DETAILED ACTION
Response received on December 11, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 4, 9, and 19 have been amended, Claims 2-3, 5-8, 14, 16, and 20 are cancelled, and Claims 21-29 are newly incorporated. Therefore, Claims 1, 4, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-29 are pending.
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 Final Office action is in response to the application filed on 06/01/2023 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 12/11/2025. Claims 1, 4, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-29 are pending.
Priority
Application 18204766 was filed on 6/01/2023 and claims priority to U.S. Prov. Application 63/347,676, filed on June 1, 2022.
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, 4, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1,4, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21-29 are directed to a method (process). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 9 and 19. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A computer-implemented method, executed by one or more computer processors, the computer-implemented method comprising: obtaining, by the one or more computer processors, an attribute set including a plurality of environmental benefit attributes associated with a particular environmental offset stored as a datum on a storage device; calculating, by the one or more computer processors, an environmental benefit score for the particular environmental offset by executing a standardized algorithm using the attribute set; generating, by one or more computer processors, a code representative of the environmental benefit score, and appending the code to the datum on the storage device, the code identifying various levels of environmental benefits associated with the particular environmental offset; storing, by the one or more computer processors, the environmental benefit score in a distributed ledger configured to provide security and chain of authority for environmental offsets; causing one or more processing devices that utilize environmental offsets to complete a programmed task based on the environmental benefit score for the particular environmental offsets, the programmed task comprising automatically analyzing ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) data, performing threshold-based certification of environmental offset reports, completing a smart contract, or adjusting pricing on a point of sale device according to the environmental benefit score.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of calculating an environmental benefit score for environmental offsets to differentiate environmental benefits of such offset. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions include agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.). That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the data processor and related computer components, this claim encompasses obtaining a set of environmental benefit attributes associated with a particular environmental offset, executing a standardized algorithm to calculate an environmental benefits score for the offsets, and providing the score to one or more processing devices-actions that could be performed primarily within a conventional environmental compliance or offset trading system as part of standard commercial or regulatory processes. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers legal and commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “computer processor”, “a storage device”, “a distributed ledger”, “a smart contract”, “a point of sale device” and “processing devices”, and “one or more programmed tasks” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, Claim 1, 9, and 19 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional element of the claims are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 1 recites the additional element of computer processor”, “a storage device”, “a distributed ledger”, “a smart contract”, “a point of sale device” and “processing devices”, and “one or more programmed tasks”. Claim 9 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1. Claim 19 recites the additional element of “computer processor” and “distributed ledger” and “one or more programmed tasks”. MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. 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 and are at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, Claim 1, 9, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components which cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claim 1, 9, and 19 are not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of the independent claim to include wherein the code identifies various levels of environmental benefits associated with the particular environmental offset. The dependent claim 4 do not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 10-13, 15, and 17-18 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the plurality of environmental benefit attributes consist of one or both of categorical attributes or ordinal attributes, wherein the attribute set further includes a social benefit attribute associated with a particular environmental offset, wherein the plurality of environmental benefit attributes are selected from a group consisting of: additionality; permanence; leakage; duplication; overestimation; other harms; and likelihood to meet stated environmental benefits, and wherein the plurality of environmental benefit attributes are weighted for the standardized algorithm based upon user preferences. The dependent claims 10-13, 15, and 17-18 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 21-29 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include wherein the attribute set further includes a social benefit attribute associated with a particular environmental offset, and wherein the environmental benefit score is calculated for the particular environmental offset by executing the standardized algorithm using the attribute set including the social benefit attribute, wherein the plurality of environmental benefit attributes are selected from a group consisting of: additionality; permanence; leakage; duplication; overestimation; other harms; and likelihood to meet stated environmental benefits, wherein the plurality of environmental benefit attributes are weighted for the standardized algorithm based upon user preferences, wherein the plurality of environmental benefit attributes are weighted for the standardized algorithm based upon industry standards, tracking particular environmental offset to assure compliance to stated environmental benefits; and adjusting the environmental benefit score in response to tracking, wherein the particular environmental offset corresponds to one or more environmental assets selected from a group consisting of: carbon-based pollution; water conservation; material waste; and methane production, wherein the environmental benefit score denotes efficacy of the particular environmental offset on a scale between most beneficial and least beneficial in terms of achieving environmental benefits, wherein the plurality of environmental benefit attributes are selected from a group consisting of: additionality; permanence; leakage; duplication; overestimation; other harms; and likelihood to meet stated environmental benefits, and wherein the particular environmental offset corresponds to one or more environmental assets selected from a group consisting of: carbon-based pollution; water conservation; material waste; and methane production. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the subject matter which is present in independent claims 1, 9, and 19.
In regards to Claims 1, 9, and 19 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be Belady et al. (US20120150754) in view of Fargano et al. (US 20110055092):
Belady et al. teaches a computer-implemented method, executed by one or more computer processors, the computer-implemented method comprising (See Abstract & FIG 1): calculating, by the one or more computer processors (See [0038]), an environmental benefit score for the particular environmental offset by executing a standardized algorithm using the attribute set; (See [0158]-[0159].) providing, from the one or more computer processors (See [0038]), the environmental benefit score for the particular environmental offset to one or more processing devices that utilize environmental offsets to cause the one or more processing devices to complete one or more programmed tasks based on the environmental benefit score for the particular environmental offsets (See [0158]-[0159], [0161]). Fargano et al. teaches obtaining, by the one or more computer processors (See [0055]), an attribute set including a plurality of environmental benefit attributes associated with a particular environmental offset; (See [0038]-[0041]).
However, Belady et al.in view of Fargano alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious a code representative of the environmental benefit score, and appending the code to the datum on the storage device, the code identifying various levels of environmental benefits associated with the particular environmental offset; storing, by the one or more computer processors, the environmental benefit score in a distributed ledger configured to provide security and chain of authority for environmental offsets; causing one or more processing devices that utilize environmental offsets to complete a programmed task based on the environmental benefit score for the particular environmental offsets, the programmed task comprising automatically analyzing ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) data, performing threshold-based certification of environmental offset reports, completing a smart contract, or adjusting pricing on a point of sale device according to the environmental benefit score. , when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1, 9, and 19 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 10 of Applicant’s response, applicant requests that the Office reevaluate the claims-at-issue since (a) the abstract idea cited by the Office does not fall within one of the three categories described in the 2019 Guidance and (b) the claims-at-issue, at a bare minimum, recite a practical application of any such alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that as set forth in the previous office action the claims are still directed to an abstract idea such as collecting and analyzing information and organizing human activity by calculating an environmental benefit score and using that score to drive certification, pricing, or decisions. The additional elements of computer processor”, “a storage device”, “a distributed ledger”, “a smart contract”, “a point of sale device” and “processing devices”, and “one or more programmed tasks”, merely implement the abstract idea using known technology and do not improve computer functionality. As such, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and remain ineligible under 101. Applicant further argues that even if one could characterize "calculating an environmental benefit score" in isolation as an abstract evaluation, claim 1 is not directed merely to that concept. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that when considered as a whole, the focus of the claims remains on evaluating environmental benefit attributes, calculating an environmental benefit score, and using that score to control business or administrative actions, which are abstract activities. The additional limitations merely describe storing the result, labeling it with a code, and applying it within known processes such as certification, pricing, or smart contract execution, none of which meaningfully change the character of the claim. Accordingly, the claims are still directed to the abstract idea rather than a technological improvement.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 requires limitations that describe a specific, integrated data-processing architecture and that this is not a claim that merely "calculates" a score and "uses it" in the abstract; instead, it recites a particular way of: " Structuring data about offsets, " Committing scores to a secure ledger, and " Driving automated operations in ESG analysis, certification, smart contracts, and POS devices. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claim do not recites a specific integrated data processing architecture, as the limitations directed to a secure ledger, smart contracts, ESG analysis, certification, and POS devices are recited at a high level and reflect commonly known uses of generic computing components. These elements merely apply the calculated environmental benefit score in processes and do not amount to a technological improvement or meaningful integration of the abstract idea. Applicant further argues that even assuming, for the sake of argument, that calculating an environmental benefit score is an abstract idea, the amended claim integrates that score into a practical application in multiple ways. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that although the claim recite multiple uses of the environmental benefit score, these limitations merely apply the score as an output to commonly used business or administrative processes. Using the result of an abstract calculation in various contexts does not transform the nature of the claim or provide a technological improvement.
Applicant further argues that generating a code representative of the environmental benefit score and appending the code to the datum on the storage device is more than merely storing a result; it is a specific transformation of the stored record, which causes the machine's internal data structure to be different and usable by subsequent automated processes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that generating a code representative of the environmental benefit score and appending it to a stored data merely labels or records the abstract result using known techniques, which does not reflect a technical transformation or improvement to the machine’s internal operation. Applicant further argues that a distributed ledger is a specific, non-generic computer storage mechanism designed to provide immutable, replicated records and using such a ledger for environmental benefit scores is a technical choice that changes the way the computer system ensures integrity and provenance of the data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that merely selecting a distributed ledger to store environmental benefit score reflects a commonly known storage choice for data integrity and provenance, and its use here does not alter the fundamental operation of the computer system or integrate the abstract idea into a technological improvement. Applicant further argues that claim 1 recites limitations that are machine-only operations, not mental processes and when taken together, these elements tie any abstract scoring concept to a particular machine- based implementation that uses specific data structures and storage mechanisms to drive automated actions in a networked system. This is precisely the kind of integration into a practical application that satisfies Step 2A, Prong 2. Examiner respectfully disagrees because when viewed as a whole, the recited machine-based elements, data structures, and storage mechanisms are described at a functional and generic level and merely automate the abstract scoring concepts using generic computer components, rather than resulting in a technological improvement or meaningful integration under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Applicant further argues that the method does not generically "store a result, it generates a code representative of the environmental benefit score and appends that code to the stored offset datum. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that generating a code representative of the environmental benefit score and appending that code to a stored offset datum merely constitutes storing the result of an abstract calculation in a different data format, which does not meaningfully limit claim or provide a technological improvement beyond generic data storage. Applicant further argues that the specification explains that the code identifies various levels of environmental benefits and is used to represent those levels in a machine-readable way and that this is a specific, non-conventional data structure for encoding environmental benefit information directly in the record. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner maintains that the claimed “code” is merely a generic, machine-readable representation of abstract information appended to a record, a and the specification does not demonstrate that this encoding constitutes a non-conventional data structure or provides any improvement to computer functionality beyond known data storage and labeling. Applicant further argues that using a distributed ledger (e.g., blockchain) as the authoritative repository for the score is not a generic database action; it imposes a particular, specialized storage and consensus mechanism that addresses integrity and provenance problems. This is not a conventional storage choice for generic business data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that reciting storage in a distributed ledger merely reflects the use of a commonly known data storage technology for its expected purpose ad does not impose a specialized technical mechanism or improvement to the ledger itself, but instead applies the ledger in the abstract context of managing and tracking business information.
Applicant further argues that the claimed programmed tasks are not mere "display" or "reporting, they are executable, machine-controlled behaviors dependent on the encoded score and ledger record, which is a non-conventional architecture that improves how computer systems manage environmental offsets and enforce climate-related commitments. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the recited programmed tasks ad machine-controlled behaviors are merely conditional execution of generic computer functions based on stored data values from the encoded score and ledger record, which reflects known business rules and not an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. Applicant further argues that even if the claim were deemed to recite an abstract idea at a high level, the additional elements in combination amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea, and amended claim 1 is patent-eligible, and thus so are its corresponding dependent claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons mentioned above. Applicant further argues that Claim 9 as amended is not directed solely to an abstract idea. Examiner disagrees because amended Claim 9 merely mirrors the limitations of claim 1 and therefore remains directed to the same abstract idea for substantially the same reasons, without adding any additional elements that would meaningfully alter the eligibility analysis. Applicant further argues that claim 9 is directed to a specific way of organizing and storing data in a carbon scoring matrix that supports subsequent automated processing, not to a disembodied mental or business practice. Examiner disagrees because organizing and storing data in a common scoring matrix constitutes an abstract data organization and information management practice that can be performed with paper and pencil.
Applicant further argues that the features of Claim 9, in combination, represent a particular way of structuring, storing, and using environmental benefit data in a computer system, which is the type of practical application recognized as eligible in decisions such as Enfish and McRO. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes the Claim 9 merely applies generic computer functionality to organizing, analyzing, and storing environmental benefit data, and does not recite a specific technological improvement to computer operation as required under Enfish or McRO. disagrees that the added language sufficiently captures the suggested subject matter or overcomes the prior issues. As such, the amendments do not amount to a concrete technological improvement but rather restate the abstract idea of calculating an environmental benefit score for environmental offsets to differentiate environmental benefits of such offset. Thus, the claims do not amount to a technological improvement and fail to provide an inventive concept. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-15 and 20 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection are noted. On page 10 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that the independent claims have been amended to incorporate at least the subject matter free of prior art of claim 3, along with intervening claim 2. The examiner finds the applicants argument to be persuasive. Belady et al.in view of Fargano alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious a code representative of the environmental benefit score, and appending the code to the datum on the storage device, the code identifying various levels of environmental benefits associated with the particular environmental offset; storing, by the one or more computer processors, the environmental benefit score in a distributed ledger configured to provide security and chain of authority for environmental offsets; causing one or more processing devices that utilize environmental offsets to complete a programmed task based on the environmental benefit score for the particular environmental offsets, the programmed task comprising automatically analyzing ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) data, performing threshold-based certification of environmental offset reports, completing a smart contract, or adjusting pricing on a point of sale device according to the environmental benefit score. , when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1, 9, and 19 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art. Accordingly, the examiner withdraws the corresponding prior art rejections based on that subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension
of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the
mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this
final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory
period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any
extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In
no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final
action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626