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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2025 have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims recite “a plurality types of sensors” but should read “a plurality of types of sensors”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to an apparatus and a method (i.e. a process).
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 1
Regarding Prong 1 of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1-20 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below in bold) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1:
An apparatus for offsetting carbon emissions of transports, the apparatus comprising: at least a processor; one or more sensors communicatively connected to the at least a processor; a display communicatively connected to the at least a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor, the memory comprising instructions configuring the at least a processor to:
store one or more sensor signals transmitted from the one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect a phenomenon;
preprocess the one or more sensor signals, wherein the preprocessing comprises translate the one or more signal detections into one or more electronic signals;
generate transport data as a function of the electronic signals and the detected phenomenon;
receive the transport data associated with a transport vehicle;
calculate a first carbon emission metric based on the transport data;
determine if the first carbon emission metric exceeds an impact threshold;
generate an offset element as a function of the first carbon emission metric and the impact threshold, wherein the offset element comprises instructions for a second transport to reduce a second carbon emission metric of the second transport;
and display the offset element through a graphical user interface (GUI) allowing a user to execute environmentally friendly options.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitations constitute a “mental process” because user its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, the limitation “generate transport data as a function of the electronic signals and the detected phenomenon” in the context of the claim encompasses the user creating transport data from received data and a phenomenon that was detected. For example, the user is able to create a route (i.e. generating transport data) on a map based on the received data, which is a process that can be done mentally. Furthermore, the limitation “calculate a first carbon emission metric based on the transport data” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making a calculation of the first carbon emission metric based on the transport data, which is a process that can be done by looking at the route of the vehicle (i.e. its distance) and calculating the carbon emission from the route. Since this limitation can be done by a user making a calculation, then this limitation recites a mental process. Lastly, the limitations “determine if the first carbon emission metric exceeds an impact threshold and generate an offset element as a function of the first carbon emission metric and the impact threshold, wherein the offset element comprises instructions for a second transport to reduce a second carbon emission metric of the second transport” in the context of the claim encompasses the user comparing the carbon emission number to a threshold number (i.e. the impact threshold) and determining if it exceeds it, which is a limitation that can be done mentally. Next, the limitation of generating an offset element as a function of the first carbon emission metric in the context of the claim encompasses the user creating an offset based on the first carbon emission metric, which is a process that can be done mentally. Since these limitations can be done in the mind, then this limitation recites a mental process. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. The same rational applies to independent claim 11.
Claim 2:
wherein the offset element comprises instructions for a second transport to reduce a second carbon emission metric of a second transport.
Regarding claim 2, the bolded limitation in the context of the claim encompasses the user creating instruction for a second transport to reduce a second carbon emission metric of a second transport, which is a limitation that can be done on a piece of paper (i.e. creating an instruction), and therefore recites a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 12.
Claim 3:
wherein the memory is further configured to calculate the second carbon emission metric, and wherein the first carbon emission metric is compared to the second carbon emission metric to determine a greenhouse gas ratio.
Claim 4:
wherein the apparatus further comprises a greenhouse gas ratio calculator configured to apportion a greenhouse gas emission with a pollutant source as a function of the greenhouse gas ratio.
With regards to claims 3 and 4, these limitations in the context of the claim encompasses the user calculating a second carbon emission metric (i.e. the same rational as calculating the first carbon emission metric) and determining a greenhouse ratio, such that the greenhouse gas emission is apportioned with a pollutant source as a function of the ratio. Since this limitation comprises the steps of “calculating” and “determining”, then these limitation recite a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 13 and 14.
Claim 5:
wherein the transport data further comprises a transport distance representing a change in a position of a vehicle of the first transport.
Claim 6:wherein the transport data further comprises a transport route.
With regards to claims 5 and 6, these limitations in the context of the claim encompasses what the transport data is, such as a transport distance and a route. Since these limitations can be generated by a user, then these limitations recite a mental process i.e. an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claims 15 and 16.
Claim 10:
wherein the memory contains instructions further configuring the at least a processor to: receive a training data set, wherein the training data set comprises outputs correlated with inputs, wherein the inputs comprise a plurality of transport data inputs and the outputs comprise a plurality of carbon emission metric outputs;
and generate an emission machine-learning model as a function of the training data set, wherein the emission machine-learning model determines the first carbon emission metric as a function of the transport data.
With regards to claim 10, the limitation in the context of the claim encompasses generating a machine learning model that determines the first carbon emission metric as a function of the transport data. Generating a machine learning model with generic inputs and outputs to determine the first carbon emission metric is a step that can be done mathematically, and therefore recites an abstract idea. The same rational applies to claim 20.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong 2
Regarding prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
Claim 1:
An apparatus for offsetting carbon emissions of transports, the apparatus comprising: at least a processor; one or more sensors communicatively connected to the at least a processor; a display communicatively connected to the at least a processor; and a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor, the memory comprising instructions configuring the at least a processor to:
store one or more sensor signals transmitted from the one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect a phenomenon;
preprocess the one or more sensor signals, wherein the preprocessing comprises translate the one or more signal detections into one or more electronic signals;
generate transport data as a function of the electronic signals and the detected phenomenon;
receive the transport data associated with a transport vehicle;
calculate a first carbon emission metric based on the transport data;
determine if the first carbon emission metric exceeds an impact threshold;
generate an offset element as a function of the first carbon emission metric and the impact threshold, wherein the offset element comprises instructions for a second transport to reduce a second carbon emission metric of the second transport;
and display the offset element through a graphical user interface (GUI) allowing a user to execute environmentally friendly options.
Claim 7:
wherein the one or more sensors comprises a sensor array, wherein the sensor array further comprises a plurality types of sensors.
Claim 8:
wherein the one or more sensors comprises at least a remote sensor.
Claim 9:
wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect an environmental phenomenon or an operational phenomenon.
Claim 10:
wherein the memory contains instructions further configuring the at least a processor to: receive a training data set, wherein the training data set comprises outputs correlated with inputs, wherein the inputs comprise a plurality of transport data inputs and the outputs comprise a plurality of carbon emission metric outputs;
and generate an emission machine-learning model as a function of the training data set, wherein the emission machine-learning model determines the first carbon emission metric as a function of the transport data.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of storing data, preprocessing data, receiving data, and displaying data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer (i.e. processors) to perform the process. In particular, the storing, preprocessing, receiving, and displaying steps by the processors are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing, gathering, and displaying data), which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Lastly, the “one or more processors” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The vehicle control system is recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the comparing and determining steps. The same rational applies to claims 11 and 17-20.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent claims 1,8, and 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining and comparing amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, with regards to the additional limitations of “storing data, preprocessing data, receiving data, and displaying data”, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of “storing data, preprocessing data, receiving data, and displaying data” are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the specification does not provide any indication that the processor is anything other than a conventional processor. The steps of “storing, preprocessing, and receiving” data is taught in the secondary reference Ammoura et al. US20200200649A1, see at least Para. 0025, 0027, and 0030-0031, while the step of “displaying” data is taught in the primary reference O’Neill et al. US20210333118A1. Accordingly, these steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept and the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill et al. US20210333118A1 (henceforth O’Neill) in view of Ammoura et al. US20200200649A1 (henceforth Ammoura), Tuukkanen et al. US20160320193A1 (henceforth Tukkanen), and Seidel US20100217535A1.
Regarding claim 1,
O’Neill discloses:
An apparatus for offsetting carbon emissions of transports, the apparatus comprising: at least a processor; (See at least Para. 0124)
one or more sensors communicatively connected to the at least a processor; (See at least Para. 0124)
a display communicatively connected to the at least a processor; (See at least Para. 0119, “text-based display in which messages are displayed to an operator”.)
and a memory communicatively connected to the at least a processor, (See at least Para. 0124) the memory comprising instructions configuring the at least a processor to:
determine if the first carbon emission metric exceeds an impact threshold; (See at least Para. 0021-0022, wherein it is determined if the emission metric exceeds an impact threshold. The emissions comprises carbon dioxide emissions, see at least Para. 0032)
generate an offset element as a function of the first carbon emission metric and the impact threshold, wherein the offset element comprises instructions for a second transport to reduce a second carbon emission metric of the second transport; (See at least Para. 0099, Para. 0123, “wherein locations corresponding to the emissions causal events are relayed to other vehicles with lower efficiency travelling toward the location so that they may preemptively adjusting engine operating parameters” and Para. 0126, wherein an offset element is generated based on the first carbon emission metric and impact threshold, wherein the offset element comprises instructions for a second transport to reduce a second carbon emission metric of the second transport.)
O’Neill does not specifically state preprocess the one or more sensor signals, wherein the preprocessing comprises translate the one or more signal detections into one or more electronic signals; store one or more sensor signals transmitted from the one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect a phenomenon; generate transport data as a function of the electronic signals and the detected phenomenon; receive the transport data associated with a transport vehicle and calculate a first carbon emission metric based on the transport data. However, Ammoura teaches:
preprocess the one or more sensor signals, wherein the preprocessing comprises translate the one or more signal detections into one or more electronic signals. (See at least Para. 0025, wherein the vehicle controller reading these sensors involves translating physical detections (from the sensors) into electronic signals.)
store one or more sensor signals transmitted from the one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect a phenomenon; (See at least Para. 0027 and Para. 0030, wherein the sensors are configured to detect a phenomenon and store the sensor signals.)
generate transport data as a function of the electronic signals and the detected phenomenon; (See at least Para. 0027, wherein transport data is generated as a function of the signals and the detected phenomenon.)
receive the transport data associated with a transport vehicle; calculate a first carbon emission metric based on the transport data; (See at least 0027 and 0030-0031, wherein a first carbon emission metric is calculated based on the transport data that is received.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Neill to incorporate the teachings of Ammoura to include “preprocess the one or more sensor signals, wherein the preprocessing comprises translate the one or more signal detections into one or more electronic signals; store one or more sensor signals transmitted from the one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect a phenomenon; generate transport data as a function of the electronic signals and the detected phenomenon; receive the transport data associated with a transport vehicle and calculate a first carbon emission metric based on the transport data” in order to “provide solutions for reducing vehicular carbon footprint” (Para. 0002, Ammoura), and “being able to determine and calculate the carbon footprint generated from an activity in substantial real-time for each person across a fleet of vehicles is a powerful mechanism for allowing a human to see the impact of their activities and take corrective action sooner rather than later” (Para. 0004, Ammoura). This would create a more robust system for determining a carbon footprint of at least one vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of O’Neill and Ammoura. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
O’Neill does not specifically state display the offset element through a graphical user interface (GUI) allowing a user to execute environmentally friendly options.
However, Seidel teaches:
display the offset element through a graphical user interface (GUI) allowing a user to execute environmentally friendly options. (See at least Para. Para. 0067, “This emissions report 208 quantifies the CO.sub.2 emissions measured during the time the owner has operated the vehicle, as well as a variety of CO.sub.2 offsetting options 210, packaged to offset past, present and future CO.sub.2 emissions”, see Para. 0075, “CO.sub.2 offsetting package 210 credit status is also displayed” and Para. 0076, “Once the vehicle owner selects the appropriate CO.sub.2 offsetting package 210”. The offset element is displayed through a GUI and allows the user to execute environmentally friendly options.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Neill to incorporate the teachings of Seidel to include “display the offset element through a graphical user interface (GUI) allowing a user to execute environmentally friendly options” since “an emission calculation system coupled with a way of offsetting those measured emissions is needed” (Para. 0016, Seidel). This would create a more robust system for offsetting CO2 emissions of a vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of O’Neill and Seidel. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2,
O’Neill discloses:
wherein the offset element comprises instructions for a second transport to reduce a second carbon emission metric of a second transport. (See at least Para. 0099, and Para. 0123, “wherein locations corresponding to the emissions causal events are relayed to other vehicles with lower efficiency travelling toward the location so that they may preemptively adjusting engine operating parameters” and Para. 0126, wherein an offset element is generated based on the first carbon emission metric and impact threshold, wherein the offset element comprises instructions for a second transport to reduce a second carbon emission metric of the second transport.)
Regarding claim 6,
O’Neill discloses:
wherein the transport data further comprises a transport route. (See at least Para. 0068.)
Regarding claim 7,
O’Neill discloses:
wherein the one or more sensors comprises a sensor array, wherein the sensor array further comprises a plurality types of sensors. (See at least Para. 0118-0119.)
Regarding claim 9,
O’Neill discloses:
wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect an environmental phenomenon or an operational phenomenon. (See at least Para. 0118-0119, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect an environmental phenomenon or an operational phenomenon.)
Regarding claim 11,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 12,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 2 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 16,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 6 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 17,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 7 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 18,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 8 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Regarding claim 19,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel discloses the same limitations as recited in claim 9 above and is therefore rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel further in view of Bridge et al. US20200273047A1 (henceforth Bridge).
Regarding claim 3,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. O’Neill further discloses:
Calculate the second carbon emission metric. (See at least Para. 0090.)
O’Neill does not specifically state wherein the first carbon emission metric is compared to the second carbon emission metric to determine a greenhouse gas ratio.
However, Bridge teaches:
wherein the first carbon emission metric is compared to the second carbon emission metric to determine a greenhouse gas ratio. (See at least Para. 0186.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Neill to incorporate the teachings of Bridge to include “wherein the first carbon emission metric is compared to the second carbon emission metric to determine a greenhouse gas ratio” in order to “ determine the amount of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the various sources of emissions discussed above” (Para. 0170, Bridge) and to further “determine amount of greenhouse gas credit or offset (e.g. carbon credit etc.) required or available for trade; facilitate or broker a trade in greenhouse gas emission credit; monitor emission reduction efforts and techniques; and generate and transmit corresponding reports” (Para. 0074, Bridge). This would create a more robust system for tracking greenhouse gas emissions associated with an entity. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of O’Neill and Bridge. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 13,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, Seidel, and Bridge discloses the limitations as recited in claim 3 above and is rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, Seidel, and Bridge further in view of Trout et al. US20060020502A1 (henceforth Trout).
Regarding claim 4,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, Seidel, and Bridge discloses the limitations as recited in claim 3 above.
O’Neill does not specifically state wherein the apparatus further comprises a greenhouse gas ratio calculator configured to apportion a greenhouse gas emission with a pollutant source as a function of the greenhouse gas ratio.
However, Trout teaches:
a greenhouse gas ratio calculator configured to apportion a greenhouse gas emission with a pollutant source as a function of the greenhouse gas ratio.
(See at least Para. 0005, “ determining the equivalency factors that enable performance measurements and equitable benchmarking of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, also known as carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) gas emissions from a facility to a form that can be directly compared to the GHG production from a another facility that has different characteristics for the purposes of allocating GHG emission allowances for permits, licenses, etc.”. The equivalency factor is the ratio and the allocation to the specific facilities is the apportionment to pollutant sources.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Neill and Bridge to incorporate the teachings of Trout to include “wherein the apparatus further comprises a greenhouse gas ratio calculator configured to apportion a greenhouse gas emission with a pollutant source as a function of the greenhouse gas ratio” in order “to formulate equitable benchmarking of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions from industrial sources for the purposes of allocating GHG emission allowances, permits, licenses, etc.” (Para. 0011, Trout). This would create a more robust system for apportioning greenhouse gas emissions with a pollutant source. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of O’Neill, Bridge and Trout. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 14,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, Seidel, Bridge, and Trout discloses the limitations as recited in claim 4 above and is rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel further in view of Kaminsky et al. US20100030608A1 (henceforth Kaminsky).
Regarding claim 5,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. O’Neill does not specifically state wherein the transport data further comprises a transport distance representing a change in a position of a vehicle of the first transport.
However, Kaminsky teaches:
wherein the transport data further comprises a transport distance representing a change in a position of a vehicle of the first transport (See at least Para. 0010, wherein the distance between an origin and a destination is determined such that the carbon footprint is determined based on the distance.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Neill to incorporate the teachings of Kaminsky to include “wherein the transport data further comprises a transport distance representing a change in a position of a vehicle of the first transport” in order to “assist in reducing carbon emissions”, which would create a more robust system for reducing carbon emissions in a vehicle. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of O’Neill and Kaminsky. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 15,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, Seidel, Bridge, and Kaminsky discloses the limitations as recited in claim 5 above and is rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel further in view of Hao et al. US20220057297A1 (henceforth Hao).
Regarding claim 8,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. O’Neill does not specifically state wherein the one or more sensors comprises at least a remote sensor.
However, Hao teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors comprises at least a remote sensor.
(See at least Fig. 1 and Para. 0028.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Neill to incorporate the teachings of Hao to include “wherein the one or more sensors comprises at least a remote sensor” in order to “to detect the exhaust emissions of vehicles equipped with ignition engines based on big data of remote sensing”, which would create a more robust system for determining the emissions of vehicles. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of O’Neill and Hao. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 18,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, Seidel, Bridge, and Hao discloses the limitations as recited in claim 5 above and is rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel further in view of Aslandere et al. US20210285779A1 (henceforth Aslandere).
Regarding claim 10,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, and Seidel discloses the limitations as recited in claim 1 above. O’Neill does not specifically state wherein the memory contains instructions further configuring the at least a processor to: receive a training data set, wherein the training data set comprises outputs correlated with inputs, wherein the inputs comprise a plurality of transport data inputs and the outputs comprise a plurality of carbon emission metric outputs; and generate an emission machine-learning model as a function of the training data set, wherein the emission machine-learning model determines the first carbon emission metric as a function of the transport data.
However, Aslandere teaches:
receive a training data set, wherein the training data set comprises outputs correlated with inputs, wherein the inputs comprise a plurality of transport data inputs and the outputs comprise a plurality of carbon emission metric outputs; and generate an emission machine-learning model as a function of the training data set, wherein the emission machine-learning model determines the first carbon emission metric as a function of the transport data. (See at least Para. 0037-0039, wherein training data is received wherein the inputs comprises transport data inputs and carbon emission metric outputs. Further see Para. 0028, “training an artificial neural network using the training data sets” and Para. 0046, “a trained artificial neural network is obtained, with which emission data of a vehicle can subsequently be predicted” and Para. 0090, “The trained artificial neural network TKNN may predict emission data of a vehicle based on vehicle data.” Therefore, the first carbon emission metric is determined via a machine learning model as a function of the transport data.)
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified O’Neill to incorporate the teachings of Aslandere to include the limitations as recited above in order to “adjust operating parameters of the vehicle based on a plurality of outputs from a trained neural network” (Para. 0014, Aslandere). This would create a more robust system of reducing emissions of a vehicle by using outputs of a machine learning model. Additionally, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of O’Neill and Aslandere. The claimed invention is merely a combination of known elements and in combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of the combination would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 20,
O’Neill, Ammoura, Tuukkanen, Seidel, Bridge, and Aslandere discloses the limitations as recited in claim 5 above and is rejected under the same rejection and obviousness rational.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Markert et al. US20200333152A1 discloses calculating respective exhaust gas emissions for the first driving profiles using a computer-implemented modeling of the vehicle or the drive system, adapting the drive system as a function of at least one of the calculated exhaust gas emissions, the adaptation taking place as a function of a level or of a profile of the calculated exhaust gas emissions and of a statistical frequency of the corresponding first driving profile, the statistical frequency of the corresponding first driving profile being ascertained with the aid of the statistical distribution of the first driving profile (See abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL J LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4334. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 am- 6:00 pm MDT.
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, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. 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.
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/G.J.L./
Examiner
Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights