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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse n the reply filed on 5/14/2026 is acknowledged. Group II, consisting of claims 15-23 is elected, and group I, consisting of claims 1-14 is non-elected. Elected claims 15-23 are examined on the merits below.
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 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental processes and mathematical relationships) without significantly more. Claim 15 recites:
An optimization computing system, comprising a processor and a memory in communication with the processor, the memory storing programming instructions executable by the processor to: (generic computer components being recited in a manner equivalent to mere instructions to apply an exception as per MPEP 2106.05(f))
obtain and store an initial plan data structure comprising an ambition data structure and a success probability data structure, wherein: (obtaining data here is insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering as per MPEP 2106.05(g). Storing data is mere instructions to apply an exception with generic computer components, in this case memory, as per MPEP 2106.05(f). The data itself is within the bounds of what a person could evaluate mentally, and the probability data is numerical mathematical relationships.)
the ambition data structure comprises a plurality of ambition components, each ambition component comprising first transition target data, a goal metric, a baseline metric, and a measurability metric; whereby the first transition target data represent transitions of operations from one carbon causal chain (CCC) to another CCC, or changes in values for CCC parameters, and (these metrics and components could be mentally observed and evaluated by a person with expertise in the field, and recorded with aid of pencil and paper, thereby falling within the scope of mental processes. The description of transitioning operations from one CCC to another is only in terms of what the abstract data represents, equivalent to generally linking the use of the exception to the field of use of carbon transition as per MPEP 2106.05(h))
the success probability data structure comprises a plurality of success probability components, each success probability component comprising second transition target data, buy-in data, and outcome data; (probability data is numerical data that is generated based on mathematical analysis and calculation, falling within the scope of mathematical relationships. Even beyond this, these components and data are well within the scope of what a person could mentally observe and evaluate based on their professional expertise, and also fall within the scope of mental processes.)
process the ambition data structure to produce an ambition score; (A person could mentally evaluate and make judgement based on the prior data.)
process the success probability data structure to produce a success probability score; (This is generating a probability value based on other probabilities, which is a mathematical calculation and within the scope of mathematical relationships. Even beyond this, a person could perform this analysis via mental evaluation and judgement, so it is within the scope of mental processes.)
process the ambition score and the success probability score to produce a plan score; and (Either mathematical relationships by using an objective function to calculate an output score, or mental processes where a person performs mental judgements to determine the score.)
associate the plan score with the initial plan data structure. (a person can mentally associate this data by judging it to be linked, within the scope of mental processes, or numerical data can be organized to link the resultant calculation output to the data source, within the scope of mathematical relationships.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the following additional elements: 1) mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (the processor/memory), 2) generally linking the use of the exception to the field of use of carbon transition, and 3) insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (obtaining data). The processor/memory is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/memory performing a generic computer function of executing instructions and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The specification that data is obtained is only tangentially linked to the calculation and analysis steps, and does not meaningfully limit the claim. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor/memory to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 16-18 recite only further features that fall within the scope of the mental processes and mathematical relationships above, along with generic computer implementation. The above analysis is equally applicable to them.
Claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 15, and the above rationale is equally applicable to it.
Claims 20-23 recite only further features that fall within the scope of the mental processes and mathematical relationships above, along with generic computer implementation. The above analysis is equally applicable to them.
No claims as currently recited are patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims require a detailed list of various metrics be determined for carbon casual chain transition targets, with associated detailed probability of success calculations and associated ambition scores. The prior art does not disclose such a transition analysis framework. Though other frameworks are disclosed generally in the art, they do not make use of the same specific metrics and probability analysis as that claimed in order to generate anything that could be called equivalent to the ambition score. The closest prior art is:
Hoekstra (Hoekstra, A., Steinbuch, M., & Verbong, G. (2017). Creating agent‐based energy transition management models that can uncover profitable pathways to climate change mitigation. Complexity, 2017(1), 1967645.)
Stoner (US 10521863 B2)
Additionally, while not valid prior art due to the priority date of the instant application, the following reference is pertinent to the subject matter claimed:
NARI Group Corp (CN 114091810 A)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIJAN MAPAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3674. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 11:00-8:30.
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, Rehana Perveen can be reached at 571-272-3676. 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.
/BIJAN MAPAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2189
Prosecution Insights