DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the Preliminary Amendment filed on 07/18/2024.
Claims 1, 6 have been amended.
Claims 3, 8 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
The IDS received on 12/12/2023 and 06/12/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are presented for examination.
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 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements for “an indicator calculation rule for calculating an indicator to evaluate a project, the indicator calculation rule describing information indicating a basis for a method of calculating the indicator, a data collection rule for collecting data used to calculate the indicator, and operation information on a subject facility of the project, and the indicator based on the indicator calculation rule, for which the approval is received, and the collected data.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people because the elements describe a data audit that collected data. Further, the elements above recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that could be practically performed in the mind or by using pen and paper. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 1 and 6 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 1 and 6 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 further describe the process for selecting and viewing organizational information and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity and/ mental processes for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a processor, a memory and processor. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the a processor, a memory and processor amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for gathering information is an insignificant extra solution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims1 and 6 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 6 further includes a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium and a processor, and claim 6 further includes a processor and memory, the additional element, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1 and 6 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computer readable medium and a processor and a step for a data audit. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements the computing device amounts to no more than a general computing component that is used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step for a data audit is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2105.06(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 1 and 6 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 8 further includes a computer program product residing on a computer readable medium and a processor, and claim 15 further includes a processor and memory, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional elements amount to no more than general computing components that are used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4-5, 7 and 9-10 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cella et al. “US 2021/0342836 A1” (Cella).
Regarding Claim 1: A data audit system comprising:
a processor; and a memory, wherein the memory retains (at least see Cella Abstract; Fig. 1; [0025]; Note: [0025] .. the blockchain for knowledge system can also facilitate third parites reviewing, auditing, or verifying information related to digital knowledge”)
an indicator calculation rule for calculating an indicator to evaluate a project, the indicator calculation rule describing information indicating a basis for a method of calculating the indicator (at least see Cella Abstract; Fig. 1; [0225] and [0475]; Note: [0025] .. evaluation of compliance ..”),
a data collection rule for collecting data used to calculate the indicator (at least see Cella [0475]; Note: ... content is customized using artificial intelligence based on the attributes of the facility ”) , and
operation information on a subject facility of the project, and the processor (at least see Cella [0475] … content … relating to the project or activity to which the facility relates.”)
receives approval information indicating that approval is received from a third party for the indicator calculation rule and the data collection rule (at least see Cella [0453] and [0477] …facility manager, may approve the generated content provided by the content generation system and/or make edits to the generated content;),
collects, based on the data collection rule for which the approval is received, the data used to calculate the indicator from the operation information (at least see Cella [0475] … Content … relating to the project or activity to which the facility relates.”), and
calculates the indicator based on the indicator calculation rule, for which the approval is received, and the collected data (at least see Cella [0225] … evaluation of compliance of the borrower or lender to the loan terms).
Regarding Claim 2: The data audit system according to claim 1, wherein the approval information includes information indicating an approver who approves the indicator calculation rule, and the processor generates data for displaying information indicating the calculated indicator, the indicator calculation rule used to calculate the indicator, and the approver who approves the indicator calculation rule (at least see Cella [0833] …In further examples, the wearable device displays financial that is used to identify targets for alteration or optimization).
Regarding Claim 4: The data audit system according to claim 1, wherein the project is a subject project of ESG investment, the memory retains management information on a subject office of the project, and the processor collects, based on the data collection rule for which the approval is received, the data used to calculate the indicator from the operation information and the management information (at least see Cella [0581] … digital twins may represent … renewable energy production organizations).
Regarding Claim 5: The data audit system according to claim 1, wherein the memory retains information indicating a case of the indicator and an aggregation period of the data used to calculate the indicator, the operation information indicates an operation period of the subject facility, the data collection rule indicates a collection subject period of the data used to calculate the indicator, and the processor collects, from the operation information and in the period indicated by the data collection rule for which the approval is received, the data used to calculate the indicator, specifies, based on the aggregation period indicated by the case and a period corresponding to the calculated indicator, an indicator of a similar case corresponding to the calculated indicator, and compares the indicator of the similar case with the calculated indicator to calculate a reliability degree of the calculated indicator (at least see Cella [0215] … “The term financial condition … describes a current status of an entity’s assets, liabilities, and equity positions at a defined point or period in time”).
Regarding Claims 6, and 9-10: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 12 and 4-5.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon, which is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are cited in the Notice of Reference Cited form (PT0-892).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FATEH M OBAID whose telephone number is (571)270-7121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 A.M to 4:30 P.M.
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, Ryan Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/FATEH M OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627