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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. The following is a non-final, First Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 20-21 have been canceled.
The Examiner’s Notes:
2. Dependent claims 7 and 16 (their dependency are claims 8-9 and 17-18 respectively) as a whole recites a combination of limitations that has been define over prior of record {the combination of Aurongzeb et al; (US 2024/0037564 A1), Hedley et al; (US 2010/0286937 A1), and BAILIN et al; (CN111738308A)}.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Further, 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 (e.g., module) 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(s) limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition module to acquire……; a calculation module to calculate a current deviation……; a judgment module to judge……..; and an update module to update……” (claim 10); “the acquisition module is further configured to: acquire…….; the judgment module is further configured to: in the case of not considering the product…..” (claim 11); “… the judgment module is further configured to: in the case…..” (claim 12); “…the judgment module is further configured to: judge whether……” (claim 13); “….the judgment module is further configured to: judge that an effect……” (claim 14); “….. the update module is further configured to: update…..” (claim 15); “the calculation module is configured to: cluster values…..; and the judgment module is configured to: judge that……” (claim 16); “…the judgment module is further configured to: judge that the current…..; the acquisition module is further configured to: acquire…; the judgment module is further configured to: in the case…..” (claim 17); “…..the calculation module is configured to: update a center…..” (claim 18).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) in claims 10-18 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 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 § 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.
6. The claimed invention (Claims 1-19) is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas including “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Processes” and/or Mathematical Concepts, which has/have been identified/found by the courts as abstract ideas in MPEP 2106.04(a). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because It/they is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications:
7. Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a statutory Category?
Claim 1-9: Yes. These are methods, and therefore are directed to the statutory class of process.
Claims 10-18: Yes. The corresponding structure for an acquisition module; a calculation module; a judgment module; and an update module executed by a computer, a processor or a hardware (Applicant’s specification paras 00124-00125), which is directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
Claim 19: Yes. This claim is system which recites an electronic device comprising a processor; a memory….….., and therefore is directed to the statutory class of machine and article of manufacture.
8. Step 2A prong 1, Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B:
Independent claim 19 (Step 2A, Prong I): is directed to an abstract idea of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”, and/or “Mental Processes” and/or Mathematical Concepts:
Limitations 1-4 of acquire current carbon footprint data in a production process (limitation 1); calculate a current deviation statistical index based on historical carbon footprint data (part of limitation 2); judge whether the current carbon footprint data is a normal
deviation based on the current deviation statistical index (limitation 3); and update the historical carbon footprint data based on the current carbon footprint data when the current carbon footprint data is a normal deviation (limitation 4) fall within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea because these steps mainly describe the concepts of fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); and commercial or legal interactions (include subject matter relating to agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions).
Also, the limitation 2 mentioned above of “calculate a current deviation statistical index based on historical carbon footprint data” also fall under Mathematical Concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) grouping of abstract idea because there must be mathematical operations/algorithm involve in order to calculate a current deviation statistical index based on historical carbon footprint data.
Further, the limitation 3 mentioned above of “judge whether the current carbon footprint data is a normal deviation based on the current deviation statistical index” also fall within the abstract “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a human being can observing/evaluating/analyzing the current deviation statistical index in order to determine whether the current carbon footprint data is a normal deviation.
Independent claim 19, Step 2A (Prong II): Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea(s) as pointed out above. This judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements (i.e., a processor; a memory; a communication interface; a communication bus; the processor, the memory, and the communication interface communicate with each other through the communication bust; the memory stores at least one executable instruction; and the executable instruction enables the processor to…) to perform abstract steps/limitations 1-4 mentioned above. The additional element(s) in all of the steps is/are -recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using a generic computer component(s) (i.e., a processor; a memory; a communication interface; a communication bust; the processor, the memory, and the communication interface communicate with each other through the communication bus; the memory stores at least one executable instruction; and the executable instruction enables the processor to…); thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Further, in claim 19, the limitations 1, part of limitation 2 and part of limitation 4 of “acquire current carbon footprint data in a production process of an edge collecting device, wherein the edge collecting device…..” (limitation 1); “the historical carbon foot print data is retrieved from a carbon footprint query database” (part of limitation 2); and “update the historical carbon footprint data in the carbon footprint query database…..” (part of limitation 4) are merely receiving data/ gathering data and storing data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Also, the additional elements in the mentioned limitations 1, 2 and 4 of “an edge collecting device/the edge collecting device; a carbon footprint query database/the carbon footprint query database” are merely recited as a source and/or destination where information is being received/retrieved from; and transmitted to/updated to; which are considered as general link to technological environment; thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) above does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Again, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer components (i.e., a processor; a memory; a communication interface; a communication bust; the processor, the memory, and the communication interface communicate with each other through the communication bust; the memory stores at least one executable instruction; and the executable instruction enables the processor to…) to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. see MPEP 2106.05(f). For the above-mentioned reasons, viewed the claim as a whole, the additional elements/additional limitations individually and in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Independent claim 19 (step 2B): The additional element in claim 19 (i.e., a processor; a memory; a communication interface; a communication bust; the processor, the memory, and the communication interface communicate with each other through the communication bus; the memory stores at least one executable instruction; and the executable instruction enables the processor to…….) is/are recited at a high level of generality and/or are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in the computer applications; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. In other word, the additional elements “i.e., a processor; a memory; a communication interface; a communication bus; the processor, the memory, and the communication interface communicate with each other through the communication bust; the memory stores at least one executable instruction; and the executable instruction enables the processor to……” is/are amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) of steps/limitations 1-4 mentioned above; thus, they are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, in claim 19, the limitations 1, part of limitation 2 and part of limitation 4 of “acquire current carbon footprint data in a production process of an edge collecting device, wherein the edge collecting device…..” (limitation 1); “the historical carbon foot print data is retrieved from a carbon footprint query database” (part of limitation 2); and “update the historical carbon footprint data in the carbon footprint query database…..” (part of limitation 4) are merely receiving data/ gathering data and storing data, which are considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Also, the additional elements in the mentioned limitations 1, 2 and 4 of “an edge collecting device/the edge collecting device; a carbon footprint query database/the carbon footprint query database” are merely recited as a source and/or destination where information is being received/retrieved from; and transmitted to/updated to; which are considered as general link to technological environment; thus, is not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
When revaluating the limitations 1, part of limitation 2 and part of limitation 4 of “acquire current carbon footprint data in a production process of an edge collecting device, wherein the edge collecting device…..” (limitation 1); “the historical carbon foot print data is retrieved from a carbon footprint query database” (part of limitation 2); and “update the historical carbon footprint data in the carbon footprint query database…..” (part of limitation 4) in step 2B here; receiving data/gathering data and storing data are also well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The use of generic computer to store information, transmit/display information/data and receive/gather information/data through an unspecified generic computer does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, and is/are considered as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. According to MPEP 2106.05 (d), elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields are e.g., "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”.
Thus, evidences has been provided to show these additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity according to MPEP 2106.07 (a) (III). Therefore, for the above mentioned reasons, viewed as a whole, even in combination, the above additional steps/additional elements/additional limitations do not amount to significantly more/do not provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
As per independent claims 1 and 10: Alice Corp. also establishes that the same/similar analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, a method claim 1 and a system claim 10 are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same/similar reasons as the system claim(s) 19. The underlined components (i.e., an edge collecting device/the edge collecting device, a carbon footprint query database/the carbon footprint query database; an acquisition module; a calculation module; a judgment module; and an update module) described in independent claims 1 and 10 add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea. They are merely using as tools to implement the identified abstract idea and/or are general link to technological environment; and/or insignificant extra solution activities. Thus, they do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application, and are not significantly more than the identified abstract idea. At best, the claim(s) are merely providing an environment to implement the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-9, and 11-18 are merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claims 1, and 10 without including an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Note that in dependent claims 6 and 15, the limitations “updating an association between the current carbon footprint data and an identifier of the edge collecting device into a blockchain” is merely storing data, which is considered as “insignificant extra solution activity”; thus, it does not integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application and does not provide inventive concept (not significantly more). See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, the additional element of “a blockchain” is considered as general link to technological environment; thus, is not significantly more than the identified abstract idea; thus, it does not integrate the identified abstract idea into practical application and does not provide inventive concept (not significantly more) See MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combinations adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Furthermore, there is neither improvement to another technology or technical field nor an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Therefore, dependent claims 2-9, and 11-18 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1-5, 10-14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aurongzeb et al; (US 2024/0037564 A1), in view of Hedley et al; (US 2010/0286937 A1):
10. Claims 1, 10 and 19: Aurongzeb teaches a carbon data management method and system comprising:
a processor {At least fig. 1 especially paras 0018, 0020, 0030, 0036};
a memory {At least figs. 1 and 2 especially paras 0018, 0020-2021, 0028-0029, 0031, 0033, 0036, 0038, 0041-0042};
a communication interface {At least paras 0018, 0020, 0022-0027};
a communication bus {At least paras 0018, 0021};
wherein the processor, the memory, and the communication inter0028-0029, 0031, 0033, 0036, 0038, 0041-0042};
the memory stores at least one executable instruction; and the executable instruction enables the processor {At least figs. 1 and 2 especially paras 0018, 0020-2021, 0028-0029, 0031, 0033, 0036, 0038, 0041-0042} to:
acquire current carbon footprint data of an edge collecting device (paras 0036-0042, 0049-0051, 0058, 0066-0068 in context with paras 0012-0015), wherein the edge collecting device is deployed in a production process (step/limitation 1) {At least fig. 2 paras 0036-0042, 0049-0051, 0058-0068 in context with paras 0012-0015, Abstract. Also see fig. 5 especially para 0108};
calculate a current statistical index (paras 0059-0070, 0072, 0109, 0116-0117, 0119-0133, see e.g., an execution CO2 emissions comparison index value, that is made based on the difference between the benchmark of ideal measure of CO2 emitted…etc.,) based on historical carbon footprint data of the edge collecting device, wherein the historical carbon footprint data is stored retrieved from a carbon footprint query database (para 0051 in context with paras 0014, 0060, 0067) (part of step/limitation 2) {At least paras 0014, 0051 in context with fig. 2 paras 0052-0072 especially paras 0059-0072. Also see fig. 5A-5B especially paras 0109-0133. The Examiner notes the underlined limitation “wherein the historical carbon footprint data is stored retrieved from a carbon footprint query database” is given no patentable weight because first, it is not positively recited in the claims 1, 10 and 19; and second, regardless where/which source the historical carbon footprint data is retrieved/ received from, it does not impact the method claim 1 and systems claims 10 and 19 to perform “calculate a current deviation statistical index……..”. However, this limitation has been covered by Aurongzeb};
judge whether the current carbon footprint data is a normal deviation (e.g., in the case the execution CO2 emissions comparison index value is higher than the installation CO2 emissions comparison index value, that resulting in overall decrease in CO2 emissions in paras 0061-0073, 0133 especially paras 0061, 0069, 0133) based on the current statistical index (part of step/limitation 3) {At least para 0015 in context with fig. 2 paras 0060-0073. Also see figs. 5A-B especially paras 0120- 0133}; and
update the historical carbon footprint data in the carbon footprint query database based on the current carbon footprint data when the current carbon footprint data is a normal deviation (step/limitation 4) {At least para 0015 in context with fig. 2 paras 0060-0073. Also see figs. 5A-B especially para 0133}.
However, Aurongzeb does not explicitly teach the underlined features: “calculate a current deviation statistical index based on historical carbon footprint data of the edge collecting device, wherein the historical carbon footprint data is retrieved from a carbon footprint query database” (par of step/limitation 2); and “judging whether the current carbon footprint data is a normal deviation based on the current deviation statistical index” (part of step/limitation 3).
Hedley teaches calculate a current deviation statistical index (paras 0269, 0497, 0501, 0526-0532) based on historical carbon footprint data (para 0522, Abstract in context with paras 0523-0536) of an edge collecting device (e.g., building sensors, utility company meters…etc., in paras 0493-0495) {At least para 0522, Abstract in context with para 0296, figs. 25-28 paras 0493-0536 especially paras 0523-0536}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “calculate a current statistical index based on historical carbon footprint data of the edge collecting device, wherein the historical carbon footprint data is retrieved from a carbon footprint query database; judging whether the current carbon footprint data is a normal deviation based on the current statistical index” of Aurongzeb to include “calculate a current deviation statistical index based on historical carbon footprint data of an edge collecting device”, taught by Hedley so that the combination of Aurongzeb and Hedley would yield “calculate a current deviation statistical index based on historical carbon footprint data of the edge collecting device, wherein the historical carbon footprint data is retrieved from a carbon footprint query database; and judging whether the current carbon footprint data is a normal deviation based on the current deviation statistical index”. One would be motivated to do this in order to provide a clear, accurate and actionable insight into the current state of carbon footprint, allowing for informed decision-making regarding emissions reduction strategies and resource allocation.
11. Claims 2 and 11: The combination of Aurongzeb and Hedley teaches the claimed invention as in claims 1 and 10 respectively. The combination further teaches:
acquiring product process variation characteristics at the current carbon footprint data collected by the edge collecting device or the input product process variation characteristics when the current carbon footprint data is an abnormal deviation (Aurongzeb: e.g., when the installation CO2 emissions comparison index value is higher the execution CO2 emissions comparison index value in paras 0062-0067, 0070) {Aurongzeb: At least paras 0062-0073}, and also {Hedley: At least figs. 25-28 paras 0493-0536};
in the case of not considering the product process variation characteristics, updating the current carbon footprint data into a carbon footprint improvement database as current carbon footprint improvement data when the current carbon footprint data is a normal deviation (Aurongzeb: e.g., in the case the execution CO2 emissions comparison index value is higher than the installation CO2 emissions comparison index value, that resulting in overall decrease in CO2 emissions in paras 0061-0073, 0133 especially paras 0061, 0069, 0133) {Aurongzeb: At least paras 0014- 0015 in context with fig. 2 paras 0060-0073. Also see figs. 5A-B paras 0106- 0133 especially paras 0130-0133}, and also {Hedley: At least figs. 25-28 paras 0493-0536}.
12. Claims 3 and 12: The combination of Aurongzeb and Hedley teaches the claimed invention as in claims 2 and 11 respectively. The combination further teaches:
In the case of considering the product process variation characteristics, judge that judging that the product process variation characteristics are abnormal when the product process variation characteristics are not in a range of preferred parameters preset according to industry experience {Aurongzeb: At least para 0070}, and also {Hedley: At least paras 0197-0251}; and
generating a reminder message for the current carbon footprint data {Aurongzeb: At least para 0070}, and also {Hedley: At least paras 0197-0251}.
13. Claims 4 and 13: The combination of Aurongzeb and Hedley teaches the claimed invention as in claims 2 and 11 respectively. The combination further teaches:
judging whether historical carbon footprint improvement data in the carbon footprint improvement database is normal based on the current deviation statistical index {Aurongzeb: At least paras 0014- 0015 in context with fig. 2 paras 0059-0073. Also see figs. 5A-B paras 0106- 0133 especially paras 0130-0133}, and also {Hedley: At least fig. 28 paras 0529-0536 in context with paras 0197-0251}; and
updating the historical carbon footprint improvement data into the carbon footprint query database as the historical carbon footprint data when the historical carbon footprint improvement data is normal {Aurongzeb: At least paras 0014- 0015 in context with fig. 2 paras 0059-0073. Also see figs. 5A-B paras 0106- 0133 especially paras 0130-0133}.
14. Claims 5 and 14: The combination of Aurongzeb and Hedley teaches the claimed invention as in claims 2 and 11 respectively. The combination further teaches:
judging that an effect of the product process variation characteristics is normal when the current carbon footprint data is in a carbon footprint data range indicated by the product process variation characteristics {Aurongzeb: At least paras 0014- 0015 in context with fig. 2 paras 0059-0073 especially paras 0067, 0073. Also see figs. 5A-B paras 0106- 0133 especially paras 0130-0133}, and also {Hedley: At least figs. 25-28 paras 0493-0536 especially paras 0529-0536 in context with paras 0197-0251};
wherein the carbon footprint data range indicated by the product process variation characteristics is input into the carbon footprint improvement database in advance {Aurongzeb: At least paras 0014- 0015 in context with fig. 2 paras 0059-0073 especially paras 0067, 0073. Also see figs. 5A-B paras 0106- 0133 especially paras 0130-0133}; and also {Headley: At least fig. 28 paras 0529-0533. Also, see paras 0233, 0269, 0499, 0527, fig. 28 paras 0529-0533}.
15. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aurongzeb et al; (US 2024/0037564 A1), in view of Hedley et al; (US 2010/0286937 A1), and further in view of Cooner; (US 2022/0180374 A1):
16. Claims 6 and 15: Aurongzeb teaches the claimed invention as in claims 1 and 10 respectively. Aurongzeb further teaches updating an association between the current carbon
footprint data and an identifier of the edge collecting device into a database/storage/telemetry (paras 0029, 0035, 0051, 0054, 0083-0084) {At least paras 0029, 0035, 0051, 0054, 0083-0084}.
However, Aurogzed does not explicitly teach the underlined feature: “updating an association between the current carbon footprint data and an identifier of the edge collecting device into a blockchain”.
Cooner teaches a general concept of storing an associating between the current carbon footprint data (e.g., sensor data such as greenhouse gases/GHG in para 0009) and an identifier of the edge collecting device (e.g., internet of Things device/sensor in para 0009 in context with para 0110) in to a blockchain {At least para 0110 in context with para 0009}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify “updating an association between the current carbon footprint data and an identifier of the edge collecting device into a database/storage/telemetry” of Aurogzed to include “storing an associating between the current carbon footprint data and an identifier of the edge collecting device in to a blockchain”, taught by Cooner. One would be motivated to do this in order to provide a secure, trustworthy, and reliable record of carbon footprint data.
Prior Art that is pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure
17. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vega et al; (US 2021/0125129 A1), wherein teaches A system for generating at least one utility fingerprint associated with at least one premises is provided. The system includes a communication device, a processing device and a storage device. The communication device is configured for receiving utility consumption information from at least one utility consumption information source, receiving premises information from at least one premises information source, receiving lifestyle information from at least one lifestyle information source and transmitting at least one utility fingerprint to an electronic device. The processing device is configured for analyzing each of the utility consumption information, the premises information and the lifestyle information and generating the at least one utility fingerprint associated with the at least one premises based on the analyzing. The storage device is configured for storing each of the utility consumption information, the premises information, the lifestyle information and the at least one utility fingerprint.
Jawaharlal et al; (US 11,341,490 B2), wherein teaches An example operation may include one or more of storing a plurality of transactions in a carbon footprint blockchain, each stored transaction including one or more items and a carbon footprint associated with the one or more items included in the transaction, receiving a transaction processing request from a merchant terminal, the transaction processing request including an identification of an item and a user identification, executing chaincode which determines an aggregate carbon footprint of the user based on a carbon footprint of the item and a carbon footprint of one or more previous purchases of the user stored in the carbon footprint blockchain, and transmitting information about the determined aggregate carbon footprint of the user to the merchant terminal.
BAILIN et al; (CN111738308A), wherein teaches The invention discloses a dynamic threshold detection method of monitoring indexes based on clustering and semi-supervised learning, which comprises the following steps: 1) acquiring a plurality of historical curves, clustering the shape of each historical curve to obtain a plurality of different clustering clusters, determining the central curve of each clustering cluster, and setting a threshold according to the amplitude corresponding to each time point of the central curve, so as to obtain a floating threshold changing along with time; 2) acquiring a new curve on line, determining a cluster to which the new curve belongs according to the shape of the new curve, training a semi-supervised model by combining amplitude data of the new curve and the amplitude data of the cluster to which the new curve belongs to obtain a new cluster corresponding to the cluster to which the new curve belongs, and updating a dynamic threshold of the new cluster; 3) and judging whether the new curve is abnormal or not according to the dynamic threshold value of the new cluster. The method can effectively reduce the false alarm rate and avoid the missing report.
Ellingham; (US 2010/0328314 A1), wherein teaches Methods, apparatus, and systems are disclosed for monitoring usage of a consumable resource, and displaying substantially instantaneous and historical usage measurements of the consumable resource in both numerical and non-numeric manner. The non-numeric manner facilitates comprehension by non-technical users in conservation applications. The relative size, position and movement of graphical icons, images, symbols and objects convey present and past consumption. A projection of consumption can be calculated and compared against consumption, prompting corrective actions. Past and present conservation performance can be displayed in the context of a game. Various symbols optionally incrementally visually reward conservation or admonish failure, and therein score efforts. Challenging goals can be established to increase conservation. User-chosen display color schemes facilitate decor integration. Integration of the display into various devices including gas or liquid flow-control valves, and electrical dimmers and switches are disclosed. A portable version facilitates resource waste detection and problem location.
Sun et al; (US 10,430,898 B2), wherein teaches Embodiments of a method and/or system for facilitating electricity services can include collecting a set of electricity provision parameters from one or more providing parties, collecting a set of electricity request parameters from a receiving party, determining a services match between the providing party and the receiving party based on the set of electricity provision parameters and the set of electricity request parameters, processing an electricity services transaction based on the services match between the providing party and the receiving party, and/or dynamically facilitating electricity services between the providing party and the receiving party based on the electricity services transaction.
Chao et al; (CN 113107785 B), wherein teaches The invention relates to a real-time monitoring method for power performance abnormity of a wind turbine generator, which comprises the following steps: acquiring historical operating data of a wind turbine generator to be monitored and historical data of a wind measuring tower of a wind power plant in the same period; cleaning historical operating data of the wind turbine generator to be monitored, eliminating invalid data and keeping the data of the wind turbine generator to be monitored in a normal operating state; and constructing a multi-dimensional characteristic vector representing the power performance of the wind turbine generator, and dividing the multi-dimensional characteristic vector into a model learning group and a model verification group. The invention has the beneficial effects that: the method is more accurate and effective in quantitative evaluation of the generated power, and not only considers the running data of the wind turbine generator but also considers the data at the wind measuring tower when establishing the prediction model, thereby obviously improving the prediction precision of the model. The purpose of monitoring the power generation performance of the wind turbine generator in real time can be achieved; the invention can also monitor the change condition of the power performance of the unit in real time.
Further see other reference in PTO-892 form.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuy Nguyen whose telephone number is 571-272-4585 and fax number is 571-273-4585. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs, 8:30 am to 5: 00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on 571-270-7537. The FAX 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.
/THUY N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3622.