DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed December 12, 2024. The instant application is a division of application no. 17729679, now abandoned.
Claims 1-9 are pending. Claims 1 and 9 are the independent claims.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Selecting a Power Source to Produce Biofuel Based on a Carbon Intensity Score or the like.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as Claim 3 recites the limitation "the facility" in Claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has been interpreted to read a facility for the purposes of examination. Appropriate correction 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 9, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of . This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, production planning (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to selecting a power source (electricity, steam, renewable, solar, etc.) to product a product/biofuel based on a carbon intensity (score), wherein production planning is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “obtaining”, “using”, and “completing” (Claim 1); “obtaining”, “using” and “applying” recite functions of the production planning are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claims 1 and 9 appears to be to display to select a power source to convert/produce biofuels based on a carbon intensity score.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are “product”, “feedstock” and “processing plant” (each recited at a very high level of generality and used for the ordinary, routine purpose) and the generic computer processor. See 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: processor. These generic computing components are merely used to obtain or process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 14). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's production planning in the general field of business management/marketing and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), Claims 1-9 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited processor," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of using the CI score to select a power source; applying the product (feedstock) to the step using the selected power source and completing any remaining steps to produce the biofuel all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a processor nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps obtaining a carbon intensity score for each of a plurality of loads of feedstock (Claim 9), obtaining a carbon intensity score for a product provided (Claim 1) are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The steps of completing ANY remaining steps of the process to product the biofuel (Claim 1) and applying the selected load of feedstock to the process to produce the biofuel (Claim 9) are results/outcome based and fail to recite how the biofuel is actually produced (apply it). Further the steps of completing ANY remaining steps of the process to product the biofuel (Claim 1) and applying the selected load of feedstock to the process to produce the biofuel (Claim 9) are directed to an insignificant application of the abstract idea.
As described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”).
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. 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. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “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. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: ….. vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also MPEP 2106.05(g) • Insignificant application: i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential);
Additionally the mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic processor is each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of obtaining and using data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the retrieving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-8, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of production planning and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent Claims 1 and 9.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by determining which collection of power sources are available (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the power sources to those implement at a facility (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea by selected a power source to obtain a desired CI score (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by determining which power sources are available by tracking a status of each power source (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by producing an immutable CI score for the biofuel (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by generating a CI token based on the CI score of the biofuel and using the CI token to offset carbon emissions (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by marking the CI token so it cannot be used to offset emissions (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding Claims 1-9, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processor at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 14). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processors merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 14). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whikehart et al. U.S. Patent No. 11270393 in view of Official Notice.
Regarding Claim 1, Whikehart et al. discloses a method comprising:
Before a step in a process for converting feedstock into biofuel, a processor (Column 7, Lines 55-68; Column 8, Lines 1-15; Figure 8, Element 760; Figure 12, Element 1002):
Obtaining a carbon intensity (number, value, variable, parameter, etc.) for a product (e.g. feedstock; Figure 4, Elements 308, 211; Figure 12, Element 1010; Figure 11, Element 980; Figure 13A, Element 1106; Column 12-14) being provided in the step;
Using the CI to select a power source for the step (Figure 1, Elements 108, 110, 111; Figure 9, Element 860; Figure 11, Elements 983; Figure 12 – Fuel integration controller/Utility Controller; Figure 13A, Element 1112, 118; Column 32, Lines 20-68; Column 33; Column 35, lines 40-68);
Apply the product to the step in the process using the selected power source (Figures 7, 9, 10; Figure 11, Elements 980, 983; Figure 13C, Element 1141; Figures 14A, 14B – Utility Selection – Refinery Controller; Figure 21, Element 2126’ Columns 41, 42); and
Completing ANY remaining steps of the process to produce (convert, refine, process, etc.) the biofuel (Figures 3A, 3B, 7, 9, 10, 16E; Figure 8, Element 735; Figures 14A, 14B – Utility Selection – Refinery Controller; Columns 41-43).
Whikehart et al. does not expressly disclose the phrase CI/Carbon Intensity score as claimed.
Official notice is taken that utilizing the phrase CI “score” to represent carbon intensity is old, well-known, conventional and routine. Support for this old and well-known fact can be found in at least the following references: Narasimhan, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220108252; Foody, U.S. Patent No. 11946001.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Whikehart et al. with its utilization of a carbon intensity value/number would have been readily understood to be equivalent to an CI score and/or would have benefited from utilizing a CI score in view of official notice, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 9, Whikehart et al. discloses a method comprising:
Before a process for creating a biofuel, a processor (Column 7, Lines 55-68; Column 8, Lines 1-15; Figure 8, Element 760; Figure 12, Element 1002):
Obtaining respective carbon intensity (number, value, variable, parameter, etc.) for each of a plurality of loads of feedstock present at a processing plant configured to create biofuel (Figure 4, Elements 308, 211; Figure 12, Element 1010; Figure 11, Element 980; Figure 13A, Element 1106; Column 12-14) being provided in the step;
Using the CIs for the plurality of loads of feedstock to select a load of feedstock to use in the process of creating the biofuel (Figure 11, Element 980; Figure 12, Element 1010; Figure 13A, Element 1104, 1106; Figure 13B, Elements 1128, 1130; Figure 14A, Element 1010; Figure 14B, Element 1010; Column 43, 44);
Apply the product to the step in the process using the selected power source (Figures 7, 9, 10; Figure 11, Elements 980, 983; Figure 13C, Element 1141; Figures 14A, 14B – Utility Selection – Refinery Controller; Figure 21, Element 2126’ Columns 41, 42); and
Completing ANY remaining steps of the process to produce (convert, refine, process, etc.) the biofuel (Figures 3A, 3B, 7, 9, 10, 16E; Figure 8, Element 735; Figures 14A, 14B – Utility Selection – Refinery Controller; Columns 41-43).
Whikehart et al. does not expressly disclose the phrase CI/Carbon Intensity score as claimed.
Official notice is taken that utilizing the phrase CI “score” to represent carbon intensity is old, well-known, conventional and routine. Support for this old and well-known fact can be found in at least the following references: Narasimhan, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220108252; Foody, U.S. Patent No. 11946001.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Whikehart et al. with its utilization of a carbon intensity value/number would have been readily understood to be equivalent to an CI score and/or would have benefited from utilizing a CI score in view of official notice, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2 Whikehart et al. discloses a method further comprising, during the process of converting the feedstock into biofuel determining which of a collection of power sources are available for performing the step of selecting a power source for the step limted to/from the available power sources (Figure 1, Elements 108, 110, 111; Figure 9, Element 860; Figure 11, Elements 983; Figure 12 – Fuel integration controller/Utility Controller; Figure 13A, Element 1112, 118; Column 32, Lines 20-68; Column 33; Column 35, lines 40-68).
Regarding Claim 3 Whikehart et al. discloses a method further wherein the collection of power sources is limited to power sources that have been implemented at a facility being used to convert the feedstock into the biofuel (Figure 1, Elements 108, 110, 111; Figure 9, Element 860; Figure 11, Elements 983; Figure 12 – Fuel integration controller/Utility Controller; Figure 13A, Element 1112, 118; Column 32, Lines 20-68; Column 33; Column 35, lines 40-68).
Regarding Claim 4, Whikehart et al. discloses wherein selecting the power source comprises selecting a power source to obtain a desired CI for the biofuel (Figure 1, Elements 108, 110, 111; Figure 9, Element 860; Figure 11, Elements 983; Figure 12 – Fuel integration controller/Utility Controller; Figure 13A, Element 1112, 118; Column 32, Lines 20-68; Column 33; Column 35, lines 40-68).
Regarding Claim 5, Whikehart et al. discloses a method further comprising tracking a status of each power source implemented at the facility while performing a step in the process that produces the product (Column 61, Lines 45-68; Column 62, Lines 1-5; Column 84, Lines 40-68; Column 85, Lines 1-5).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whikehart et al. U.S. Patent No. 11270393 in view of Official Notice as applied to the claims above and further in view of MacArthur et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220156754.
Regarding Claim 6, Whikehart et al. discloses a method further comprising production a CI for the biofuel that reflects the carbon intensity associated with growing, transporting and converting the feedstock into the biofuel (Figures 10, 11, 13A-13E; Column 27).
While the use of immutable data in the forms of tokens, digital ledgers and blockchains are well-known and widely used Whikehart et al. does not disclose that the CI is immutable as claimed.
MacArthuret al., from the same field of endeavor of managing/minimizing carbon emissions, discloses a system and method comprising producing an immutable carbon score (Paragraphs 7-9, 82, 85, 146).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method of Whikehart et al. would have benefited from production an immutable CI in view of the disclosure of MacArthur et al., such a system/method enable the trading, tracking, sale and/or purchase of Cis in the blockchain/digital ledger.
Regarding Claim 7, Whikehart et al. does not disclose generating or using a token as claimed.
MacArthuret al., from the same field of endeavor of managing/minimizing carbon emissions, discloses a system and method comprising generating a carbon token based on a carbon intensity (e.g. emissions) for a product (e.g. biofuel) and using the carbon token to offset at least one instance of carbon emissions (Paragraphs 82, 85, 80, 125, 157).
Regarding Claim 8, Whikehart et al. does not disclose tokens as claimed.
MacArthur et al., from the same field of endeavor of managing/minimizing carbon emissions, discloses a system and method wherein using the carbon token so that the carbon token cannot be used to offset other carbon emissions (e.g. burn; Paragraphs 80, 125, 157).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crawford et al., U.S. Patent No. 9925477 discloses a system and method of production biofuel from biomass (feedstock) including selective use of power source(s) (electricity, thermal) to minimize carbon intensity (DETX 15, 28, 31, 39, 109, 110, 115, Claim 1).
Foody, U.S. Patent No. 11946001 discloses a system and method for producing fuel taking into account carbon intensity.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights