DETAILE 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 Office action is in response to correspondence received March 24, 2025.
Claims 1-5 are pending and have been examined.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a control unit configured to execute, in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The specification provides structural support for the control unit in par 026 where a terminal is taught.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
acquiring of a remaining amount of improvement credit held by an object corporation, for improving a value of an impact indicator regarding an environment; and distributing of at least part of the remaining amount of the improvement credit that is acquired, to an account of each of one or more corporations that supply each of one or more inclusion products included as one or more upstream-side products in an object product of the object corporation, the upstream-side products being identified by following a product tree that hierarchically indicates a supply relation of a product group containing the object product of the object corporation in a supply chain, to which the object corporation belongs.
The abstract idea recited above is a certain method of organizing human activity – commercial interaction – because it describes steps of determining values of improvement credits and value indicators in a supply chain. These steps are similar to accounting or other commercial tasks and therefore are a commercial interaction. For these reasons claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “An information processing device comprising: a control unit that is configured to execute” describes a generic computer and the execution is the commonplace business method of performing steps similar to accounting. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), Alice. This is an “apply it” step where the abstract idea is instructed to be performed on a computer. For these reasons the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, for the same reasoning as in the practical application step above, which is carried over here. The element being apply it is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-5 further define the abstract idea with the kinds of credits or limitations defining credits as renewable energy.
Therefore, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Singh et al., US PGPUB 20240296459 A1 (“Singh”).
Per claim 1, Singh teaches An information processing device comprising: a control unit that is configured to execute acquiring of a remaining amount of improvement credit held by an object corporation, for improving a value of an impact indicator regarding an environment in par 42: “At 606C, the apparatus may determine whether the TF calculated at 606B is above a threshold value. For example, 606C may be performed by SCM partner recommendation and enforcement engine 350 or processors 810 of computing device 805 of FIGS. 3 and 8, respectively. The threshold value for the TF, in some aspects, may be one of the parameters obtained at 402 of FIG. 4. The TF threshold, in some aspects, may indicate an acceptable level of GF from a particular partner compared to a target GF calculated for the current recommendation (e.g., a target GF of the SCM Company's associated supply chain network with the current recommendation). If the apparatus, at 606C determines that the TF calculated at 606B is above the threshold, the apparatus may identify, at 606D, an intent by one or more partners to purchase and/or invest in a carbon offset (e.g., a CC, or GF offset) and an opportunity cost, σ.sub.i, associated with the carbon offset intended to be purchased by a partner, i.”
See also par 048: “The TF may be used, in some aspects to evaluate the desirability of one or more carbon credit purchases and a distribution of the carbon credit purchases across the supply chain. In some aspects, the TF may guide a carbon credit purchase decision and indicate a quantity of CCs to purchase based on the variable and fixed opportunity cost incurred by one or more partners.”
The apparatus teaches information processing device comprising a control unit configured to execute.
TF means total footprint and GF means Greenhouse Gas Footprint.
Identify a remaining amount of improvement credit held by an object corporation is taught at 606D where a carbon offset is purchased this is also taught in par 004: “The project may include, e.g., a conservation project 111 (preventing the destruction of a carbon sink such as a forested area), a green energy installation 112 (preventing additional GHG and/or CO.sub.2 emissions), or a reforestation project 113 (capturing carbon in the trees). The project may be evaluated and verified 114 by a third party (e.g., a certification organization or governmental office) to determine a number of tons of CO.sub.2 the project may be used to offset. A carbon offset wholesaler and/or retailer 120 may be notified of the availability of the verified and/or certified carbon offset and may then coordinate the sale of the carbon offset between the project developer 110 and a carbon credit end buyer 130”
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation the carbon credits are for improving a value of an impact indicator is taught in pars 042, 048 because the total footprint (“TF”) is above a threshold value, that is to say, there is more Greenhouse Gases being produced than is desired.
Singh then teaches and distributing of at least part of the remaining amount of the improvement credit that is acquired, to an account of each of one or more corporations that supply each of one or more inclusion products included as one or more upstream-side products in an object product of the object corporation in par 48 “In some aspects, during a second pass evaluation, the apparatus may compute a tradeoff factor and determine if the TF is above a threshold TF value. The TF, in some aspects, may be based on the GF value and the decision value. The TF, in some aspects, may be based on the GF value (e.g., the second factor) and the decision value (e.g., the first factor). The TF may be used, in some aspects to evaluate the desirability of one or more carbon credit purchases and a distribution of the carbon credit purchases across the supply chain. In some aspects, the TF may guide a carbon credit purchase decision and indicate a quantity of CCs to purchase based on the variable and fixed opportunity cost incurred by one or more partners.” Partners teach corporations.
Singh then teaches the upstream-side products being identified by following a product tree that hierarchically indicates a supply relation of a product group containing the object product of the object corporation in a supply chain, to which the object corporation belongs in par 26: “FIG. 2 is a diagram 200 illustrating a set of stakeholders in a GHG marketplace. The set of stakeholders, in some aspects, may include a SCM company 201, a set of carbon credit producers/intermediaries 210 (e.g., including a reforestation project 211, a green energy project 212, and a carbon credit bank/intermediary 213) and a set of GHG market participants 220 (e.g., members of a blockchain green supply chain consortium or potential partners). The GHG market participants 220 may include a set of manufacturers 221 (e.g., potential manufacturing partners), a set of transportation partners 222 (e.g., potential transportation partners), a set of distribution partners 223 (e.g., potential distribution partners), and a set of retail partners 224 (e.g., potential manufacturing partners). Each market participant of the GHG market participants 220 may be associated with a value computed based on a quality of service (QoS) and a GHG footprint (GF) (e.g., V.sub.i,j=QoS.sub.i,j*GF.sub.i,j, for each group of partners, i, and each potential partner, j, within the group) used to calculate a value associated with a set of partners selected for a particular objective.”
Object corporation is taught by SCM (supply chain management) company: see par 027: “For example, the SCM company 201 may determine a target GF (TGF) for the supply chain (e.g., the sum of the partners GHG footprint in the SCM company's supply chain).”
Per claim 2, Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Singh further teaches wherein the impact indicator regarding the environment includes carbon dioxide emissions, and the improvement credit includes carbon credits in par 25: “In some aspects, system, method, and/or apparatus (e.g., a Green Supply Chain Partner Recommendation system) in accordance with some aspects of this disclosure may provide a method to recommend partners that minimizes or achieves a target Total GHG/Carbon Footprint (TGF) for a project and/or a time period. The system, method, and/or apparatus, in some aspects may enable the onboarding of SC partners to share non-repudiated and/or validated environmental qualitative and/or quantitative data that is trackable and/or traceable. The system, method, and/or apparatus, in some aspects may provide a single truth (a shared view of a GHG marketplace) and evidence-based tracking of environmental activities among SC partners. Automation of SC partner selection and policy implementation for carbon emission reductions using smart contracts may be provided in some aspects by the system, method, and/or apparatus. Additionally, the system, method, and/or apparatus may recommend ways to reduce emissions and use carbon offsets by carbon credits at the level of supply chain partners.”
Per claim 3, Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Singh further teaches wherein the impact indicator regarding the environment includes a degree of use of renewable energy, and the improvement credit includes credit for the renewable energy in par 026: “FIG. 2 is a diagram 200 illustrating a set of stakeholders in a GHG marketplace. The set of stakeholders, in some aspects, may include a SCM company 201, a set of carbon credit producers/intermediaries 210 (e.g., including a reforestation project 211, a green energy project 212,” See also Fig 2 item 212 where solar energy resources is taught, for the carbon credit marketplace.
Per claim 4, Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Singh further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to further execute accepting of specification of a condition for distributing the improvement credit, and the distributing of at least part of the remaining amount of the improvement credit is made up of distributing at least part of the remaining amount of the improvement credit according to the condition that is specified in par 49: “If the apparatus determines that the calculated TF is above the threshold, the apparatus may proceed to obtain data for at least one candidate partner entity regarding a potential GF offset by the at least one candidate partner entity. The data obtained, in some aspects, may be obtained from a carbon offset commitment blockchain (or other data structure storing information regarding a carbon offset market). The data obtained, in some aspects, may indicate an intent by one or more partners to purchase and/or invest in a carbon offset (e.g., a CC, or GF offset) and an opportunity cost, oi, associated with the carbon offset intended to be purchased by a partner, i. The apparatus may then return to evaluate the objective function based on data obtained (e.g., a set of opportunity costs for each partner). For example, referring to FIGS. 3 and 6, the SCM partner recommendation and enforcement engine 350 may determine that a TF value is above a threshold value at 606C and proceed to 606D to identify an intent by one or more partners to purchase and/or invest in a carbon offset (e.g., a CC, or GF offset) and an opportunity cost, σ.sub.i, associated with the carbon offset intended to be purchased by a partner, i.”
Per claim 5, Singh teaches the limitations of claim 4, above. Singh further teaches wherein the condition includes distributing the improvement credit such that, poorer the value of the impact indicator of an inclusion product is, more of the improvement credit is distributed to an account of a corporation that supplies the inclusion product in par 58-59: "As discussed above in relation to FIG. 4, the evaluation may be based on the first factor, α.sub.i, relating to a QoS and/or a fraction of the particular service or product provided by each partner and a second factor, ϑ.sub.i, relating to a value of a contribution of each partner (e.g., a value indicating and/or representing the contribution of the partner to the attributes to be maximized). In some aspects, the first factor and the second factor may be sets of values (e.g., a first set of QoS values and a corresponding second set of contribution values). During a first pass, the evaluation at 708 may not consider attributes of CCs associated with the different partners, σ.sub.i, while subsequent passes (for a same recommendation or a different recommendation) may consider the attributes of CCs associated with the different partners as described in relation to 406 and 506 of FIGS. 4 and 6, respectively. Evaluating the objective function, in some aspects, may include evaluating a weight W.sub.j associated with the recommendation as discussed in relation to the calculation at 406 of FIG. 4 above. For example, referring to FIGS. 3-6, the SCM partner recommendation and enforcement engine 350 may calculate a GF value function at 406 and/or 506 based on the information obtained at 402.
At 710, the apparatus may compute a tradeoff factor and determine if the TF is above a threshold TF value. For example, 710 may be performed by SCM partner recommendation and enforcement engine 350 or processors 810 of computing device 805 of FIGS. 3 and 8, respectively. The TF, in some aspects, may be based on the GF value and the decision value. The TF, in some aspects, may be based on the GF value (e.g., the second factor) and the decision value (e.g., the first factor). The TF may be used, in some aspects to evaluate the desirability of one or more carbon credit purchases and a distribution of the carbon credit purchases across the supply chain. In some aspects, the TF may guide a carbon credit purchase decision and indicate a quantity of CCs to purchase based on the variable and fixed opportunity cost incurred by one or more partners. The threshold value for the TF, in some aspects, may be one of the parameters received as part of the request at 706. The TF threshold, in some aspects, may indicate an acceptable level of GF from a particular partner compared to a target GF calculated for the current recommendation (e.g., a target GF of the SCM Company's associated supply chain network with the current recommendation). For example, referring to FIGS. 3 and 6, the SCM partner recommendation and enforcement engine 350 may calculate a TF at 606B and determine whether it is above a threshold value at 606C."
Therefore, claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 102.
Prior Art Considered Relevant
The following prior art is considered relevant to Applicant’s disclosure but is not relied upon in the above rejection:
Tanaka US PGPUB 20250363502, teaches in par 080 determining emissions when charging information for a battery powered device is used.
Gogerty US PGPUB 20230162204 teaches in pars 119 125 that transfers of credits or CO2 emissions are performed on a blockchain or DLT ledger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619