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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Applicant amends claims 1, 21, 26 and 44, cancels claims 4 and 39 and newly adds claims 48 and 49.
Claims 2-3, 5-25, 27-38 and 40-49 being dependent claims and claims 1 & 26 are independent.
Claims 1-3, 5-38, and 40-49 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicants’ arguments of the claims under 35 USC § 101, have been fully considered, however the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s argument that the independent claim is not directed to a business process is not persuasive. While the claim is not limited to a particular industry or expressly labeled as a business method, the claim nonetheless recites a method of organizing human activity, specifically, generating, receiving, storing, enriching, employing, creating, analyzing, processing, measuring, segmenting, normalizing, scoring, ranking, estimating, and applying data according to defined rules. Under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to such activities fall within the abstract idea grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, regardless of the technological environment in which they are performed. The mere recitation of computer components to implement these steps does not alter the fundamental character of the claim.
The amended limitations reciting automated or technical processing of these steps and the generation of a report do not alter this conclusion, as such limitations merely reflect the use of a computer to automate the underlying information processing and the present the results. The automation of these steps and the output of a report do not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology, but instead represent the computerization of a business or administrative process. The mere recitation of computer components to implement these steps does not change the fundamental character of the claim.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two: Applicant’s arguments that the claims are integrated into a practical application are not persuasive. The claims do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception, but instead represent no more than drafting efforts designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The additional elements merely recite the use of generic computing components to perform the abstract idea and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as required by the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The claimed invention does not improve the functioning of a computer nor does it improve another technology or technical field. Rather, the claims are directed to processing information according to defined rules, with the computer serving only as a tool to automate the abstract idea. The recitation of particular types of data, such as curated, aggregated, or normalized data, does not provide a technological improvement, as these data types merely reflect the organization or manipulation of information and do not change how the computer or another technology operates.
Although the claims recite the use of a blockchain, the blockchain is used in its inherent capacity to store data in an immutable manner, which is a well-known and conventional function of blockchain technology. The blockchain, along with the other additional elements, is applies as a tool to implement and automate the abstract idea, rather than to provide a specific technical solution to a technical problem.
Further, the additional elements (i.e. sensors, detectors and units) for measuring, tracking, determining, partitioning, ranking, processing, estimating and storing data are merely used as tools to apply the abstract idea without significantly more. Using a blockchain to store data in its inherit usage (i.e. “immutable and trustworthy manner”) is also similar to applying the abstract idea on generic computer processing and is applying the abstract in a generic technological environment. Reducing/mitigating emissions or carbon footprint is related to reducing or mitigating risk, which an abstract idea. At most, the claims may recite an improvement to the abstract idea, however, that is still abstract and not a technological improvement.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, merely recite the sue of generic computing components to perform their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of receiving, storing, processing, and outputting information.
The recited blockchain is employed in its conventional and inherent capacity to store data in an immutable manner, and does not provide an unconventional arrangement or technical improvement. Likewise, the processing of curated, aggregated, normalized, scored, or ranked data reflects the manipulation of information using conventional techniques and does not add an inventive concept.
The claims do not recite a specific technological solution to a technical problem, nor do they require a particular machine, transformation, or unconventional ordering of steps. Instead, the additional elements merely apply the abstract idea using known tools to automate a business or administrative process. Accordingly, the claims do not include an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to the dependent claims, the additional limitations further narrow the abstract idea by specifying particular data types, processing rules, or implementation details. However, these limitations do not add an inventive concept, as they merely restrict how the abstract idea is performed using conventional techniques and generic computing components.
The newly added dependent claims similarly narrow the scope of the abstract idea, but do not recite additional elements that are unconventional or that provide a technological improvement. Accordingly, the dependent claims, whether originally presented or newly added, do not include limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s reliance on USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples 44-46 is not persuasive. The claims are not analogous to the eligible claims in Examples 44-46, which are directed to specific technological solutions to technical problems and recite particular improvements in computer functionality or other technologies.
In contrast, the present claims do not recite a specific technical mechanism, algorithmic improvement, or unconventional computer operation. Rather, the claims are directed to processing and organizing information according to defines rules, with the recited computing components and blockchain serving only as tools to automate the abstract idea. As such, the claims do not reflect the type of technological improvement or particular application demonstrated in Examples 44-46.
As discussed above, the present claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims differ from those at issue in the Director Decision in Ex Parte Desjardins, where eligibility was found based on a specific technical solution that meaningfully limited the abstract idea.
In contracts, the present claims do not recite a particular technological mechanism or improvement, but instead apply the abstract idea using conventional computing components., including a blockchain employed in its inherent capacity to store immutable data. As such the claims merely automate the abstract idea and do not provide the type of practical application found in Desjardins.
For the above reasoning the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of the claims is maintained.
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.
Under Step 2A, Prong One: Claims 1-3, 5-38, and 40-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of processing environmental data for estimating emissions and mitigating risk without significantly more. This is a form of a method of organizing human activity and a fundamental economic practice, such as managing business information according to a set of rules, which falls within the groupings identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The generically recited additional elements (i.e. an enrichment unit, a digital trust infrastructure unit, a post-processing unit, devices, a partition unit, a normalization unit, an application interface unit and a cognitive intelligence unit) do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. These elements merely apply the abstract idea in a conventional computing environment and do not improve the functioning of a computer or another technology, nor do they effect a transformation of a particular article or provide a particular technical solution to a technical problem.
Unser Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations only store, retrieve, process and output information, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements that do not store and retrieve information, such as the steps for generating or processing information do no more than merely invoke computers as a tool to perform an existing process and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it” or “mere instructions” to apply an exception as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The recited computing components perform their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions, and the combination of elements does not add an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-3, 5-25, 27-38 and 40-49 further narrow the abstract idea and do not add any additional features, alone or in combination, that would provide a practical application or provide significantly more.
According, the claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST.
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, Matthew Gart can be reached on 5712723955. 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.
/T.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/MATTHEW S GART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696