DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 28 October 2025.
Claims 1 – 7, 9 – 13, and 15 are pending and have been examined; claims 8 and 14 have been cancelled by Applicant.
This action has been made FINAL.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 28 October 2025, have overcome the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 October 2025have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “Applicant respectfully submits claim 1 as amended applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that claim 1 is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Specifically, claim 1 as amended recites, for example, "receive certification declaration information from a carbon neutral entity via a certification declaration interface provided by the certification system" and "send the certification result to a display interface provided by the certification system to display the certification result on the display interface". Such limitations are not the judicial exception because the claimed solution relates to a user interface presented by, for example, a display of the certification system, and the interface is capable of receiving input from the entity. These limitations also use the purported judicial exception in a meaningful way (i.e., presenting the interface to the entity and acquiring input from the entity). Hence, it concerns a practical application concerning human-machine interaction.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits the amended claim 1 integrates the purported abstract idea into a practical application and thereby passes Prong Two of Step 2A. Consequently, claim 1 as amended is not directed to a judicial exception even if it recites the judicial exception as purported in the Office Action”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the limitations also use the purported judicial exception in a meaningful way, however receiving data and transmitting data are not elements that use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e). Turning to Applicant’s specification, the “declaration interface” is discussed in paragraphs [0053] and [0107], and they merely state “The information reception unit 11 may provide a carbon neutral certification declaration interface to the carbon neutral entity, to achieve an interaction between the certification system for carbon neutrality and the carbon neutral entity” and “In an embodiment, a carbon neutral certification declaration interface may be provided to the carbon neutral entity, to achieve an interaction between the certification system for carbon neutrality and the carbon neutral entity”. Further, the claimed “display the certification result on the display interface”, while not explicitly described in Applicant’s specification (noting that the term ‘display interface’ does not actually appear in Applicant’s disclosure), is somewhat discussed in paragraphs [0046], [0075], [0076], [0101], [0122], [0123]; these paragraphs merely describe displaying the certification visually.
Providing a way or interface for data to be submitted into a system is not significantly more nor does it provide for a practical application. Nor does displaying said data. Having a way for data to be entered into a system, either internally or externally, and having an interface to visually display data, do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim, as is all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, a way for the input for the data to be received and displayed. As such, these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant further argues that “In addition, the claimed solution achieves an advantageous effect that self-checking is performed on the certification declaration information, the carbon emission data, the activity information and the offset information, thus the data may be checked earlier, which is beneficial to improve the efficiency of carbon neutral certification. Thus, claim 1 passes Step 2B, provided that it fails to pass Prong Two of Step 2A”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As shown below, the self-checking limitation is considered to be a mental process, and as such can not amount to significantly more or an integration into a practical application. Assuming arguendo that even if the self-checking were considered to be an additional element, this merely provides for an improvement to the concept of the certification of carbon neutrality, and does not provide for any integration into a practical application such as any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2104(d).
The 35 USC 101 of the amended claims is maintained.
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 – 7, 9 – 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Exemplary independent claim 10 recites the limitations of:
receiving the certification declaration information from the carbon neutral entity via the certification declaration interface provided by the certification system, and determining the carbon emission data and the activity information of the carbon neutral entity based on the certification declaration information of the carbon neutral entity, [i.e., collecting data];
performing the residual carbon emission offset operation based on the carbon emission data of the carbon neutral entity and generating the offset information [i.e., analyzing collected data];
performing the self-checking on the certification declaration information, the carbon emission data, the activity information and the offset information [i.e., analyzing collected data];
determining the certification result of the carbon neutral entity based on the self-checked certification declaration information, carbon emission data, activity information and offset information in combination with the carbon neutral certification standard [i.e., analyzing collected data],
and sending the certification result to the display interface provided by the certification system to display the certification result on the display interface [i.e., transmitting and displaying data]; and
storing the data generated by the carbon neutral entity during the carbon neutral certification to share the data, [i.e., saving the results of the data collection and analysis].
These limitations (bolded and italicized), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the analysis of collected information to determine a carbon neutrality certification, but for the recitation of generic computer components. These limitations encompass performing evaluation, judgment, and opinion to make a determination regarding a carbon neutrality certification, which is can be practically performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim recites the additional elements of: receiving the certification declaration information from the carbon neutral entity via the certification declaration interface provided by the certification system, however this step of collecting information is recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g); determining the carbon emission data and the activity information of the carbon neutral entity based on the certification declaration information of the carbon neutral entity, by the carbon emission determination module, and storing the data generated by the carbon neutral entity during the carbon neutral certification to share the data, by the database module; however these steps of collecting and storing information are recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g); sending the certification result to the display interface provided by the certification system to display the certification result on the display interface
Claim 1 recites the additional limitations of one or more processors, however these are merely the transmitting and displaying of data, and also amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g); and a certification declaration interface, however this is recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to a computer element that receives data, and amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claim 1 recites the additional limitations of a memory configured to store one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs, when executed by the one or more processors, however these are recited at a high level of generality, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, however this is recited at a high level of generality, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO, Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or the recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions previously known to the industry1 [e.g. performing repetitive calculations; receiving, processing, and storing data; electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document; electronic recordkeeping; automating mental tasks; receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data] .
Applicant’s specification, at, e.g., paragraphs [0147]-[0156], provides evidence of generic computer hardware performing generic, well-known, computer functions.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation2. (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Bai; Bo et al. US 20240193684 A1 Method and System for Trading Assets and Their Carbon Footprint Status
Arsiwala; Hozaifa US 20090157534 A1 Environmental Offset Trading Platform And Method
Margolis; Josh et al. US 20150235315 A1 Methods And Systems For Combining Securities And Carbon Credits
Robinson; Stephen M. US 8103556 B2 Apparatus and method for selling greenhouse gas emission reduction credits
Hamilton, II; Rick A. et al. US 9665907 B2 Automated transactional carbon offsetting
Campbell; Eleanor Elizabeth et al. US 11880894 B2 Systems and methods for ecosystem credit recommendations
Ben-Hamida; Mondhar et al. US 8346595 B2 Carbon management for sourcing and logistics
Xie; Fengyi et al. US 11328361 B2 System and method for carbon emissions exposure determination
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 “It is well-settled that mere recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise abstract idea. Rather, the components must involve more than performance of “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294)”. Id, pages 10-11. “Likewise, the server fails to add an inventive concept because it is simply a generic computer that “administer[ s]” digital images using a known “arbitrary data bank system.” Id. at col. 5 ll. 45–46. But “[f]or the role of a computer in a computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347–48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2359). “These steps fall squarely within our precedent finding generic computer components insufficient to add an inventive concept to an otherwise abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1348 (“storing information” into memory, and using a computer to “translate the shapes on a physical page into typeface characters,” insufficient confer patent eligibility); Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 (a “database” and “a communication medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”)”. TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive L.L.C., (No. 15-1372, (Fed. Cir. May 17, 2016)), at *12-13.
See additionally MPEP 2106.05(d).
2 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).