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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to communication filed on 6/12/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
The Examiner has noted the Applicant claiming Foreign priority from Application CN202311551416.8 filed 11/20/2023.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, 18-19, 21 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 12-15, 18 are amended.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, 17, 20 are cancelled.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, 18-19, 21 are currently under examination and have been rejected as follows.
IDS
The information disclosure statement filed on 12/23/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 and is considered by the Examiner.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Amendment
The previously pending claim objections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
New rejections under 35 USC 112 are applied in view of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101 will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 102/103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments and Applicant’s remarks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 101:
Step 2A Prong 1:
Applicant argues on page 15 of remarks 6/12/2026:
“…The amended claim 1 therefore recites an interactive process between the carbon quota processing system and the client of the target manufacturing subject and the searching process in the database… the recited process cannot be performed by the human mind.
“Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended independent claim 1 does not recite abstract ideas.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Mental Processes aside, Examiner submits the claims as amended still fall within the abstract groupings of Mathematical Concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I) and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). See 101 rejection section below for details.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Applicant argues on page 16 of remarks 6/12/2026:
“That is to say, the method recited in claim 1 is conducive to the realization of the dual control goal of the total carbon emission and carbon emission intensity of the manufacturing subject, and has strong technical popularization in the aspects of the dual-control of carbon emission, accurate emission reduction and effective carbon reduction of the manufacturing subject. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole integrates a judicial exception into a practical application.”
[Continued on page 17] “New claim 21 depends from independent claim 1 and recites, in part, ‘comprising operating the target manufacturing entity to match its carbon emission during the target time period with the carbon quota.’ Claim 21 further integrates the alleged abstract idea into the practical application operating the target manufacturing entity.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the claims as amended imply technological control of carbon emissions and intensities by manufacturing entities, specifics on the alleged control mechanisms remain unclear. Applicant specification ¶ [0134] - [0135] discloses monitoring carbon emissions and transmitting messages to manufacturing entity clients, thus enabling problem detection and control of production. However, evidence of actual control of the carbon emissions by the present invention remains unclear. Similarly, evidence of direct operation by the present invention on a manufacturing entity or its production or emissions processes remains unclear in the specification. Accordingly, the functions of the claims as amended, i.e. allocating carbon quotas for manufacturing entities within industrial groupings and determining the quotas based on quantitative environmental and production data, remain abstract.
Step 2B:
Applicant argues on page 16 of remarks 6/12/2026:
“Applicant respectfully submits that, when considered as a whole, the amended independent claim 1 is directed to a specific improvement over prior arts as it improves the processing efficiency of the terminal device.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claim 1 (along with its dependent claims 2, 5-9, 12-14) does not appear to provide any further additional computer-based elements, let alone for such additional computer-based elements to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Independent claims 15, 18 recite the following additional elements: “memory”, “processor”, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. There does not appear to be an additional computer-based element “terminal device” recited in the claims. Further, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of querying for and obtaining data, performing calculations, organizing and communicating data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. It remains difficult to identify in the claims as amended what the “terminal device” is, let alone the processing efficiency thereof over existing systems. Should the additional element be more clearly defined, the specifical technological improvements would also need to be articulated in the claims or specification to demonstrate the alleged improvement over prior art.
Accordingly, the previously pending rejections under 35 USC 101 will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in view of the amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Applicant’s remarks pertaining to 35 USC 102/103:
The previously pending rejections under 35 USC 102/103 are withdrawn in view of the amendments and Applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s arguments pages 17-18, filed 6/12/2026, with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejections under 35 USC 102/103 have been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reasons found in the “Allowable subject matter” section found below.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1, 15, 18 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.
Claims 1, 15, 18 recite: “…setting the decoupling factor to a seventh value…”, [bolded emphasis added].
Claims 1, 15, 18 are rejected because there is insufficient antecedent basis for “seventh value” (i.e. first value through sixth value) in the independent claims.
Appropriate corrections are required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, 18-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, 21 are directed to a method or process which is a statutory category.
Claims 15-16 are directed to a system or machine which is a statutory category.
Claims 18-19 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium or article of manufacture which is a statutory category.
Step 2A Prong One: The claims recite, describe, or set forth a judicial exception of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Specifically, the claims recite, describe or set forth mitigating risk, legal obligations, and/or mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations, including: “determining a target manufacturing entity and searching for historical carbon inventory data of manufacturing entities within a manufacturing entity set to which the target manufacturing entity belongs”, “obtaining a carbon emission planning parameter of the target manufacturing entity during a target time period”, “calculating influencing factors that influence the balance between environmental protection and development of the target manufacturing entity based on the historical carbon inventory data and the carbon emission planning parameter”, “building a carbon quota allocation model based on the influencing factors”, “allocating a carbon quota during the target time period to the target manufacturing entity based on the carbon quota allocation model”, “setting the decoupling factor to a seventh value in a case where the decoupling coefficient is less than 0, and the carbon emission change is less than 0, and the gross industrial production change is greater than 0”, “setting the decoupling factor to an eighth value less than the seventh value, in a case where the decoupling coefficient is greater than or equal to 0 and less than a first threshold value, the carbon emission change is greater than or equal to 0, and the gross industrial production change is greater than 0”, “setting the decoupling factor to a ninth value less than the eight value, in a case where the decoupling coefficient is greater than a second threshold value, the carbon emission change is less than 0, and the gross industrial production change is less than 0”, and “setting the decoupling factor to [various additional] value[s] in a case where the decoupling coefficient is [various additional relationships with zero and a threshold value]”, etc.. Allocating carbon quotas for manufacturing entities within industrial groupings falls within mitigating risk as it pertains to fundamental economic principles or practices as well as legal obligations as they pertain to commercial or legal interactions, each within the larger subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II). Determining the quotas for manufacturing entities based on quantitative environmental and production data falls within mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, or calculations under the larger subgrouping of Mathematical Concepts1 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Independent claim 1 (along with its dependent claims 2, 5-9, 12-14) does not appear to provide any further additional computer-based elements, let alone for such additional computer-based elements to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Independent claims 15, 18 recite the following additional elements: “memory”, “processor”, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. The functions of these additional elements include examples such as “determining a target manufacturing entity and searching for historical carbon inventory data”, “obtaining a carbon emission planning parameter”, “calculating influencing factors that influence the balance between environmental protection and development of the target manufacturing entity”, “building a carbon quota allocation model based on the influencing factors”, and “allocating a carbon quota during the target time period”. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic computer performing functions of querying for and obtaining data, performing calculations, organizing and communicating data, etc.) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Therefore, these functions can be viewed as not meaningfully different than a business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general-purpose computer as tested per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)(i). The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the judicial exception does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: According to MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), considering whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite the technological details of how the actual technological solution to the actual technological problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover an entrepreneurial and thus abstract solution to an entrepreneurial problem with no technological details on how the technological result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 5-9, 12-14, 16, 19, 21 do not appear to provide any further additional computer-based elements, let alone for such additional computer-based elements to integrate the abstract idea into practical application.
Further, dependent claims 2, 5-9, 12-14, 16, 19, 21 merely incorporate the additional elements recited in claims 15, 18 along with further narrowing of the abstract idea of claims 15, 18 and their execution of the abstract idea. Specifically, the dependent claims narrow the “memory”, “processor”, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to capabilities such as obtaining, sending, and calculating various forms of data such as carbon emissions, manufacturing entities, time periods, prompt messages, carbon emission intensity mean values, carbon emission changes, gross industrial production changes, influence factors, etc. which, when evaluated per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) represent mere invocation of computers to perform existing processes. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually and in combination fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A prong two) and for the same reasons they also fail to provide significantly more (Step 2B). Thus, claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, 18-19, 21 are reasoned to be patent ineligible.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-9, 12-16, 18-19, 21 are allowable over the prior art in light of the amendments. However, these claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
The closest prior art is Zhang et al. US 20240296409 A1 and Zou et al. US 20230410127 A1 as mapped above. Yet, neither of Zhang, Zou, nor any other prior art on record teaches either alone or, in combination with adequate rationale, teach the mathematical relationships and numerical equivalencies as recited in independent claims 1, 15, 18, specifically:
[..]
setting the decoupling factor to a seventh value in a case where the decoupling coefficient is less than 0, and the carbon emission change is less than 0, and the gross industrial production change is greater than 0;
setting the decoupling factor to an eighth value less than the seventh value, in a case where the decoupling coefficient is greater than or equal to 0 and less than a first threshold value, the carbon emission change is greater than or equal to 0, and the gross industrial production change is greater than 0;
setting the decoupling factor to a ninth value less than the eight value, in a case where the decoupling coefficient is greater than a second threshold value, the carbon emission change is less than 0, and the gross industrial production change is less than 0;
setting the decoupling factor to a tenth value less than the ninth value, in a case where the decoupling coefficient is greater than the first threshold value and less than the second threshold value, the carbon emission change is greater than 0, and the gross industrial production change is greater than 0;
setting the decoupling factor to an eleventh value less than the tenth value, in a case where the decoupling coefficient is greater than the first threshold value and less than the second threshold value, the carbon emission change is less than 0, and the gross industrial production change is less than 0;
setting the decoupling factor to a twelfth value less than the eleventh value, in a case where the decoupling coefficient is greater than the second threshold value, the carbon emission change is greater than 0, and the gross industrial production change is greater than 0;
setting the decoupling factor to a thirteenth value less than the twelfth value, in a case where the decoupling coefficient is greater than O and less than the first threshold value, the carbon emission change is less than 0, and the gross industrial production change is less than 0; and
setting the decoupling factor to a fourteenth value less than the thirteenth value, in a case where the decoupling coefficient is less than 0, the carbon emission change is greater than 0, and the gross industrial production change is less than 0.
Finally, the Examiner reminds Applicant that novelty (35 USC 102) and non-obviousness (35 USC 103) still pertain to features that are mostly abstract that do not render the claims patent eligible (35 USC 101) and are unclear (35 USC 112(b)). Accordingly, the novel and non-obviousness rationale above do not necessarily render the claims patent eligible. See for example MPEP 2106.04 I ¶5, 3rd sentence citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 71, 101 USPQ2d at 1965); Flook, 437 U.S. at 591-92, 198 USPQ2d at 198 "the novelty of the mathematical algorithm is not a determining factor at all”.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
The following art is made of record and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
SAKAINO; Akira et al. US 20230081485 A1, Information processing device, information processing method and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
KOBAYASHI; Yumi et al. US 20230177536 A1, Manufacturing and sales planning support apparatus and manufacturing and sales planning support method.
Bai; Bo et al. US 20240193684 A1, Method and System for Trading Assets and Their Carbon Footprint Status.
Graeber; Astrid et al. US 20220101212 A1, System and methods for greenhouse gas emission modeling and calculation to estimate the product carbon footprint.
Musier; Reiner F. H. et al. US 20080275815 A1, Cross-environmentally relevant item complexity manager for carbon reduction, renewable energy, energy efficiency and pollution reduction.
King; William Paul et al. US 20220214668 A1, Manufacturing and development platform.
Boardman; Paul et al. US 20230289820 A1, System and method for generating certification of greenhouse gas reduction in efficiency-optimized processes.
Davis; Robbie G. et al. US 20230350387 A1, Building management system with sustainability improvement.
Yu; Yanghao et al. US 12511660 B2, Method and apparatus for calculating carbon emission response based on carbon emission flows.
Yu; Zhi et al. CN 113095678 A. Data quality evaluation method of carbon emission quota allocation technology.
Shojaei, Tahereh, and Alireza Mokhtar. "Carbon mitigation by quota allocation." Journal of Environmental Management 304 (2022): 114097. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479721021599.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 REED M. BOND whose telephone number is (571) 270-0585. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/REED M. BOND/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 July 27, 2026
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
1 MPEP 2106.04(a): “examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible”.
Prosecution Insights