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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 01/06/2025.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1-7 are directed to a machine (“a system”), claims 8-14 are directed to a process (“a method”). Thus, claims 1-14 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter. Claims 1-14, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receive the one or more data sets […], wherein the one or more data sets are emissions data, wherein the one or more data sets includes greenhouse gases and/or criteria pollutants;
Normalize the one or more data sets;
Bin the one or more data sets based on at least one criteria filter;
Determine one or more data groups from the one or more data sets after the binning;
Determine a first data centroid for a first portion of the one or more data groups;
Add a portion of the one or more data sets to the one or more data groups;
Determine a second data centroid for a second portion of the one or more data groups; and
Determine a credit representing a decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid for the one or more data groups.
Therefore, claims 1 and 2-7, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations identified above recite concepts of collecting information (receiving one or more data sets/emissions data), organizing information (“normalize the one or more data sets”, “bin the one or more data sets based on at least one criteria filter”, “add a portion of the one or more data sets to the one or more data groups”), and analyzing information (“determining one or more data groups from the one or more data sets after the binning”, “determine a first data centroid for a first portion of the one or more data groups”, “determine a second data centroid for a second portion of the one or more data groups”, and “determine a credit representing a decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid for the one or more data groups”) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, the limitations involving normalizing one or more data sets and determining a first/second data centroid for a first/second portion of one or more data groups recite concepts of mathematical calculations – which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(I).
Furthermore, the limitations identified above, when considered as a whole and under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, are directed towards determining/creating tradable carbon credits based on collected emissions data for use in carbon trading systems/carbon markets – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced by the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0002] (“The present disclosure relates generally to the field of creating and trading carbon credits”) and ¶ [0010] (“a method of data analysis and data binning is applied to emission data to generate a representative data reference before converting it into one or more tradable credits for use in a carbon trading system or for carbon offsets for the voluntary carbon markets. The present disclosure allows the creation of stable tradable credits on a large scale”).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include an “environmental micro-device configured to generate one or more data sets from its environment”, “a processor”, and steps for receiving data sets “from the environmental micro-device”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding independent claim 8, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
Receiving one or more data sets […], wherein the one or more data sets are emissions data, wherein the one or more data sets includes greenhouse gases and/or criteria pollutants;
Normalizing the one or more data sets […];
Binning the one or more data sets based on at least one criteria filter […];
Determining one or more data groups from the one or more data sets after the binning […];
Determining a first data centroid for a first portion of the one or more data groups […];
Adding a portion of the one or more data sets to the one or more data groups […];
Determining a second data centroid for a second portion of the one or more data groups […]; and
Determining […] a credit representing a decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid for the one or more data groups.
Therefore, claims 8 and 9-14, by virtue of dependence, recite concepts of mental processes. In particular, the limitations identified above recite concepts of collecting information (receiving one or more data sets/emissions data), organizing information (“normalize the one or more data sets”, “bin the one or more data sets based on at least one criteria filter”, “add a portion of the one or more data sets to the one or more data groups”), and analyzing information (“determining one or more data groups from the one or more data sets after the binning”, “determine a first data centroid for a first portion of the one or more data groups”, “determine a second data centroid for a second portion of the one or more data groups”, and “determine a credit representing a decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid for the one or more data groups”) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(III).
Furthermore, the limitations involving normalizing one or more data sets and determining a first/second data centroid for a first/second portion of one or more data groups recite concepts of mathematical calculations – which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(I).
Furthermore, the limitations identified above, when considered as a whole and under broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, are directed towards determining/creating tradable carbon credits based on collected emissions data for use in carbon trading systems/carbon markets – which is the abstract idea of commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). This is further evidenced by the Applicant’s specification at ¶ [0002] (“The present disclosure relates generally to the field of creating and trading carbon credits”) and ¶ [0010] (“a method of data analysis and data binning is applied to emission data to generate a representative data reference before converting it into one or more tradable credits for use in a carbon trading system or for carbon offsets for the voluntary carbon markets. The present disclosure allows the creation of stable tradable credits on a large scale”).
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claim include steps for receiving data sets “from an environmental micro-device at a processor” and performance of the claim limitations “using the processor”. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements, in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Thus, claim 8 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the environmental micro-device comprises at least one sensor, and wherein the sensor is a non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) sensor, a flame-ionization detector (FID) sensor, a diffusion charger sensor, a laser-light scattering sensor, an opacity sensor, an electrochemical sensor, or an optical sensor”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 3 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the environmental micro-device comprises at least one detector, and wherein the detector is a continuous particle counter (CPC) detector and/or a quantum cascade laser infrared spectroscopy (QCL-IR) detector”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 4 further specifies that the one or more data sets comprise one or more events, weather, location, time, VIN number, or engine type – and thus merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 5 further describes verifying one or more of the data sets, and thus merely further describes the abstract idea of mental processes and commercial interactions. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 6 recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “the processor is further configured to store the credit on a distributed ledger or on an encrypted network”.
The “processor”, “distributed ledger”, “encrypted network”, and steps for storing information on the “distributed ledger or on an encrypted network” are recited at a high level of generality such that they are merely considered to be generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these additional elements recite features of electronic recordkeeping. These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer tools and instructions. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer tools/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve electronic recordkeeping, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7 further specifies that the binning of the one or more data sets is based on one or more of make, model, year, mileage, engine, fuel source, class, intended usage, or weight - and thus merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 1 from which the claim depends.
Claim 9 recites the same abstract idea as claim 8, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program configured to instruct the processor to execute the method of claim 8”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 10 further describes verifying the one or more of the one or more data sets, and thus merely further describes the abstract idea of mental processes and commercial interactions. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 8 from which the claim depends.
Claim 11 further describes collecting one or more data sets, and thus merely further describes the abstract idea of mental processes and commercial interactions. The claim further introduces the additional elements of steps for collecting the data sets “using the environmental micro-device”.
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A).
Claim 12 further specifies that the one or more data sets comprise one or more of inputs, outputs, events, weather, location, time, VIN number, or engine type – and thus merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 8 from which the claim depends.
Claim 13 recites the same abstract idea as claim 8, by virtue of dependence, and is rejected for substantially the same reasons. The claim further introduces the additional elements of “storing the credit on a distributed ledger or on an encrypted network”.
The “distributed ledger”, “encrypted network”, and steps for storing information on the “distributed ledger or on an encrypted network” are recited at a high level of generality such that they are merely considered to be generic computer tools and instructions to apply the abstract idea. Accordingly, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer tools and instructions on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, these additional elements recite features of electronic recordkeeping. These additional elements fail to integrate the claim into a practical application because the steps for electronic recordkeeping amount to no more than mere data gathering/outputting, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer tools and instructions. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer tools/instructions cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A). Furthermore, the additional elements involving steps for electronic recordkeeping fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the courts have found electronic recordkeeping to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Because the invention is merely reciting well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, the additional elements of this claim which involve electronic recordkeeping, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 further specifies that the binning is based on one or more of make, model, year, mileage, engine, fuel source, class, intended usage, or weight - and thus merely further describes the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any further additional elements beyond the additional elements previously addressed with regard to claim 8 from which the claim depends.
Examiner Notes
Independent claims 1 and 8 have been found to overcome the pertinent art of record. Further, claims 2-7 and 9-14 by virtue of dependence, recite the same limitations as claims 1 and 8 that overcome the pertinent art of record. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of claims 1 and 8 being found to overcome the cited art of record. None of the prior art of record, taken individual or in combination, teach or suggest the specific series of logical operations of independent claims 1 and 8. Further, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings or suggestions of the prior art of record without the benefit of hindsight.
The prior art references most closely resembling the Applicant’s claimed invention are as follows:
Dembo Publication No. 2013/0268325;
Lang et al. WO2022266099A1;
Pollock et al. U.S. Publication No. 2010/0100403;
Bridge et al. U.S. Publication No. 2020/0273047;
Lee et al. U.S. Publication No. 2024/0020782;
McConnell et al. U.S. Publication No. 2009/0132176;
Jung et al. “A study on U-City Carbon Footprint Calculation Method to Prepare for Carbon
Emission Trading System” (2012);
Dembo discloses a system configured to collect emission data associated with an entity and normalize the emission data. Furthermore, the system is configured to partition the emission data into data segments that comprise first data segment representing an average, a second data segment representing a lower than average, and a third data segment representing a higher than average. Furthermore, the system is configured to calculate a number of emissions credits required to offset a computed emissions value. Dembo, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Dembo does not teach determining a first data centroid for a first portion of the one or more data groups, determining a second data centroid for a second portion of the one or more data groups, and determining a credit representing a decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid for the one or more data groups.
Lang discloses a system configured to collect and manage emissions data for a corpus of entities. Furthermore, the system may sort the emissions data into buckets such that the emissions data is organized by category. Lang, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Lang does not teach determining a first data centroid for a first portion of the one or more data groups, determining a second data centroid for a second portion of the one or more data groups, and determining a credit representing a decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid for the one or more data groups.
Pollock discloses a system configured to collect environmental impact data from suppliers regarding the environmental impact of the suppliers’ role in a product’s production. The system normalizes the provided data, such as by applying one or more normalization curves or normalization functions to the data supplied by the supplier. Furthermore, the system may maintain a plurality of distinct categories for the environmental impact data. Pollock, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Pollock does not teach determining a first data centroid for a first portion of the one or more data groups, determining a second data centroid for a second portion of the one or more data groups, and determining a credit representing a decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid for the one or more data groups.
Bridge discloses a system configured to track emission types from entities, receive emissions data from a emissions tracking device, analyze a first emissions data to determine an emissions baseline, analyze a second emissions data to determine a second emission output value, and determine an emission offset measurement based on the emissions baseline and second emission output value. Bridge, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Bridge does not teach determining a first data centroid for a first portion of the one or more data groups, determining a second data centroid for a second portion of the one or more data groups, and determining a credit representing a decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid for the one or more data groups.
Lee discloses a system configured to calculate an estimated carbon reduction amount based on target carbon emission information and a reference carbon emission information. Furthermore, the system performs futures trading for carbon credit trading by accessing a trading system for trading carbon credits based on the estimated carbon reduction amount. Lee, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Lee does not teach determining a first data centroid for a first portion of the one or more data groups, determining a second data centroid for a second portion of the one or more data groups, and determining a credit representing a decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid for the one or more data groups.
McConnell discloses a system configured to calculate and track GHG emissions associated at particular sites and calculate carbon credits relating to the sites. The system may calculate whether the emissions for a site exceed a quota and, based on this calculation, determine a carbon credit debt or surplus. McConnell, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, McConnell does not teach determining a first data centroid for a first portion of the one or more data groups, determining a second data centroid for a second portion of the one or more data groups, and determining a credit representing a decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid for the one or more data groups.
Jung discloses methods for establishing an integrated carbon footprint management system and measuring GHG emissions in real-time to calculate carbon footprints in order to prepare for a profit model of carbon credits. Jung, however, does not explicitly teach the specific series of logical operations recited in independent claims 1 and 8. In particular, Jung does not teach determining a first data centroid for a first portion of the one or more data groups, determining a second data centroid for a second portion of the one or more data groups, and determining a credit representing a decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid for the one or more data groups.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)272-5319. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-6:00PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/JORGE G DEL TORO-ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628