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 Request for Continued Examination filed on 06/22/2026.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 15-20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-17, filed 06/22/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been maintained.
After citing and summarizing features of amended claim 1 across pages 12-14, Applicant argues on Page 15 that the amended claim 1 is allegedly eligible at Step 2A Prong 2 of eligibility analysis. Particularly, Applicant argues that the amended claim 1 integrates its judicial exception into a practical application because amended claim 1 allegedly reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Pages 15-17, Applicant argues that amended claim 1 reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or an improvement to technology or technical field. Applicant argues that the claimed invention provides this alleged improvement by processing data having different respective data formats (the internal bank data) and converting that data into a format that is compatible with a pre-determined carbon calculator, which allegedly is an improvement analogous to eligibility example 42 in which remote computer systems with different data formats can communicate with each other. Applicant cites to the specification on Page 16 of Remarks as allegedly reciting the benefits of the improvement. Particularly, the specification citations and Applicant’s subsequent discussion of the citations focuses on the alleged improvement of a user not needing to manually provide all the data being considered as it is being pulled from the financial institution. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2106.05(a) states “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement… Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology” (emphasis added). Regarding the additional effort and burden placed on users of conventional calculators to gather and enter the requisite data for carbon calculation, Applicant’s specification recites “The screenshot 41a is displayed, e.g., on a screen (not referenced) of the client computer device 16 and is prepopulated with data based on applying advanced analytics to internal bank data that define “items” from which a conventional carbon calculator calculates carbon emissions” (emphasis added, Page 6 lines 7-10) and “The advanced analytics operations that prepopulate the customer carbon profile data structure(s) 25 from the data from the data structures 15 can occur on the one or more server computers 12 and/or the client computer device 16” (Page 6 lines 2-5). The “advanced analytics”, recited in the above selections and elsewhere in specification, used to gather an input information into the calculator on behalf of the user is recited in a conclusory manner, as there is no detail presented in the specification or claims that would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the invention is providing a technical improvement. Regarding the data structures themselves, Page 5 lines 14-15 recite “The data structures 15 include fields that have customer identifiers that define a recipient of the item” and Page 5 lines 25-29 recite “Advanced analytics prepopulates a customer carbon profile data structure(s) 25 based on data from the data structures 15 to provide to the conventional carbon emissions calculator 26. The customer carbon profile data structure 25 is configured according to the conventional carbon emissions calculator 26 used. As such, it is not necessary to describe in any detail the structure of the customer carbon profile data structure 25…” (emphasis added). Accordingly, the claimed invention in light of the specification is taking abstract data of the data structures, which are only defined as having “fields”, and “advanced analytics” is used to prepopulate the carbon profile data structure which the disclosure explicitly states is not described in any detail. The specification recites that the data is moved/copied from one structure to another, but the starting and ending structures are not recited in any detail and the method in which the translation/transfer takes place is also not described beyond “advanced analytics”. Therefore, the specification recites the data transformation as an abstract data manipulation from one field to another and recites such a transformation in a conclusory manner.
In view of the above, the claimed invention is still most accurately analyzed as Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception in MPEP 2106.05(f) in which generic computing components are used as a tool to perform the judicial exception. Applicant’s arguments that the claimed invention is eligible at Step 2A Prong 2 are unpersuasive, and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-20 have been maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The second-to-last paragraph of claim 8 recites “one or more levers for reducing an emission of carbon at to the location of the farm” when it appears it should recite “one or more levers for reducing an emission of carbon at [[to]] the location of the farm” to correct an apparent typographical error
Appropriate correction is 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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite providing carbon emission estimates for agricultural clients of financial institutions.
As an initial matter, claims 1-7 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Claims 8-14 fall into at least the machine category of statutory subject matter. Finally, claims 15-20 fall into at least the manufacture category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
In claim 1, the limitation of “A computer-implemented method comprises: generating an executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations comprising: accessing, by a computer system comprising one or more processors, internal bank data representing at least one of credit card transactions, debit account transactions, or credit memos for one or more customers, wherein the internal bank data comprises a plurality of first data structures, wherein each of the first data structures comprises one or more fields representing the one or more customers, and defines one or more items purchased by the one or more customers”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computer-implemented”, “an executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations”, and “a computer system comprising one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “executing, by the computer system, one or more operations that use the internal bank data to identify sources of carbon emissions for a location of a farm corresponding to a first customer of the one or more customers, wherein identifying the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm comprises identifying at least one of (i) a fertilizer for the farm, (ii) farm supplies for the farm, (iii) electricity for the farm, or (iv) fossil fuels for the farm based on the first data structures; estimating, by the computer system, a total area under cultivation and a crop mix for the location of the farm corresponding to the customer; rendering a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a plurality of input elements representing parameters for determining a carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm, wherein at least some of the input elements represent the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm and are pre-populated with respective values based on at least one of the credit card transactions, the debit account transactions, and the credit memos; automatically generating, by the computer system, a customer carbon profile data structure based on values of the input elements, the estimated total area under cultivation, the crop mix for the location of the farm, and the first data structures, wherein the customer carbon profile data structure is generated to be compatible with a pre- determined carbon calculator and is populated with information regarding at least one of (i) the fertilizer for the farm, (ii) the farm supplies for the farm, (iii) the electricity for the farm, or (iv) the fossil fuels for the farm obtained from the first data structures; automatically inputting the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator to obtain a first carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm; determining, by the computer system, one or more second carbon emission estimates for the location of the farm based on one or more levers for reducing an emission of carbon at the location of the farm; and rendering, in the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of the first carbon emission estimate and the one or more second carbon emission estimates; and executing the executable computer program to perform the set of computer operations”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the concept of a financial institution gathering internal and external data to provide an agricultural client with carbon emission estimates which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. A method comprises: perform a set of operations comprising: accessing internal bank data representing at least one of credit card transactions, debit account transactions, or credit memos for one or more customers, wherein the internal bank data comprises a plurality of first data structures, wherein each of the first data structures comprises one or more fields representing the one or more customers, and defines one or more items purchased by the one or more customers; executing one or more operations that use the internal bank data to identify sources of carbon emissions for a location of a farm corresponding to a first customer of the one or more customers, wherein identifying the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm comprises identifying at least one of (i) a fertilizer for the farm, (ii) farm supplies for the farm, (iii) electricity for the farm, or (iv) fossil fuels for the farm based on the first data structures; estimating a total area under cultivation and a crop mix for the location of the farm corresponding to the customer; rendering parameters for determining a carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm, wherein at least some of the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm and respective values based on at least one of the credit card transactions, the debit account transactions, and the credit memos; generating a customer carbon profile data structure based on values of the input elements, the estimated total area under cultivation, the crop mix for the location of the farm, and the first data structures, wherein the customer carbon profile data structure is generated to be compatible with a pre- determined carbon calculator and is populated with information regarding at least one of (i) the fertilizer for the farm, (ii) the farm supplies for the farm, (iii) the electricity for the farm, or (iv) the fossil fuels for the farm obtained from the first data structures; inputting the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator to obtain a first carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm; determining one or more second carbon emission estimates for the location of the farm based on one or more levers for reducing an emission of carbon at the location of the farm; and rendering a graphical representation of the first carbon emission estimate and the one or more second carbon emission estimates all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a “computer-implemented” method, generating an executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations, a computer system comprising one or more processors, rendering a graphical user interface comprising a plurality of input elements with at least some input elements being pre-populated, “automatically” generating a customer carbon profile data structure and inputting the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator, and executing the executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a “computer-implemented” method, generating an executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations, a computer system comprising one or more processors, rendering a graphical user interface comprising a plurality of input elements with at least some input elements being pre-populated, “automatically” generating a customer carbon profile data structure and inputting the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator, and executing the executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
In claim 8, the limitation of “access internal bank data representing at least one of credit card transactions, debit account transactions, or credit memos for one or more customers, wherein the internal bank data comprises a plurality of first data structures, wherein each of the first data structures comprises one or more fields representing the one or more customers, and defines one or more items purchased by the one or more customers”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “A computer system comprises: one or more processors; memory storing computer instructions for causing the one or more processor to: generate an executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations comprising,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “execute one or more operations that use the internal bank data to identify sources of carbon emissions for a location of a farm corresponding to a first customer of the one or more customers, wherein identifying the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm comprises identifying at least one of (i) a fertilizer for the farm, (ii) farm supplies for the farm, (iii) electricity for the farm, or (iv) fossil fuels for the farm based on the first data structures; estimate a total area under cultivation and a crop mix for the location of the farm corresponding to the customer; render a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a plurality of input elements representing parameters for determining a carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm, wherein at least some of the input elements represent the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm and are pre-populated with respective values based on at least one of the credit card transactions, the debit account transactions, and the credit memos; automatically generate a customer carbon profile data structure based on values of the input elements, the estimated total area under cultivation, the crop mix for the location of the farm and the first data structures, wherein the customer carbon profile data structure is generated to be compatible with a pre-determined carbon calculator and is populated with information regarding at least one of (i) the fertilizer for the farm, (ii) the farm supplies for the farm, (iii) the electricity for the farm, or (iv) the fossil fuels for the farm obtained from the first data structures; automatically input the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator to obtain a first carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm; determine, by the computer system, one or more second carbon emission estimates for the location of the farm based on one or more levers for reducing an emission of carbon at to the location of the farm; and render, in the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of the first carbon emission estimate and the one or more second carbon emission estimates; and execute the executable computer program to perform the set of computer operations”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 8 recites the concept of a financial institution gathering internal and external data to provide an agricultural client with carbon emission estimates which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Access internal bank data representing at least one of credit card transactions, debit account transactions, or credit memos for one or more customers, wherein the internal bank data comprises a plurality of first data structures, wherein each of the first data structures comprises one or more fields representing the one or more customers, and defines one or more items purchased by the one or more customers; execute one or more operations that use the internal bank data to identify sources of carbon emissions for a location of a farm corresponding to a first customer of the one or more customers, wherein identifying the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm comprises identifying at least one of (i) a fertilizer for the farm, (ii) farm supplies for the farm, (iii) electricity for the farm, or (iv) fossil fuels for the farm based on the first data structures; estimate a total area under cultivation and a crop mix for the location of the farm corresponding to the customer; render parameters for determining a carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm, wherein at least some represent the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm and respective values based on at least one of the credit card transactions, the debit account transactions, and the credit memos; generate a customer carbon profile data structure based on values of the input elements, the estimated total area under cultivation, the crop mix for the location of the farm, and the first data structures, wherein the customer carbon profile data structure is generated to be compatible with a pre-determined carbon calculator and is populated with information regarding at least one of (i) the fertilizer for the farm, (ii) the farm supplies for the farm, (iii) the electricity for the farm, or (iv) the fossil fuels for the farm obtained from the first data structures; input the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator to obtain a first carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm; determine one or more second carbon emission estimates for the location of the farm based on one or more levers for reducing an emission of carbon at to the location of the farm; and render a graphical representation of the first carbon emission estimate and the one or more second carbon emission estimates all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a computer system, one or more processors, memory storing computer instructions for causing the one or more processor to generate an executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations, rendering a graphical user interface comprising a plurality of input elements with at least some input elements being pre-populated, “automatically” generating a customer carbon profile data structure and inputting the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator, and executing the executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer system, one or more processors, memory storing computer instructions for causing the one or more processor to generate an executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations, rendering a graphical user interface comprising a plurality of input elements with at least some input elements being pre-populated, “automatically” generating a customer carbon profile data structure and inputting the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator, and executing the executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-14 further limit the abstract idea of claim 8 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 8 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
In claim 15, the limitation of “accessing internal bank data representing at least one of credit card transactions, debit account transactions, or credit memos for one or more customers, wherein the internal bank data comprises a plurality of first data structures, wherein each of the first data structures comprises one or more fields representing the one or more customers, and defines one or more items purchased by the one or more customers”, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising: generating an executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations comprising:,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Similarly, the limitations of “executing one or more operations that use the internal bank data of the customer to identify sources of carbon emissions for a location of a farm corresponding to a first customer of the one or more customers; wherein identifying the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm comprises identifying at least one of (i) a fertilizer for the farm, (ii) farm supplies for the farm, (iii) electricity for the farm, or (iv) fossil fuels for the farm based on the first data structures; estimating a total area under cultivation and a crop mix for the location of the farm corresponding to the customer; rendering a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a plurality of input elements representing parameters for determining a carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm, wherein at least some of the input elements represent the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm and are pre-populated with respective values based on at least one of the credit card transactions, the debit account transactions, and the credit memos; automatically generating a customer carbon profile data structure based on values of the input elements, the estimated total area under cultivation, the crop mix for the location of the farm, and the first data structures, wherein the customer carbon profile data structure is generated to be compatible with a pre- determined carbon calculator and is populated with information regarding at least one of (i) the fertilizer for the farm, (ii) the farm supplies for the farm, (iii) the electricity for the farm, or (iv) the fossil fuels for the farm obtained from the first data structures; automatically inputting the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator to obtain a first carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm; determining, by the computer system, one or more second carbon emission estimates for the location of the farm based on one or more levers for reducing an emission of carbon at the location of the farm; and rendering, in the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of the first carbon emission estimate and the one or more second carbon emission estimates; and executing the executable computer program to perform the set of computer operations”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Additionally, claim 15 recites the concept of a financial institution gathering internal and external data to provide an agricultural client with carbon emission estimates which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial interactions. Accessing internal bank data representing at least one of credit card transactions, debit account transactions, or credit memos for one or more customers, wherein the internal bank data comprises a plurality of first data structures, wherein each of the first data structures comprises one or more fields representing the one or more customers, and defines one or more items purchased by the one or more customers; executing one or more operations that use the internal bank data of the customer to identify sources of carbon emissions for a location of a farm corresponding to a first customer of the one or more customers; wherein identifying the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm comprises identifying at least one of (i) a fertilizer for the farm, (ii) farm supplies for the farm, (iii) electricity for the farm, or (iv) fossil fuels for the farm based on the first data structures; estimating a total area under cultivation and a crop mix for the location of the farm corresponding to the customer; rendering parameters for determining a carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm, wherein at least some represent the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm and respective values based on at least one of the credit card transactions, the debit account transactions, and the credit memos; automatically generating a customer carbon profile data structure based on values of the input elements, the estimated total area under cultivation, the crop mix for the location of the farm, and the first data structures, wherein the customer carbon profile data structure is generated to be compatible with a pre- determined carbon calculator and is populated with information regarding at least one of (i) the fertilizer for the farm, (ii) the farm supplies for the farm, (iii) the electricity for the farm, or (iv) the fossil fuels for the farm obtained from the first data structures; inputting the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator to obtain a first carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm; determining one or more second carbon emission estimates for the location of the farm based on one or more levers for reducing an emission of carbon at the location of the farm; and rendering a graphical representation of the first carbon emission estimate and the one or more second carbon emission estimates all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions, one or more computers that execute the instructions to perform operations, generating an executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations, rendering a graphical user interface comprising a plurality of input elements with at least some input elements being pre-populated, “automatically” generating a customer carbon profile data structure and inputting the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator, a computer system, and executing the executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions, one or more computers that execute the instructions to perform operations, generating an executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations, rendering a graphical user interface comprising a plurality of input elements with at least some input elements being pre-populated, “automatically” generating a customer carbon profile data structure and inputting the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre-determined carbon calculator, a computer system, and executing the executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 16-20 further limit the abstract idea of claim 15 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 15 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cogan et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0078561, hereafter known as Cogan. Examiner notes that the citations below all have support in provisional application 63/400690, and thus have an effectively filed date of 08/24/2022) in view of Pepere et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,902,484; hereafter known as Pepere) and Ashtekar et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0138767, hereafter known as Ashtekar).
Regarding claim 1, Cogan teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprises (see Figs. 4 and 6 and [0062]-[0091] and [0097]-[0098] for method and [0046] for executable computer program)
generating an executable computer program configured to perform a set of computer operations comprising: accessing, by a computer system comprising one or more processors, internal bank data (see Figs. 4 and 6 and [0062]-[0091] and [0097]-[0098] for overall method. See [0063] "Score 4 uses basic client financial information that the system 300 may retrieve from the FI database 314 to determine total emissions estimation...For all of scores 2, 3, and 4, the farm's financial information as obtained from the FI database 314 is also used". See [0045] "For all of scores 2, 3, and 4, the farm's financial information as obtained from the FI database 314 is also used...The data center 106 comprises a number of servers 108 networked together to collectively perform various computing functions. For example, in the context of a financial institution such as a bank, the data center 106 may host online banking services that permit clients to log in to those servers using client accounts that give them access to various computer-implemented banking services, such as online fund transfers" and [0058] "The backend 303 may be implemented on the servers 108 comprising part of the data center 106...The system database 312 is networked with a financial information database (“FI database”) 314, which stores the client's financial information such as outstanding loans and other similar account information" for computer implementing the method accessing an internal financial database and accessing customer account information in first data structures within a database)
executing, by the computer system, one or more operations that (see [0051] “The front end 302 also comprises a data input form 306, such as collectively depicted on FIGS. 10A-10D. The data input form 306 solicits information from the CAM or farmer about a particular farm” and [0057] “the data input form 306 may request one or more additional pieces of information from the CAM or farmer, such as the data fields described in Table 1 below. The information in Table 1 may in those other embodiments also be used to determine an emissions estimate” and Table 1 for identifying fertilizer and farm supplies)
estimating, by the computer system, a total area under cultivation and a crop mix for the location of the farm corresponding to the customer (see [0063] “Score 3 uses specific crop information (e.g., crop activity of a farmer, such as acres farmed and yield, taking into account different types of crops the farmer may plant on their farm) that the farmer may provide via the data input form 306, such as the information requested in FIG. 10B. Score 2 takes into account land use/farm practice data (e.g., type of farming practice such as tillage practice) that the farmer may provide via the data input form 306, such as the information requested in FIG. 10A” and [0100] “the system 300 may automatically populate some of the data required for carbon estimation by leveraging satellite imagery (e.g., crop type; tillage practices, farm area), the weather API 316 (environmental data), and/or by applying natural language processing to the CAMs' annual reports”)
rendering a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface comprises a plurality of input elements representing parameters for determining a carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm, wherein at least some of the input elements represent the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm and are pre-populated with respective values (see Figs. 10A-B and [0063] “Score 3 uses specific crop information (e.g., crop activity of a farmer, such as acres farmed and yield, taking into account different types of crops the farmer may plant on their farm) that the farmer may provide via the data input form 306, such as the information requested in FIG. 10B. Score 2 takes into account land use/farm practice data (e.g., type of farming practice such as tillage practice) that the farmer may provide via the data input form 306, such as the information requested in FIG. 10A. For all of scores 2, 3, and 4, the farm's financial information as obtained from the FI database 314 is also used” and [0100] “the system 300 may automatically populate some of the data required for carbon estimation by leveraging satellite imagery (e.g., crop type; tillage practices, farm area), the weather API 316 (environmental data), and/or by applying natural language processing to the CAMs' annual reports” for automatically populating some of the input elements in Figs. 10A-B representing sources of carbon including the land and crop type information)
automatically generating, by the computer system, a customer carbon profile data structure based on values of the input elements, the estimated total area under cultivation, the crop mix for the location of the farm, and the first data structures (see [0058] “The data API 310a stores and receives user data from a system database 312, and is able to store in the system database 312 all the information sent to the data API 310a as discussed below. The system database 312 is networked with a financial information database (“FI database”) 314, which stores the client's financial information such as outstanding loans and other similar account information. The system database 312 may obtain this information via the data input form 306 and/or the FI database 314” for a customer carbon profile data structure in database 312. See [0065], [0085], and [0088] for updating the carbon profile data structure in steps 412, 436, and 456 with land, crop mix, and financial information)
wherein the customer carbon profile data structure is generated to be compatible with a pre- determined carbon calculator and is populated with information regarding at least one of (i) the fertilizer for the farm, (ii) the farm supplies for the farm, (iii) the electricity for the farm, or (iv) the fossil fuels for the farm (see Equations 4-6 for the carbon calculator and see Fig. 4 steps 416, 438, and 458 and [0065], [0085], and [0088] for the customer carbon profile data structure being configured for and input into the carbon calculator. See [0063] “Score 3 uses specific crop information (e.g., crop activity of a farmer, such as acres farmed and yield, taking into account different types of crops the farmer may plant on their farm) that the farmer may provide via the data input form 306, such as the information requested in FIG. 10B. Score 2 takes into account land use/farm practice data (e.g., type of farming practice such as tillage practice) that the farmer may provide via the data input form 306, such as the information requested in FIG. 10A” and [0057] “The information in Table 1 may in those other embodiments also be used to determine an emissions estimate” for the fertilizer and supply information provided earlier as part of Table 1 being included in the carbon calculation)
automatically inputting the customer carbon profile data structure to the pre- determined carbon calculator to obtain a first carbon emission estimate for the location of the farm (see Equations 4-6 for the carbon calculator and see Fig. 4 steps 416, 438, and 458 and [0065], [0085], and [0088] for inputting the carbon profile data into the carbon calculator to return an estimate at step 424 ([0084]), 446 ([0087]), and 466 ([0090]))
and rendering, in the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of the first carbon emission estimate (see [0098] “the CAM enters the farmer's farm location at block 612 where the backend 303 may obtain climate insights and estimate emissions as described above in respect of FIGS. 4 and 5 before displaying those insights and estimates at block 614” for displaying the estimate. See [0101]-[0102] and [0046] for executing a computer program to perform the steps)
As discussed above, Cogan teaches the retrieval of farm financial data from a financial institution. However, Cogan does not explicitly teach the financial data retrieved from the financial institution being at least one of credit card transactions, debit account transactions, or credit memos. While Cogan teaches identifying carbon sources like fertilizer and supply information and inputting those carbon sources into the carbon calculation, Cogan does not explicitly teach that these carbon sources are identified through the at least one of credit card transactions, debit account transactions, or credit memos and the information from the at least one of credit card transactions, debit account transactions, or credit memos are input into the carbon calculation. Finally, while Cogan teaches that there are multiple carbon estimating techniques in Fig. 4 and further teaches future carbon emission estimates [0050] "The farm profile 900 highlights information pertinent to a particular one of the farms comprising the CAM's portfolio. The farm profile 900 of FIG. 9 comprises a pathways graph 902, which are various RCP scenarios for the farm in question", Cogan does not explicitly teach calculating and displaying a second carbon emission estimate based on levers for reducing emissions. Pepere teaches:
accessing, by a computer system comprising one or more processors, internal bank data representing at least one of credit card transactions, debit account transactions, or credit memos for one or more customers, wherein the internal bank data comprises a plurality of first data structures, wherein each of the first data structures comprises one or more fields representing the one or more customers, and defines one or more items purchased by the one or more customers (see Col. 3 lines 41-51 "Transactions or transactions data 4 may be received from computerized transaction data sources data such payment institutions 2, e.g. computer systems operated by banks, financial institutions, credit or debit card companies, mortgage services, rental payment services, and/or internet payment services, etc. Transactions 4 may be data items that include data in various suitable formats describing users' transactions and spending, e.g. credit card payments, checks, debit card payments, wire transfers, transfers to or from bank accounts, mortgage payments, direct transfers to vendors, etc.")
executing, by the computer system, one or more operations that use the internal bank data to identify sources of carbon emissions for a location of a farm corresponding to a first customer of the one or more customers, wherein identifying the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm comprises identifying at least one of (i) a fertilizer for the farm, (ii) farm supplies for the farm, (iii) electricity for the farm, or (iv) fossil fuels for the farm based on the first data structures (see Col. 4 lines 38-57 “Module 20 may receive, create, or have created carbon emissions impact data for the relevant merchants. For each incoming transaction 4, carbon footprint module 20 may receive carbon emissions impact data for the merchant associated with the transaction, and may post or send an event to communications platform 10 including details regarding the relevant transaction 4 along with carbon footprint data 6 for the relevant transaction, typically relevant to a particular user or consumer. Carbon footprint calculation microservice module 20 may derive from the currency amount associated with the transaction and the carbon emissions impact data for or associated with the merchant associated with the transaction a carbon emission value associated with the transaction. For example, carbon footprint calculation microservice module 20 may calculate the carbon emission value for each of the financial transactions made by a user in part based on the merchant of the transaction, from which a carbon value may be calculated for the dollar spent by the customer based on various data parameters” for identifying carbon emissions of transactions and see Col. 7 lines 59-65 for electricity and fuel usage. In combination with Cogan, the transactions and electricity and fuel usage would be identified from the farm financial data including the credit card transactions)
wherein at least some of the input elements represent the sources of carbon emissions for the location of the farm and are pre-populated with respective values based on at least one of the credit card transactions, the debit account transactions, and the credit memos (see Col. 10 lines 10-25 “In operation 210, a computer system may receive from a transaction data source (e.g. a computer system operated by a bank or clearing organization handling the transaction) a transaction data item describing the transaction, each transaction associated with the user, the merchant, and a transaction currency amount (e.g. $10, 5 Euros, etc.). The computer system may receive from a plurality of transaction data sources a number of data items describing transactions. In operation 220, the transaction may be enriched or have data added to it, such as carbon emissions data relevant to the merchant, or data which can be used to determine carbon emissions data for the merchant. While an MCC code is typically included with a transaction received from a provider, an MCC, and/or category and/or subcategory for the merchant may be added during enrichment” for the transaction data being automatically retrieved and enriched. In combination with Cogan’s auto-populated farm characteristics, the financial data of the farm would be automatically populated into the Cogan input form and enriched)
wherein the customer carbon profile data structure is generated to be compatible with a pre- determined carbon calculator and is populated with information regarding at least one of (i) the fertilizer for the farm, (ii) the farm supplies for the farm, (iii) the electricity for the farm, or (iv) the fossil fuels for the farm obtained from the first data structures (see Col. 4 lines 38-57 and Col. 7 lines 59-65 for identifying electricity and fuel use from the first data structures of transaction data. See Col. 10 lines 46-56 for the transactions from the first data structures being used to calculate carbon emission values. In combination with Cogan, the carbon sources from the transaction data are stored in the database as part of the carbon profile of the customer and used to calculate estimated carbon emissions)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of identifying carbon emission sources and quantities from credit/debit transaction information of Pepere to the system of Cogan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Pepere to the teaching of Cogan would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such identifying carbon emission sources and quantities from credit/debit transaction information. Further, applying identifying carbon emission sources and quantities from credit/debit transaction information to Cogan would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more efficient and accurate determination of a farm's carbon impact. As Pepere states in Col. 11 lines 5-12 "An embodiment may be integrated into a user's client online banking or credit card payment system or GUI, e.g. into a banking channel where their banking activity is available. The user may be provided with not just their financial information as is known but also carbon spend as discussed herein, e.g. total carbon footprint across all their financial activities such as credit, debit card transaction, all displayed in one place". By incorporating credit/debit carbon cost calculations into the financial information used to calculate the farm carbon emissions of Cogan, the resulting combination would have augmented financial information data that would result in a more complete carbon emission picture for the farm, as purchases and expenditures would be considered alongside the day-to- day farming operations.
The combination of Cogan and Pepere still does not explicitly teach calculating and displaying a second carbon emission estimate based on levers for reducing emissions. Ashtekar teaches:
determining, by the computer system, one or more second carbon emission estimates for the location of the farm based on one or more levers for reducing an emission of carbon at the location of the farm (see Fig. 6 and [0100]-[0115] for calculating a baseline carbon emission estimate and an estimate assuming regenerative growing practices. In combination with Cogan, the Cogan calculation would be the “baseline” with the regenerative practices of Ashtekar being the levers for reducing an emission)
and rendering, in the graphical user interface, a graphical representation of the first carbon emission estimate and the one or more second carbon emission estimates (see [0164] “the display 1300 shows a baseline management practices total carbon footprint for the parcel of 1,112 pounds of CO2E along with values of the four component employed by the CO2E sequestration server 130, 1000 to generate the footprint. The display 1300 also shows a regenerative management practices total carbon footprint for the parcel of 949 pounds of CO2E along with values of the four component employed by the CO2E sequestration server 130, 1000 to generate the footprint. The display 1300 further lists the regenerative management practices to which the parcel owner has been incentivized to implement”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the calculation and display of an estimated carbon emissions under regenerative growing practices of Ashtekar into the combination of Cogan and Pepere. As Ashtekar states in [0004] “Growers (individual farmers to conglomerates) want to make a profit, but they are also motivated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their farms, particularly if these reductions will result in increases in productivity and sustainable production over time. Yet, because reductions in carbon footprints are hard to estimate, they tend to implement well known regenerative practices such as crop rotation and cover cropping, and they forego more forward looking regenerative practices such as low-till/low-till, low nitrogen content fertilization, etc., primarily because the carbon footprint impact of most regenerative agricultural management practices cannot be accurately determined. In addition, growers may be subject to acceptance of lower-priced incentives to implement regenerative management practices simply because of this accuracy problem” and [0006] “Therefore, what is needed are automated methods and systems that enable growers and carbon credit purchasers to correctly determine the carbon footprint of a field under the grower's current (“baseline”) management practices and to accurately predict the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions associated with implementation of one or more regenerative practices”. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by incorporating the calculation and display of estimated carbon reduction using regenerative growing practices of Ashtekar into the display of a current estimate of emissions of Cogan, the combined system would allow the farm to determine what practices (or levers, as the current claims state) would be useful for the farm to lower its emissions.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Cogan further teaches:
receiving inputs that update sources of carbon emissions (see [0085] "If activity data already exists for the client in the system database 312, the activity data is updated (blocks 432 and 436)" and [0063] "Score 3 uses specific crop information (e.g., crop activity of a farmer, such as acres farmed and yield, taking into account different types of crops the farmer may plant on their farm)" for receiving updates on the crop type/acres farmed)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 above. Cogan further teaches:
applying the received inputs to the internal bank data, the estimate of the total area under cultivation, and the estimate of the crop mix to provide carbon emission estimates (see [0063] "Score 3 uses specific crop information (e.g., crop activity of a farmer, such as acres farmed and yield, taking into account different types of crops the farmer may plant on their farm) that the farmer may provide via the data input form 306, such as the information requested in FIG. 10B...For all of scores 2, 3, and 4, the farm's financial information as obtained from the FI database 314 is also used" and [0085]-[0087] for applying the updated crop activity inputs, including the area under cultivation and crop mix from [0063], with the internal financial data to update/determine carbon emission estimates)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Cogan further teaches:
wherein the provided carbon emission estimates and the estimate of the crop mix are packaged in a customer carbon profile data structure (see [0085] "If activity data already exists for the client in the system database 312, the activity data is updated (blocks 432 and 436); alternatively, if activity data isn't already in the system database 312, it is inserted into the system database 312 (blocks 432 and 434)" and [0087] "If an emissions estimate determined in accordance with score 3 is already in the system database 312, the score is updated (blocks 440 and 444); alternatively, if an emissions estimate determined in accordance with score 3 isn't already in the system database 312, the score is inserted into the system database 312 (blocks 440 and 442)" for the carbon emission estimates and activity being packaged in the database 312 for the farm client. "Activity" as per [0063] "Score 3 uses specific crop information (e.g., crop activity of a farmer, such as acres farmed and yield, taking into account different types of crops the farmer may plant on their farm)" includes crop mix)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 above. Cogan further teaches:
wherein data from the customer carbon profile data structure are rendered in the graphical user interface (see Fig. 9 and [0050] "The frontend 302 may also comprise a farm profile 900, as shown in FIG. 9. The farm profile 900 highlights information pertinent to a particular one of the farms comprising the CAM's portfolio. The farm profile 900 of FIG. 9 comprises a pathways graph 902, which are various RCP scenarios for the farm in question; tailored weather information 904, which comprises weather information specific to the farm's location; practice insights 906, which provide recommended farming practices and costs tailored to the farm's location; and climate insights 908, which provide farm location-specific weather information and forecasts" for displaying data of a customer carbon profile data structure in a user interface)
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 above. Cogan further teaches:
wherein the graphical user interface depicts crops planted and acreage planted for the crops (see Fig. 10B, [0063] "Score 3 uses specific crop information (e.g., crop activity of a farmer, such as acres farmed and yield, taking into account different types of crops the farmer may plant on their farm) that the farmer may provide via the data input form 306, such as the information requested in FIG. 10B" and [0100] "the system 300 may automatically populate some of the data required for carbon estimation by leveraging satellite imagery (e.g., crop type; tillage practices, farm area), the weather API 316 (environmental data), and/or by applying natural language processing to the CAMs' annual reports" for the automatically populated interface depicting types of crops planted and areas of each crop planted)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above. While Cogan teaches an interface with average emissions in Fig. 8 element 804 and different crop production entries in Fig. 10B, and while Pepere teaches categories of transactions in Figs. 4 and 5, the combination of Cogan and Pepere does not explicitly teach the graphical user interface further depicting a breakdown of carbon emissions by source. Ashtekar teaches:
wherein the graphical user interface further depicts a breakdown of carbon emission by source (see [0164] “the display 1300 shows a baseline management practices total carbon footprint for the parcel of 1,112 pounds of CO2E along with values of the four component employed by the CO2E sequestration server 130, 1000 to generate the footprint. The display 1300 also shows a regenerative management practices total carbon footprint for the parcel of 949 pounds of CO2E along with values of the four component employed by the CO2E sequestration server 130, 1000 to generate the footprint” for displaying a total carbon emission and 4 component value that are used to generate the footprint. See [0102]-[0104] and [0106] for the four components including fertilizer and fuel usage)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a breakdown of carbon emission by source in a graphical user interface as taught by Ashtekar in the combination of Cogan and Pepere, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Specifically, as Cogan and Pepere already identify carbon emission sources and transactions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to display the emissions from the sources of Cogan and Pepere in a graphical user interface.
Regarding claim 8, Cogan teaches:
A computer system comprises: one or more processors; memory storing computer instructions for causing the one or more processor to (see Fig. 2 and [0046] "Referring now to FIG. 2, there is depicted an example embodiment of one of the servers 108 that comprises the data center 106. The server comprises a processor 202 that controls the server's 108 overall operation. The processor 202 is communicatively coupled to and controls several subsystems. These subsystems comprise...random access memory (“RAM”) 206, which stores computer program code for execution at runtime by the processor 202; non-volatile storage 208, which stores the computer program code executed by the RAM 206 at runtime...The non-volatile storage 208 has stored on it computer program code that is loaded into the RAM 206 at runtime and that is executable by the processor 202. When the computer program code is executed by the processor 202, the processor 202 causes the server 108 to implement a method for agricultural greenhouse gas estimation such as is described in more detail in respect of FIG. 6 below")
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 9, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 9 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 10, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 11, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 12, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 12 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 13, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 15, Cogan teaches:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising (see [0101] "The processor used in the foregoing embodiments may comprise, for example, a processing unit (such as a processor, microprocessor, or programmable logic controller) or a microcontroller (which comprises both a processing unit and a non-transitory computer readable medium)...an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), field programmable gate array (FPGA), system-on-a-chip (SoC), or other suitable type of hardware implementation may be used as an alternative to or to supplement an implementation that relies primarily on a processor executing computer program code stored on a computer medium")
Regarding the remaining limitations of claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 16, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 16 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 17, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 18, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 19, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 above. Regarding the limitations introduced in claim 20, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cogan in view of Pepere, Ashtekar, and Padmanaban et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0107533, hereafter known as Padmanaban).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 above. However, the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar does not explicitly teach the computer system being linked to a service application in a cloud computing platform. Padmanaban teaches:
wherein the computer system is linked to a service application in a cloud computing platform (see Fig. 7 and [0042] "software implementing the techniques depicted in FIG. 5 can be provided as a service in a cloud environment" and [0081] "illustrative cloud computing environment 50 is depicted. As shown, cloud computing environment 50 includes one or more cloud computing nodes 10 with which local computing devices used by cloud consumers...This allows cloud computing environment 50 to offer infrastructure, platforms and/or software as services for which a cloud consumer does not need to maintain resources on a local computing device". Also see [0085] "these resources may include application software licenses. Security provides identity verification for cloud consumers and tasks, as well as protection for data and other resources. User portal 83 provides access to the cloud computing environment for consumers and system administrators")
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of a cloud computing environment of Padmanaban for the generic computing system of the combination of Cogan, Pepere, and Ashtekar.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Normand et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0207552) teaches determining environmental emissions based on financial transaction data
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights