DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 1-9 are pending.
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.
Such limitations are found in:
Claim 1:
registration unit configured to, for each of items used for calculation of a user's greenhouse gas emissions, register an amount of activity in association with one or more such elements that the amount of activity changes thereby; (Corresponding structure can be found in paragraphs [0031], [0039] of Applicant’s specification as filed.)
required reductions calculation unit configured to, based on target greenhouse gas emissions reductions to be achieved by a predetermined deadline set by the user and content registered by the registration unit, calculate a degree of greenhouse gas emissions that the user is required to make efforts to reduce by the predetermined deadline; (Corresponding structure can be found in paragraphs [0032], [0040], [0069] of Applicant’s specification as filed.)
solution generation unit configured to identify an element among the one or more elements expected to be impactful to reduction based on a calculation result of the required reductions calculation unit and generate a solution about the element; and (Corresponding structure can be found in paragraph [0033] of Applicant’s specification as filed.)
solution presentation unit configured to present recommendation information including the identified element and the generated solution to the user. (Corresponding structure can be found in paragraphs [0034] – [0035], [0042] of Applicant’s specification as filed.)
Claim 2:
registered content presentation unit configured to visualize the content registered by the registration unit to present the content to the user. (Corresponding structure can be found in paragraph [0036] of Applicant’s specification as filed.)
Claim 6:
disclosure unit configured to disclose the intensity used for calculation of the user's greenhouse gas emissions registered by the registration unit to other users. (Corresponding structure can be found in paragraphs [0037], [0072] – [0073] of Applicant’s specification as filed.)
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (i.e., a machine), claim 8 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., machine or manufacture) Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea from claims 1, 8, and 9 (claim 1 being representative, the claims being similar in scope) is:
for each of items used for calculation of a user's greenhouse gas emissions, register an amount of activity in association with one or more such elements that the amount of activity changes thereby;
based on target greenhouse gas emissions reductions to be achieved by a predetermined deadline set by the user and content registered, calculate a degree of greenhouse gas emissions that the user is required to make efforts to reduce by the predetermined deadline;
identify an element among the one or more elements expected to be impactful to reduction based on a calculation result of the required reductions and generate a solution about the element; and
present recommendation information including the identified element and the generated solution to the user.
The recited abstract idea steps italicized above cover assisting a user in achieving an emission reduction goal through analysis and recommendations, which constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people. This is further supported by [0035], [0043] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers managing personal behavior relationships, interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and/or following rules or instructions, following rules or instructions, then it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the abstract idea steps italicized above are those which cover calculating reductions, evaluating achievement levels, generating solutions, an presenting recommendations based on those evaluations. This is further supported by [0032] – [0034], [0040] – [0041], and [0069] of applicant’s specification as filed. This constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, therefore, it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP §2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: information processing apparatus; registration unit; required reductions calculation unit; solution generation unit; solution presentation unit.
Claim 8 recites the following additional elements: information processing apparatus.
Claim 9 recites the following additional elements: A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute a control process.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in paragraphs [0020] – [0026] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system.
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP §2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Claim 2 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: registered content presentation unit; registration unit. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Regarding claims 3-5, and 7, applicant further narrows the abstract idea with additional step(s). There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, similar to above, is also not patent eligible.
Claim 6 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: disclosure unit; registration unit. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Accordingly, claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 8-9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Jenks (US 20210279777) in view of Koch (US 20110137574).
Claims 1, 8, and 9
Jenks discloses (claim 1 being representative):
(claim 1) An information processing apparatus comprising: {“a system for providing an offset for greenhouse gas emissions, may comprise a computer hardware arrangement configured to receive one or more emissions factors” [0013]}
(claim 8) An information processing method executed by an information processing apparatus, the information processing method comprising: {“In an exemplary embodiment of the present invention, a method for providing an offset for greenhouse gas emissions […] The method may further comprise transmitting, to a user device, a carbon offset signal, including the price for offsetting greenhouse gas emissions attributable to each transaction.” [0007]}
(claim 9) A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute a control process, the control process comprising: {The system supports software implementation through APIs, servers, etc., that execute the claimed method. [0038] – [0040]}
registration unit configured to, for each of items used for calculation of a user's greenhouse gas emissions, register an amount of activity in association with one or more such elements that the amount of activity changes thereby; {The system registers and stores consumer transaction activities and associates each transaction amount with an economic sector and corresponding emissions factor used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions. [0036], [0040]}
solution generation unit configured to identify an element among the one or more elements expected to be impactful to reduction based on a calculation result of the required reductions calculation unit and generate a solution about the element; and {The system identifies high impact emission categories and generates solutions to reduce emissions. [0049]}
solution presentation unit configured to present recommendation information including the identified element and the generated solution to the user. {The system presents action plans and links to recommended alternatives to reduce emissions to the user. [0049]}
Jenks does not disclose, however, Koch, in a similar field of endeavor directed to the measuring of greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted by an organization, teaches:
required reductions calculation unit configured to, based on target greenhouse gas emissions reductions to be achieved by a predetermined deadline set by the user and content registered by the registration unit, calculate a degree of greenhouse gas emissions that the user is required to make efforts to reduce by the predetermined deadline; {The server uses the client’s emission data and emission reduction target to estimate future emissions, calculate emission reductions, and determine the amount of emissions reduction needed to meet the target by the specified future period. [0036] – [0037] , [0044], [0046]}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the target setting and process tracking features of Jenks to include the emission forecasting features of Koch, to efficiently evaluate the contributions of the various proposed strategies and their costs to determine the optimal approach to achieve an emissions goal over a span of accounting periods. (See [0009] of Koch).
Claim 2
The combination of Jenks and Koch teaches the limitations set forth above. Jenks further discloses:
registered content presentation unit configured to visualize the content registered by the registration unit to present the content to the user. {The system visualizes registered emissions information through summaries, charts, diagrams, and transaction level displays. [0043]}
Claim 3
The combination of Jenks and Koch teaches the limitations set forth above. Koch further teaches:
wherein the required reductions calculation unit further calculates a degree of achievement of the user's greenhouse gas emissions in a current situation, and {The server processes actual historical emissions data and presents current emission levels based on actual usage, allowing evaluation of the organization’s present emissions status relative to its objectives. [0032], [0040]}
expectation of achievement of the target greenhouse gas emissions reductions of the user in future when estimated at a current level compared with a previous year's reduction level, based on the content registered by the registration unit; and {The server receives historical usage data and projected future factors, derives a baseline level for future emissions, estimate future GHG emissions, and compares future estimated emissions against a user target level. [0026], [0035] – [0037], [0041] – [0042], [0046]}
calculates the degree of greenhouse gas emissions that the user is required to make efforts to reduce by the predetermined deadline, based on calculation results thereof and the target greenhouse gas emissions reductions. {The server determines future emissions relative to a target level, calculates emission reductions resulting from selected reduction strategies, and graphically indicates the reductions needed to achieve the target level by future years. [0037], [0044] – [0048]}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Koch is the same as set forth previously.
Claim 4
The combination of Jenks and Koch teaches the limitations set forth above. Jenks further discloses:
wherein the registration unit further registers the plurality of items and intensity used for each of the plurality of items. {The system stores emissions factors corresponding to transaction categories and economic sectors for use in emission calculations. [0028], [0035]}
Claim 5
The combination of Jenks and Koch teaches the limitations set forth above. Jenks further discloses:
wherein greenhouse gas emissions for a predetermined item are calculated by multiplying the amount of activity for the predetermined item registered by the registration unit by the intensity for the predetermined item registered by the registration unit. {The system calculates greenhouse gas emissions by applying an emissions factor to a transaction amount. [0028], [0042]}
Claims 6-7, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Jenks and Koch, in further view of Bai (US 20240193684).
Claim 6
While the combination of Jenks and Koch teaches the limitations set forth above, it does not explicitly teach, however, Bai, in a similar field of endeavor directed to global trading of carbon emission reduction credits and assets taking into account their carbon footprint, teaches:
disclosure unit configured to disclose the intensity used for calculation of the user's greenhouse gas emissions registered by the registration unit to other users. {The system supports storing and publishing carbon footprint attribute values (ENV) and carbon emission information on a trading exchange and blockchain, where investors and other participants can access the information regarding listed assets. [0127] – [0128]}
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jenks and Koch to include the carbon emission calculation features of Bai, to quickly achieve the internationally set global carbon emission reduction targets. (See [0011] of Bai).
Claim 7
The combination of Jenks, Koch, and Bai teaches the limitations set forth above. Bai further teaches:
wherein the disclosure unit discloses the intensity that is covered by a guarantee by validity thereof having been verified by a predetermined third-party organization. {Carbon footprint values, emissions calculations, and associated data are calculated, audited, and verified by third-party entities before being published or used. [0116], [0128], [0187]}
The motivation and rationale to include the additional features of Bai is the same as set forth previously.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (additional pertinent references can be found on attached form PTO-892):
US 20230059038 A1 which teaches managing streaming platforms considering carbon emissions.
US 20100042453 A1 which teaches determining the greenhouse gas emissions and energy usage, as well as associated dollar costs and savings of individuals, families, homes, buildings, businesses, or the like.
“On strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions” (NPL attached), which teaches: Equity is of fundamental concern in the quest for international cooperation to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations by the reduction of emissions. By modeling the carbon cycle, we estimate the global CO2 emissions that would be required to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of CO2 at levels ranging from 450 to1,000 ppm. These are compared, on both an absolute and aper-capita basis, to scenarios for emissions from the developed and developing worlds generated by socio-economic models under the assumption that actions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions are not taken. Need and equity have provided strong arguments for developing countries to request that the developed world takes the lead in controlling its emissions, while permitting the devel-oping countries in the meantime to use primarily fossil fuels for their development. Even with major and early control of CO2 emissions by the developed world, limiting concentration to 450 ppm implies that the developing world also would need to control its emissions within decades, given that we expect developing world emissions would otherwise double over this time. Scenarios leading to CO2 concentrations of 550 ppm exhibit a reduction of the developed world’s per-capita emission by about 50% over the next 50 years. Even for the higher stabilization levels considered, the developing world would not be able to use fossil fuels for their development in the manner that the developed world has used them.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights