DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application and preliminary amendment filed on 05/23/025.
Claims 1-16 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Information Processing Apparatus, Information Processing Method, and Program for Managing Environmental Value Based on Target Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing program that causes…” when it appears it should recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program that causes…” to correct an apparent typographical error
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first storage control unit” in claim 1
“activity status acquisition unit” in claims 1 and 2
“calculation unit” in claims 1 and 3
“second storage control unit” in claims 1 and 4
“achieved emissions value calculation unit” in claim 1
“comparative judgment unit” in claims 1 and 5
“control unit” in claims 1 and 4-14
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the physical structure of the units above, Examiner turns to specification [0081]-[0082] and Fig. 6, which recites in particular “In the case of causing the series of processes to be executed by software, a program constituting the software is installed into a computer or the like from a network or a recording medium. The computer may be a computer incorporated in dedicated hardware. Further, the computer may be a computer capable of executing various kinds of functions, by various kinds of programs being installed, for example, a general-purpose smartphone or personal computer, in addition to a server.” Accordingly, Examiner is interpreting the physical structure of the above units as general purpose computers with programming to perform the claimed functions.
Regarding the required algorithm for the above units, Examiner looks to at least paragraphs [0054] and [0074] for “first storage control unit”, at least paragraphs [0055] and [0086] for “activity status acquisition unit”, at least paragraphs [0056] and [0087] for “calculation unit”, at least paragraphs [0057] and [0077] for “second storage control unit”, at least paragraphs [0058] and [0078] for “achieved emissions value calculation unit”, at least paragraphs [0088]-[0097] for “control unit”.
Examiner notes that while the operations of the comparative judgment unit are discussed in [0059] as “The comparative judgment unit 106 makes a judgment about possibility of achievement of a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions goal by comparing the achieved greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions value and the target greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions value”, and [0062] recites that the judgment is either that attaining of the goal is “possible” or “impossible”. However, Applicant’s specification does not recite how the comparison is made such that a determination can be reached regarding whether achieving the goal is possible or not. Specifically, there is no threshold, criteria, etc. that Applicant discloses as the basis upon which the judgment control unit makes its judgment regarding the possibility of attaining the goal. As recited in the specification and claims, the judgment control unit therefore is a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation that lacks a sufficient disclosed algorithm for making its judgment regarding the possibility of meeting the goal. See in particular MPEP 2181 II.B. “If the specification explicitly discloses an algorithm, the sufficiency of the disclosure of the algorithm must be determined in light of the level of ordinary skill in the art… Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function”. In the current invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize how Applicant’s invention is programmed for the comparative judgment unit to make a “possible”/”impossible” from the achieved emissions and the emission goal. See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(a) rejections below.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
“a first storage control step of executing…” in claims 15-16
“an activity status acquisition step of acquiring…” in claims 15-16
“a calculation step of, for the activity status of the organization, calculating…” in claims 15-16
“a second storage control step of executing…” in claims 15-16
“an achieved emissions value calculation step of calculating…” in claims 15-16
“a comparative judgment step of making a judgment…” in claims 15-16
“a control step of controlling use of…” in claims 15-16
Particularly, Examiner points to MPEP 2181 I.A. “Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track and Court Construction, 172 F.3d 836, 850, 50 USPQ2d 1225, 1234 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Rader, J., concurring) ("Claim elements without express step-plus-function language may nevertheless fall within Section 112, Para. 6 if they merely claim the underlying function without recitation of acts for performing that function…. In general terms, the ‘underlying function’ of a method claim element corresponds to what that element ultimately accomplishes in relationship to what the other elements of the claim and the claim as a whole accomplish. ‘Acts,’ on the other hand, correspond to how the function is accomplished…. If the claim element uses the phrase ‘step for,’ then Section 112, Para. 6 is presumed to apply…. On the other hand, the term ‘step’ alone and the phrase ‘steps of’ tend to show that Section 112, Para. 6 does not govern that limitation.") (emphasis added).
Because this/these claim limitations are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “comparative judgment unit” that is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) above and lacks a sufficient corresponding algorithm recited in the specification as discussed above and in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection below. Particularly, [0059] recites “The comparative judgment unit 106 makes a judgment about possibility of achievement of a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions goal by comparing the achieved greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions value and the target greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions value”, and [0062] recites that the judgment is either that attaining of the goal is “possible” or “impossible”. However, while a comparison of the achieved emissions and emissions goal values is recited, there is no criteria recited for how a determination is made as to whether a goal is “possible” or “impossible”. In other words, there is not recited method for making such a comparison and no recited threshold or other criterion for differentiating between a “”possible” goal and an “impossible” goal. Instead, the comparative judgment unit operates like a black box that takes in the achieved emissions and emissions goal and outputs a decision of “possible” or “impossible” without any recited methodology for reaching a conclusion. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that Applicant’s has possession of the claimed invention at the effectively filed date. Claim 1 is therefore rejected for lacking sufficient written description. See MPEP 2181 II. B. “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).”
Claims 2-14 are also rejected as lacking sufficient written description by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, while 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked in the claim, the claim still lacks sufficient written description for similar reasoning as claim 1 above. Claim 15 recites “a comparative judgment step of making a judgment about possibility of achievement of a greenhouse gas emissions goal by comparing the achieved greenhouse gas emissions value and the target greenhouse gas emissions value”. As discussed above regarding claim 1, the specification recites a comparison of the achieved and goal emissions values like in the claim, but the specification does not recite how the comparison results in a determination of whether the goal is possible. There is no threshold, criterion, or methodology recited in the specification for differentiating between a “possible” goal and an “impossible” goal. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that Applicant possessed the claimed invention at the effectively filed date.
Regarding claim 16, the claim lacks sufficient written description by similar reasoning as claim 15 above.
Regarding the interpretation of determining a goal is “possible” or “impossible”, Examiner is interpreting determining a goal is “possible” as determining that an organization has met a goal or is on pace to meet a goal and determining “impossible” as determining that an organization has not met a goal or is not on pace to meet a goal.
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.
Claim 1 limitation “comparative judgment unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. As discussed in the claim interpretation section above, while physical structure of a comparative judgment unit is recited in the specification, a sufficient corresponding algorithm for a comparative judgment unit is not recited in the specification. While the specification recites that a possibility determination is made based on a comparison of the achieved emissions and the emissions goal, the specification does not recite how the comparative judgment unit compares/evaluates the two calculated values to arrive the outcome of “possible” or “impossible” to achieve the goal. Given that there are a multitude of possible ways to potentially make such a determination, it is unclear which methods should or should not be interpreted as being claimed. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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);
(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.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite managing (i.e. buying or selling) environmental value based on whether an emissions goal is achievable.
As an initial matter, claims 1-14 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Claim 15 falls into at least the method category of statutory subject matter. Finally, claim 16 falls into at least the manufacture category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “first storage control unit configured to execute control to acquire a target greenhouse gas emissions value of an organization and cause the target greenhouse gas emissions value to be stored into a first database,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “first storage control unit” and “a first database,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “activity status acquisition unit configured to acquire an activity status of the organization; calculation unit configured to, for the activity status of the organization, calculate greenhouse gas emissions and environmental value; second storage control unit configured to execute control to cause environmental value possessed by the organization, including the calculated environmental value, to be stored into a second database; achieved emissions value calculation unit configured to calculate an achieved greenhouse gas emissions value of the organization by subtracting at least a part of the environmental value stored in the second database from the calculated greenhouse gas emissions; comparative judgment unit configured to make a judgment about possibility of achievement of a greenhouse gas emissions goal by comparing the achieved greenhouse gas emissions value and the target greenhouse gas emissions value; and control unit configured to control use of the environmental value stored in the second database based on a result of the judgment by the comparative judgment unit”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of determining whether to acquire or sell environmental value based on business emissions goals which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Execute control to acquire a target greenhouse gas emissions value of an organization and cause the target greenhouse gas emissions value to be stored; acquire an activity status of the organization; for the activity status of the organization, calculate greenhouse gas emissions and environmental value; execute control to cause environmental value possessed by the organization, including the calculated environmental value, to be stored; calculate an achieved greenhouse gas emissions value of the organization by subtracting at least a part of the environmental value stored from the calculated greenhouse gas emissions; make a judgment about possibility of achievement of a greenhouse gas emissions goal by comparing the achieved greenhouse gas emissions value and the target greenhouse gas emissions value; and control use of the environmental value stored based on a result of the judgment all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Finally, claim 1 also recites the concept of mathematical calculations which falls under the enumerated grouping of Mathematical Concepts. For the activity status of the organization, calculate greenhouse gas emissions and environmental value; calculate an achieved greenhouse gas emissions value of the organization by subtracting at least a part of the environmental value stored in the second database from the calculated greenhouse gas emissions all, as a whole, fall into the category of mathematical calculations. The claim falls into the ”Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an information processing apparatus, first storage control unit, a first database, activity status acquisition unit, calculation unit, second storage control unit, a second database, achieved emissions value calculation unit, comparative judgment unit, and control unit. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 elements of an information processing apparatus, first storage control unit, a first database, activity status acquisition unit, calculation unit, second storage control unit, a second database, achieved emissions value calculation unit, comparative judgment unit, and control unit amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of sensors. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of sensors is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional element from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3-14 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
In claim 15, the limitation of “An information processing method executed by an information processing apparatus, the information processing method comprising: a first storage control step of executing control to acquire a target greenhouse gas emissions value of an organization and cause the target greenhouse gas emissions value to be stored into a first database,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an information processing apparatus” and “a first database,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “an activity status acquisition step of acquiring an activity status of the organization; a calculation step of, for the activity status of the organization, calculating greenhouse gas emissions and environmental value; a second storage control step of executing control to cause environmental value possessed by the organization, including the calculated environmental value, to be stored into a second database; an achieved emissions value calculation step of calculating an achieved greenhouse gas emissions value of the organization by subtracting at least a part of the environmental value stored in the second database from the calculated greenhouse gas emissions; a comparative judgment step of making a judgment about possibility of achievement of a greenhouse gas emissions goal by comparing the achieved greenhouse gas emissions value and the target greenhouse gas emissions value; and a control step of controlling use of the environmental value stored in the second database based on a result of a process of the judgment at the comparative judgment step”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 15 recites the concept of determining whether to acquire or sell environmental value based on business emissions goals which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. An information processing method executed, the information processing method comprising: a first storage control step of executing control to acquire a target greenhouse gas emissions value of an organization and cause the target greenhouse gas emissions value to be stored; an activity status acquisition step of acquiring an activity status of the organization; a calculation step of, for the activity status of the organization, calculating greenhouse gas emissions and environmental value; a second storage control step of executing control to cause environmental value possessed by the organization, including the calculated environmental value, to be stored; an achieved emissions value calculation step of calculating an achieved greenhouse gas emissions value of the organization by subtracting at least a part of the environmental value stored from the calculated greenhouse gas emissions; a comparative judgment step of making a judgment about possibility of achievement of a greenhouse gas emissions goal by comparing the achieved greenhouse gas emissions value and the target greenhouse gas emissions value; and a control step of controlling use of the environmental value stored based on a result of a process of the judgment at the comparative judgment step all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Finally, claim 15 also recites the concept of mathematical calculations which falls under the enumerated grouping of Mathematical Concepts. A calculation step of, for the activity status of the organization, calculating greenhouse gas emissions and environmental value; an achieved emissions value calculation step of calculating an achieved greenhouse gas emissions value of the organization by subtracting at least a part of the environmental value stored in the second database from the calculated greenhouse gas emissions all, as a whole, fall into the category of mathematical calculations. The claim falls into the ”Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of an information processing apparatus, a first database, and a second database. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 elements of an information processing apparatus, a first database, and a second database amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
In claim 16, the limitation of “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing program that causes a computer to execute a control process, the control process including: a first storage control step of executing control to acquire a target greenhouse gas emissions value of an organization and cause the target greenhouse gas emissions value to be stored into a first database,” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing program that causes a computer to execute a control process” and “a first database,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “an activity status acquisition step of acquiring an activity status of the organization; a calculation step of, for the activity status of the organization, calculating greenhouse gas emissions and environmental value; a second storage control step of executing control to cause environmental value possessed by the organization, including the calculated environmental value, to be stored into a second database ;an achieved emissions value calculation step of calculating an achieved greenhouse gas emissions value of the organization by subtracting at least a part of the environmental value stored in the second database from the calculated greenhouse gas emissions; a comparative judgment step of making a judgment about possibility of achievement of a greenhouse gas emissions goal by comparing the achieved greenhouse gas emissions value and the target greenhouse gas emissions value; and a control step of controlling use of the environmental value stored in the second database based on a result of a process of the judgment at the comparative judgment step”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 16 recites the concept of determining whether to acquire or sell environmental value based on business emissions goals which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Execute a control process, the control process including: a first storage control step of executing control to acquire a target greenhouse gas emissions value of an organization and cause the target greenhouse gas emissions value to be stored; an activity status acquisition step of acquiring an activity status of the organization; a calculation step of, for the activity status of the organization, calculating greenhouse gas emissions and environmental value; a second storage control step of executing control to cause environmental value possessed by the organization, including the calculated environmental value, to be stored; an achieved emissions value calculation step of calculating an achieved greenhouse gas emissions value of the organization by subtracting at least a part of the environmental value stored from the calculated greenhouse gas emissions; a comparative judgment step of making a judgment about possibility of achievement of a greenhouse gas emissions goal by comparing the achieved greenhouse gas emissions value and the target greenhouse gas emissions value; and a control step of controlling use of the environmental value stored based on a result of a process of the judgment at the comparative judgment step all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Finally, claim 16 also recites the concept of mathematical calculations which falls under the enumerated grouping of Mathematical Concepts. A calculation step of, for the activity status of the organization, calculating greenhouse gas emissions and environmental value; an achieved emissions value calculation step of calculating an achieved greenhouse gas emissions value of the organization by subtracting at least a part of the environmental value stored in the second database from the calculated greenhouse gas emissions all, as a whole, fall into the category of mathematical calculations. The claim falls into the ”Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium storing program that causes a computer to execute a control process, a computer, a first database, and a second database. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. 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 elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium storing program that causes a computer to execute a control process, a computer, a first database, and a second database amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,375,068; hereafter known as Platt) in view of Dembo et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0246133, hereafter known as Dembo).
Regarding claim 1, Platt teaches:
An information processing apparatus comprising (see Fig. 1A and Col. 6 lines 24-29 "there is shown a block diagram depicting a server-side architecture for practicing the present invention according to one embodiment. In one embodiment, the components of FIG. 1A are implemented as a hosted service 115 running, for example, on a server. The various components can be implemented as part of such a server". For the various units in claim 1, the server and particularly processor discussed in Col. 29 lines 42-57 are the hardware performing the functions of the units)
first storage control unit configured to execute control to acquire a target greenhouse gas emissions value of an organization and cause the target greenhouse gas emissions value to be stored into a first database (see Col. 17 lines 46-56 "a baseline is a calculation serving as a comparison or control, consisting of two parts: 1) a range of time during which usage data has been monitored in the past, and, additionally, 2) an optional method for normalizing or standardizing performance based on a number of factors, including building infrastructure characteristics, per person or per square foot usage, relative average usage within a locale or similar social or geographic group, and weather conditions. Based on the baseline and on a chosen viewpoint and/or time scale, an excess usage amount or a reduced usage amount can be derived" and Col. 17 line 64 thru Col. 18 line 9 "database 101 (or another data storage mechanism) stores various items of information for carbon offsetting units. Such items can include any of the following fields, in any desired combination:...baseline calculation parameters (time range, weather conditions yes/no, missing data yes/no, relative to mean)", Col. 11 lines 11-24, and unit equivalent conversions to carbon dioxide emissions in Col. 20 lines 58-60 and Col. 27 lines 23-31 for calculating baseline emissions data and storing baseline data in a database. Examiner is interpreting "baseline" emissions to which future emissions will be compared to as the "target" value. See Col. 1 lines 47-54 for the user in Platt being an organization)
activity status acquisition unit configured to acquire an activity status of the organization (see Col. 7 lines 11-20 "data collection and transformation takes place automatically and without user intervention. Referring now to FIG. 1C, there is shown a block diagram depicting an architecture for collecting resource usage data. Resource usage monitoring devices 131 are placed wherever convenient to measure usage. For example, electricity usage data can be collected by power meters located on site where the electricity is being used. Data from monitoring devices 131 is uploaded to a central processing facility 132 for aggregation and storage in database 101")
calculation unit configured to, for the activity status of the organization, calculate greenhouse gas emissions
achieved emissions value calculation unit configured to calculate an achieved greenhouse gas emissions value of the organization (see Col. 18 lines 53-57 "Based on the user's selections, and based on information from event tagging module 165 and/or competition and comparison module 166 (if appropriate), module 167 determines either an excess usage amount 414 or a reduced usage amount 417" and comparison module determining final total usage in Col. 11 lines 11-30 for the calculation of final usage for a subsequent comparison to baseline/target usage)
comparative judgment unit configured to make a judgment about possibility of achievement of a greenhouse gas emissions goal by comparing the achieved greenhouse gas emissions value and the target greenhouse gas emissions value (see Col. 18 lines 53-57 "Based on the user's selections, and based on information from event tagging module 165 and/or competition and comparison module 166 (if appropriate), module 167 determines either an excess usage amount 414 or a reduced usage amount 417". Examiner is interpreting an excess usage amount to be a determination that the goal is impossible and a reduced usage amount (reducing usage/emissions below the baseline/target) as a determination that the goal/baseline is "possible")
and control unit configured to control use of (see Col. 18 lines 57-67 "If an excess usage amount exists, module 167 calculates a cost to offset the excess, and allows the user to select 415 an excess amount to offset. If a reduced usage amount exists, module 167 calculates a value for the reduction, and allows the user to select 418 a reduction amount to convert. The user can then select 416 an offset or sale conversion method, using dollars, Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), green tags/certificates, carbon reduction credits, other tax(es), or the like. Appropriate financial transactions can be initiated electronically via an interface to financial institutions and other entities" for controlling either the buying or selling of environmental value, in this case offsets, based on the result of the comparison between the actual emissions amount and the baseline)
Platt further teaches in Col. 17 line 64 thru Col. 18 line 4 an offset balance for a current comparison stored in a database, but not explicitly an offset balance possessed by the organization prior to comparison. Col. 6 lines 35-37 of Platt teaches sending portions of database 101 data to a second database backup 102. Platt further implies the carryover of emissions to future comparisons in Col. 19 lines 7-8 "The user can receive 421 a dollar refund, or can apply 422 the value to future excess amounts". However, while Platt implies the carrying over of environmental value that can be calculated and applied to the decision of whether an organization needs to buy/sell environmental value based on a comparison to a baseline, Platt teaches the process by comparing calculated emissions to a baseline of emissions. In other words, Platt’s explicit process operates as if the user has zero environmental value that can be subtracted from calculated emissions to calculate an achieved emissions to compare to baseline. Accordingly, Platt does not explicitly teach calculating an environmental value of the organization, a second storage control unit configured to execute control to cause environmental value possessed by the organization, including the calculated environmental value, to be stored into a second database, calculating an achieved emissions value by subtracting at least part of the stored environmental value from the calculated emissions value, and controlling the use of the stored environmental value. Dembo teaches:
calculating environmental value (see [0245] "system 10 includes an offset module 62. Generally, the offset module 62 is operable to: manage an emission credit inventory" and [0247] "Management of an emission credit inventory involves tracking the number of emission credits that a user or provider owns, controls or requires. A user may be given some number of emission credits by a governmental organization or may be required to purchase credits from an emission credit bank, marketplace or third party. The user may be able to buy or sell emission credits at any time. Emission credits may also take the form of services where suppliers purchase bulk amounts of emission credits and sell them to customers on demand. Regardless of the form that emission credit markets take, the offset module 62 is operable to manage the number of emission credits in a user's emission credit inventory using accounting practices" for calculating the amount of carbon credits/offsets possessed by an organization)
second storage control unit configured to execute control to cause environmental value possessed by the organization, including the calculated environmental value, to be stored into a second database (see [0063] for the offset module 62 managing the user's credit inventory discussed above being stored in a memory. In combination with Platt, this inventory would be sent to the database 101 and the second backup database)
achieved emissions value calculation unit configured to calculate an achieved greenhouse gas emissions value of the organization by subtracting at least a part of the environmental value stored in the second database from the calculated greenhouse gas emissions (see [0248] "Calculation of the emission credits required to offset a computed emission value requires the offset module 62 to convert the emission value calculated by the emission engine 40 into the units of measurement used by emission credits in the emission credit marketplace. Once the units of measurement are the same the offset module 62 may calculate the number of emission credits required to offset the calculated emission value. Once the emission offset number has been calculated the offset module 62 may compare the offset number to a user's emission credit inventory" and [0249] "An emission offset transaction may be initiated automatically by the offset module 62 if there is a shortfall of emission credits in a user's emission credit inventory" for the calculation of achieved carbon emissions by subtracting the carbon credit inventory from the calculated emission value. In combination with Platt, the calculation of the achieved emission value would subtract any carryover offsets from step 422 to the calculated emission value of Platt to arrive at the achieved value that will be compared to the benchmark/target to determine if additional credits needed to be purchased)
controlling the stored environmental value based on the comparison (see [0249] "An emission offset transaction may be initiated automatically by the offset module 62 if there is a shortfall of emission credits in a user's emission credit inventory" for acquiring additional carbon credits for the organization inventory if required based on the comparison)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of calculating an organization’s carbon credit/offsets, storing the calculated credits/offsets in a second database, and applying the stored carbon credits/offsets to a calculated emissions value of an organization to determine whether the organization needs more credits/offsets or has excess credits/offsets of Dembo to Platt would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Dembo to the teaching of Platt would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such calculating an organization’s carbon credit/offsets, storing the calculated credits/offsets in a second database, and applying the stored carbon credits/offsets to a calculated emissions value of an organization to determine whether the organization needs more credits/offsets or has excess credits/offsets. Further, applying calculating an organization’s carbon credit/offsets, storing the calculated credits/offsets in a second database, and applying the stored carbon credits/offsets to a calculated emissions value of an organization to determine whether the organization needs more credits/offsets or has excess credits/offsets to Platt would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient carrying forward of excess credits/offsets to future targets. Particularly, Platt explicitly teaches at reference character 422 that excess credits can be applied to future emissions. However, as discussed above the comparison scenario recited in Platt does not consider any carried forward emissions credits. By incorporating the accounting and storing of environmental value of Dembo, the resulting combination would allow an organization the ability to keep track of acquired carbon offsets/credits and apply them towards future goals as discussed in Platt. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Platt and Dembo generalizes the operations of Platt with no pre-stored environmental value to handle scenarios in which an organization chooses to apply credits/offsets to future goal, which is contemplated by Platt.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Platt further teaches:
wherein the calculation unit calculates the greenhouse gas emissions (see Col. 20 lines 12-15 for the calculation and conversion of carbon emissions using a coefficient)
While Platt teaches calculating greenhouse gas emissions via a conversion coefficient from power usage, Platt does not explicitly teach calculating the environmental value/ credits/offsets using an emission intensity and a conversion coefficient. Dembo further teaches:
wherein the calculation unit calculates the greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental value in accordance with a predetermined calculation method using emission intensity and a conversion coefficient (see [0134]-[0143] and [0022]-[0023] for the use of equations with emissions factors (intensities) to calculate emissions based on established protocols. See [0248] for converting emissions values calculated using intensity and coefficients into units that match the carbon credits/offsets to determine required environmental value amounts)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the calculation of emissions and environmental values using emission intensity and conversion coefficients. As Dembo states in [0004], “In order to quantify emissions, protocols that outline specific methods of measuring emissions have been developed, such as: the Green House Gas (GHG), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Carbon Disclosure Project, and Bilan Carbone protocols, for example. Within a given protocol, the emission intensity for a given source can vary depending on factors such as time, location, altitude, and temperature. As science and technology evolve, more effective and accurate methods for measuring emissions are identified, more data is collected, and new protocols are developed” and [0009] “This may require improved or alternative ways to accurately calculate emission values and provide emission reduction mechanisms in view of the dynamic and potentially complex relationships that exist between science, emission types, emission protocols, emission intensities, activity information and factors such as time and location”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the use of established protocols with emission intensities and conversion coefficients taking into account time and location would result in more accurate calculations of emissions and environmental value.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Platt further teaches:
wherein the control unit executes control to provide at least a part of (see Col. 19 lines 6-10 "a user can select a value credit balance 424 method. The user can receive 421 a dollar refund, or can apply 422 the value to future excess amounts, or can offset 423 excess amounts of a friend or family or a public excess amount" for sending environmental value/credit from coming in below benchmark emissions levels to a friend or third party. See Col. 18 line 57 thru Col. 19 line 5 "If an excess usage amount exists, module 167 calculates a cost to offset the excess, and allows the user to select 415 an excess amount to offset...The user can then select 416 an offset or sale conversion method, using dollars, Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), green tags/certificates, carbon reduction credits, other tax(es), or the like. Appropriate financial transactions can be initiated electronically via an interface to financial institutions and other entities...a user can select an offset balance 319 method. Module 167 sends 420 information to a participating organizational entity, utility provider or authority, or local/state/federal governing entity. Such transactions are tracked by event tagging module 165" for purchasing offsets to in case of an excess usage/emission amount. Also see Col. 10 lines 28-34 for buying/selling carbon offsets from a third party)
As discussed above regarding claim 1, Platt does not explicitly teach a second storage control unit storing calculated environmental value in a second database and does not explicitly recite controlling environmental value stored in the database. Dembo further teaches:
wherein the control unit executes control to provide at least a part of the environmental value stored in the second database to a third party and cause environmental value acquired by the organization to be stored into the second database, via the second storage control unit (see [0247] "Management of an emission credit inventory involves tracking the number of emission credits that a user or provider owns, controls or requires. A user may be given some number of emission credits by a governmental organization or may be required to purchase credits from an emission credit bank, marketplace or third party. The user may be able to buy or sell emission credits at any time. Emission credits may also take the form of services where suppliers purchase bulk amounts of emission credits and sell them to customers on demand. Regardless of the form that emission credit markets take, the offset module 62 is operable to manage the number of emission credits in a user's emission credit inventory using accounting practices" for storing acquired carbon offsets in the organization's inventory and selling carbon credits from the organization’s inventory)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of storing acquired environmental value in the second database and providing at least part of the environmental value stored in the second database to third parties of Dembo to Platt would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Dembo to the teaching of Platt would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such storing acquired environmental value in the second database and providing at least part of the environmental value stored in the second database to third parties. Further, applying storing acquired environmental value in the second database and providing at least part of the environmental value stored in the second database to third parties to Platt would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient acquisition or sale of environmental value. Particularly, Platt recites the acquisition of or sale of environmental value based on the results of a comparison of actual emissions to baseline. By incorporating the accounting and storing of environmental value of Dembo, the resulting combination would allow an organization the ability to manage carbon offsets/credits and keep track of how much environmental value is in the possession of the organization following an acquisition or sale. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination of Platt and Dembo provides a more efficient method for managing environmental value over the course of multiple goal periods.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. Platt further teaches:
wherein the control unit executes control to provide at least a part of the environmental value stored in the second database to a third party if it is judged by the comparative judgment unit that the achievement of the goal is possible (see Col. 18 lines 59-61 "If a reduced usage amount exists, module 167 calculates a value for the reduction, and allows the user to select 418 a reduction amount to convert" and Col. 19 lines 6-10 "a user can select a value credit balance 424 method. The user can receive 421 a dollar refund, or can apply 422 the value to future excess amounts, or can offset 423 excess amounts of a friend or family or a public excess amount" for determining that the emissions have been reduced below baseline, which Examiner is interpreting as the baseline emission goal being "possible" and providing credits for excess reduction to third parties. Also see Col. 19 lines 17-24 for auctioning off excess credit and Col. 10 lines 28-34 for selling excess credits below the baseline. In combination with Dembo per claim 4, the value is provided from the credit inventory)
and executes control for acquiring environmental value from a third party if it is judged by the comparative judgment unit that the achievement of the goal is impossible (see Col. 18 line 57 thru Col. 19 line 5 "If an excess usage amount exists, module 167 calculates a cost to offset the excess, and allows the user to select 415 an excess amount to offset...The user can then select 416 an offset or sale conversion method, using dollars, Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs), green tags/certificates, carbon reduction credits, other tax(es), or the like. Appropriate financial transactions can be initiated electronically via an interface to financial institutions and other entities...a user can select an offset balance 319 method. Module 167 sends 420 information to a participating organizational entity, utility provider or authority, or local/state/federal governing entity. Such transactions are tracked by event tagging module 165" for purchasing offsets to in case of an excess usage/emission amount, which Examiner is interpreting as a judgment that the baseline/target emissions are impossible. In combination with Dembo per claim 4, the value is stored in the credit inventory)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above. Platt further teaches:
wherein the control unit executes, as the control to provide the environmental value to a third party, control to preferentially provide the environmental value to a related organization (see Col. 19 lines 6-10 "a user can select a value credit balance 424 method. The user...can offset 423 excess amounts of a friend or family or a public excess amount" for the organization choosing to send their excess credits/emission reduction value to a related organization)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. Platt further teaches:
wherein the control unit executes the control to provide at least a part of the environmental value to a third party presenting a highest purchase price among third parties desiring to purchase the environmental value (see Col. 19 lines 17-23 "in one embodiment, a user can sell 428 an equivalent reduction amount. Price is set 429 based on various factors, including for example geographic details, fuel mix, and other information. A marketplace or auction is hosted 430 for the reduction amount. When the reduction amount is sold, it is subtracted 431 from the total reduction amount for the user and the user's green rating is updated" for auctioning off the environmental value in the form of credits to third parties)
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. Platt further teaches:
wherein the control unit executes, as the control to provide the environmental value to a third party, control to select one or more among one or more non-fossil value trading markets and one or more renewable energy value trading markets and provide the environmental value thereto (see Col. 10 lines 28-34 "Carbon offsetting module 167 is an interface providing for the ability for end users to track, make available, and purchase carbon offsets for excess consumption or convert and sell certificates or green attributes for reduced consumption in a marketplace or auction, or through a third party such as TerraPass or CarbonFund" for selling environmental value to a marketplace. See Col. 17 lines 56-63 for the marketplace at least being a "non-fossil" value trading marketplace where value associated with reduced emissions can be traded/sold)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Platt further teaches:
wherein the control unit executes control to convert the environmental value to different value (see Col. 19 lines 6-24 for the conversion of environmental credit into dollars/monetary value)
Regarding claim 15, Platt teaches:
An information processing method executed by an information processing apparatus, the information processing method comprising (see Fig. 4 and Col. 17 line 39 thru Col. 19 line 25 for overall method. See Col. 6 lines 24-29 "there is shown a block diagram depicting a server-side architecture for practicing the present invention according to one embodiment. In one embodiment, the components of FIG. 1A are implemented as a hosted service 115 running, for example, on a server. The various components can be implemented as part of such a server" for the information processing apparatus performing the method)
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Platt teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing program that causes a computer to execute a control process, the control process including (see Col. 29 lines 42-57 for the methodology stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium that causes a processor of a computer to perform the processes)
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 16, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt in view of Dembo and Cooner (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0027096, hereafter known as Cooner).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Platt further teaches:
wherein the activity status acquisition unit acquires the activity status by calculating the activity status based on (see Col. 7 lines 11-20 "data collection and transformation takes place automatically and without user intervention. Referring now to FIG. 1C, there is shown a block diagram depicting an architecture for collecting resource usage data. Resource usage monitoring devices 131 are placed wherever convenient to measure usage. For example, electricity usage data can be collected by power meters located on site where the electricity is being used. Data from monitoring devices 131 is uploaded to a central processing facility 132 for aggregation and storage in database 101")
While Platt contemplates organizations having renewable energy generation and usage in Col. 1 lines 36-43, Platt does not explicitly teach calculating activity status based on a renewable energy use of the organization and planning for introduction of the facilities. Dembo further teaches calculating activity status based on a renewable energy use amount of the organization (see [0096]-[0102] for emission activity types including power generation and renewable energy. See [0112] for the consideration of renewable energy usage based on the energy sources for an organization's location).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of determining activity status and emissions of an organization based upon renewable energy usage of the organization of Dembo to Platt would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Dembo to the teaching of Platt would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such determining activity status and emissions of an organization based upon renewable energy usage of the organization. Further, applying determining activity status and emissions of an organization based upon renewable energy usage of the organization to Platt would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more accurate determination of emissions based on the activities of the organization. For example, Dembo states in [0112] that the location of the organizations determines how much renewable energy is used to produce the electricity the organizations consume from the grid, and consequently the carbon intensity of the consumed energy can vary widely based on such renewable energy use. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the accuracy of calculated carbon emissions would be improved by taking into account renewable energy usage of the organization.
The combination of Platt and Dembo does not explicitly teach calculating activity status based on planning for introduction of the facilities. Cooner teaches calculating activity status based on planning for introducing new equipment to the organization (see [1498] “The overall business model is that in the US currently is if an energy efficient system exists that saves more than 25% of the electricity needed to power the system using the old equipment, and the building owner wants it installed in his building, by US Federal requirement, the utility company that supplies power to that building must pay for the equipment and installation of the new energy efficient or water efficient equipment…he energy and/or water reduction can then be calculated with the electrical draw and/or water use from the old equipment versus the new, more efficient installations. Electrical flow and/or water use, once measured, can be stored locally and then transmitted to an IoT Platform either through wired and/or wireless network connection” for calculating an activity status by planning for a 25% reduction in power draw and measuring the actual results of the new equipment)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of determining activity status of an organization based upon plans for new energy efficient equipment at the organization of Cooner to the combination of Platt and Dembo would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Cooner to the teaching of the combination of Platt and Dembo would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such determining activity status of an organization based upon plans for new energy efficient equipment at the organization. Further, applying determining activity status of an organization based upon plans for new energy efficient equipment at the organization to the combination of Platt and Dembo would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the organization to validate the actual emissions savings of new equipment. As Cooner states in [1498], organizations can install new more efficient equipment and expect to see energy savings. By considering the installation of new equipment’s impact on energy consumption, the resulting combination of Platt, Dembo, and Cooner would allow the organization to compare the performance of the new equipment to baseline and collect on the resulting energy savings afforded by the new equipment.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt in view of Dembo and Feierstein et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0208621, hereafter known as Feierstein).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above. While the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches that credits/offsets are acquired from a marketplace, the combination does not explicitly teach that credits/offsets with tracking are preferentially obtained. Feierstein teaches:
wherein the control unit executes, as the control to acquire the environmental value from a third party, control to preferentially acquire environmental value with tracking (see [0063] "The first service provider may purchase carbon emission reduction credits that are real, quantifiable, permanent, accountable, verified and certified as VCUs by virtue of being in the custodial registry, from the second service provider. The purchased carbon emission reduction credits are transferred from the pre-created carbon credit trading account of the second service provider to the pre-created carbon credit trading account of the first service provider" for the organization purchasing credits with tracking)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the organization preferentially acquiring environmental value with tracking in the form of carbon credits that are in a registry to ensure authenticity of Feierstein in the combination of Platt and Dembo. As Feierstein states in [0019] “There is a long felt but unresolved need for individuals and organizations to mitigate the impact of their actions and activities which generate CO2 or CO2e by offsetting the amount of CO2 or CO2e they emit, directly and/or indirectly through their actions and activities to achieve net zero CO2 or CO2e emissions. This can be achieved by identifying, auditing, and quantifying the CO2 and CO2e emitted by the individual, organization or company, herein referred to as an "end user" and reconciling the measured amount of carbon emitted with an equivalent amount sequestered, or through use of carbon emission reduction offsets. The carbon reduction offsets are, for example, CERs, VERs, VCUs, JI credits, etc., provided the carbon reduction offsets are real, quantifiable, additional, permanent, verified, certified and stored in an industrial strength custodial registry, to preclude double counting of such credits”. Also see [0045] "The compliance assures that the generated carbon emission reduction credits are real, permanent, quantifiable and not business as usual emission reductions". One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by acquiring carbon credits that are being tracked in a global registry, the organization in the combined system could be confident that the credits that they are acquiring are authentic and not a double counting of an emission reduction. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the preclusion of double counting credits would drive real emission reductions and further the emission reductions goals of Platt.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. As discussed above regarding claim 4, Platt does not teach acquiring environmental value with tracking. Platt also does not explicitly teach purchasing environmental value with tracking at a price including a donation to a community. Dembo further teaches:
wherein, when acquiring environmental value (see [0065] "system 10 may enable a user to make contributions or donations for socially beneficial projects using a value card and the incentive may attempt to reduce emissions associated with the user" and [0075] "the contribution may be a donation of 1,000 loyalty points to be used for a social good that reduces emissions, such as a planting trees, using sustainable farming practices, purchasing solar panels, planting gardens, and the like. In this manner, the user may make contributions to socially beneficial projects, such as projects that reduce emissions. Other socially beneficial projects examples include building new schools or facilities, supporting food banks, and the like" for purchasing environmental value to offset emissions by donating to a community to plant trees. In combination with Platt, the donation can include "preserved land area" in Col. 17 lines 59-61)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a purchase of environmental value including a donation of Dembo to the system of Platt. As Dembo [0065] states “In this manner, the user may make contributions to socially beneficial projects, such as projects that reduce emissions”. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing an organization to make a donation to a community that reduces emissions to purchase environmental value would encourage users and organizations to more directly benefit a community instead of purchasing carbon credits/offsets from a resale market or from a provider of credits that does not make direct impacts on a community like a carbon sequestration or other provider.
The combination of Platt and Dembo still does not explicitly teach acquiring environmental value with tracking. Feierstein teaches acquiring environmental value with tracking (see [0063] "The first service provider may purchase carbon emission reduction credits that are real, quantifiable, permanent, accountable, verified and certified as VCUs by virtue of being in the custodial registry, from the second service provider. The purchased carbon emission reduction credits are transferred from the pre-created carbon credit trading account of the second service provider to the pre-created carbon credit trading account of the first service provider" for the organization purchasing credits with tracking).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the organization preferentially acquiring environmental value with tracking in the form of carbon credits that are in a registry to ensure authenticity of Feierstein in the combination of Platt and Dembo. As Feierstein states in [0019] “There is a long felt but unresolved need for individuals and organizations to mitigate the impact of their actions and activities which generate CO2 or CO2e by offsetting the amount of CO2 or CO2e they emit, directly and/or indirectly through their actions and activities to achieve net zero CO2 or CO2e emissions. This can be achieved by identifying, auditing, and quantifying the CO2 and CO2e emitted by the individual, organization or company, herein referred to as an "end user" and reconciling the measured amount of carbon emitted with an equivalent amount sequestered, or through use of carbon emission reduction offsets. The carbon reduction offsets are, for example, CERs, VERs, VCUs, JI credits, etc., provided the carbon reduction offsets are real, quantifiable, additional, permanent, verified, certified and stored in an industrial strength custodial registry, to preclude double counting of such credits”. Also see [0045] "The compliance assures that the generated carbon emission reduction credits are real, permanent, quantifiable and not business as usual emission reductions". One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by acquiring carbon credits that are being tracked in a global registry, the organization in the combined system could be confident that the credits that they are acquiring are authentic and not a double counting of an emission reduction. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the preclusion of double counting credits would drive real emission reductions and further the emission reductions goals of Platt.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt in view of Dembo and Khan (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0058328, hereafter known as Khan).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. While Platt contemplates organizations acquiring renewable energy via solar panels in Col. 1 lines 35-45 and Dembo considers renewable energy an activity type in [0102], the combination of Platt and Dembo does not explicitly teach the control unit separating environmental value from the renewable energy and storing the separated environmental value in the second database when acquiring renewable energy. Khan teaches:
wherein, when the organization acquires renewable energy, the control unit executes control to separate environmental value from the renewable energy and cause the separated environmental value to be stored into the second database (see [0046] "the users 102A-102N may earn renewable energy/solar credits either by installing one or more panels for generating renewable energy or solar energy or by saving the previously purchased renewable energy/solar credits. In such embodiments, the online trading system 104 may allow at least one of the users 102A-102N to re-sell the earned/saved renewable energy credits to another user" and [0050] "The renewable energy credits or the solar credits may be sold separately from the electricity and may represent a solar aspect of the electricity produced using renewable energy like solar energy" for the organization acquiring renewable energy via solar panels and separating the renewable energy credits from the electric power for storage in an organization’s credit inventory and further sale on the marketplaces of Platt)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include separating environmental value from acquired renewable energy as taught by Khan in the combination of Platt and Dembo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
In other words, modifying Platt and Dembo with acquiring environmental value through solar panel power production and separating the environmental value for resale to third parties would have had predictable results. Platt already considers organization having solar panels to acquire renewable energy, and Platt and Dembo both recite the organization selling excess carbon credits on a marketplace. Accordingly, modifying the combination to allow organizations to acquire credits from their renewable power generation and allow the organizations to sell those credits separately from the renewable energy itself would have allowed the organizations to still buy/sell environmental value as taught in Platt and Dembo but with an added source of environmental value in the renewable energy generation of Khan.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt in view of Dembo and Potdar et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2014/0222698, hereafter known as Potdar).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. As discussed above regarding claim 11, Platt further contemplates organizations using solar panels to generate energy. While Platt and Dembo both teach an organization selling/providing excess environmental value/credits, the combination of Platt and Dembo does not explicitly teach providing environmental value in combination with electric power generated by the organization. Potdar teaches:
wherein the control unit executes control to provide the environmental value in combination with electric power generated by the organization (see [0056] "an example is provided for implementation of tracking the transfer of renewable electricity that is introduced into a power grid, utilizing environmental attributes" and [0057] "Upon successfully demonstrating the physical transportation path between the power plant 116 and the EV station 130, and the contractual relationship for the purchase and sale of environmental attributes associated with renewable electricity between the power plant 116 and the EV station 130; metering of introduction of renewable electricity to the power grid by the power plant 116 and usage of electricity by the EV station 130 may occur on an ongoing basis" and [0060] "Renewable fuel credit generation may be based on the quantity of environmental attributes transferred from the power plant 116 to the EV station 130. The power plant 116 may attest to the fact that no other party is making claims to the environmental attributes and that the rights to the environmental attributes are transferred solely to the EV station 130" for the provision of environmental credits in combination with renewable power generated by an organization)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of sending environmental credits along with generated electricity of Potdar to the combination of Platt and Dembo would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Potdar to the teaching of the combination of Platt and Dembo would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such sending environmental credits along with generated electricity. Further, applying sending environmental credits along with generated electricity to the combination of Platt and Dembo would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow the marketplace to more readily track the generation of renewable energy. As discussed above, Platt contemplates organizations generating renewable energy using solar panels. As Potdar teaches in [0007]-[0008] that renewable energy credits need to be tracked and [0023] states “Embodiments of the disclosure can address some or all of the above needs... More particularly, the disclosure relates to the methods and automated, online system used for matching renewable fuel credits back to the individual steps of the renewable electricity generation, distribution and usage pathway--on a source-to-sink basis”. By sending the credits created by generating renewable energy when providing energy and credits to a third-party, the organization would allow the third party to be able to track and prove the renewable nature of the generated power.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include providing power generated by the organization along with the environmental value as taught by Potdar in the combination of Platt and Dembo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Particularly, Platt considers organizations generating power using solar panels, and Platt also teaches an organization selling excess environmental value. Modifying the combination of Platt and Dembo to allow the organization to sell excess power back to the grid along with the credits from generating the renewable power would have had predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt in view of Dembo and Yeung (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0068398, hereafter known as Yeung).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Platt and Dembo teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Platt further teaches in Col. 8 lines 42-45 that carbon offsets can be traded, bought, and sold. Dembo further states in [0247] that users can buy and sell carbon credits at any time. However, the combination of Platt and Dembo does not explicitly teach that selling environmental value stored in the second database and purchase environmental value when a purchase price of environmental value is lower than a sales price minus trading costs. Yeung teaches:
wherein, when a purchase price of the environmental value is lower than a price obtained by subtracting trading costs from a sales price, the control unit executes control to sell the environmental value stored in the second database and purchase environmental value (see [0077] "the profit made from providing the stored electricity to the at least one electricity provider is each day at an amount of:
P=(R×W)−(R.sub.off×W.sub.off)−(μ×W.sub.off,
wherein R is a rate of which the property owner sells the stored electricity to the at least one electricity provider at the peak time, R.sub.off is a rate of which the property owner buys the electricity from the at least one electricity provider at the off-peak time, and μ is a managing cost for maintaining the energy storage device" and [0073] "and where R is greater than R.sub.off" for selling an energy asset to make a profit based on the selling price being higher than a purchase price of the energy asset plus trading costs and purchasing an energy asset at a lower purchase price. Examiner notes that Applicant's specification paragraph [0050] explicitly considers costs associated with a power storage device as trading cost information. In combination with Platt and Dembo, the users reselling environmental value/credits can sell credits they have purchased at a lower price at a higher selling price to make a profit)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Yeung in which the organization buys environmental value at a lower price and then sells the value at a price higher than the purchase price plus trading costs into the combination of Platt and Dembo. In addition to the base profit motive of reselling assets at higher price than was paid to acquire them, Yeung further states in [0064] “The stored off-peak electricity can be sold to an electricity provider to make a profit for an owner of a property 101 (or 102), so that the property owner can utilize the profit to pay off debt” and [0110] “the profit made from storing the off-peak electricity and selling the same to the power provider is about ¥10,037.5 per month. Thus, the cost (or investment) of the energy storage system can be paid off in about 5 years”. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the buying and selling of environmental value in order to make a profit as discussed in Yeung would have allowed the resulting combination to provide a profit source and debt repayment method for the organization on top of the emission reduction benefits of Platt and Dembo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Debs (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0003244) teaches that organizations that cannot achieve emission reduction goals purchase carbon offset credits
Monros (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2015/0346175) teaches an entity selling excess carbon credits to a third party
Sandor et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0250311) teaches a cap and trade emission system in which participants with excess credits trade the credits to participants that need additional credits
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights