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 .
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the reply received March 2, 2026 (hereinafter “Reply”) and the correspondence received through May 19, 2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements submitted March 2, 2026 and May 19, 2026 and their contents have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as required by the Alice test as discussed below.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A
Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites constructing a template for conducting an assessment of an item during a life cycle, wherein the item includes one of a product, process, and service and the template specifies a workflow, one or more models, and factors for conducting the assessment; performing the assessment in accordance with the template; determining a carbon intensity of the item during the life cycle based on the assessment, and analyzing the assessment. Claims 9 and 15 recite similar features as claim 1. Claims 2-8, 10-11, and 16-20 further specify features of the identified abstract ideas or characteristics of the data used thereby.
These limitations describe abstract ideas that correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts as mental processes—such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)—because the claimed features identified above are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
These limitations describe abstract ideas that correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts as certain methods of organizing human activity—such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)—because the claim features identified above manage personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas.
Prong two of the Step 2A requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. “Integration into a practical application” requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Further, “integration into a practical application” uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, such as considerations discussed in M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a)-(h).
The claims recite the following additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites at least one processor, generating an assessment report having particular fields, and sending controls to machines. Claim 9 recites similar features as claim 1 and further recites one or more memories and at least one processor. Claim 15 recites similar features as claim 1 and further recites one or more computer readable media and at least one processor. Several claims recite an electronic library, requesting information from another source, and generating and updating a user interface.
The identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
First, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. The additional computer elements identified above—the processors, memories, computer readable media, and user interfaces—are recited at a high level of generality. Inclusion of these elements amounts to mere instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f). Similarly, implementation of a library as an electronic library amounts to mere instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer. See id. The use of conventional computer elements to request information from another source, display/update information on a user interface, generate an assessment report having particular fields, and send (unspecified) controls to machines is the insignificant, extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or outputting in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g). To the extent that the claims transform data, the mere manipulation of data is not a transformation. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(c). Inclusion of computing system in the claims amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Second, evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide an implementation of the identified abstract ideas on a computer system in the general field of use of conducting a climate impact assessment. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
Thus, claims 1-20 recite mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity without including additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination. Additional features of these analyses are discussed below.
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, these additional computer elements also provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to request information from another source, display/update information on a user interface, generate an assessment report having particular fields, and send (unspecified) controls to machines is the well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., the Internet, and does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the identified abstract ideas. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II). Similarly, the use of generic computer components to store information electronically (e.g., as an electronic library) is likewise the well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions of receiving, processing, and storing data and does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the identified abstract ideas. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to mere instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Thus, claims 1-20, taken individually and as an ordered combination of elements, are not directed to eligible subject matter since they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Statement Regarding the Prior Art
The relevance of Feickert et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0061787 A1), Liu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0032380 A1), Backof et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0242772 A1), and Tayarani et al. (“Life cycle assessment of hydrogen transportation pathways via pipelines and truck trailers: Implications as a low carbon fuel.” Sustainability 14.19 (2022): 12510) to the claimed invention is discussed in the prosecution history of the instant application.
Stoner et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0066217 A1) and Beal (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0148891 A1) have previously been cited to further show the state of the art regarding climate impact assessments.
The closest art of record, including the combination of references discussed above, fails to teach, suggest, or render obvious each and every element of the claims as arranged in the claims. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would not look to combine these references, or the other art of record, to arrive at the present claims.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted with the Reply have been fully considered. The amendments obviate the rejections under §§ 102 and 103. The remaining arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the sending controls to machines does not fall into any of the abstract idea subject matter groupings. Reply, p. 14. Examiner agrees, but this feature, when considered as an additional element in the Alice test, does not provide significantly more or a practical application of the identified abstract ideas when considered alone and in combination with the other claim features. Further, this does not negate the identification of other claim features as being directed to abstract ideas.
Applicant argues certain features of an LCA system from the specification “apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.” Reply, p. 17. Examiner disagrees, because most of these features argued by applicant are not required by the claims. The rejections explain how the claims limitations that recite additional elements are insufficient, alone or in combination, to provide a practical application or significantly more as required by the Alice test.
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 Christopher Tokarczyk, whose telephone number is 571-272-9594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday between 6:00 AM and 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Mamon Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B TOKARCZYK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights