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
This action is a non-final, first office action in response to the response to restriction requirement filed on 02/03/2026, in which Group I (claims 1 – 7) were elected and claims 8 – 20 were withdrawn.
Claims 1 – 7 have been examined and are subject to the non-final office action below.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1 – 7) as stated in the response received 02/03/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Therefore, the requirement is deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Novel/Nonobvious Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 7 are not rejected over the prior art.
The closest prior art, Krishna (US 20250307861 A1) (see, e.g., [0062] – [0064] & [0067] – [0068]), discloses determining a total cost of a computing workload, including tasks such as data collection, streaming analytics, database query, analyzing data, data cleansing, running AI functions, etc., but fails to disclose wherein one of the costs of the workload is a carbon footprint, as well as triggering the aggregation of carbon footprints of the various stages upon completion of the stages of the workflow.
Chakraborty et al. (US 20230196378 A1) (see, e.g., [0033]) teaches the monitoring of the training of a machine learning model to record carbon emissions in order to pause training if the carbon emissions of the training exceed a threshold. However, Chakraborty likewise fails to disclose triggering the aggregation of carbon footprints of the various stages upon completion of the stages of the workflow.
Roper, Jr. et al. (US 20250131453 A1) (see, e.g., [0034]) teaches a method and system for tracking the carbon emissions associated with the execution of inference and training tasks for a machine learning model in order to update the estimates for cost of the machine learning tasks and generate recommendations to reduce complexity while maintaining model accuracy. However, Roper likewise fails to disclose triggering the aggregation of carbon footprints of the various stages upon completion of the stages of the workflow.
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 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 7 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1 – 7 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites: “constructing… a processing pipeline for a set of stages; receiving… a first carbon footprint value associated with iterative executions of a first stage of the processing pipeline, the first stage comprising a first set of task executions within the first stage of the processing pipeline, each of the first set of task executions corresponding to a first set of carbon footprint values; receiving… a second carbon footprint value associated with iterative executions of a second stage of the processing pipeline, the second stage comprising a second set of task executions within the second stage of the processing pipeline, each of the second set of task executions corresponding to a second set of carbon footprint values; and in response to completing execution of the processing pipeline, aggregating the first carbon footprint value, the first set of carbon footprint values, the second carbon footprint value, and the second set of carbon footprint values in determination of a carbon footprint value associated with execution of the processing pipeline.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass determining a carbon footprint of executing a machine learning model. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” Additionally, the claims also fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, because the recited steps of receiving carbon footprint values for multiple stages and aggregating the carbon footprint values to determine a total carbon footprint value are analogous to “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or with a pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims fall under both "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping as well as the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1, as a whole, amounts to: merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent).
Claim 1 recites the additional generic computer components of “computer-implemented,” “by a metadata tracking system,” and “execute the processing pipeline on a machine learning model at a data processing site.”
The additional elements of “computer-implemented,” “by a metadata tracking system,” and “execute the processing pipeline on a machine learning model at a data processing site” are recited at a high level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (See Figs. 1 & 3 showing the additional elements in combination), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: “computer-implemented,” “by a metadata tracking system,” and “execute the processing pipeline on a machine learning model at a data processing site” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 7 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. Dependent claims 3 – 7 merely generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and likewise do not provide integration into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)), as well as amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Krishna (US 20250307861 A1); Chakraborty et al. (US 20230196378 A1); Roper, Jr. et al. (US 20250131453 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights