DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 3/30/2026.
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 .
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 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 10, the claims recite, in part, obtaining information about a category and an age of a particular product; obtaining information about an average period of use of the category to which the product belongs; determining a remaining period of use based on a difference between the average period of use and the age of the product when a second-hand trading of the product is concluded; obtaining a first carbon emission of an average manufacturing process of the category to which the product belongs and a second carbon emission of an average disposal process of the category to which the product belongs; calculating a third carbon emission corresponding to a carbon emission amount generated over a usage period of the product based on the first carbon emission amount, the second carbon emission amount and the usage period of the product; calculating, when the product is additionally used for the remaining period of use, a reduced carbon emission based on a difference between the third carbon emission and a fourth carbon emission corresponding to a carbon emission generated over a total usage period including the usage period and the remaining period of use; calculating, based on a carbon emission generated by manufacturing and disposing of a new product and the reduced carbon emission, carbon emission reductions when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded; determining, based on the carbon emission reductions, environmental points to be provided to at least one of a buyer and a seller of the product; and receiving a selection from at least one of the buyer and the seller to trade carbon emission rights, converting the environmental points into carbon emission rights, and providing transaction information related to the carbon emission rights.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, recites determining a remaining period of use of a product with regard to second hand trading and calculating carbon emission reductions based on the remaining period of use, and determining environmental rewards based on the carbon emission reductions, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and more specifically commercial interactions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of one or more modules (claim 1, merely software), processor (claims 1, 9, 10), server device (claims 1, 10), manufacturer database (claims 1, 9, 10, not actively part of the invention), user interface of an e-commerce platform (claims 1, 9, 10), service device (claim 9), memory (claim 9), acquisition module (claim 9), first computation module (claim 9), second computation module (claim 9) and computer-readable recording medium (claim 10). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of obtaining, determining, calculating, receiving, converting, and providing) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using one or more modules (claim 1, merely software), processor (claims 1, 9, 10), server device (claims 1, 10), manufacturer database (claims 1, 9, 10, not actively part of the invention), user interface of an e-commerce platform (claims 1, 9, 10), service device (claim 9), memory (claim 9), acquisition module (claim 9), first computation module (claim 9), second computation module (claim 9) and computer-readable recording medium (claim 10) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Page 6, “The processor may be a general-purpose processor”); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 4-8 appear to merely limit displaying of environmental points, exchanging points for carbon credits, calculation being based on excess period of use, calculation being based on weight given to a brand, and calculation being based on past trading history, , and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The one or more modules (claim 1, merely software), processor (claims 1, 9, 10), server device (claims 1, 10), manufacturer database (claims 1, 9, 10, not actively part of the invention), user interface of an e-commerce platform (claims 1, 9, 10), service device (claim 9), memory (claim 9), acquisition module (claim 9), first computation module (claim 9), second computation module (claim 9) and computer-readable recording medium (claim 10) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of obtaining, determining, calculating, receiving, converting, and providing, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the one or more modules (claim 1, merely software), processor (claims 1, 9, 10), server device (claims 1, 10), manufacturer database (claims 1, 9, 10, not actively part of the invention), user interface of an e-commerce platform (claims 1, 9, 10), service device (claim 9), memory (claim 9), acquisition module (claim 9), first computation module (claim 9), second computation module (claim 9) and computer-readable recording medium (claim 10) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1 and 4-10 are not patent eligible.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-10 as currently written are allowable over prior art. However, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is currently pending and represents a barrier to allowability. Examiner notes that any amendments made to the claims in an attempt to correct pending rejections could drastically alter the claim scope and could open up the possibility of prior art being applied in a future action.
Kitamura (JP 2006350610) teaches obtaining information about a category and an age of a particular product; obtaining information about an average period of use of the category to which the product belongs, wherein the information about the average period of use is obtained from at least one of a manufacturer database and the server device; and determining a remaining period of use based on a difference between the average period of use and the age of the product when a second-hand trading of the product is concluded. However, Kitamura does not teach each and every limitation recited in the independent claim language.
Kim (KR 102360491) teaches calculating, based on the remaining period of use for the product, carbon emission reductions when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded. obtaining a first carbon emission of an average manufacturing process of the category to which the product belongs and a second carbon emission of an average disposal process of the category to which the product belongs, and wherein a calculation of the carbon emission reductions when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded is based on the remaining period of use of the product, the first carbon emission and the second carbon emission. However, Kim does not cure all the deficiencies of Kitamura, and the combination of Kitamura and Kim does not teach each and every limitation recited in the independent claim language.
Cheoung (KR 20090081964) teaches determining, based on the carbon emission reductions, environmental points to be provided to at least one of a buyer and a seller of the product; and receiving, via a user interface of an e-commerce platform, a selection from at least one of the buyer and the seller to trade carbon emission rights, converting the environmental points into carbon emission rights, and providing, via the user interface, transaction information related to the carbon emission rights. However, Cheoung does not cure all the deficiencies of Kitamura and Kim, and the combination of Kitamura, Kim, and Cheoung does not teach each and every limitation recited in the independent claim language.
None of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Specifically, none of the applied references teaches “calculating a third carbon emission corresponding to a carbon emission amount generated over a usage period of the product based on the first carbon emission amount, the second carbon emission amount and the usage period of the product; calculating, when the product is additionally used for the remaining period of use, a reduced carbon emission based on a difference between the third carbon emission and a fourth carbon emission corresponding to a carbon emission generated over a total usage period including the usage period and the remaining period of use; and calculating, based on a carbon emission generated by manufacturing and disposing of a new product and the reduced carbon emission, carbon emission reductions when the second-hand trading of the product is concluded”. It would simply not be obvious to apply another prior art reference to the other references already applied to arrive at the currently claimed invention and the order of steps currently taken by the currently claimed invention. There is no prior art that teaches each and every limitation of the invention as a whole in combination with one another. Therefore, Examiner finds the independent claims to be novel/non-obvious over the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “The present invention is not directed to a mere mathematical calculation or mental process, but rather provides a technical solution including a specific data processing and modeling procedure performed by a processor of a server device”, “the present invention performs a structured modeling process”, and “Such a configuration is not a simple application of a mathematical formula, but rather models carbon emissions over a lifecycle of a product and quantitatively evaluates environmental effects resulting from a specific event, i.e., second-hand trading”. However, Examiner did not categorize the abstract idea as a mathematical calculation or mental process, but rather as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The claims are about incentivizing a user through a commercial interaction based on various target data about carbon emissions. The modeling of the carbon emissions, to whatever extent it is claimed, is directly part of the abstract idea.
Applicant argues “since the present invention includes a series of computer-implemented data processing steps of collecting information from various data sources, integrating and processing the information, and calculating carbon emission reductions based thereon, the present invention cannot be regarded as being directed to an abstract idea that can be performed by human mental processes”. However, what Applicant has described here is synonymous with the abstract idea identified in the Electric Power Group decision, which was “Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”. Therefore, by Applicant’s own description, the present invention can indeed be regarded as reciting an abstract idea.
Applicant argues “the present invention does not merely output a calculated result, but performs a series of processing operations in which subsequent data processing and information provision are carried out in response to user input, thereby including technical features that implement an abstract idea in a concrete system operation”. While the abstract idea may be implemented on a concrete system, that concrete system is merely general purpose. This is the entire basis of “apply it”. The additional element of the computer system is merely being used to apply the abstract idea.
Applicant argues “the calculated results are linked to actual system operations including user interaction and data processing, such that the present invention is integrated into a practical application in the context of data processing and user interface-based interaction within a specific electronic commerce platform environment”. However, there is no evidence of the abstract idea being integrated into a practical application. As stated above, the additional elements are general purpose and merely apply the abstract idea. Due to this, the additional elements can’t reasonably integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant argues “the present invention is not merely implemented on a generic computer” and “The combination of the above-described elements is distinguishable from merely performing an abstract idea on a general-purpose computer, and collectively implements a technical system involving non-conventional data processing and user interaction, thereby providing significantly more than the abstract idea”. However, as explained in the rejection above, the specification specifically states that the computer of the instant invention is a “general-purpose processor”. There is no improvement to the additional elements, and therefore there can’t be significantly more than the abstract idea. The only improvement appears to be to the abstract idea itself. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to carbon emission reduction:
U.S. Pub No. 2012/0185304 to Belady
U.S. Pub No. 2021/0081909 to Wittek
KR 102465942 to Kim
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached at (571) 270-3948. 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.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights