The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is in response to the amendments and arguments filed 6/24/2026. Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are pending. Claims 4 and 13-14 have been canceled.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
the language is not clear, concise and repeats information given in the title (“A carbon tariff calculation method and a service system”); and,
the sentence structure in confusing with run on sentences with missing punctuation (i.e. “a carbon credit price and tax items of the import location are obtained, a tax exemption quota of the import location is introduced, and an amount of a paid tax of the enterprise is obtained” and “carbon tariff is calculated based on…quantity, …emissions, …price, …quota, and … tax, and …report is created” see below, emphasis added).
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each
element or step of the claim should be separated by a line
indentation (see 37 CFR 1.75 (i)).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 6-8, and 10 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.
Specifically, as to claim 2-3, 6-8, 10, the claims depending from claims 1 and 9, respectively, which provide a method/system of calculating the carbon tariff yet the instant dependent claims recite limitations to calculating the carbon tariff in what appears to be in contrast to the claim from which each depends. The metes and bounds of the claims are not clear.
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 1-3, 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception without significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 are directed to a system, method, or product, which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 9.
The claims recite the steps of a carbon tariff calculation method…
comprising:
obtaining enterprise operation and sales data from an enterprise database to obtain a product quantity, a carbon footprint, and product carbon emissions of an enterprise export product;
introducing… carbon tariff regulations of an import location that the enterprise export product is imported to, including obtaining a carbon credit price and tax collection items that are dynamically changed or revised of the import location;
introducing a tax exemption quota that is dynamically changed or revised of the import location…;
obtaining an amount of a paid tax of an enterprise; and
calculating a carbon tariff based on the product quantity, the product carbon emissions, the carbon credit price, the tax exemption quota, and the paid tax so as to import the carbon tariff into a profit and loss statement of the enterprise through simulation and calculation and to create a carbon tariff declaration report for the enterprise export product to the import location; wherein…the carbon footprint of the enterprise export product is obtained through carbon inventory, and a full scope of organizational greenhouse gas is allocated to a raw material acquisition stage, a production and manufacturing stage, a distribution and sales stage, a product using stage, and a product disposal and recycle stage.
Under Step 2A Prong 1, the claim as a whole recites the series of steps instructing how to calculate a tariff (tax), which is a fundamental economic practice of calculating a fee associated with carbon (climate related) and thus falls within the abstract grouping of certain method of organizing human activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of how to calculate a carbon tariff in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (computer system, circuit, memory, external system, API) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform an existing economic process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A prong 2, the claim describes how to generally “apply” the concept of calculation of carbon tariffs in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed separately and as a whole, the additional claim elements (computer system, circuit, memory, external system, API) do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is ineligible.
The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claims 11 and 12 include the additional elements of application program interfaces however these are recited at a high level as generality and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself..
Dependent claims, 2-3, 5-8 and 10 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 9 (greenhouse gas scope, export product locations for example). The dependent claims are abstract for the reasons presented above because there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered as a whole, individually and as an ordered combination. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". Thus, the claims 1-3 and 5-12 are not patent-eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (TW M 640 876 U) as applied above for claim 1 and 9, further in view of Ni (CN118051559A) .
Specifically as to claims 1 and 9, Chan et al disclose a carbon tariff calculation method (and related system), running on a computer system (see para 3),
comprising:
obtaining enterprise operation and sales data from an enterprise database to obtain a product quantity, a carbon footprint, and product carbon emissions of an enterprise export product (par. [0005] "a carbon inventory module that can provide a carbon inventory quantity and a carbon footprint emission amount", par. [0012] "Carbon inventory module 11: (1) can input, obtain, set or connect the greenhouse gas carbon inventory of a certain enterprise organization and display it; (2) can input, obtain, set or connect the carbon footprint of a certain enterprise's products emissions and displayed. Parameters that can be output include organizational carbon inventory numbers and carbon footprint carbon dioxide equivalent data");
introducing, via an application programming interface of an external system, carbon tariff regulations of an import location that the enterprise export product is imported to, including obtaining a carbon credit price and tax collection items that are dynamically changed or revised of the import location (par. [0014] "Carbon tax management module 13: can input, obtain or display the carbon tariff, carbon fee or carbon tax per unit of carbon dioxide equivalent in different countries. The parameters that can be output include the country of the carbon tax database, carbon tariff per unit of carbon dioxide equivalent, carbon fee, and carbon tax" connecting by an API, broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification (see figure 1 network 10) are within “The certification module 260 is coupled to the database 120, the operation interface 130, the calculation module 140 and the analysis module 150. The certification module 260 generates a third-party certification information based on the third-party certification criteria, the enterprise activity data, the total carbon emission information, the carbon emission report, the carbon reduction plan report and the target recommendation report, and the third-party certification information is displayed on the terminal device 1” );
introducing a tax exemption quota that is dynamically changed or revised of the import location from the external system (par. [0014] accessing "the carbon tax database" to obtain in particular "carbon fee, and carbon tax", it is implicit that tax exemption quota are contained in the carbon tax database, it is further noted that par. [0015] discloses "payment obligation exceeding the emission limit" and pars. [0018], [0019] disclose "EU free quota for related products", third party is the external system which further underlines that the emission limits of exemption quota);
obtaining an amount of a paid tax of an enterprise (see para 18); and
calculating a carbon tariff based on the product quantity, the product carbon emissions, the carbon credit price, the tax exemption quota, and the paid tax so as to import the carbon tariff into a profit and loss statement of the enterprise through simulation and calculation and to create a carbon tariff declaration report for the enterprise export product to the import location ((par. [0015] "Carbon price calculation module 14: (1) Can read the organizational carbon inventory quantity and carbon footprint quantity of the carbon inventory/carbon footprint module; [… ] (3) The country, carbon tariff, carbon fee, and carbon tax value of the carbon tax management module can be read; (4) The carbon liability of a certain enterprise organization's carbon inventory results can be calculated")) including the carbon footprint of the enterprise export product is obtained through carbon inventory (see Chan et al. para 12) but does not specifically disclose a full scope of organizational greenhouse gas is allocated to a raw material acquisition stage, a production and manufacturing stage, a distribution and sales stage, a product using stage, and a product disposal and recycle stage.
Ni teaches carbon emissions are calculated based on the emission generated in all stages of the product life cycle (see page 10 para 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the calculation system of Chan the ability to calculate the value as taught by Ni 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. A person of ordinary skill would have understood prior art teachings, or what a person of ordinary skill would have known or could have done.
Specifically as to claim 2, wherein the carbon tariff is equal to the product carbon emissions multiplied by the carbon credit price, and then multiplied by the product quantity (see Chan et al. para 15 and 19).
Specifically as to claim 3, wherein the computer system obtains a carbon credit price, a tax exemption quota, and product carbon footprint tax collection items of the import location from an external system, calculates the carbon tariff accordingly, and obtains the
carbon tariff declaration report for the enterprise export product to the import location (see Chan et al. para 13).
Specifically as to claim 5, wherein the full scope of the organizational greenhouse gases includes direct greenhouse gas emissions, energy indirect greenhouse gas emissions, and other indirect greenhouse gas emissions (Ni pages 6-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the calculation system of Chan the ability to calculate the value as taught by Ni 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. A person of ordinary skill would have understood prior art teachings, or what a person of ordinary skill would have known or could have done.
Specifically as to claim 6 wherein the carbon tariff is equal to the product carbon emissions multiplied by the carbon credit price, and then multiplied by the product quantity (see Chan et al. para 15 and 19)..
Specifically as to claim 7, wherein the carbon tariff of the enterprise export product from an export location to the import location is equal to:
[(actual carbon emissions of products produced) - (tax exemption quota)] x (total product import amount) x (weekly average carbon credit price) = (obligation amount); wherein, (obligation amount) - (amount of tax
paid at the export location) = (adjustment amount) (see Chan et al. para 18 and 19)..
Specifically as to claim 8, wherein the carbon tariff is calculated by calculating a number of Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) certificates implemented by the European Union (EU) (see Chan et al. para 18 and 19)..
Specifically as to claim 10, wherein the carbon tariff is equal to the product carbon emissions multiplied by the carbon credit price, and
then multiplied by the product quantity (see Chan et al. para 15 and 19).
Specifically as to claim 11, wherein the service system further obtains the tax exemption quota and the carbon credit price of the import location from a carbon tariff and regulations database of the import location through an application program interface. (see Chan et al. para 15 and 19)
Specifically as to claim 12, wherein the service system is further connected via respective application programming interfaces to a product carbon footprint system to obtain product carbon footprints; an enterprise operation and sales data system that provides the enterprise operation and sales data; a system of carbon tariff regulations, industries, products, and raw materials of each of countries to obtain the carbon tariff regulations of each of the countries including tax numbers of various taxable products; a carbon tariff collection item system of each of the countries to obtain taxable items in each of the countries; a carbon tariff exemption quota system in each of the countries to obtain tax exemption quotas set by each of the countries for the products; a local carbon credit price system in each of the countries to obtain the carbon credit price set by each of the countries; and a paid carbon price system of each of export countries to obtain the paid tax of the enterprise in a location that the product is manufactured in (see Chan et al. para 15 and 19).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to applicant’s argument “It is respectfully submitted that the claimed invention i.e., the carbon tariff calculation method and the server system that performs carbon tariff calculation utilize computer and network technology, as well as connecting with an external system via API to obtain the latest information: the dynamically-changed or revised data, the importing country regulations, the carbon credit prices, the tax items, and the tax exemption quota, etc. that cannot easily made by a man with a paper and a pencil, that are rather than just an abstract processing of human activities or mathematical methods.
For clarifying the scope of the claims and evidencing that the amended claims does NOT merely recite the generic computer components, use the computer as a tool, or even mentally with the aid of a pen and paper recites a mental process to perform the abstract idea but include at least one additional element that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the independent claims 1 and 9 have been clarified to particularly point out the additional elements.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has presented argument directed to the abstract idea groupings of mental process and mathematics however the office action did not group the claimed invention into the abstract idea grouping and as such, the arguments are moot.
With regards to applicant’s argument the claims “require the computer system to obtain carbon tariff regulations, including carbon credit price and tax collection items, via an application programming interface (API) of an external system, and to introduce a dynamically changed or revised tax exemption quota from the external system. The claimed process therefore addresses a computer-implemented data-integration problem arising in carbon tariff calculation, namely that the carbon tariff data required for the calculation are not static local inputs but dynamically changing regulatory and pricing data obtained from external systems. The technical features with the additional elements in the carbon tariff calculation method, for example introducing, via an application programming interface of an external system, carbon tariff regulations of an import location that the enterprise export product is imported to, including obtaining a carbon credit price and tax collection items that are dynamically changed or revised of the import location; introducing a tax exemption quota that is dynamically changed or revised of the import location from the external system, that show the improvement of the computer in the art of field. “ Examiner respectfully disagrees. Because the Specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the claim limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and techniques, particularly in light of the Specification, as quoted above.
Regarding “ The claims are neither just the method for organizing human activity nor using a general purpose computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, but the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application, e.g., importing the carbon tariff into a profit and loss statement of the enterprise through simulation and calculation and to creating a carbon tariff declaration report for the enterprise export product to the import location" recited in claim 1 or claim 9. Accordingly, the additional elements provided by the claims are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
By applicant’s own admission, the compute system is a general purpose system and not a special use (see para [0027} “The computer system includes main hardware components such as a computing circuit 101, a memory module 103, and a communication module 105, and the hardware components can cooperate with software components"
Further, applicant’s invention is an improvement to the abstract idea of fundamental economic practice of calculating taxes with a technical solution (The application says enterprises face difficulty tracking and complying with carbon tariff rules for exported products because those rules are complex and frequently change across countries [0025], [0034]-[0035]. Companies also may lack specialized personnel to monitor carbon tariff items, exemption quotas, and carbon credit prices. In addition, calculating product carbon footprints requires combining organizational greenhouse-gas data with product-stage allocations. The disclosure aims to reduce manual burden and improve consistency in carbon tariff declaration and planning [0025], [0065]).
35 USC 102/103 Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure relating to calculating carbon tariffs.
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 Kelly Campen whose telephone number is (571)272-6740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6am-3pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
Kelly S. Campen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3691
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights