the same manner that was set forth for claim 1, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 2 does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
Also, for claim 5, the fact that the source of the information is “from a device installed in a vehicle used for travel of the item” or to transport the item, does not define anything to the acquisition of the data by the calculation unit. The receipt of data by a system is not defined by claiming the source of the data when the source is not actually part of the claim scope as far as a system is concerned. So the vehicle and the device installed in the vehicle are not found to be in the claim scope and would not represent an additional element for this reason.
For claim 6, the abstract idea is being further defined by:
displays C02 emissions produced at a base based on base information of the identified consignor wherein the base information includes a base name and coordinates of the base, and
generate a map displaying a circle centered on the coordinates of the base, the circle corresponding to the C02 emissions.
The displaying of the resulting emissions is part of the abstract idea. This can be done by using paper to display the resulting calculation results. The limitation that recites the display unit is considered to be an additional element that is claiming the use of a display device such as a computer display or a touchscreen of a laptop, etc.. This is an instruction for one to use a computer that can display data and does not amount to more than generally linking the execution of the abstract idea to generic computer implementation. This does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
For claim 9, the abstract idea is being further defined by the limitation of:
acquire information on the consumed energy used for transportation of the item
acquire information on the consumed energy used for travel of the item
The above is just the step of obtaining further information. This is part of the abstract idea as far as if the abstract idea requires energy consumption data for determining the CO2 emissions, then you must obtain the energy consumption data to be able to execute the abstract idea that determines CO2 emissions. The additional elements recited are:
a device installed in a vehicle used for transportation of the item;
a device installed in a vehicle used for travel of the item; and
a communication device, connected to the device installed in the vehicle used for transportation of the item and the device installed in the vehicle used for travel of the item
The above is a further instruction for one to practice the abstract idea using computers that can communicate data with each other. The device in the vehicle that is used to communicate the energy consumption is broadly recited such that it can be vehicle computer, such as a telematics device that is a computer in the vehicle. The claimed use of the vehicle devices and the communication device is claiming the source for the energy consumption data and is simply reciting a data collection step that uses a communication device (a computer) to collect data from another computer (the device in the vehicle). This is taken as an instruction for one to practice the abstract idea using connected computers and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore for the above reasons claims 1, 3-7, 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The amendment to the claims has removed the 112f claim interpretation from the claims. The claimed “units” that are performing the recited functions is not invoking 35 USC 112f due to the recitation that the processor implements the functional units. As argued by the applicant this amendment is modifying the units with a structural modifier that takes way a 112f interpretation. The examiner agrees. The claims have been examined with the BRI standard for the units that had previously invoked 112f, as opposed to examining the units under the 112f claim interpretation standard.
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. The applicant argues on page 7 that the claims recite a specific processor/memory architecture with specific algorithms (this is what defines the abstract idea), acquisition of trade information (part of the abstract idea) by using a communication device, and a map with output that is circles that are sized proportionally to the CO2 emissions (also part of the abstract idea). The applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, are integrated into a practical application, and recite significantly more. The arguments are not persuasive and are moot based on then new grounds of rejection that addresses the amended claims.
The argued specific and concrete algorithm on page 7 of the reply that is applied to specific data is what defines the abstract idea and does not render the claims eligible. Even specifically drafted abstract ideas are still abstract ideas. The fact that the claims use a processor to obtain data and to calculate the CO2 emissions is nothing more than an instruction for one to use a computer to implement the abstract idea. These limitations are directed at the use of formulas (math) to calculate CO2 emissions and is something that is part of the abstract idea that is a certain method of organizing human activities. The claimed data processing (that equates to the argued algorithm) is what defines the abstract idea and the claimed functions can be performed by a person who is manually calculating CO2 emissions by multiplying two numbers together (multiplying the payment amount by an environmental load intensity). Applying an algorithm (multiplying a payment amount of trade information for a predetermined period by an environmental load intensity associated with the material; multiplying a payment amount of trade information of each payment department by the environmental load intensity) is performing data processing that can be performed by people. The applicant argues that the claims are specific and recite a specific way to process CO2 emissions using data. This is a simple math calculation that can be performed by a human being and is part of the abstract idea. The argument that the claims do not recite an abstract idea is not persuasive.
For the 2nd prong of the analysis, the applicant argues that the claims recites a specific technical architecture, argues the claims recite real world data flows, argues the claims recite specific algorithms on specific data, and argues that the claims provide a concrete useful output in claim 6, all of which provide for integration into a practical application. This is not persuasive.
The argued technical architecture is arguing that the claims use a processor and a program in memory and that uses a warehouse management system (not claimed) a vehicle management system (not claimed) to perform the functions that defines the abstract idea. The claims do not recite a warehouse management system and do not recite a vehicle management system as argued, as the claims merely recite a device in a vehicle and the use of data that is representative of energy consumption for transporting an item. All that the claims do is to instruct one to practice the abstract idea using generic computers that are connected to each other, which does not amount to integration into a practical application.
The argued real world data flows and the use of algorithms to specific data, this is arguing the abstract idea and the data processing that occurs. The collection of data and use of collected data to determine CO2 emissions and to identify the consignor is what defines the abstract idea and does not amount to anything that provides significantly more to the abstract idea. The calculating of the emission based on the claimed data is part of the abstract idea and is not an additional element that when viewed with the claim as a whole provides for integration into a practical application.
The applicant argues that the claims provide for a concrete and useful result. This is considered to be arguing the abstract idea in terms of the identification of a consignor that produced the calculated CO2 emissions and the display. The argued map with a circle centered on coordinates of the base and sized according to CO2 emissions is arguing an element that is part of the abstract idea and that is not an additional element. The use of a map to display data and to display a circle on the map is not something that is an additional element. This can be done by a person manually with pen and paper. What has been argued is part of the abstract idea and the use of the display unit is an instruction for one to use a computer display or screen to display information to a user. That does not amount to provide for integration into a practical application and has no effect on the independent claims because this limitation is only found in dependent claim 6.
On page 9 of the reply the applicant argues step 2B. The applicant generally alleges that the claims recite significantly more by summarizing limitations of the claims. This is not persuasive and is no more than a general allegation that is a statement of disagreement with the examiner. The existence of lack of prior art for a given claim is not dispositive of the eligibility issue because even novel and non-obvious abstract ideas are still abstract ideas. The claims are not eligible.
On page 9 the applicant argues claim 9. The argument is considered to be moot based on the new grounds of rejection that addresses this new claim. The device in the vehicle that is used to communicate the energy consumption is broadly recited such that it can be vehicle computer, such as a telematics device that is a computer in the vehicle. The claimed use of the vehicle devices and the communication device is claiming the source for the energy consumption data and is simply reciting a data collection step that uses a communication device (a computer) to collect data from another computer (the device in the vehicle). This is taken as an instruction for one to practice the abstract idea using connected computers and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The traversal of the prior art rejection in view of the amended claims is persuasive. While the calculation of CO2 emissions based on transportation costs is known in the art (see the Non-final of 04/01/26, Jones), the cited prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed invention in total, specially not disclosing or suggesting the following:
a first calculation unit that calculates CO2 emissions based on a transportation cost related to procurement and disposal of a material used for the logistics, by multiplying a payment amount of trade information for a predetermined period by an environmental load intensity associated with the material; and
an identifying unit that identifies a consignor that produced the calculated CO2 emissions, based on trade information comprising a payment amount for transportation costs related to procurement and disposal of the material, the trade information being acquired from a collection and aggregation system via a transmitting and receiving unit,
wherein the first calculation unit calculates CO2 emissions for each payment department that manages trade for the material, by multiplying a payment amount of trade information of each payment department by the environmental load intensity, and
the identifying unit identifies a consignor that produced the calculated CO2 emissions based on department information containing the consignor assigned to each payment department
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights