DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to the originally filed specification and claims [November 21, 2024].
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards noneligible subject matter.
In terms of Step 1, claims 1-10 are directed towards one of the four categories of statutory subject matter.
In terms of Step 2(a)(1), independent claims 1 and 6 are directed towards (as represented by claim 1), “A method of calculating a carbon emission amount using transportation data, comprising: a first step in which [a database] collects and stores GPS information [on a mobile terminal] of a user who has boarded a transportation means; a second step in which a carbon emission amount calculation [server] calculates the carbon emission amount of the transportation means for each section of a road according to the GPS information on the basis of data stored in the database for each transportation means; and a third step in which the carbon emission amount calculation [server] corrects the carbon emission amount for each section according to a change in speed calculated using the GPS information of the transportation means, and provides the corrected carbon emission amount for each section [to the mobile terminal]”. The claims are describing a collection of information (gps and transportation data), high level analyzes the information (carbon emission calculation and correction), and displays the results. The claims are directed towards a mental process that a person would be able to perform with pen and paper in terms of carbon emissions calculations and corrections for a transportation section/journey. As such, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea under the mental process grouping.
Step 2(a)(II) considers the additional elements with respect to being transformative into a practical application. The additional elements of claims 1 and 6 are, “A system for calculating a carbon emission amount using transportation data, comprising (claim 6); a database; a carbon emission amount calculation server; mobile terminal”. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [28-36]. The additional elements are described as generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The computer aspects (terminal, server, and database) are not directed towards a technical improvement. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are transformative into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2(b) considers the additional elements with respect to being significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The additional elements of claims 1 and 6 are, “A system for calculating a carbon emission amount using transportation data, comprising (claim 6); a database; a carbon emission amount calculation server; mobile terminal”. The additional elements are described in the originally filed specification [28-36]. The additional elements are described as generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The computer aspects (terminal, server, and database) are not directed towards a technical improvement. As such, the claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 are further describing the abstract idea and are not directed towards additional elements beyond those identified above. The claims are directed towards, “wherein in the second step, the carbon emission amount calculation server calculates the carbon emission amount of the transportation means for each section of a road according to the GPS information using a carbon emission coefficient for each transportation means on the basis of the data stored in the database for each transportation means”, “wherein in the third step, the carbon emission amount calculation server corrects the carbon emission amount for each section using a carbon emission coefficient for a sudden stop, a sudden start, or sudden acceleration calculated using on the GPS information of the transportation means, and provides the corrected carbon emission amount for each section to the mobile terminal”, “further comprising: a fourth step in which the carbon emission amount calculation server corrects the carbon emission amount for each section according to a type of transportation means input by the user through the mobile terminal”, and “wherein in the fourth step, the carbon emission amount calculation server provides a traveling report, configured by correcting the carbon emission amount for each section according to the type of transportation means input by the user through the mobile terminal, to the mobile terminal”. The dependent claims are further describing aspects of the collection, high level analysis, and display for the identified abstract idea. The collection is further based on the type of transportation input by the user (further providing elements of the collection but also the user observation and judgements), high level analysis (correction and coefficient elements), and displaying results (traveling report). The additional elements of the user terminal and other computer aspects were considered above with respect to being generic technology to implement the abstract idea. The claims are not directed towards additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application.
The claimed invention is describing an abstract idea without additional elements that are significantly more or transformative into a practical application. Therefore, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 for being directed towards non-eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliver Gomila et al [2020/0284600], hereafter Oliver, in view of Wilkins [2011/0251800].
Regarding claim 1, Oliver discloses a method of calculating a carbon emission amount using transportation data, comprising: a first step in which a database collects and stores GPS information on a mobile terminal of a user who has boarded a transportation means; a second step in which a carbon emission amount calculation server calculates the carbon emission amount of the transportation means for each section of a road according to the GPS information on the basis of data stored in the database for each transportation means (Fig and paragraphs [66-74 and 90-97]; Oliver discloses a carbon emission system that specifically provides user device GPS data that is utilized to determine a transportation trip’s emission for a carbon offset prediction and actual outcome determination. The tracking is based on the trip, transportation type, and other factors including user GPS tracking.); and
Oliver discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Oliver does not specifically teach correcting the amount based on speed calculated.
Wilkins teaches a third step in which the carbon emission amount calculation server corrects the carbon emission amount for each section according to a change in speed calculated using the GPS information of the transportation means, and provides the corrected carbon emission amount for each section to the mobile terminal (Paragraphs [65-70]; Wilkins discloses an emissions calculation system that specifically provides GPS data and then calculates error corrections based on the GPS and the IMU-INS device that is position information of the vehicle transportation. Wilkins provides a similar emissions element based on the GPS and other data including for the transportation element within the combination of providing a GPS-enabled emissions calculator based on user transportation within Oliver.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the GPS-enabled emissions calculator that provides trip transportation determinations of Oliver the ability to include specific GPS corrections based on transportation GPS/IMU-INS determinations and calculations as taught by Wilkins since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of claim 1,
Oliver further discloses wherein in the second step, the carbon emission amount calculation server calculates the carbon emission amount of the transportation means for each section of a road according to the GPS information using a carbon emission coefficient for each transportation means on the basis of the data stored in the database for each transportation means (Paragraphs [37-42 and 81-85]; Oliver discloses a calculation that includes specific modal ratios based on the specific mode of transportation for the emission determination.).
Regarding claim 3, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of claim 1,
Wilkins teaches wherein in the third step, the carbon emission amount calculation server corrects the carbon emission amount for each section using a carbon emission coefficient for a sudden stop, a sudden start, or sudden acceleration calculated using on the GPS information of the transportation means, and provides the corrected carbon emission amount for each section to the mobile terminal (Paragraphs [65-73]; Wilkins teaches the error correction for the speed is based on acceleration and turns and other elements regarding speed. The start and stop are merely describing the acceleration and sudden (as rejected above) is a relative term. As such, Wilkins teaches the acceleration correction for the speed and thus teaches the correction based on those aspects within the combination of Oliver that provides emissions based on GPS-enabled elements for a journey.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the GPS-enabled emissions calculator that provides trip transportation determinations of Oliver the ability to include specific GPS corrections based on transportation GPS/IMU-INS determinations and calculations as taught by Wilkins since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 4, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of claim 1,
Oliver discloses further comprising: a fourth step in which the carbon emission amount calculation server corrects the carbon emission amount for each section according to a type of transportation means input by the user through the mobile terminal (Paragraphs [69-74 and 85-92]; Oliver provides actual emission calculations based on the projected emission elements based on the type of transportation utilized for the trip input by the user.).
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the method of claim 4,
Oliver further discloses wherein in the fourth step, the carbon emission amount calculation server provides a traveling report, configured by correcting the carbon emission amount for each section according to the type of transportation means input by the user through the mobile terminal, to the mobile terminal (Paragraphs [52-56 and 71-72]; Oliver discloses providing the output based on user selections to the user device. Further, within the combination, Wilkins [99] also provides output reports based on the calculation and determination.).
Regarding claim 6, Oliver discloses a system for calculating a carbon emission amount using transportation data, comprising: a database configured to store data for each transportation means and collects and stores GPS information on a mobile terminal of a user who has boarded a transportation means; a carbon emission amount calculation server configured to calculate the carbon emission amount of the transportation means for each section of a road according to the GPS information on the basis of data stored in the database for each transportation means (Fig and paragraphs [66-74 and 90-97]; Oliver discloses a carbon emission system that specifically provides user device GPS data that is utilized to determine a transportation trip’s emission for a carbon offset prediction and actual outcome determination. The tracking is based on the trip, transportation type, and other factors including user GPS tracking.); and
Oliver discloses the above-enclosed limitations, however, Oliver does not specifically teach correcting the amount based on speed calculated.
Wilkins teaches correct the carbon emission amount for each section according to a change in speed calculated using the GPS information of the transportation means, and provide the corrected carbon emission amount for each section to the mobile terminal (Paragraphs [65-70]; Wilkins discloses an emissions calculation system that specifically provides GPS data and then calculates error corrections based on the GPS and the IMU-INS device that is position information of the vehicle transportation. Wilkins provides a similar emissions element based on the GPS and other data including for the transportation element within the combination of providing a GPS-enabled emissions calculator based on user transportation within Oliver.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the GPS-enabled emissions calculator that provides trip transportation determinations of Oliver the ability to include specific GPS corrections based on transportation GPS/IMU-INS determinations and calculations as taught by Wilkins since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system of claim 6,
Oliver further discloses wherein the carbon emission amount calculation server calculates the carbon emission amount of the transportation means for each section of a road according to the GPS information using a carbon emission coefficient for each transportation means on the basis of the data stored in the database for each transportation means (Paragraphs [37-42 and 81-85]; Oliver discloses a calculation that includes specific modal ratios based on the specific mode of transportation for the emission determination.).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system of claim 6,
Wilkins teaches wherein the carbon emission amount calculation server corrects the carbon emission amount for each section using a carbon emission coefficient for a sudden stop, a sudden start, or sudden acceleration calculated using on the GPS information of the transportation means, and provides the corrected carbon emission amount for each section to the mobile terminal (Paragraphs [65-73]; Wilkins teaches the error correction for the speed is based on acceleration and turns and other elements regarding speed. The start and stop are merely describing the acceleration and sudden (as rejected above) is a relative term. As such, Wilkins teaches the acceleration correction for the speed and thus teaches the correction based on those aspects within the combination of Oliver that provides emissions based on GPS-enabled elements for a journey.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the GPS-enabled emissions calculator that provides trip transportation determinations of Oliver the ability to include specific GPS corrections based on transportation GPS/IMU-INS determinations and calculations as taught by Wilkins since the claimed invention is merely a combination of prior art elements and in the combination each element would have performed the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 9, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system of claim 6,
Oliver further discloses wherein the carbon emission amount calculation server corrects the carbon emission amount for each section according to a type of transportation means that the mobile terminal receives from the user as input (Paragraphs [69-74 and 85-92]; Oliver provides actual emission calculations based on the projected emission elements based on the type of transportation utilized for the trip input by the user.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches the above-enclosed limitations of the system of claim 9,
Oliver further discloses wherein the carbon emission amount calculation server provides a traveling report, configured by correcting the carbon emission amount for each section according to the type of transportation means that the mobile terminal receives from the user as input, to the mobile terminal (Paragraphs [52-56 and 71-72]; Oliver discloses providing the output based on user selections to the user device. Further, within the combination, Wilkins [99] also provides output reports based on the calculation and determination.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cope et al [2021/0063173] (emission calculation based on multimodal transportation);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI whose telephone number is (571)272-5687. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am - 5pm (EST).
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/ANDREW CHASE LAKHANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights