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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application 18/345,268 filed on 6/30/2023. Claims 1-2, 5, 12, 15, and 19 were amended and claims 4, 6, 14, 16-18, and 23 were canceled in the reply filed on 4/8/2025. Claims 1-2, 11, 15, and 20 were amended and claims 10 and 12-13 were cancelled in the reply filed on 10/9/2025. Claims 1, 2, 15, and 20 were amended in the reply filed 1/16/2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 15, and 19-22 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 8 regarding claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, and 19-22: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the independent claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by providing an improvement to a technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The alleged improvements that Applicant’s invention provides are business improvements to a business related process, and not improvements to a computer system technology itself (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for examples and description of what is considered an improvement to a computer-functionality or an improvement to a technology). "Identifying, analyzing, and presenting certain data to a user is not an improvement specific to computing." International Business Machines Corp. v. Zillow Group, Inc., (Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2350, Oct. 17, 2022, pg. 8). The claimed computer components are generic and broadly recited, and the alleged improvements are not to the generic computer components themselves, but to the abstract process being performed by the computer components. Examiner respectfully argues that the claimed limitations not analogous to the MPEP descriptions and examples of improvements to computer-functionality or improvements to a technology, and that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 is analogous to Example 40 of the 2019 PEG. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant does not make a clear argument as to why Examiner should view claim 1 as analogous to Example 40. Instead, Applicant cites additional elements of claim 1 and argues that they provide an improvement to the technology of cold supply chain delivery. The claimed cold supply chain delivery concept, however, is an abstract idea and not a technology as described in MPEP § 2106.05(a). See examples of an improvement to computer-functionality, technology, or technical field provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a). Examiner argues that claim 1 is not analogous to any of these examples.
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 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 15, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method for acquiring a plurality of pieces of item information having different data input cycles or data measurement cycles as information associated with a specific item; and individually storing, in a server, each of the plurality of pieces of item information associated with the specific item in association with a plurality of different blockchains, wherein the plurality of pieces of item information includes temperature measurement information repeatedly measured by a temperature sensor associated with a distribution item as the specific item and position measurement information repeatedly measured by a position sensor associated with the distribution item, and storing the plurality of pieces of item information further includes: storing the temperature measurement information in association with a temperature information keeping chain that is one of the plurality of different blockchains; and storing the position measurement information in association with a position information keeping chain that is one of the plurality of different blockchains different from the temperature information keeping chain, wherein the information management method further comprises: changing a measurement cycle of the temperature measurement information based on form information related to a form of the distribution item; generating providing data by combining the temperature measurement information and the position measurement information; and transmitting the generated providing data to a user terminal such that the user terminal displays the providing data on a display unit of the user terminal, wherein the temperature measurement information is a data group comprising a plurality of data sets, each data set including a combination of measurement time data and a measured temperature value, and the position measurement information is a data group comprising a plurality of data sets, each data set including a combination of measurement time data and position data. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations … acquiring a plurality of pieces of item information having different data input cycles or data measurement cycles as information associated with a specific item; and individually storing each of the plurality of pieces of item information associated with the specific item ... wherein the plurality of pieces of item information includes temperature measurement information repeatedly measured ... associated with a distribution item as the specific item and position measurement information repeatedly measured ... associated with the distribution item, and storing the plurality of pieces of item information further includes: storing the temperature measurement information in association with a temperature information keeping chain that is one of the plurality of different blockchains; and storing the position measurement information in association with a position information keeping chain that is one of the plurality of different blockchains different from the temperature information keeping chain, wherein the information management method further comprises: changing a measurement cycle of the temperature measurement information based on form information related to a form of the distribution item; generating providing data by combining the temperature measurement information and the position measurement information; and transmitting the generated providing data to a user ... wherein the temperature measurement information is a data group comprising a plurality of data sets, each data set including a combination of measurement time data and a measured temperature value, and the position measurement information is a data group comprising a plurality of data sets, each data set including a combination of measurement time data and position data, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations; fundamental economic practices – shipping/logistics). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the grouping of and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations; fundamental economic practices – shipping/logistics). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements a computer, a server, a plurality of different blockchains, a user terminal, and a display unit of the user terminal, are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. (Examiner’s Note: the blockchains recited in the claims and throughout the specification area described at a high level of generality and merely as a form of data storage. Therefore, they are considered part of a generic computer environment.) Simply “applying” the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements a temperature sensor, and a position sensor are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (specifically, “Mere Data Gathering” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a computer (described in spec. para. [0047]), a server (while many servers are described at a high level in the specification, the server that appears to be invoked in the claim language is the “blockchain server 90”; described in spec. para. [0090]), a plurality of different blockchains (described in spec. para. [0047]), a user terminal (described in spec. para. [0101]), and a display unit of the user terminal (described in spec. para. [0101]) are described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. As discussed above, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the abstract idea using a generic computer environment. Further, Applicant’s specification para. [0075] provides proof that the aforementioned mere data gathering of the invention classified as insignificant extra-solution activity above is well understood, routine, and conventional. In specification [0075] Applicant recites a temperature sensor repeatedly measuring a temperature and a position sensor repeated measuring a position. (Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The sensing of temperature performed by the temperature sensor and the sensing of position performed by the position sensor are described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. Accordingly, a conclusion that the mere data gathering is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. All additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Therefore, they are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, and do not provide a practical application. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 has been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claim 5 when analyzed individually, and in combination, is also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea. The additional element a site information keeping chain that is one of the plurality of different blockchain different from both the temperature keeping chain and the position information keeping chains (claim 5) is recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply “applying” the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element a site information keeping chain that is one of the plurality of different blockchain different from both the temperature keeping chain and the position information keeping chains (described in spec. para. [0047]) are described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. The claims merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the abstract idea using a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 1: Claim 2 recites An information management method, implemented by a computer, for managing information related to a distribution item, the method comprising: acquiring temperature measurement information repeatedly measured by a temperature sensor associated with the distribution item; acquiring position measurement information repeatedly measured by a position sensor associated with the distribution item; and storing, in a server, the temperature measurement information and the position measurement information in association with at least one blockchain, wherein re-packaging for dividing the distribution item into a plurality of distribution units is assumed to occur in a distribution process, the method further includes: before the re-packaging occurs, storing, in association with the at least one blockchain, the temperature measurement information and the position measurement information measured by the temperature sensor and the position sensor, respectively, associated with a pre- repackaging item that is the distribution item before the re-packaging, and after the re-packaging occurred, individually storing, in association with the at least one blockchain, the temperature measurement information and the position measurement information measured by the temperature sensor and the position sensor, respectively, associated with each of a plurality of post-repackaging items which are the distribution item after the re- packaging, wherein the information management method further comprises: changing a measurement cycle of the temperature measurement information based on form information related to a form of the distribution item; generating providing data by combining the temperature measurement information and the position measurement information; and transmitting the generated providing data to a user terminal such that the user terminal displays the providing data on a display unit of the user terminal, wherein the temperature measurement information is a data group comprising a plurality of data sets, each data set including a combination of measurement time data and a measured temperature value, and the position measurement information is a data group comprising a plurality of data sets, each data set including a combination of measurement time data and position data. Therefore, claim 2 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations An information management method ... for managing information related to a distribution item, the method comprising: acquiring temperature measurement information repeatedly measured ... associated with the distribution item; acquiring position measurement information repeatedly measured ... associated with the distribution item; and storing ... the temperature measurement information and the position measurement information ... wherein re-packaging for dividing the distribution item into a plurality of distribution units is assumed to occur in a distribution process, the method further includes: before the re-packaging occurs, storing ... the temperature measurement information and the position measurement information measured ... associated with a pre- repackaging item that is the distribution item before the re-packaging, and after the re-packaging occurred, individually storing ... the temperature measurement information and the position measurement information measured ... associated with each of a plurality of post-repackaging items which are the distribution item after the re-packaging, wherein the information management method further comprises: changing a measurement cycle of the temperature measurement information based on form information related to a form of the distribution item; generating providing data by combining the temperature measurement information and the position measurement information; and transmitting the generated providing data to a user ... wherein the temperature measurement information is a data group comprising a plurality of data sets, each data set including a combination of measurement time data and a measured temperature value, and the position measurement information is a data group comprising a plurality of data sets, each data set including a combination of measurement time data and position data, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations; fundamental economic practices – shipping/logistics). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the grouping of and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations; fundamental economic practices – shipping/logistics). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements a computer, a server, at least one blockchain, a user terminal, and a display unit of the user terminal are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. (Examiner’s Note: the blockchains recited in the claims and throughout the specification area described at a high level of generality and merely as a form of data storage. Therefore, they are considered part of a generic computer environment.) Simply “applying” the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional elements a temperature sensor and a position sensor are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (specifically, “Mere Data Gathering” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a computer (described in spec. para. [0047]), a server (while many servers are described at a high level in the specification, the server that appears to be invoked in the claim language is the “blockchain server 90”; described in spec. para. [0090]), at least one blockchain (described in spec. para. [0047]), a user terminal (described in spec. para. [0101]), and a display unit of the user terminal (described in spec. para. [0101]) are described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. As discussed above, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the abstract idea using a generic computer environment. Further, Applicant’s specification para. [0075] provides proof that the aforementioned mere data gathering of the invention classified as insignificant extra-solution activity above is well understood, routine, and conventional. In specification [0075] Applicant recites a temperature sensor repeatedly measuring a temperature and a position sensor repeated measuring a position. (Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The sensing of temperature performed by the temperature sensor and the sensing of position performed by the position sensor are described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. Accordingly, a conclusion that the mere data gathering is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. All additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Therefore, they are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, and do not provide a practical application. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 3, 7-9, and 11 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 3, 7-9, and 11 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea. Claims 3, 7-9, and 11 do not recite additional elements that were not previously recited in claim 2. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 3, 7-9, and 11 do not recite additional elements that were not previously recited in claim 2. All additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Therefore, they are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, and do not provide a practical application. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 1: Claim 15 recites An information providing method, implemented by a computer, for providing information managed by using a plurality of blockchains, the method comprising: acquiring a providing request for information associated with a specific item; acquiring specific first information associated with the specific item from first information managed by a first blockchain; acquiring specific second information associated with the specific item from second information managed by a second blockchain different from the first blockchain; generating providing data to be provided to a requesting source of the providing request by combining the specific first information and the specific second information wherein the specific first information and the specific second information are measurement information having different measurement cycles, generating the providing data further includes generating the providing data by combining the specific first information and the specific second information depending on each measurement cycle, the information associated with a distribution item is managed in the plurality of blockchains, and the specific second information includes position measurement information measured by a position sensor associated with the distribution item in a transportation period of time during which the distribution item moves between relay sites, the method further includes: acquiring specific site information related to passage of the distribution item through the relay site among from site information managed by a third blockchain different from the first blockchain and the second blockchain, wherein generating the providing data further includes generating the providing data by complementing a space between at least two pieces of site position data recorded in the site information with in-transport position data during the transportation period of time recorded in the position measurement information, wherein the method further includes: extending a measurement cycle of the position measurement information as a surface area relative to a volume of the distribution item decreases; and transmitting the generated providing data to a user such that the user terminal displays the providing data on a display unit of the user terminal, wherein the position measurement information is a data group comprising a plurality of data sets, each data set including a combination of measurement time data and position data. Therefore, claim 15 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations An information providing method ... for providing information managed ... the method comprising: acquiring a providing request for information associated with a specific item; acquiring specific first information associated with the specific item from first information ... acquiring specific second information associated with the specific item from second information ... generating providing data to be provided to a requesting source of the providing request by combining the specific first information and the specific second information wherein the specific first information and the specific second information are measurement information having different measurement cycles, generating the providing data further includes generating the providing data by combining the specific first information and the specific second information depending on each measurement cycle, the information associated with a distribution item is managed ... and the specific second information includes position measurement information measured ... associated with the distribution item in a transportation period of time during which the distribution item moves between relay sites, the method further includes: acquiring specific site information related to passage of the distribution item through the relay site among from site information managed ... wherein generating the providing data further includes generating the providing data by complementing a space between at least two pieces of site position data recorded in the site information with in-transport position data during the transportation period of time recorded in the position measurement information, wherein the method further includes: extending a measurement cycle of the position measurement information as a surface area relative to a volume of the distribution item decreases; and transmitting the generated providing data to a user terminal, wherein the position measurement information is a data group comprising a plurality of data sets, each data set including a combination of measurement time data and position data, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations; fundamental economic practices – shipping/logistics). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the grouping of and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations; fundamental economic practices – shipping/logistics). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements a computer, a plurality of blockchains, a first blockchain, a second blockchain different from the first blockchain, a third blockchain different from the first blockchain and the second blockchain, a user terminal, and a display unit of the user terminal are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. (Examiner’s Note: the blockchains recited in the claims and throughout the specification area described at a high level of generality and merely as a form of data storage. Therefore, they are considered part of a generic computer environment.) Simply “applying” the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The additional element a position sensor are considered insignificant extra-solution activity (specifically, “Mere Data Gathering” (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a computer (described in spec. para. [0047]), a plurality of blockchains (described in spec. para. [0047]), a first blockchain (described in spec. para. [0047]), a second blockchain different from the first blockchain (described in spec. para. [0047]), a third blockchain different from the first blockchain and the second blockchain (described in spec. para. [0047]), a user terminal (described in spec. para. [0101]), and a display unit of the user terminal (described in spec. para. [0101]), are described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. As discussed above, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the abstract idea using a generic computer environment. Further, Applicant’s specification para. [0075] provides proof that the aforementioned mere data gathering of the invention classified as insignificant extra-solution activity above is well understood, routine, and conventional. In specification [0075] Applicant recites a position sensor repeatedly measuring a position. (Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); (MPEP § 2106.05(g)). The sensing of position performed by the position sensor is described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. Accordingly, a conclusion that the mere data gathering is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. All additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Therefore, they are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, and do not provide a practical application. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 has been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claim 19 when analyzed individually, and in combination, is also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea. Claim 19 does not recite additional elements that were not previously recited in claim 15. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 19 does not recite additional elements that were not previously recited in claim 15. All additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Therefore, they are considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, and do not provide a practical application. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 1: Claim 20 recites An information providing method, implemented by a computer, for providing information managed by using a blockchain, the method comprising: acquiring usage amount information indicative of a usage amount of power or an energy resource used in relation to manufacturing and distributing of an item, the usage amount information being managed by the blockchain for each type of the power and the energy resource; preparing a calculation method in accordance with a destination set for the item; calculating, using the prepared calculation method, a carbon release amount of the item from the usage amount information for each type of the power and the energy; and transmitting the calculated carbon release amount to a user terminal such that the user terminal displays the carbon release amount on a display unit of the user terminal, wherein the usage amount information of power is associated with at least one of production place information indicating a country or an area where the power is produced, type information indicating a power generation method, and information indicating whether power generation is performed by renewable energy, and the usage amount information of energy is associated with at least one of type information indicating a type of energy and production place information indicating a country or an area where an energy resource is produced. Therefore, claim 20 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method.
Step 2A Prong One: The limitations An information providing method ... for providing information ... the method comprising: acquiring usage amount information indicative of a usage amount of power or an energy resource used in relation to manufacturing and distributing of an item, the usage amount information ... for each type of the power and the energy resource; preparing a calculation method in accordance with a destination set for the item; calculating, using the prepared calculation method, a carbon release amount of the item from the usage amount information for each type of the power and the energy; and transmitting the calculated carbon release amount to a user ... displays the carbon release amount ... wherein the usage amount information of power is associated with at least one of production place information indicating a country or an area where the power is produced, type information indicating a power generation method, and information indicating whether power generation is performed by renewable energy, and the usage amount information of energy is associated with at least one of type information indicating a type of energy and production place information indicating a country or an area where an energy resource is produced, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations; fundamental economic practices – shipping/logistics). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the grouping of and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interaction – business relations; fundamental economic practices – shipping/logistics). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements a computer, a blockchain, a user terminal, and a display unit of the user terminal are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. (Examiner’s Note: the blockchains recited in the claims and throughout the specification area described at a high level of generality and merely as a form of data storage. Therefore, they are considered part of a generic computer environment.) Simply “applying” the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a computer (described in spec. para. [0047]), a blockchain (described in spec. para. [0047]), a user terminal (described in spec. para. [0101]), and a display unit of the user terminal (described in spec. para. [0101]) are described in the specification at a high-level indicating the known nature of each of these additional elements in the art. As discussed above, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the abstract idea using a generic computer environment. All additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Therefore, they do not provide a practical application. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 21-22 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 21-22 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea. Claims 21-22 do not recite additional elements that were not previously recited in claim 20. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 21-22 do not recite additional elements that were not previously recited in claim 20. All additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Therefore, they do not provide a practical application. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims -1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 15, and 19-22 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the independent claims as being obvious over Mahmood (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0374807), Fuhr (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0026253), Henderson (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0262690), Zhang (CN 111898941 A), Baba (JP 4553961 B2), and other cited references. Examiner considers these references the closest prior art to the claimed invention. Other relevant prior art which fails to remedy the deficiencies of the combinations of these references includes: Stevens (U.S. Pat. No. 9,177,282); Reinhardt (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0103885); Bouard (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0086221); Jones (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0086884) Silverstein (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0224819); Wollack (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0237628); Green (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0294548); and Guo (WO 2018228337 A1). However, given the amendments to the independent claims, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
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 CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHANNON CAMPBELL can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628