Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on 06/04/2026.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are amended.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 06/04/2026 have been fully considered and each argument will be respectfully address in the following final office action.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on pages 7-9 of the Response concerning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-14 have been fully considered but are found not persuasive and are moot in view of the amended rejection that may be found starting on page 18 of this final office action.
On page 7 of the Response, the Applicant argues “the claims recite a practical application involving physical emissions measurement by emissions sensors and processing of those sensor-generates measurements to evaluate a measured emissions change caused by an intentional physical change to a monitored source”. Furthermore, one page 7 of the Response, the Applicant argues “Specifically, the amended claims require emissions measurements from a monitored emissions source under both a first physical source condition and a second physical source condition” and the “normalization step further integrates the data processing into the practical emissions-measurement application”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended claims recite additional elements that implement the abstract idea into a practical application. The independent claims, as a whole, are directed towards collecting data sets (e.g., greenhouse gases and/or criteria pollutants, measuring emissions under first/second physical source conditions) and analyzing the collected information (e.g., normalizing the data sets, determining a data centroid for an aggregate data group corresponding to emissions measured under a first condition, identifying a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured under a second condition, determining a data centroid for a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to emissions measured under a second condition, a determining a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the data centroids) – which is the abstract idea of mental processes. The recited “environmental micro-device compris[ing] one or more emissions sensors” are merely recited as generic computer tools and instructions for collecting/measuring the information utilized to perform the abstract idea. Thus, the “one or more emissions sensors” merely amount to the utilization of a computer tool in its ordinary capacity to perform the recited abstract idea of collecting information and analyzing information. The Examiner notes, “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more” (MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
On page 8 of the Response, the Applicant argues “claims 1 and 8 also recite a technological improvement in the processing of emissions data. The specification explains that large collections of emissions data can include thousands to millions of data pieces, increasing storage size and energy use while decreasing processing speed. The specification further explains that aggregate data groups and corresponding data centroids reduce the number of descriptors, data values, and end pieces that must be stored and processed, thereby improving processing speed and reducing storage and energy requirements”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amended independent claims recite additional elements that reflect a technological improvement to a technological environment. As discussed further above, the independent claims, as a whole, are directed towards collecting, organizing, and analyzing information. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a human, using mental steps, would be capable of collecting, organizing, and analyzing the “one or more data sets” to perform the recited claim steps. There is nothing in the claims that suggest “thousands to millions of data pieces” are being collected or processed. Rather, the claims suggest at least “one” data set may be collected and processed. Moreover, the claimed “processor” is merely recited as a generic computer tool to perform the analysis of information that is considered to be part of the abstract idea (i.e., mental processes and mathematical calculations). The Examiner further notes, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
On page 8 of the Response, the Applicant further argues “the amended claims capture this technological improvement by requiring determination of a first data centroid for a first aggregate data group corresponding to emissions measured under the first physical source condition and a second data centroid for a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to emissions measured under the second physical source condition…the centroids are representative data structures for normalized, binned, sensor-aggregated emissions data corresponding to different physical source conditions…This ordered combination improves the reliability, stability, and comparability of emissions-data processing”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that these claim features reflect a technological improvement that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. The amended claim features directed towards normalizing collected data, binning normalized data, and determining data centroids for data groups corresponding to data/emissions captured under different conditions recite concepts of comparing and analyzing information – which is the abstract idea of mental processes and mathematical calculations. Such features for collecting, organizing, analyzing, and comparing information in the manner recited in the claims cannot be considered a technological improvement because such features are part of the abstract idea itself. The claimed “processor” and “one or more sensors” are merely recited as generic computer tools to execute the abstract idea of collecting information, organizing information analyzing/comparing information, and performing mathematical calculations. The Examiner further notes “courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
On page 9 of the Response, the Applicant argues “amended claims 1 and 8 recite significantly more than instructions to apply an abstract idea of a generic computer”. As discussed above, the claimed “processor”, “environmental micro-device”, and “one or more sensors” are merely recited as generic computer tools to execute the abstract idea of collecting information, organizing information analyzing/comparing information, and performing mathematical calculations. 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).
Response to Prior Art Remarks
Applicant’s remarks filed on page 10 of the Response concerning the prior art of record have been fully considered. Upon further search and consideration of the amendments to the claims, the independent claims are still considered to overcome the cited prior art of record.
Furthermore, on page 10 of the Response, the Applicant argues “The fact that the prior art fails to teach these limitations further supports that the amended claims recite a technological improvement and/or amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea”. The Examiner notes that “the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination [….] As made clear by the courts, the "‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter […] the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103” (see MPEP 2106.05(I)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “identifying, using the processors, a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the second physical source condition”. Although claim 8 recites “a second physical condition”, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the second physical source condition”. Accordingly, claims 8 and 9-14, by virtue of dependence, are rendered indefinite for reciting a limitation for which there is a lack of antecedent basis. For the sake of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “identifying, using the processors, a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the second physical condition”.
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:
[…] measure emissions from a monitored emissions source under a first physical source condition and under a second physical source condition that is different from the first physical source condition;
Receive the one or more data sets […], wherein the one or more data sets are emissions data […], and wherein the one or more data sets includes greenhouse gases and/or criteria pollutants;
Normalize the one or more data sets by converting emissions measurements in the one or more data sets to a common emissions reference;
Bin the normalized one or more data sets based on at least one criteria filter;
Determine one or more data groups from the normalized one or more data sets after the binning;
Determine a first data centroid for a first aggregate data group of the one or more data groups corresponding to emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the first physical source condition;
Identify a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the second physical source condition, wherein the second physical source condition results from an intentional physical change to the monitored emissions source;
Add the repeat data set to a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the first aggregate data group;
Determine a second data centroid for the repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the second physical source condition; and
Determine a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid.
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 (measuring emissions from a monitored emissions source under a first physical source condition and under a second physical source condition that is different from the first physical source condition, receiving one or more data sets/emissions data), analyzing and comparing information (“normalize the one or more data sets by converting emissions measurements in the one or more data sets to a common emissions reference”, “determine one or more data groups from the normalized one or more data sets after the binning”, “determine a first data centroid for a first aggregate data group of the one or more data groups corresponding to emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the first physical source condition”, “identify a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the second physical source condition, wherein the second physical source condition results from an intentional physical change to the monitored emissions source”, “determine a second data centroid for the repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the second physical source condition”, “determine a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid”), and organizing information (“bin the one or more data sets based on at least one criteria filter”, “add the repeat data set to a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the first aggregate data group”) – 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 first/second data centroids for 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, wherein the environmental micro-device comprises one or more emissions sensors”, “a processor”, steps for generating emissions data “by the one or more emissions sensors” 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 […] measure emissions from a monitored emissions source under a first physical source condition and under a second physical condition that is different from the first physical source condition, […] wherein the one or more data sets includes greenhouse gases and/or criteria pollutants;
Normalizing […] the one or more data sets by converting emissions measurements in the one or more data sets to a common emissions reference;
Binning […] the normalized one or more data sets based on at least one criteria filter;
Determining […] one or more data groups from the normalized one or more data sets after the binning;
Determining […] a first data centroid for a first aggregate data group of the one or more data groups corresponding to emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the first physical source condition;
Identifying […] a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the second physical source condition, wherein the second physical source condition results from an intentional physical change to the monitored emissions source;
Adding […] the repeat data set to a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the first aggregate data group;
Determining […] a second data centroid for the repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the second physical source condition; and
Determining […] a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid.
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 (measuring emissions from a monitored emissions source under a first physical source condition and under a second physical source condition that is different from the first physical source condition, receiving one or more data sets/emissions data), analyzing and comparing information (normalizing the one or more data sets by converting emissions measurements in the one or more data sets to a common emissions reference, determining one or more data groups from the normalized one or more data sets after the binning, determining a first data centroid for a first aggregate data group of the one or more data groups corresponding to emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the first physical source condition, identifying a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the second physical source condition, wherein the second physical source condition results from an intentional physical change to the monitored emissions source, determining a second data centroid for the repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the emissions measured from the monitored emissions source under the second physical source condition, determining a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the second data centroid and the first data centroid), and organizing information (binning the one or more data sets based on at least one criteria filter, adding the repeat data set to a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the first aggregate data group) – 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 first/second data centroids for 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 using a “processor” to execute the claim steps, an “environmental micro-device, wherein the environmental micro-device comprises one or more emissions sensors”, steps for generating emissions data “by the one or more emissions sensors”, 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 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 “wherein the one or more emissions sensors comprise at least one of 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 “wherein the one or more emissions sensors comprise at least of 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 aggregate data group corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under first physical source conditions, identifying a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under second physical source conditions, adding the repeat data set to a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the first aggregate data group, determining a second data centroid for a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the emissions measure from the emissions source under the second physical source condition, and determining a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the second and first data centroids.
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 aggregate data group corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under first physical source conditions, identifying a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under second physical source conditions, adding the repeat data set to a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the first aggregate data group, determining a second data centroid for a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the emissions measure from the emissions source under the second physical source condition, and determining a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the second and first data centroids.
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 aggregate data group corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under first physical source conditions, identifying a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under second physical source conditions, adding the repeat data set to a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the first aggregate data group, determining a second data centroid for a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the emissions measure from the emissions source under the second physical source condition, and determining a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the second and first data centroids.
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 aggregate data group corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under first physical source conditions, identifying a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under second physical source conditions, adding the repeat data set to a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the first aggregate data group, determining a second data centroid for a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the emissions measure from the emissions source under the second physical source condition, and determining a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the second and first data centroids.
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 aggregate data group corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under first physical source conditions, identifying a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under second physical source conditions, adding the repeat data set to a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the first aggregate data group, determining a second data centroid for a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the emissions measure from the emissions source under the second physical source condition, and determining a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the second and first data centroids.
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 aggregate data group corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under first physical source conditions, identifying a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under second physical source conditions, adding the repeat data set to a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the first aggregate data group, determining a second data centroid for a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the emissions measure from the emissions source under the second physical source condition, and determining a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the second and first data centroids.
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 aggregate data group corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under first physical source conditions, identifying a repeat data set corresponding to emissions measured from the emissions source under second physical source conditions, adding the repeat data set to a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the first aggregate data group, determining a second data centroid for a repeat aggregate data group corresponding to the emissions measure from the emissions source under the second physical source condition, and determining a credit representing a measured emissions decrease between the second and first data centroids.
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 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights