DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Application and claims filed 3/26/2025.
Claims 1-17 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Acknowledgement is hereby made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements filed by applicant on 3/26/2025.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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 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.
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 limitations use 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 the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 1 recites limitations directed towards the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
64
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
…
PNG
media_image1.png
288
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
These limitations recite functions and/or functionality attributed to various generic “mechanism(s)”. However, the broadly claimed functions/functionality attributed to these generic mechanisms are not a general function which any general purpose computer can perform without special programming. Nonetheless, Applicant herein is asserting that these broadly claimed mechanisms with associated functionality are a primary aspect of his claimed System. However, the Specification, does not provide sufficient written description support for the recited functionality and any specific mechanism which is intended to perform the functions/functionality as recited – i.e. the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts necessary to perform each of the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to such functions. For example, the entire original disclosure (specification, claims, and drawings) appears to be devoid of any particular structural mechanism by which to perform the recited functions/functionality. Applicant’s Specification does not disclose nor discuss what mechanism(s) are contemplated which can achieve and/or otherwise perform the functionality ascribed to these generic “mechanisms”.
This deficiency further indicates that the Specification describes only "a mere wish or plan for" achieving the functions/functionality, as now claimed, by some generic undisclosed “mechanism(s)”. See Eli Lilly, 119 F .3d at 1566 (citation omitted). As such, the broadly recited limitation "merely recite[s] a description of the problem to be solved," and leaves to future inventors to "complete an unfinished invention." See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353. In this case, without the Specification describing any particular algorithm to achieve the claimed functions/functionality, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably concluded that the inventors invented the claimed invention or that they possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing of the application. See Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 683; see also Regents, 119 F.3d at 1566; § 112 Guidance at 61.
To satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or, 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, the Specification must reasonably convey to an artisan of ordinary skill that Appellant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 682 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)). Functional claim language that merely describes an intended result and fails to support the scope of the claimed invention is insufficient to show possession, even when the claim recitations are found word-for-word in the Specification. Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 682 ("[t]he written description requirement is not met if the specification merely describes a 'desired result"') (citing Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349); Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("[t]he appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy" the written description requirement). The Specification must explain, for example, how Appellant intended to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. Vasudevan, 782 F.3d at 683. While "[t]here is no rigid requirement that the disclosure contain 'either examples or an actual reduction to practice,"' due to the written description requirement, the Specification must set forth "an adequate description that 'in a definite way identifies the claimed invention' in sufficient detail such that a person of ordinary skill would understand that the inventor had made the invention at the time of filing." Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., 796 F.3d 1293, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352); see also Examining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with 35 US.C. 112, 84 F.R. 57, 61- 62 (January 7, 2019) ("112 Guidance").
Here, the Specification does not sufficiently support any particular “mechanism” which is capable of performing the recited functions/functionality as recited in the aforementioned limitations; i.e. as recited as noted per claim 1.
Under these circumstances, the Examiner has determined the Specification merely states a wish that machine learning could be used to perform the claimed steps as recited in the claims, but the Specification does not demonstrate the Applicant was in possession of such a capable “mechanism” or “mechanisms” nor how applicant intended to create such mechanism(s) for performing the functionality as now recited in the claims. The Specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail such that an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the inventor had made the invention at the time of filing. Thus, the Examiner rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for a lack of written description support.
Dependent claims 2-17 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the following limitations which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
PNG
media_image1.png
288
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing each of the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to such functions. For example, the entire original disclosure (specification, claims, and drawings) appears to be devoid of any particular structural mechanism by which to perform the recited functions. Applicant’s Specification does not disclose nor discuss what mechanism(s) are contemplated which can achieve and/or otherwise perform the functionality ascribed to these generic “mechanisms”.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-17 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 9-17 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the following:
“The system of claim 8, wherein the data set required to sufficiently describe the site or facility in which the unit of production was produced, including but not limited to, location, ownership, total amount of power used, total number of Production Units, total number of Production Units running, unique identifiers of Production Units, non- productive overhead power consumption.” – underline added for emphasis
Respectfully, this claim is indefinite for multiple reasons and the Examiner finds there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claim 9.
First, the feature references “the data set…”; however, no previous reference to a “data set” has been made, either in claim 9 or any of the parent claims. Similarly, no previous reference to a data set or data required to sufficiently describe the site or facility or similar terminology has been made, either in claim 9 or any of the parent claims. Therefore, it is not clear to what data set the claim is attempting to reference. For at least this reason, the claim feature lacks proper antecedent basis and is considered indefinite.
Second, the entire scope of the claim feature is unclear – it is not clear what aspect of the claimed invention, per parent claims 1-8, this feature is now attempting to further limit or narrow. It is unclear whether the claim scope is attempting to claim this data set is a part of the system, or claim a particular component which collects such data, or claim a particular component which modifies or adds to such data, or claim a particular component structure which stores such data, etc… As it is entirely unclear what scope of subject matter the applicant has intended to claim or limit by the features recited in claim 9, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of claim 9, and therefore claim 9 is found to be indefinite.
Claim 11 recites the following:
“…wherein units of production that are not easily serialized are tracked in the database by quantity…”; - underline added for emphasis.
Respectfully, the underlined term is a relative term; i.e. its metes and bounds are not clear. Persons of ordinary skill in the art will not be able to discern what units of production the applicant intends to encompass as those which are “not easily serialized”. The specification does not elaborate on this idea. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the following:
“…wherein the social good of the unit of production can also be tracked…; wherein the social good is a measure of benefit to a community based on the proximity to resources that are consumed to produce a unit of production”; - underlines added for emphasis.
Respectfully, the claim is indefinite for multiple reasons. First, the underlined term in question lacks proper antecedent basis. Second, the use of the term “can” does not further limit the system in any manner but instead appears to be a statement of intended use – i.e. the database is intended to be used to also store data which can be of some use in tracking the idea of “social good”. However, such a statement of intended use does not appear to convey a further limitation on the database or structure of the claimed system in any manner. Finally, the underlined term is not a term of art which conveys a clear and concise scope of subject matter nor is the description provided within applicant’s claim sufficient for a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize what data is intended to be stored or perhaps collected so as to track this “social good”. For each reason, the claim is found to be indefinite.
Dependent claims 10-17 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 does not appear to reference any feature of the parent claims (claims 1-8) nor further limit any aspect of the invention as described per parent claims 1-8. Claim 9 instead references “the data set” which is sufficient to describe the site or facility in which the invention is intended to operate but no previous reference to such a “data set” has been made, either in claim 9 or any of the parent claims. Similarly, no previous reference to a data set or data required to sufficiently describe the site or facility or similar terminology has been made, either in claim 9 or any of the parent claims. Therefore, it is not clear to what data set the claim is attempting to reference. Additionally, there is no feature of claim 9 which appears to further limit any structure or other aspect as recited in claims 1-8. Therefore, claim 9 is in an improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Examiner’s Note
Adhering to the guidelines of MPEP 2173.06(II), the Examiner acknowledges that all words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of a claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). The fact that terms may be indefinite does not make the claim obvious over the prior art. However, when the terms of a claim are considered to be indefinite, at least two approaches to the examination of an indefinite claim relative to the prior art are possible.
First, where the degree of uncertainty is not great, and where the claim is subject to more than one interpretation and at least one interpretation would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, an appropriate course of action would be for the examiner to enter two rejections: (A) a rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; and (B) a rejection over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claims which renders the prior art applicable. See, e.g., Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. App. 1984). When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important for the examiner to point out how the claim is being interpreted.
Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
In the present set of claims (filed 03/26/2025), a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of dependent claim 9 exists. Therefore, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not made regarding this claim, including its dependent claims (claims: 10-17), because, as shown in the 35 USC § 112 rejections, speculation and conjecture must be utilized by the Office and the artisan inasmuch as the claims do not adequately reflect what the disclosed invention is under the second paragraph of 35 USC § 112. Again, see In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 862 (CCPA 1962) (A prior art rejection cannot be sustained if the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would have to make speculative assumptions concerning the meaning of claim language.)
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the MPEP 2106, as follows:
Per Independent claim 1:
PNG
media_image3.png
348
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within a combination of judicial exceptions including Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations), Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, the feature recited as: “at least one set of measurements to corroborate the uses of power by a mechanism other than directly measuring the power consumption”, as drafted, is nothing more than a Mental Process such as visual inspection (one set of measurements), by an employee or inspector, of facilities and equipment at a chemical manufacturing plant to determine (to corroborate) which pieces of equipment and facilities are using a particular power source and or to ascertain the power sources of various operational equipment and facilities (e.g. visually observe and ensure certain sensitive manufacturing equipment which requires uninterruptable power supply (UPS) is connected to required redundant sources of power, or inspect and observe that a diesel generator powers an equipment shed and a steam turbine providing electric power to all other equipment operating at such chemical factory, etc…); this is a mechanism other than directly measuring power consumption by each piece of equipment and facility.
Similarly, the recited “mechanism(s)” each fail to recite any particular structure necessary to achieve the functions/functionality ascribed to each mechanism and it appears that each such mechanism may be merely a mental practice such as performing a mental calculation, as further noted below.
For example, a human actor may perform a mental calculation to estimate “emissions content” of a power source based on previously collected data from some generic power and emissions source monitor; e.g. a human actor may determine the emission content (e.g. kgCO2/kWh) of a power source (e.g. a diesel generator) based on visually inspecting data from a power & emissions source monitor (e.g. data which perhaps indicates the load on the power source such as the load on a diesel generator; e.g. 50% load) and as is known by a person of ordinary skill in the art, a rule of thumb (a heuristic) for diesel is that every litre of diesel contains 2.69 kg of CO2, and fuel consumption charts provide avg. expected fuel consumption per hour for various size modern diesel generators (e.g.: as provided per https://ablepower.com.au/blogs/diesel-generator-fuel-consumption-chart-in-litres/). Therefore, a quick mental calculation mechanism by a person of ordinary skill in the art in this field of endeavor would recognize an 8kW diesel generator operating at 50% load will consume approximately 1.3 litres of diesel per hour while producing 4kw (50% load) and therefore produces ~0.874 kgCO2/kWh [determined emissions content of diesel generator power source based on data from a power & emissions monitor].
A similar finding is made regarding the generically recited “..a mechanism to determine the carbon emissions content per unit of production based on the power consumed per unit of production and the emission content of the power produced”; e.g. this “mechanism” may simply be a mental calculation of dividing the aforementioned mentally determined “emissions content” of 0.874 kgCO2/kWh by a visually verified and/or counted number of units produced of whatever equipment is producing said production unit and powered by the diesel generator.
Lastly, a similar finding is made regarding the generically recited “a mechanism to determine whether there are extraneous sources of power being utilized to produce the units of production by comparing the data from the power sources monitor and the power consumption monitor to detect imbalances between sources of power, the uses of power, and the uses of power corroborated by the at least one set of measurements.” For example, because energy is neither created nor destroyed, an energy balance is a known mechanism to verify observed measurements and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that good engineering as well as business accounting practices involve energy balances because energy is costly to a business; furthermore, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy in an isolated system remains constant; i.e. it cannot be created or destroyed, instead, it can only be transformed from one form to another (e.g., potential to kinetic, chemical to mechanical) and therefore, the energy into a system should equal the total energy accumulated in the system minus the energy out of the system. Therefore, to properly account for energy usage, and the business costs associated therewith, it is within the skill of a person or ordinary skill in the art to at least perform a mental calculation to compare the energy consumed by each known device (e.g. as given per an energy monitor), with the energy being supplied to each such known device by a power source (e.g. as given by another energy monitor) to determine whether there is any energy loss to some unaccounted for equipment and/or energy loss in the form of heat, etc… e.g. to understand where efficiency gains and losses within a business’ manufacturing system may be occurring.
These mechanisms and measurements are nothing more than good business practices which appear to be implemented via mental processes such as mental computations which may be performed in a human’s mind based on visually inspected data (e.g. on data received from generic data collection, logging, and processing monitor devices) for normal business purposes, e.g. to track costs in terms of power consumption per unit production and/or carbon emissions per unit of product production for a business.
There is no technical solution being offered here, nor claimed, and there is no technical problem being solved.
Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic system with generically described “monitors” and “sources” which collect, log, or generically process data does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (i.e. in this power consumption accounting for business purposes) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (data collection and logging/storage). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows:
“A system for verifiably determining carbon emissions associated with a creation of a unit of production, the system comprising: a plurality of power sources, each power source of the plurality of power sources having a carbon emission rate per unit of energy and a respective source power meter associated therewith; a power & emissions source monitor configured to collect, log, and process input power data from the source power meters; one or more power-consuming device power meters configured to measure a power drawn by one or more power-consuming devices configured to make each unit of production;…”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a “power source” (e.g. a diesel generator, a steam turbine, a battery, etc…) instead, these generically recited power sources are generically recited as a means by which to provide context for the claimed abstract idea. Furthermore, applicant’s invention is not a particular “monitor” whether such monitor device is monitoring a “power source” or a “power consuming device”. Instead, these monitors are generically recited and are generic means for collecting data, and storing data (i.e. the recited: “…monitor configured to collect, log, and process input power data from the source power meters” and “…monitor to collect, log and process usage power data from the one or more power-consuming device power meters”).
The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts with generic data-gathering, storage, and processing “monitors” or, link them to a field of use (e.g. carbon emissions monitoring) or, are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data gathering, collection, logging/storage, etc…) as pertains to the already identified abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. by one or more “monitors”) and “link” them to a field of use (e.g. carbon emissions monitoring), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data-gathering, collection, logging/storage, etc…). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following: “The system of claim 1, including at least one device to count the production units as they are produced.” However, a generic counting device is either part of the abstract idea or an insignificant pre-solution activity; i.e. the number of units produced by a business surely must be counted before a business can determine a carbon emissions per unit of produced parts. Stated another way, it is part of normal business to count the number of parts being produced by a business for accounting reasons, regardless of whether the accounting is to determine cost in terms of carbon emissions per part or to determine cost per part denominated by some other metric. Therefore, this feature is not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morales et al. (U.S. 10,432,017 B1; hereinafter, "Morales") in view of Official Notice.
Claim 1:
Pertaining to claim 1, Morales as shown teaches the following:
A system for verifiably determining carbon emissions associated with a creation of a unit of production, the system comprising:
a plurality of power sources (Morales, see at least Fig. 6 depicting multiple Power Sources, e.g. “Power Source 604” and “Secondary Power Source 606”; see also at least [15:60-16:30]), each power source of the plurality of power sources having a carbon emission rate per unit of energy (Examiner notes that this feature is interpreted as a non-functional description of an inherent aspect of all power sources; i.e. all power sources provide energy at some given rate at any one moment in time and this energy may be measured in terms of a carbon emission rate per unit of energy provided based on the fuel or mechanism of energy conversion and delivery; e.g. per unit of energy consumed, regardless of whether the power source is a wind turbine, a solar cell, a diesel generator, a battery cell, etc…, all such power sources provide energy and this may be described in terms of an effective carbon emission rate per unit of energy provided according to the fuel or mechanism being converted into the energy used to operate and provide power; this is also true of Morales’ power sources) and a respective source power meter associated therewith (Morales, see again citations noted supra, including also [2:27-34] teaching: “FIG. 3 is a graph illustrating a power storage …subsequently being recharged in coordination with utility power pricing at a metered rate such that the power storage is recharged during a low cost time period for consuming electrical power from a utility power source, according to some embodiments…”; In view of these teachings, the Examiner finds that Morales provides motivation to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include or otherwise modify Morales’ disclosed system to include a “respective source power meter” associated with each of Morales’ already disclosed “power sources” to enable Morales’ teaching regarding recharging his power storage at “a metered rate” from “a utility power source”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a respective source power meter associated with each of Morales disclosed power sources to meter power from his utility power source because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
a power & emissions source monitor configured to collect, log, and process input power data from the source power meters (Morales, see at least Fig. 2, [8:25-30], and [19:25-45], e.g.: “…control system 702, may include a power source monitor [power & emissions source monitor], such as power source monitor 710. A power source monitor may monitor [collect, log, and process] electrical power received [input power] from a utility power source [i.e. the source power meter]…”; see also at least [Fig. 2]; Examiner notes that applicant fails to stipulate any particular manner by which his “monitor” is intended to “collect”, “log”, and “process” input power data and therefore, whether explicitly stated, Examiner nonetheless finds that the idea conveyed, to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, by Morales’ “monitoring” encompass these ideas of collection, logging, and processing and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed such actions as part of Morales’ “monitoring” by his “power source monitor” because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
one or more power-consuming device power meters configured to measure a power drawn by one or more power-consuming devices configured to make each unit of production (Morales, see citations noted supra, including at least Fig. 8, [18:16-35], and [20:40-44], e.g. teaching: “…a control system may monitor an overall power consumption rate… for a data center zone, a whole data center, or a combination of portions of a data center [by one or more power-consuming devices]…” and “…a controller, such as controller 712, may use power consumption information to… determine a metered rate for 35 recharging a power storage of a UPS.” and “…The UPS may include one or more power storages, such as batteries, that are configured to feed electrical power to the electrical loads when electrical power is not being routed to the electrical loads from the utility power source…”; In view of these teachings, the Examiner finds that Morales provides motivation to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include or otherwise modify Morales’ disclosed system to include a “power-consuming device power meter” associated with each of Morales’ already disclosed devices which consume power, such as his Power storage of a UPS, e.g. his Battery 612 [a power consuming device], as well as Loads 622 [more power-consuming devices], at least with motivation to enable Morales’ teaching regarding recharging his power storage at “a metered rate… from a utility power source”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a power-consuming device power meter associated with each of Morales disclosed power consuming device for the purpose of measuring power draw, to enable his teachings regarding “use power consumption information to… determine a metered rate for 35 recharging a power storage of a UPS”, e.g. his battery 612, which is used to power loads 612 when they are not directly powered from utility power source, and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
a power usage monitor to collect, log and process usage power data from the one or more power-consuming device power meters (Morales, see citations note supra, including also at least [18:16-35], teaching e.g.: “…a power consumption monitor [power usage monitor], such as power consumption monitor 704, may monitor rates of consumption of electrical power… For example, a power consumption monitor may monitor an amount of power consumption e.g. kilowatt-hours of electrical power consumed during a given period of time such as a day or a portion of a day. Also, a power consumption monitor may monitor a rate of power consumption, e.g. a peak rate of power flow such as peak kilowatts in an increment of time such as 15 minute increments. A power consumption monitor may share power consumption information with a controller, such as controller 712…”; Examiner notes that applicant fails to stipulate any particular manner by which his “monitor” is intended to “collect”, “log”, and “process” input power data and therefore, whether explicitly stated, Examiner nonetheless finds that the idea conveyed, to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, by Morales’ “monitoring” encompass these ideas of collection, logging, and processing and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed such actions as part of Morales’ “monitoring” by his “power source monitor” because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
Although Morales teaches the above limitations, and is directed towards management of Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS), e.g. for a data center whose product is the provision of computing time to clients, Morales may not delve into the minutiae of business practices pertaining to checking and/or corroborating power use and determining carbon emissions associated with power consumption per unit of service product provided. However, regarding such features as recited below, Morales in view of Official Notice teaches the following:
at least one set of measurements to corroborate the uses of power by a mechanism other than directly measuring the power consumption (Regarding this feature, Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts: it was old and well-known, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it is a common business practice in many industries to visually inspect to which power source various equipment and facilities are connected. For example, certain sensitive processes require uninterruptable power supply (UPS) to some equipment, e.g. medical facilities with patient life support systems, some chemical and pharmaceutical manufacturing processes, data centers, etc… and per policy many businesses operating such systems require visual checks and inspections to ensure the sensitive equipment is connected to these redundant sources of power, e.g. UPS or other back-up power sources. As another example, some equipment is known to be sensitive to certain types of power, e.g. as already noted by Morales, e.g. [1:45-2:6], or sensitive to voltage fluctuations and will be damaged if connected to the wrong type of power supply, etc… As another example, some businesses have various power sources available for their use, each of which may be associated with different variable costs (monetary costs, environmental costs, political costs, etc…), and try to optimize the use of such power sources based on business policy requirements; e.g. switch from a high monetary cost power source during its associated peak hours to use a low monetary cost power source during the same time period; e.g. use solar during the day and grid supplied electricity during off-peak hours at night, etc…
Therefore, the Examiner finds that in view of these facts, there is motivation for an employee or inspector of sensitive equipment as noted supra to at least perform a Mental Process such as visual inspection (one set of measurements), of sensitive facilities requiring connection to specific sources of power and/or UPS such as equipment at a chemical manufacturing plant to determine (to corroborate) which pieces of equipment and facilities are using a particular power source and or to ascertain the power sources of various operational equipment and facilities (e.g. visually observe a diesel generator powering an equipment shed and a steam turbine providing power to all other equipment operating at such chemical factory, etc…); this is a mechanism other than directly measuring power consumption by each piece of equipment and facility for corroborating the uses of power. );
a mechanism to determine the emission content of the power sources based on data from the power & emissions sources monitor (Regarding this feature, Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts: it was old and well-known, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it is a common business practice in many industries for an employee or regulatory official e.g. an emissions compliance specialist at a chemical factory or a representative of the US EPA, to perform calculations to estimate “emissions content” of a power source based on previously collected data from a power source monitor for the purpose of ensuring compliance with business, industry, or governmental regulations; e.g. such employee may determine the emission content (e.g. kgCO2/kWh) of a power source (e.g. a diesel generator) based on visually inspecting data from a power & emissions source monitor (e.g. data which perhaps indicates the load on the power source such as the load on a diesel generator; e.g. 50% load) and as is known by a person of ordinary skill in the art, a rule of thumb (a heuristic) for diesel is that every litre of diesel contains 2.69 kg of CO21, and well-known fuel consumption charts provide avg. expected fuel consumption per hour for various size modern diesel generators (e.g.: as provided per https://ablepower.com.au/blogs/diesel-generator-fuel-consumption-chart-in-litres/).
Therefore, there is motivation for such an employee or regulator to perform a quick mental calculation mechanism and recognize an 8kW diesel generator operating at 50% load will consume approximately 1.3 litres of diesel per hour while producing 4kw (50% load) and therefore produces ~0.874 kgCO2/kWh [determined emissions content of diesel generator power source based on data from a power & emissions monitor]. Additionally, the Examiner notes that applicant fails to recite any particular structure necessary to achieve the functions/functionality ascribed to the aforementioned mechanism and it appears that each such mechanism may be merely a mental practice such as performing a mental calculation. Thus, applicant’s feature reads on the findings as noted supra.);
a mechanism to determine the carbon emissions content per unit of production based on the power consumed per unit of production and the emission content of the power produced (Regarding this feature, Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts: it was old and well-known, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it is a common business practice to count number of products being produced on a device or as relates to each machine or piece of equipment required to produce the product, e.g. for the purpose of determining a total cost per unit of product produced – e.g. cost of capital to produce products on equipment “A” may be much higher than cost of capital to produce the same number of products using equipment “B”; but the total products which can be produced per unit of time must be counted to make such a comparison. The concept applies to data centers where the product may be computational time provided to a customer, where energy costs are associated with providing power to computer servers providing the product/service. Furthermore, it was old and well-known to measure cost in terms of emissions, e.g. as already noted supra regarding the previously discussed “mechanism”; e.g. for the purpose of complying with business, industry, or governmental regulations.
Therefore, Examiner finds there is motivation to perform a simple calculation of dividing the aforementioned determined “emissions content”, e.g. of 0.874 kgCO2/kWh, used by a device, by a visually verified and/or counted number of units produced by such device, e.g. produced by the diesel generator, to determine the carbon emissions content per unit of production. Additionally, the Examiner notes that applicant fails to recite any particular structure necessary to achieve the functions/functionality ascribed to the aforementioned mechanism and it appears that each such mechanism may be merely a mental practice such as performing a mental calculation. Thus, applicant’s feature reads on the findings as noted supra.); and
a mechanism to determine whether there are extraneous sources of power being utilized to produce the units of production by comparing the data from the power sources monitor and the power consumption monitor to detect imbalances between sources of power, the uses of power, and the uses of power corroborated by the at least one set of measurements (Regarding this feature, Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts: it was old and well-known, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that it is a common business practice to perform energy balance calculations; e.g. because energy is neither created nor destroyed, an energy balance is a mechanism to verify observed measurements. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that good engineering as well as business accounting practices involve energy balances because energy is costly to a business; furthermore, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy in an isolated system remains constant; i.e. it cannot be created or destroyed, instead, it can only be transformed from one form to another (e.g., potential to kinetic, chemical to mechanical) and therefore, the energy into a system should equal the total energy accumulated in the system minus the energy out of the system.
Therefore, there is motivation to properly account for energy usage, and the business costs associated therewith, and it is within the skill of a person or ordinary skill in the art to at least perform a mental calculation to compare the energy consumed by each known device (e.g. as given per an energy monitor), with the energy being supplied to each such known device by a power source (e.g. as given by another energy monitor) to determine whether there is any energy loss to some unaccounted for equipment and/or energy loss in the form of heat, etc… e.g. to understand where efficiency gains and losses within a business’ manufacturing system may be occurring. Additionally, the Examiner notes that applicant fails to recite any particular structure necessary to achieve the functions/functionality ascribed to the aforementioned mechanism and it appears that each such mechanism may be merely a mental practice such as performing a mental calculation. Thus, applicant’s feature reads on the findings as noted supra.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that there is motivation to perform the limitations in questions and the limitations in question are merely applying known techniques given per the Officially Noticed Facts (regarding measurements, such as visual inspection and mental calculations, meant to corroborate the uses of power, by a means other than directly measuring the power consumption; and various business practices to determine a carbon emissions content of a power source per unit of production and determine whether there are extraneous sources of power being utilized to produce the units of production by performing well-known energy balance calculations for the purpose of detecting imbalances between sources of power, the uses of power, and the uses of power corroborated at least by visual inspections and well-known computations) which are applicable to a known base device/method of Morales (already directed toward a system for managing uninterruptable power supplies (UPS) in systems, such as data centers, with multiple power sources and multiple different power consuming devices such as batteries and loads) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of these Officially Noticed Facts to the device/method of Morales in order to realize limitations in question because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious and/or because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Claims 2, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morales / Official Notice in view of Butka et al. (US 7,065,456 B1; hereinafter, "Butka").
Claim 2:
Although Morales/Official Notice, teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, they may not explicitly teach the nuance as recited below. However, regarding this feature, Morales in view of Butka teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, including at least one device to count the production units as they are produced (Butka, see at least [1:50-64], teaching: “…A production counter is used for counting production units produced by the powered tool during the predetermined time period. A correlating implementation is provided for correlating the operational history with the production units, so to as generate a productivity indicator…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Butka (directed towards implementation of a production counter [one device to count the production units as they are produced] for the purpose of correlating operational history with the counted production units; e.g. energy cost per production unit) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Morales (already directed towards to monitoring energy consumption for a business) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Butka to the device/method of Morales in order to perform the limitation in question because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 3:
Morales/Official Notice/Butka, teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Morales teaches the following: The system of claim 2, wherein the data from each of the monitors is recorded in a database (Morales, see citations noted supra, including at least Fig. 7 where “data store 714” is within control system containing “power source monitors 710”, etc… and see [20:16-26], e.g.: “…a control system may include a data store [database], such as data store 714 that stores threshold information, control parameters, etc…”; It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stored Morales’ monitored data, e.g. data collected, logged, and processed, by Morales’ “monitors” in Morales’ “data store 710” especially as this data store is collocated at least with power source monitor and power consumption module in control system 702, e.g. for ease of data transfer and storage, etc… and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.).
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morales / Official Notice / Butka in view of Wollack et al. (US 2022/0237628 A1; hereinafter, "Wollack").
Claim 4:
Although Morales/Official Notice/Butka, teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, they may not explicitly teach the nuance as recited below. However, regarding this feature, Morales in view of Wollack teaches the following:
The system of claim 3, wherein a blockchain or other open ledger construct is used as the database (Wollack, see at least Abstract teaching: “…Systems and methods are disclosed for tracking, via a blockchain registry, carbon credits in goods produced from materials with sequestered carbon. Materials with sequestered carbon may be produced by reacting greenhouse gases with air and other reagents and catalysts (including biological organisms). Following production of a batch of material with sequestered carbon, a blockchain entry may be recorded with production details and details of carbon-credits earned during production…”; see also at least [0040], e.g.: “…fabricator 162 may send a packet such as third packet 150c to the blockchain 150 (e.g., via an API or other method that results in one or more blockchain nodes writing to the node's copy of a distributed ledger). Packet 150c may include information such as the unique product identifiers (also referred to as blockchain numbers) applied to the products, the type of product, the number of units, the production date, the expected lifetime of the product, and the ship date….” And per [0063], e.g.: “…In some embodiments, the owner's contact information may be added to a private entry in the blockchain in association with the given product identifier...”).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Wollack (directed towards implementation of a blockchain for the purpose of storing operational and production data) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Morales (already directed towards to monitoring and storage of data regarding operations and energy consumption of a business, such as a data center) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Butka to the device/method of Morales in order to similarly use a blockchain as the storage of Morales thereby implementing the limitation in question because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 5:
Morales/Official Notice/Butka/Wollack teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Morales teaches the following: The system of claim 4, wherein at least one measurement used to corroborate the uses of power is derived from a sensor (Morales, see citations noted supra, including at least Fig. 6 and [7:25-35], e.g.: “…the control system may detect [a sensor] the failure and 25 or anomaly associated with the UPS and automatically reroute electrical power to electrical loads associated with the UPS…”).
Claim 6:
Morales/Official Notice/Butka/Wollack teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Morales teaches the following: The system of claim 5, wherein at least one measurement used to corroborate the uses of power is derived from a virtual monitor (Morales, see citations noted supra, including at least [18:35-45], e.g.: “…a control system, such as control system 702 may also include a cost monitor. A cost monitor of a control system may be connected to a network and receive updated cost information in regard to power pricing for electrical power received from a utility power provider. A cost monitor may provide cost information to a controller, such as controller 712, and the controller may utilize the cost information when determining when to discontinue routing electrical power to electrical loads from a utility power source via a UPS,…”).
Claim 7:
Morales/Official Notice/Butka/Wollack teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Morales teaches the following: The system of claim 6, wherein multiple power sources connect to a common power bus, and the Power Consuming Devices draw power from that common power bus (Morales, see citations noted supra, e.g. Fig. 6
PNG
media_image4.png
700
984
media_image4.png
Greyscale
).
Claim 8:
Morales/Official Notice/Butka/Wollack teach the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Morales in view of Wollack teaches the following: The system of claim 7, wherein each unit of production is uniquely identified and the power consumed to produce the unit of production and the composition of the power used to produce the unit of production are stored in the database and associated with the unit of production by its unique identifier (Wollack, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least Abstract teaching: “…Systems and methods are disclosed for tracking, via a blockchain registry, carbon credits [composition of the power used] in goods produced [to produce the unit of production] from materials with sequestered carbon. Materials with sequestered carbon may be produced by reacting greenhouse gases with air and other reagents and catalysts (including biological organisms). Following production of a batch of material with sequestered carbon, a blockchain entry may be recorded with production details and details of carbon-credits earned during production…”; see also at least [0040], e.g.: “…fabricator 162 may send a packet such as third packet 150c to the blockchain 150 (e.g., via an API or other method that results in one or more blockchain nodes writing to the node's copy of a distributed ledger). Packet 150c may include information such as the unique product identifiers (also referred to as blockchain numbers) applied to the products, the type of product, the number of units, the production date, the expected lifetime of the product, and the ship date….” And per [0063], e.g.: “…In some embodiments, the owner's contact information may be added to a private entry in the blockchain in association with the given product identifier...”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
1 See: https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator#results