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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 3, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 3, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed September 3, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitations “the reported amount of a first sustainability factor of the two different sustainability factors that is lower than the target amount of the first sustainability factor, and the reported amount of a second sustainability factor of the two different sustainability factors that is greater than the target amount of the second sustainability factor”, “prioritizing, by the first client device, one or more client devices among a plurality of client devices associated with the ESG management platform, wherein the prioritizing of the one or more client devices is based on a sustainability portfolio requirement of the ESG management platform, and the plurality of client devices are different from the first client device”, and “broadcasting, by the first client device, based on the prioritizing, the transaction block to the plurality of client devices” are not supported by the original disclosure. The target amounts of the first/second sustainability factors and the reported amounts lower/greater than the target amounts are not disclosed in the Specification or Drawings.
Appropriate corrections/clarifications are required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Under the Step 1 of the Section 101 analysis, Claims 1-7 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a process), Claims 8-14 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. a machine), and Claims 15-20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a manufacture).
Since the claims are directed toward statutory categories, it must be determined if the claims are directed towards a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Based on consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “generating an ESG report that indicates a target amount and a reported amount for each of two different sustainability factors; identifying, by the first client device, a trading pair between the two different sustainability factors based on the ESG report, wherein the identifying of the trading pair is based on a delta difference between the target amount and the reported amount for each of the two different sustainability factors, the reported amount of a first sustainability factor of the two different sustainability factors that is lower than the target amount of the first sustainability factor, and the reported amount of a second sustainability factor of the two different sustainability factors that is greater than the target amount of the second sustainability factor; applying a neural network on the trading pair to determine a ratio between the two different sustainability factors, wherein the neural network is trained using historical data related to past trades stored in the blockchain; generating, by the first client device, a transaction block for the trading pair, wherein the transaction block includes the determined ratio between the two different sustainability factors; prioritizing, by the first client device, one or more client devices among a plurality of client devices associated with the ESG management platform, wherein the prioritizing of the one or more client devices is based on a sustainability portfolio requirement of the ESG management platform, and the plurality of client devices are different from the first client device; broadcasting, by the first client device, based on the prioritizing, the transaction block to the plurality of client devices; receiving, by the first client device, a network update that indicates that the transaction block is accepted by a second client device of the plurality of client devices; generating, by the first client device, a smart contract based on the receiving of the network update, wherein the generated smart contract corresponds to a self-executing contract corresponding to an agreement associated with the trading pair, and the generated smart contract generates terms and conditions for the trading pair, based on one or more regional requirements associated with each of the first client device and the second client device; appending, by the first client device, a block representing the smart contract to the blockchain; and distributing, by the first client device, the block representing the smart contract to a plurality of blockchains hosted by the plurality of client devices.”
Under the Step 2A Prong One, the limitations, as underlined above, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity such as commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). For example, but for the “client device”, “delta difference”, “neural network”, “blockchain”, “block”, “platform”, “network”, and “smart contract” language, the underlined limitations in the context of this claim encompass the human activity. The series of steps belong to a typical sales activities or behaviors, because entities including the client, second client, and other clients interact with one another, and process information or data such as factors, data blocks for transactions.
Under the Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – “A computer-implemented method by a first client device including a blockchain and associated with an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) management platform, the computer-implemented method comprising:”, “A first client device associated with an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) management platform, the first client device comprising: a storage device having stored therein a blockchain, and a hardware processor configured to:”, “A computer program product, comprising: a computer readable storage medium having stored therein program code, the program code, which when executed by a first client device including a blockchain and associated with an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) management platform, causes the first client device to perform:”, “client device”, “delta difference”, “neural network”, “blockchain”, “block”, “platform”, “network”, and “smart contract”. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., performing generic functions of an interaction) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Additionally, regarding the specification and claims, there is no improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field present, there is no applying or using the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition present, there is no implementing the judicial exception with or using the judicial exception in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim present, there is no effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing present, and there is no 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 present such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements, individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under the Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements in the process amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20:
Dependent claims 4-5, 7, 11-12, 14, and 18-19 only further elaborate the abstract idea and do not recite additional elements.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 include additional limitations, for example, “blockchain” and “smart contract” (Claims 6, 13, and 20), but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, they require no more than generic computer structures or signals to be executed, and do not recite any Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or Improvements to any other technology or technical field.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, 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 a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation or implementing the judicial exception on a generic computer.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MacArthur (US 20220156754 A1) in view of Quigley (US 20230274244 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, MacArthur teaches A computer-implemented method by a first client device including a blockchain and associated with an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) management platform, the computer-implemented method comprising (MacArthur: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0007, 0009, 0098, 0103): A first client device associated with an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) management platform, the first client device comprising: a storage device having stored therein a blockchain, and a hardware processor configured to (MacArthur: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0007, 0009, 0098, 0103, 0179): A computer program product, comprising: a computer readable storage medium having stored therein program code, the program code, which when executed by a first client device including a blockchain and associated with an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) management platform, causes the first client device to perform (MacArthur: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0007, 0009, 0098, 0103, 0179):
generating an ESG report that indicates a target amount and a reported amount for each of two different sustainability factors (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0081, 0116 teach(es) Enterprises will be able to purchase tokens to satisfy their climate mission and responsibility goals; The platform herein allows enterprises to accurately measure ROI in connection with their sustainability, ESG and CSR initiatives. Reports can be prepared for Directors and Shareholders; The platform may issue licenses to third parties to tokenize carbon and other environmental assets (such as those tied to water and waste), to create specialized PSTs); identifying, by the first client device, a trading pair between the two different sustainability factors based on the ESG report, wherein the identifying of the trading pair is based on a delta difference between the target amount and the reported amount for each of the two different sustainability factors (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0116, 0083, 0081, 0089, 0068-0069, 0032, 0009-0010, 0140 teach(es) The PST market expands beyond the platform hub to include public/private trading among private companies, government and private distribution, and individuals; The platform may issue licenses to third parties to tokenize carbon and other environmental assets (such as those tied to water and waste), to create specialized PSTs; secure token-based exchange of pollution credits for the reduction of worldwide pollution; The platform herein allows enterprises to accurately measure ROI in connection with their sustainability, ESG and CSR initiatives; the allowance of carbon emissions may comprise at least one of a voluntary offset of carbon emissions, a compliant offset of carbon emissions, or a renewable energy certificate (REC) for carbon emissions; The pollution credits may be purchased with cash or credit or as commodity futures), the reported amount of a first sustainability factor of the two different sustainability factors that is lower than the target amount of the first sustainability factor, and the reported amount of a second sustainability factor of the two different sustainability factors that is greater than the target amount of the second sustainability factor (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0081, 0090, 0105, 0115, 0150-0151 teach(es) The platform herein allows enterprises to accurately measure ROI in connection with their sustainability, ESG and CSR initiatives; RGGI regulators use the proceeds to support clean energy development, and periodically lower the Cap threshold, thus increasing the incentive for power plants to upgrade their technology and emit less CO2); applying a neural network on the trading pair to determine a ratio between the two different sustainability factors, wherein the neural network is trained using historical data related to past trades stored in the blockchain (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0035, 0176 teach(es) Pollution credits, either alone or pooled, may be fractionalized and converted into marketable points. In one embodiment, a dollar of a purchased good or service corresponds to one point, and one point corresponds to one pound of a pollutant (e.g., carbon). Any ratio, however, of dollars to points or of points to quantities of pollution is contemplated by the current invention; the techniques described herein may be performed by hardware, software, and/or firmware, such as in accordance with a machine learning process); generating, by the first client device, a transaction block for the trading pair, wherein the transaction block includes the determined ratio between the two different sustainability factors (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0009, 0053, 0085, 0035 teach(es) the techniques herein use PSTs to convert carbon offsets (e.g., purchased by the ton) into smaller increments (e.g., pound-increments) to create redeemable tokens as a form of universal carbon currency for commerce and industry to append to goods and services. The techniques apply a secure distributed transaction ledger (e.g., blockchain) technology to track tokens from source to redemption, track inventories, and prevent fraud with the immutable ledgers; identifying information such as barcodes, QR codes or RFID tags may be used to garner information about each transaction (printed or electronic) and to permit the capturing and tracking of data. The identifying information may be specific to a single transaction, stock-keeping unit, and/or purchase. Each time a purchaser initiates or completes a transaction, data (e.g., the number of points associated with the transaction) may be collected; Pollution credits, either alone or pooled, may be fractionalized and converted into marketable points. In one embodiment, a dollar of a purchased good or service corresponds to one point, and one point corresponds to one pound of a pollutant (e.g., carbon). Any ratio, however, of dollars to points or of points to quantities of pollution is contemplated by the current invention); …; [broadcasting, by the first client device, based on the prioritizing, the transaction block to] the plurality of client devices (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0140, 0009-0010, 0081, 0118 teach(es) the computing device may store and track the PSTs on a distributed ledger; The redemption transaction may also be in compliance with at least one of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals, the Paris Accord, or the United Nations (UN) Global Compact; The distributed transaction ledger may be stored and updated by a plurality of computing devices, operated by merchants that participate in the maintenance of the PSTs (i.e., are part of a PST Merchant Network)); receiving, by the first client device, a network update that indicates that the transaction block is accepted by a second client device of the plurality of client devices; generating, by the first client device, a smart contract based on the receiving of the network update, wherein the generated smart contract corresponds to a self-executing contract corresponding to an agreement associated with the trading pair, and the generated smart contract generates terms and conditions for the trading pair, based on one or more regional requirements associated with each of the first client device and the second client device; appending, by the first client device, a block representing the smart contract to the blockchain (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0129, 0103, 0106, 0122, 0032, 0089, 0118 teach(es) Redemption transactions for each of the PSTs may be entered and updated at, for example, the PST merchant computing devices, where the redemption transactions may or may not include a third party entity. A computing device may, after the redemption transaction has been identified (or determined) may propose an update to the distributed transaction ledger that alters a PST token associated with the redemption transaction; The platform herein uses smart contracts and wallets to create tokenized carbon credits (PSTs) for public sale; The democratized computing engine associated with distributed secure ledgers (e.g., Ethereum and others) has made it possible for assets, governance, and agreements to live on a publicly auditable and editable log of transactions; commercial enterprises that now purchase offsets for their CSR, ESG, and HR initiatives—such PSTs will effectively be burned (a smart contract will prevent their use in loyalty plans without permission); a credit is received from a pollution-credit source, which may be a mandatory market (e.g., the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative market)); and distributing, by the first client device, the block representing the smart contract to a plurality of blockchains hosted by the plurality of client devices (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0140-0141 teach(es) the computing device is one of a plurality of computing devices configured to store and update the token data on the distributed transaction ledger. Further, the computing device may be configured to: receive data indicative of the redemption transaction; propose an update to the distributed transaction ledger that alters the use indicator of the token data; and alter the use indicator of the token data in response to an acceptance of the update to the distributed transaction ledger).
However, MacArthur does not explicitly teach …prioritizing, by the first client device, one or more client devices among a plurality of client devices associated with the ESG management platform, wherein the prioritizing of the one or more client devices is based on a sustainability portfolio requirement of the ESG management platform, and the plurality of client devices are different from the first client device, and …broadcasting, by the first client device, based on the prioritizing, the transaction block.
Quigley from same or similar field of endeavor teaches …prioritizing, by the first client device, one or more client devices among a plurality of client devices associated with the ESG management platform, wherein the prioritizing of the one or more client devices is based on a sustainability portfolio requirement of the ESG management platform, and the plurality of client devices are different from the first client device (Quigley: Paragraph(s) 0023, 1064, 1082 teach(es) receiving, by the redemption smart contract, an indication that a redemption period is active based on the one or more second distributed ledger transactions; determining, by the redemption smart contract, a priority order for redeeming the plurality of pre-sale NFTs; and selecting, by the redemption smart contract, a first pre-sale NFT of the plurality of pre-sale NFTs to redeem based on the priority order), …broadcasting, by the first client device, based on the prioritizing, the transaction block to the plurality of client devices (Quigley: Paragraph(s) 0497-0498, 1145, 0023, 1064, 1082 teach(es) the ledger update system may generate a block in accordance with the protocol to which the distributed ledger comports, where the block contains the data to be written to the distributed ledger. In embodiments, the ledger update system may update the distributed ledger by broadcasting the generated block to the computing nodes that store the distributed ledger; determining, by the redemption smart contract, a priority order for redeeming the plurality of pre-sale NFTs; and selecting, by the redemption smart contract, a first pre-sale NFT of the plurality of pre-sale NFTs to redeem based on the priority order).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of MacArthur to incorporate the teachings of Quigley for prioritizing, by the first client device, one or more client devices among a plurality of client devices associated with the ESG management platform, wherein the prioritizing of the one or more client devices is based on a sustainability portfolio requirement of the ESG management platform, and the plurality of client devices are different from the first client device, and broadcasting, by the first client device, based on the prioritizing, the transaction block.
There is motivation to combine Quigley into MacArthur because Quigley’s teachings of broadcasting would facilitate making the record in the distributed ledger immutable (Quigley: Paragraph(s) 0634).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of MacArthur and Quigley teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and MacArthur further teaches wherein the two different sustainability factors are selected from a group consisting of: energy, water, waste, and emissions (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0116, 0083, 0081, 0089, 0068-0069, 0036 as stated above with respect to claims 1-2).
Regarding Claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of MacArthur and Quigley teaches all the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15 above; and MacArthur further teaches wherein the smart contract identifies conditions associated with the transaction block and two parties that have accepted the transaction block (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0084, 0140 teach(es) a computing device may receive a distributed transaction ledger comprising a plurality of token data, wherein each of the plurality of token data is associated with a portion of an allowance of carbon emissions and includes a use indicator and an ownership indicator; The computing device may alter the use indicator of the particular token data in response to an acceptance of the update to the distributed transaction ledger).
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, the combination of MacArthur and Quigley teaches all the limitations of claims 5 and 12 above; and MacArthur further teaches wherein the network update includes a change to the blockchain based upon the smart contract being appended to the blockchain (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0103 teach(es) The platform herein uses smart contracts and wallets to create tokenized carbon credits (PSTs) for public sale).
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, the combination of MacArthur and Quigley teaches all the limitations of claims 5 and 12 above; and MacArthur further teaches wherein the two parties are selected from a group consisting of: two different regions, two different units with a same enterprise, and two different enterprises (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0116, 0083, 0081, 0089, 0068-0069 teach(es) The PST market expands beyond the platform hub to include public/private trading among private companies, government and private distribution, and individuals; The platform may issue licenses to third parties to tokenize carbon and other environmental assets (such as those tied to water and waste), to create specialized PSTs).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of MacArthur and Quigley teaches all the limitations of claim 19 above; thus the combination further teaches all the limitations of wherein the network update includes a change to the blockchain based upon the smart contract being appended to the blockchain, and the two parties are selected from a group consisting of: two different regions, two different units with a same enterprise, and two different enterprises, as stated above with respect to claims 6-7 and 13-14 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 3, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 that “the claimed subject matter includes prioritization that enables efficient allocation of transaction broadcasts toward regions or entities that most significantly impact the overall sustainability portfolio. Further, the claimed subject matter provides automatic determination of the ratio between the sustainability factors by the ESG platform,” examiner respectfully argues that prioritization of clients and determination of the ratio are interpreted as processing of data or information, and such steps can be performed manually by people. In addition, the additional elements including broadcast and automatic determination are recited without any technical details and contexts, not providing any improvements of the functioning of the computer or other technology or technical field. Also, it is noted that the ‘ratio’ has never been used, for example. It is recommended for the applicant to amend the claims further with more technical details and contexts of the additional elements including blockchain, smart contract, and first/second client devices and interactions between the devices and entities.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 that “the combination of MacArthur and Quigley does not teach or suggest the features of "identifying, by the first client device, a trading pair between the two different sustainability factors based on the ESG report ... the identifying of the trading pair is based on ... the reported amount of a first sustainability factor of the two different sustainability factors that is lower than the target amount of the first sustainability factor, and the reported amount of a second sustainability factor of the two different sustainability factors that is greater than the target amount of the second sustainability factor," as recited in amended independent claim 1,” examiner respectfully argues that MacArthur teaches the features as recited in the claims (MacArthur: Paragraph(s) 0116, 0083, 0081, 0089, 0068-0069, 0032, 0009-0010, 0140, 0090, 0105, 0115, 0150-0151). Also, the newly-added limitations “the reported amount of a first sustainability factor of the two different sustainability factors that is lower than the target amount of the first sustainability factor, and the reported amount of a second sustainability factor of the two different sustainability factors that is greater than the target amount of the second sustainability factor” are a new matter, as stated above with respect to the 112(a) rejections. It is recommended for the applicant to amend the claims further with more technical details and contexts of delta difference, ratio, trading of the pair, first/second sustainability factors, target amounts, prioritizing, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached on (571)270-1492. 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.
/CLAY C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699