DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 04/27/2026.
Claims 1 and 6 have been amended.
Claims 3, 5, 8 and 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
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, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 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, 7, 9 and 11-14 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, 7, 9 and 11-14 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, 7, 9 and 11-14 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4, 7, 9 and 11-14 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4, 7, 9 and 11-14 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, claim 6 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 6 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 1 and 6 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2, 4, 7, 9 and 11-14 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2, 4, 7, 9 and 11-14 depend. As a result, claims 2, 4, 7, 9 and 11-14 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, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella et al. “US 2021/0342836 A1” (Cella) in view of Yan et al. “US 2022/0343433 A1” (Yan).
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),
wherein the memory retains information indicating a case of the indicator and an aggregation period of the data used to calculate the indicator (at least see Cella [0207] and [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”),
Cella disclose the claimed invention but fails to explicitly discloses the following:
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 (at least Yan Abstract; Fig. 2; [0059]), 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 (at least Yan Abstract; Fig. 3; [0100]),
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,
compares the indicator of the similar case with the calculated indicator (at least Yan Abstract; Fig. 1; [0132] and [0157]), and
determines that a reliability degree is low when it is determined that a difference between the calculated indicator and the indicator of the similar case is larger than a predetermined value (at least Yan Abstract; Fig. 3; [0174] and [0216]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made (Pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA FITF) to use Yan’s teachings in Cella’s enabled, for the advantage of technique for developing an ESG rankings dataset and generating an ESG score for a business.
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 11: The data audit system according to claim 1, wherein the processor stores information indicating the reliability degree of the calculated indicator in indicator information, and generates data for displaying the calculated indicator together with the reliability degree.
Regarding Claim 13: The data audit system according to claim 1, wherein the memory further retains, for the indicator calculation rule and the data collection rule, at least one of a signature value of a signer, a signature value certifying approval by the third party, or a time-stamp certifying that the indicator calculation rule and the data collection rule have not been tampered with after the approval is received.
Regarding Claims 6, 9, 12 and 14: all limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claims 1-2, 4, 11 and 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, the Applicant argues in substance:
Argument:
On the present record, the amended claims recite a specific technological solution implemented within the claimed data audit architecture, not merely the use of a generic computer to perform a longstanding human practice. Applicant therefore respectfully submits that claims 1 and 6, and claims 2, 4, 7, and 9 depending therefrom, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The amendments of the claims is using a memory and/or processor to use the information to be able to data mining and using the data to present in a dashboard, consideration of these steps as a combination does not change the analysis as they do not add anything compared to when the steps are considered separately, and performance of these steps technologically does not present a meaningful limit to the scope of the claim which would amount to significantly more. . These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see [0027-0028]). Although these additional computer-related elements are recited, claims 1 and 21 merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). : The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05. The claims are silent regarding concrete structures and practical application and do not add more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, at least claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, and 11-14 should have been rejected under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights