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 Claims
Claims 1-8 have been examined in this Final Action. Claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Priority
Application 18/970,924 filed 12/06/2024 claims priority to foreign application JP2024-023191 filed 02/19/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 7 recites “wherein cargos from the same shipper are set to the same cargo group”, however, the specification is lacking support for the amendment of the cargos from the same shipper being set to the same cargo group.
As best understood, the portions of the disclosure most closely related to the above indicated recitation are in the specification as filed at 0013. 0013 provides the cargo group collectively including packages for each shipper, however, is silent for the cargos from the same shipper being set as the same cargo group.
Accordingly, support in the disclosure is not found for claim 7.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-8 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a device for acquiring carbon emission data of a vehicle, parameters of cargo transported by the vehicle and calculating carbon emission amounts for each of the cargo groups. For Claim 1 the limitations of:
[…] acquire data on carbon emission amount discharged by a vehicle transporting a plurality of cargo groups from the vehicle at intervals and a plurality of parameters correlated with respective weights of the plurality of cargo groups, the cargo groups including at least one cargo, wherein
[…] generates a carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups based on the data on the carbon emission amount discharged by the vehicle and the parameters, and
the intervals are set based on an average speed of the vehicle, as drafted, are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions, and/or commercial or legal interactions,) but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that “certain method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person's interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). That is, other than reciting a device implemented by a processor, the claimed invention amounts to the process of gathering data about transportation vehicles and calculating the carbon emissions. For example, but for the processor, this claim encompasses a person to gather carbon emissions of a vehicle, cargo information, and calculating the amount of carbon emissions based on the vehicle carbon emissions and cargo information based on this data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. Therefore, in short, each of the bolded elements represents data collection, and processing steps towards performing the “commercial or legal interaction” of tracking and determining carbon emissions based on the vehicle and its parameters. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, and/or agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Alternatively, the Examiner asserts that the claimed limitation of calculating a carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups based on the data on the carbon emission amount of the vehicle and the parameters, can also be considered to cover mathematical concepts. The Examiner notes that “Mathematical Concepts” includes a mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a numerical formula or equation it will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping. In addition, there are instances where a formula or equation is written in text format that should also be considered as falling within this grouping. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes. Accordingly, Claim 1 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 recites the additional elements of an information processing device and processor that implements the identified abstract idea. These additional elements are not described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., one or more generic computers performing a generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of an information processing device and processor, to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not provide significantly more. As such claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent Claims 2-8 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above. Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) the parameters indicating the respective weights of the cargo groups, generating weight ratios of the cargo groups using the parameters, and generating the carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups based on the data on the carbon emission amount discharged by the vehicle and the weight ratios of the cargo groups. Claim(s) 3 merely describe(s) the parameters indicating respective volumes of the cargo groups, generating volume ratios of the cargo groups using the parameters, and generating the carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups based on the data on the carbon emission amount discharged by the vehicle and the volume ratios of the cargo groups. Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) a route from a departure location to a destination of the vehicle including a section in which a plurality of cargo groups that is at least some of the cargo groups is transported, and generating a carbon emission amount for each of the at least some of the cargo groups in the section using data on the carbon emission amount discharged by the vehicle in the section and a plurality of parameters correlated with respective weights of the at least some of the cargo groups. Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) generating a carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups transported by the vehicle based on a result of calculating the carbon emission amount for each of the at least some of the cargo groups in the section. Claim 6 merely describe(s) acquiring GPS data of the vehicle at the intervals and the carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups being generated after the vehicle arrives at its destination. Claim(s) 7 merely describe(s) cargos from the same shipper being set to the same cargo group. Claim(s) 8 merely describe(s) each of the cargo groups including the at least one cargo from only a single shipper.
Claims 2-8 include the additional element of the processor. The processor is analyzed in the same manner as the processor in the independent claim and does not provide a practical application or significantly more for the same reasons above. Therefore claims 2-8 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo (US 12165096B2), in view of Jiang (CN 117132437 A).
Regarding Claim 1,
Russo 096B2 discloses, (Currently Amended) An information processing device comprising a processor configured to acquire data on carbon emission amount discharged by a vehicle "Computing device 104 may use a carbon emission machine-learning model to calculate carbon emission data 144" (Russo 096B2 Col. 10 Lines 40-43). "With continued reference to FIG. 1, memory 156 contains instructions configuring processor 160 to determine carbon emission data 144 as a function of shipment elements 116. For the purposes of this disclosure, “carbon emission data” is data describing carbon emissions of a shipment. In one or more embodiments, carbon emissions may include carbon dioxide (CO2) gas… A “pollutant”, as used in this disclosure, is a substance that degrades environmental quality….In some embodiments, greenhouse gas data may include data from one or more pollutant sources. A “pollutant source” as used in this disclosure is any originating source of a pollutant. A pollutant source may include, but is not limited to, transport vehicles, power grids, combustion from boilers, furnaces, transport vehicle emissions, emissions from processes performed by or goods manufactured by a transport vehicle, and the like" (Russo 096B2 Col. 7 Lines 3-34).
and a plurality of parameters correlated with respective weights of the plurality of cargo groups, the cargo groups including at least one cargo "For the purposes of this disclosure, a “shipment element” is a characteristic and/or information related to the process of transporting cargo, which includes one or more goods, of a customer via vehicle, such as, for example, a transport vehicle. In one or more embodiments, shipment element 116 may include time data (e.g., departure and arrival date of shipment), vehicle data (e.g., make and model of a vehicle), cargo data (e.g., dimensions of cargo, weight of cargo, and the like), rate data (e.g., rate of travel (mph)), geographical data (e.g., surface gradient, surface type, and the like), condition data (e.g., ambient temperatures, weather conditions, and the like), as discussed further in FIG. 3" (Russo 096B2 Col. 5 Lines 47-59). "For the purposes of this disclosure, “cargo data” is information related to one or more characteristics of a moveable good, such as and without limitation, a product of a customer. For instance, and without limitation, cargo data may include information related to a quantity of a good, which may be measured in weight (e.g., 200 lbs), a spatial measurement (e.g., 6 ft3), or a numerical value (e.g., 150 count of a particular product). In another instance, and without limitation, cargo data 304 may include characteristic information, such as fragility, shape, surface area, packaging, expiration date, perishable status, temperature requirement, and the like" (Russo 096B2 Col. 10 Lines 7-19).
and being set based on a shipper, wherein "Still referring to FIG. 2, as shown in step 220, method 200 may include generating, by processor 160, a proposed shipment schedule 152 as a function of shipment elements 116 and/or carbon emission data 144. For the purposes of this disclosure, a “proposed shipment schedule” is an offered schedule providing shipment elements related to the transportation of goods for a customer. In one or more embodiments, a proposed shipment schedule 152 may be generated based on a selection of shipment elements 116 that in combination with each other include a minimum carbon emission data quantity. For example, and without limitation, proposed shipment 152 may include the use of a first vehicle over other available vehicles for the shipment since first vehicle has, for example, a desirable fuel efficiency, a desirable amount of greenhouse gas emissions, desirable payload or cargo space, and the like" (Russo 096B2 Col. 8 Lines 23-38).
the processor generates a carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups based on the data on the carbon emission amount discharged by the vehicle and the parameters, and "With continued reference to FIG. 3, as shown in step 325, method 300 may include determining carbon emission data of a shipment. In one or more embodiments, carbon emission data 144 may include a plurality of carbon emission data 144 related to one or more shipments elements of the shipment. As a nonlimiting example, a first carbon emission datum may be associated with a first shipment element, a second carbon emission datum may be associated with a second shipment element, and so on" (Russo 096B2 Col. 11 Lines 38-46).
Russo 096B2 discloses a method for determining carbon emissions of a shipment, but fails to disclose acquiring carbon emission discharged by a vehicle transporting a plurality of cargo groups from the vehicle at intervals where the intervals are set based on an average speed of the vehicle Jiang discloses the calculation of carbon emissions based on average or standard values of vehicle operating status. Jiang teaches,
[carbon emissions discharged by a vehicle] transporting a plurality of cargo groups from the vehicle at intervals, "The processing module generates a speed curve for the target freight vehicle based on driving records. Based on the speed curve, the freight route is divided into multiple segments, where each segment corresponds to an average speed and a path length. The average speed of the first segment is matched with a preset carbon emission index table to obtain the carbon emission index corresponding to the first segment. The first segment can be any one of the multiple segments, and the preset carbon emission index table stores the correspondence between average speed and carbon emission index. Based on the carbon emission index corresponding to the first segment and the path length, the carbon emissions of the first segment are calculated using a carbon emission calculation formula" (Jiang Par. 0012).
the intervals are set based on an average speed of the vehicle. "The processing module generates a speed curve for the target freight vehicle based on driving records. Based on the speed curve, the freight route is divided into multiple segments, where each segment corresponds to an average speed and a path length. The average speed of the first segment is matched with a preset carbon emission index table to obtain the carbon emission index corresponding to the first segment. The first segment can be any one of the multiple segments, and the preset carbon emission index table stores the correspondence between average speed and carbon emission index. Based on the carbon emission index corresponding to the first segment and the path length, the carbon emissions of the first segment are calculated using a carbon emission calculation formula" (Jiang Par. 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the method of determining carbon emissions of a shipment of Russo 096B2 with acquiring carbon emission discharged by a vehicle transporting a plurality of cargo groups from the vehicle at intervals where the intervals are set based on an average speed of the vehicle of Jiang to enable accurate calculation of carbon emissions for each freight vehicle and, consequently, accurate calculation of carbon emissions for the entire freight fleet during transportation. (Jiang Par. 0006).
Regarding Claim 2,
The combination of Russo 096B2 and Jiang disclose the device of claim 1, as shown above. Russo 096B2 further discloses, (Currently Amended) the parameters indicate the respective weights of the cargo groups; and "For instance, and without limitation, cargo data may include information related to a quantity of a good, which may be measured in weight (e.g., 200 lbs), a spatial measurement (e.g., 6 ft3), or a numerical value (e.g., 150 count of a particular product)" (Russo 096B2 Col. 10 Lines 10-15).
the processor is configured to generate weight ratios of the cargo groups using the parameters, and "With continued reference to FIG. 3, memory 156 contains instructions configuring processor 160 to calculate a carbon emission data 144. In one or more embodiments, carbon emission data may include carbon emission rates. For the purposes of this disclosure, a “carbon emission rate” is a measurement of carbon emissions measured against another quantity. In some embodiments, calculating carbon emission rate may be as a function of a shipment element data. As a non-limiting example, carbon emission rate may be calculated as a function of distance data. In some embodiments, carbon emission rate may be a measurement of carbon emissions over a distance (e.g., traveled distance by a transportation vehicle carrying goods). In some embodiments, carbon emission rate may be expressed in units of weight (or mass) over distance. As non-limiting examples, carbon emission rate may be expressed in lbs/mi, kg/m, tons/km, and the like. In some embodiments, carbon emission rate may be calculated as a function of time data. In some embodiments, carbon emission rate may be a measurement of carbon emissions over time. In some embodiments, carbon emission rate may be expressed in units of weight (or mass) over time. As non-limiting examples, carbon emission rate may be expressed in lbs/min, kg/hr, tons/hr, and the like. In some embodiments, carbon emission rate may be calculated as a function of cargo data. In some embodiments, carbon emission rate may be a measurement of carbon emissions over cargo weight. In some embodiments, this may be a ratio" (Russo 096B2 Col. 13 Lines 27-54).
generate the carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups based on the data on the carbon emission amount discharged by the vehicle and the weight ratios of the cargo groups. " In some embodiments, carbon emission rate may be expressed in units of weight (or mass) over cargo weight (or mass). As non-limiting examples, carbon emission rate may be expressed in tons/lb, lbs/lbs, kg/kg, kg/g, and the like. In some embodiments, calculating carbon emission rate may include calculating a carbon emission rate for each of a plurality of tasks that an operator has conducted. In some embodiments, calculating carbon emission rate may include calculating a carbon emission rate for each operator of a plurality of operators. In some embodiments, calculating carbon emission rate may include calculating a carbon emission rate for each vehicle of a plurality of vehicles. This may be done, for example and without limitation, when task data includes a vehicle data. As a non-limiting example, this may include calculating a carbon emission rate for each vehicle that an operator uses" (Russo 096B2 Col. 13 Line 54 - Col. 14 Line 2).
Regarding Claim 7,
The combination of Russo 096B2 and Jiang disclose the device of claim 1, as shown above. Russo 096B2 further discloses, wherein cargos from the same shipper are set to the same cargo group. "With continued reference to FIG. 1, memory 156 contains instructions configuring processor 160 to provide one or more shipment elements 116 of a shipment as a function of the customer request 112. For the purposes of this disclosure, a “shipment” is the movement of a good from an initial location to a destination (e.g., final location). A shipment may be completed using a transportation vehicle, which may be a mobile structure that carries goods from the initial location to the destination. For example, and without limitation, a mobile structure may include a truck. For the purposes of this disclosure, a “shipment element” is a characteristic and/or information related to the process of transporting cargo, which includes one or more goods, of a customer via vehicle, such as, for example, a transport vehicle" (Russo 096B2 Col. 5 Lines 38-52).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo (US 12165096B2), in view of Jiang (CN 117132437 A), and in further view of Hamaguchi (JP2010254789).
Regarding Claim 3,
The combination of Russo 096B2 and Jiang disclose the device according to claim 1, as shown above. Russo 096B2 further discloses (Currently Amended) the parameters indicate respective volumes of the cargo groups; and " For instance, and without limitation, cargo data may include information related to a quantity of a good, which may be measured in weight (e.g., 200 lbs), a spatial measurement (e.g., 6 ft.sup.3), or a numerical value (e.g., 150 count of a particular product)" (Russo 096B2 Col.10 Lines 10-15).
Examiner Note: Volume is a spatial measurement
The combination of Russo 096B2 and Jiang discloses a method for determining carbon emissions of a shipment, but fails to disclose the processor is configured to generate volume ratios of the cargo groups using the parameters, and generating the carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups based on the data on the carbon emission amount discharged by the vehicle and the volume ratios of the cargo groups. Hamaguchi discloses a greenhouse gas discharge evaluation device with respect to movement by a route. Hamaguchi teaches,
the processor is configured to generate volume ratios of the cargo groups using the parameters, and "In addition, when multiple items are transported simultaneously by a single transport vehicle, the emission evaluation unit 7 may calculate the weight ratio or volume ratio of each item relative to the multiple items" (Hamaguchi Par. 0047)
generate the carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups based on the data on the carbon emission amount discharged by the vehicle and the volume ratios of the cargo groups. "The emission evaluation unit 7 calculates the greenhouse gas emissions per item based on the calculated weight ratio or volume ratio of each item and the calculated greenhouse gas emissions of the transport vehicle, and evaluates the calculated greenhouse gas emissions per item" (Hamaguchi Par. 0047).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the method of determining carbon emissions of a shipment of Russo 096B2 and Jiang with generating the volume ratio, and the carbon emission amount based on the volume ratio and vehicle emissions of Hamaguchi to reduce the amount of processing required for the comparison calculation (Hamaguchi Par. 0022).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo (US 12165096B2), in view of Jiang (CN 117132437 A), and in further view of Russo (US 12359929B2).
Regarding Claim 4,
The combination of Russo 096B2 and Jiang disclose a method for determining carbon emissions of a shipment, but fails to disclose a route from a departure location to a destination of the vehicle, and a processor generating a carbon emission amount for each of the at least some of the cargo groups using data on the carbon emission amount discharged by the vehicle in the section and a plurality of parameters corelated with respective weights of the cargo groups. Russo 929B2, however, discloses receiving transport data for offsetting carbon emissions. Russo 929B2, teaches, (Currently Amended) a route from a departure location to a destination of the vehicle includes a section in which a plurality of cargo groups that is at least some of the cargo groups is transported; and "For the purposes of this disclosure, a “transport” is a movement of one or more objects from a first location to a second location via a transport vehicle" (Russo 929B2 Col. 5 Lines 7-10). "The period of time may be, as a nonlimiting example, the duration of a shipment and/or a at least a portion of the shipment (e.g., over a specific distance of a shipment distance). As another nonlimiting example, the period of time may be the period of time it took to complete a particular task (e.g., reach a specific checkpoint or complete an entire shipment). " (Russo 929B2 Col. 7 Lines 48-54). "Objects may include, as nonlimiting examples, cargo, goods, livestock, non-fungible goods, fungible goods, produce, cargo containers, oil, liquids, gasoline, food, meals, people, products, and the like" (Russo 929B2 Col. 5 Lines 35-39).
Examiner Note: Tracking when a checkpoint is reached is a section of travel.
the processor generates a carbon emission amount for each of the at least some of the cargo groups in the section using data on the carbon emission amount discharged by the vehicle in the section and a plurality of parameters correlated with respective weights of the at least some of the cargo groups. "For the purposes of this disclosure, “carbon dioxide emissions” are the emissions of carbon dioxide that are emitted by a transport vehicle during a transit. In one or more embodiments, carbon emission metric 144 includes a qualitative or quantitative measurement of greenhouse gas output during a transport, such as a first transport, by a vehicle, such as a first vehicle. For example, and without limitation, carbon emission metric may include greenhouse gas data, as discussed further below. Carbon emission metric 144 may include a carbon impact, where a carbon impact quantitatively or qualitatively describes the environmental impact by a transport due to carbon emissions produced during the transport. “Carbon impact”, for the purposes of this disclosure, is a measurement of the amount of carbon dioxide produced through an activity of transport. An increase in carbon impact may contribute to climate change. In some embodiments, carbon impact of a transport, or vehicle 116 of the transport, may be calculated using the following equation: d×w×Efx (Formula 1.1),where dν is the distance traveled during the transport, w is the weight of the object load, and EFx is the emissions factor. The emissions factor is the CO2 emitted by the transport unit per ton-mile. In one or more embodiments, carbon emissions, as used in this disclosure, may include carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), fluorinated gases, methane (CH4), and the like. For example, and without limitations, carbon emission metric may include emission intensity, such as carbon intensity (e.g., 1.2 kg CO2e/BOE) or methane intensity (e.g., 20%), emissions quantity (e.g., fluorinated gas emissions of 5 metric tons), and the like" (Russo 929B2 Col. 13 Lines 33-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the method of determining carbon emissions of a shipment of Russo 096B2 and Jiang with a route from a departure location to a destination of the vehicle includes a section in which a plurality of cargo groups that is at least some of the cargo groups is transported, and calculating a carbon emission amount for each of the at least some of the cargo groups in the section using data on the carbon emission amount of the vehicle in the section and a plurality of parameters correlated with respective weights of the at least some of the cargo groups of Russo 929B2 to reduce carbon impact of a transport, or transportation corporation conducting the transport and minimize error functions (Russo 929B2 Col. 2 Lines 30-31, Col. 25 Lines 32-33).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo (US 12165096B2), in view of Jiang (CN 117132437 A), in view of Russo (US12359929B2), and in further view of Milcoff (US12182826 B1).
Regarding Claim 5,
The combination of Russo 096B2, Jiang, and Russo 929B2 disclose the method of determining carbon emissions of a shipment as shown above. The combination of Russo 096B2, Jiang, and Russo 929B2 fail to explicitly disclose generating the carbon emission amount for each of the at least some of the cargo groups in the section. Milcoff, however, discloses receiving freight data to determine transport configurations and carbon emissions. Milcoff teaches, (Currently Amended) wherein the processor generates a carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups transported by the vehicle based on a result of calculating the carbon emission amount for each of the at least some of the cargo groups in the section. ““Transport route” for the purposes of this disclosure is a segment of an overall route that is traversed by one transport carrier 132. For example, a projected transport journey 152 may contain multiple transport routes 156 wherein a first transport route 156 may transport a freight from an origin location to a first stop, a second transport route 156 may transport the freight from the second stop to a third stop, and the third transport route 156 may transport the freight from the third stop to a final destination. " (Milcoff Col. 10 Lines 48-56). "In one or more embodiments, real carbon data 180 may include real carbon blocks. “Real carbon block” for the purposes of this disclosure is information associated with the actual carbon emitted for a transport route 156. In an embodiment, real carbon data 180 may include an aggregation of one or more real carbon blocks wherein each real carbon block may include a portion of the total carbon emitted. In one or more embodiments, one or more location-based sensors and one or more carbon sensors may be used to determine the total carbon emitted for a transport carrier 132 over a particular transport route 156. In one or more embodiments, real carbon blocks may be used to determine which transport route 156 was affected by an increase in carbon emission. In one or more embodiments, real carbon blocks may be received in any way as described in this disclosure, such as in reference to real carbon data 180. In one or more embodiments, carbon outlier 196 may include real carbon block and projected carbon block 168. In one or more embodiments, processor may be configured to transmit carbon outlier 196 to remote device 136." (Milcoff Col. 35 Lines 20-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the method of determining carbon emissions of a shipment of Russo 096B2, Jiang, and Russo 929B2 with generating the carbon emission amount for each cargo groups in a section of Milcoff to make informed decisions in association with selection of transports (Milcoff Col. 1 Lines 16-17).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo (US 12165096B2), in view of Jiang (CN 117132437 A), in view of Russo (US12359929B2), and in further view of Wang (CN 117893036 A).
Regarding Claim 6,
The combination of Russo 096B2, and Jiang disclose the method of determining carbon emissions of a shipment as shown above. Russo 096B2 further discloses the carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups is generated after the vehicle arrives at its destination. For the purposes of this disclosure, a “shipment” is the movement of a good from an initial location to a destination (e.g., final location). A shipment may be completed using a transportation vehicle, which may be a mobile structure that carries goods from the initial location to the destination" (Russo 096B2 Col. 5 Lines 41-46). "Still referring to FIG. 2, as shown in step 215, method 200 may include determining carbon emission data 144 as a function of shipment elements. In one or more embodiments, carbon emission data 144 may include total carbon emissions of a shipment" (Russo 096B2 Col. 8 Lines 15-19).
The combination of Russo 096B2, and Jiang fail to explicitly disclose generating the carbon emission amount for each of the at least some of the cargo groups in the section. Wang, however, discloses a vehicle driving carbon emission calculation method. Wang further discloses, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire GPS data of the vehicle at the intervals, and "GPS trajectory data can provide relatively continuous trajectory points of vehicles in time and space. By utilizing the instantaneous speed, position, and direction information in the trajectory point attributes, traffic emissions can be estimated more accurately" (Wang Par. 0007).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the method of determining carbon emissions of a shipment of Russo 096B2 and Jiang with acquiring GPS data of the vehicle at the intervals of Wang so the emission can be estimated more accurately using the instantaneous speed position and direction information in the track point attribute (Wang Par. 0007).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo (US 12165096B2), in view of Jiang (CN 117132437 A), and in further view of Ichikawa (JP2024139216A).
Regarding Claim 8,
The combination of Russo 096B2 and Jiang disclose a method for determining carbon emissions of a shipment, but fails to disclose the cargo groups includes the at least one cargo from only a single shipper. Ichikawa, however, discloses reporting the greenhouse gas emissions generated in connection with the transportation of goods. Ichikawa, teaches, wherein the each of the cargo groups includes the at least one cargo from only a single shipper. "Table 43a shown in FIG. 4 holds in advance data that indicates the relationship between type, unit of cargo, and volume per case for each transport case used by each contract shipper, etc." (Ichikawa Par. 0050). "Meanwhile, each shipper who requests a transportation company to transport cargo is obligated to understand and report the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during transportation. The cargo space management system 100 shown in FIG. 1 has the function of calculating carbon dioxide emissions and providing the data to the shipper. Here, when there is only one shipper of cargo transported simultaneously by one truck vehicle 10, or when there is no need to distinguish between loading rates for each shipper, it is possible to calculate the shipper's CO2 emissions using the vehicle's operation records and loading rate data. In other words, the CO2 emissions are calculated based on the product of the transport weight and the transport distance" (Ichikawa Par. 0055)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention to have combined the method of determining carbon emissions of a shipment of Russo 096B2 and Jiang with each of the cargo groups includes the at least one cargo from only a single shipper of Wang to appropriately calculate carbon dioxide emissions for each shipper without significantly increasing the burden of information input work (Ichikawa Par. 0010).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated above in light of the amendments, making the remaining arguments moot. The 103 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/15/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that under Step 2A, Prong 1 that the claims have been amended so they do not recite a mathematical concept. The Examiner respectfully disagrees since the claims recite generating the amount of carbon emissions. The Examiner further notes that a mathematical concept does not need to be expressed in mathematical symbols. See MPEP 2106.05(a).
The Applicant argues that the claim recites features similar to the claim under example 38 of the “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas” where “While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concept, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims”. However, this argument is not persuasive because the reasons for eligibility in Example 38 do not apply to the present claims. Example 38 was found eligible because the claim did not recite a mathematical calculation or concept, mental process or a method of organizing human activity. The present claims, however, recite a process by which data is being acquired regarding the amount of carbon emissions discharged by a vehicle which is transporting a plurality of cargo groups from the vehicle at intervals and a plurality of parameters correlated with respective weights of the plurality of cargo groups, and the cargo groups including at least one cargo and being set based on a shipper, and generating a carbon emission amount for each of the cargo groups based on the carbon emission amount discharged by the vehicle and parameters. Under Step 2A Prong One, the Office only needs to identify at least one abstract idea grouping, not necessarily all possible ones. The claim clearly fits a mathematical concept and a certain method of organizing human activities that can be considered as managing behavior including following rules or instructions and/or a commercial interaction for the shipment of cargo. Therefore, none of the applicant’s arguments regarding Step 2A, Prong 1 are persuasive.
The Applicant further argues that the amended claim integrates the claimed invention into a practical application of carbon emission calculation and avoiding excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance since Claim 1 recites an information processing device that generates the carbon emission amount for each cargo group set based on the shipper, based on data on carbon emission amount received from the vehicle transporting the cargo groups at intervals, and “intervals are set based on an average speed of the vehicle”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argued problem of a carbon emission calculation is not a technological problem caused by the general-purpose computer to which the invention is claimed. The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s argument that the “intervals set on average speed of the vehicle” is avoiding excess traffic volume on the network and hindrance of network performance, however, Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any physical improvement to the function of the generic component that results from the implantation of Applicant’s claim. There is no indication that the generic computing component is made to run faster, more efficiently, or utilize less power. In fact, the computer may be caused to operate slower and less efficiently through the implantation of Applicant’s claimed invention; we do not know and therefore it can be asserted that the problem indicated by the Applicant was not a problem caused by the computer, it is a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. As best, Applicant’s identified problem is a business problem. Because no technical problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application. Therefore, the 101 Rejection is maintained.
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 Emily M Kraisinger whose telephone number is (703)756-4583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM -4:30 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/E.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights