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
1. This is a nonfinal rejection in response to claims filed on 04/22/2024. Claims 1 and 2 are pending and are examined herein.
Priority
2. The present application was filed on 04/22/2024. This is also the earliest effective filing date of the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/22/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites the limitation "the communal preservation space" in at least line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no mention of a “communal preservation space” in the scope of the claims, the applicant may correct this issue by changing the first mention of this limitation to read “a communal preservation space” instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it recites a system without structural components such as a computer, processor etc. This fails at step 1 because it does not fall under any of “Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter” because there are no hardware or structural components. However, as there are no hardware or structural components in the specification as originally filed, it is suggested that claim 2 be amended to recite a process claim instead. The claims are analyzed under the full 2 step process for compact prosecution purposes.
6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claim 2 is a system claim treated as if it recites the potentially eligible subject matter category of “method” or “machine” and is therefore further analyzed under step 2.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
Claim 2 recites:
- A system, comprising communicating, by one or more processes, awareness of the communal preservation space, solidifying, by one or more processes, partnerships for the communal preservation space, and controlling, by one or more processes, the operations of the communal preservation space for sustainment.
The entirety of the claim is a recitation of an abstract idea under the category “certain methods of organizing human activity” outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), which includes fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); The steps of communicating awareness, solidifying partnerships, and controlling operations, when recited as generally as it recited in its plain language is merely an example of commercial interactions since it is a business relation. Furthermore, the claims are also managing interactions between the parties, and are reciting fundamental economic practices such as solidifying investment in a space. As outlined in the background of the specification, “According to another implementation of the present invention, a system for facilitating financial support to enhance operation is provided. Specifically, this system begins by communicating to enhance awareness of the communal preservation space. Next, the system solidifies partnerships for the communal preservation space. Next, the system controls the operations of the communal preservation space for sustainment.” Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Prong 2 brings to question whether there are additional elements apart from the abstract idea that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. However, since the entire claim is part of the abstract idea, there are no additional elements to consider. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application. For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner finds that the specification does not provide any structural components that can act as additional elements. Even if the claim is recited as a method, the same findings would be true, that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Similarly, step 2B brings to question whether there are additional elements that amount to significantly more. Since there are no additional elements, significantly more has not been found. Even when considering the claims as a whole, nothing in the claims amounts to significantly more. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
7. 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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by David R. Tilley (US 20240273583 A1) hereinafter Tilley.
Tilley discloses methods and apparatuses for providing sustainability and equity programs through Environmental, Social, and Governance sponsors who fund maintenance and operation. Tilley teaches:
A system, comprising communicating, by one or more processes, awareness of the communal preservation space, (Tilley [0017] The present invention addresses limitations faced by ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) focused organizations in implementing in-house programs that promote sustainability and equity, particularly when their operations are not directly linked to affected communities. To foster a more substantial and widespread impact, the invention offers a verifiable and publicly transparent ESG-sponsorship program...The website shares narratives about the positive influence of the green shelter alongside the corresponding dashboard data, enhancing public awareness and appreciation for both the shelter's benefits and the sponsor's contributions to sustainability and social equity. [0024] The infrastructure will include environmentally sustainable shelters with integrated green roofs, living canopies, and solar panels. [0027] The method could also provide an ESG sponsorship model that is adaptable to a variety of public infrastructures including but not limited to parks, green infrastructure, street tree canopies, public benches, and community gardens.) In view of the paragraph above, Tilley teaches the limitation because it provides a website to promote public awareness of the shelter. In Tilley, the shelter is mapped to the communal preservation space since it communal in that is accessible to the community, and it is preservation space in that it preserves the environment [0041]. This shelter is substitutable for other public infrastructures such as parks, green infrastructure, and community gardens, which all also fall under the scope of communal preservation space.
-solidifying, by one or more processes, partnerships for the communal preservation space, and (Tilley [0067] Identification and Recruitment of Potential ESG Sponsors: The list of potential ESG Sponsors 401 includes multinational corporations, small and medium sized businesses, especially local businesses, philanthropic foundations, and other organizations and enterprises that have robust ESG Programs and who recognize how purchasing an ESG Sponsorship will benefit their mission. [0068] Recruitment 401 includes describing how the ESG Sponsorship model works and explaining the environmental, social and marketing benefits that stem from an ESG Sponsorship to persuade the points of contact and owners of the entities that participation is valuable to them, the environment and communities.) Recruitment of sponsors to fund the green spaces, as taught by Tilley is an example of solidifying partnerships, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the instant specification page 5, covers the reception of funding from sponsorships to operate the preservation space.
-controlling, by one or more processes, the operations of the communal preservation space for sustainment. (Tilley [0024] This application details a method for funding public infrastructure through Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) sponsorship. This method includes identifying and engaging potential ESG sponsors and providing public recognition of the sponsors’ contributions through physical acknowledgments on the sponsored infrastructure and on publicly accessible websites. A portion of the received sponsorship funds will be used for the maintenance and operation of said infrastructure. The infrastructure will include environmentally sustainable shelters with integrated green roofs, living canopies, and solar panels. [0066] In overview the ESG Sponsorship Business Model (“ESG Sponsorship”) is an integrated physical and digital platform that allows ESG-focused entities, such as corporations and foundations, to sponsor the purchase and/or on-going maintenance of a Green Shelter in return for their participation being communicated to the public in both local and global communication channels. [0080] Alignment with Community Needs: Through careful analysis and community engagement, the invention ensures that the siting, construction, and maintenance of shelters align with the specific needs and priorities of HUN, moving beyond the limitations of conventional shelter advertising models. [0056] Rainwater Harvesting and Stormwater Management: An advanced novelty of the invention is the smart water harvesting and management system FIG. 3 which is used to manage water storage in the cistern and supplement the live plants’ demand for water beyond what is available from rainfall. The programmed algorithm on the controller is used to determine when water stored in the cistern should be pumped up to the engineered soil for plant uptake or wasted to the environment in preparation for an impending storm event.) Tilley teaches the limitation since the funding is used to operate and maintain the green spaces, thereby providing sustainment. A direct example of the operations being “controlled” is found in [0056] which teaches a rainwater management system with a “controller” to determine whether actions should be taken to sustain the space.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
9. 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 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.
10. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over The Memorial Park Running Complex (https://web.archive.org/web/20240119135630/https://www.memorialparkconservancy.org/discover/master-plan/running-complex/ ) hereinafter Memorial Park, in view of William Scott (US 20140228138 A1) hereinafter Scott.
Memorial Park discloses a running complex with a 400-meter running track, with ecologically conscious features both around the central area and surrounding the track itself. Memorial Park teaches: -A running track, (Memorial Park [0001] The Running Complex is a major programmatic hub and access point on the south side of Memorial Park... With amenities including the 400-meter Roy H. Cullen Timing Track, [0005] The timing track is a 400-meter track nestled among nature on the south side of Memorial Park. It features five lanes for runners and walkers. )
-comprising a central area used for conservation efforts (Memorial Park [0009] The Roy H. Cullen Timing Track is designed with Memorial Park’s urban wilderness at heart. Native plants and trees soften the view-lines and provide an immersive nature experience for seasoned runners and casual walkers alike. A series of stretching decks along the eastern stretch of the track are an inviting spot to roll out a yoga mat, enjoy a book or bite to eat, or take a seat and enjoy the sun-dappled shade trees. The Running Complex exhibits a variety of native planting types – from open savanna patches to shrubby reforested areas to pocket meadows – seeking to provide cover and forage for a variety of creatures while also making beautiful spaces to not only exercise but, also, for animals to dwell.) As described in the paragraph above, the timing track includes conservation efforts such as native plants and reforested trees. As evident in the photo labelled “Photo by Nick Hubbard,” the mentioned plants and trees are located both in the central area of the running track as well as the surrounding area. Therefore, the limitation has been taught.
-a running path which forms an oval-shaped imprint around the central area used for conservation efforts and (Memorial Park [0005] The timing track is a 400-meter track nestled among nature on the south side of Memorial Park. It features five lanes for runners and walkers. The track’s surface is an impermeable polyurethane and synthetic rubber composite. To maintain the quality of the track, metal spikes are not permitted.) As evident in the “Photo by Nick Hubbard” the described track is an oval-shaped imprint surrounding the central area used for conservation efforts.
-includes an inner and outer edge extension paths extending from the running path to an entrance (Memorial Park [See “Photo by Nick Hubbard” ) This limitation, in view of the specification(Figure B/Page 4, Paragraph 1) of the instant specification, refers to the line extending from the tracks to the entrance point. As seen in the “photo by Nick Hubbard” and compared to the drawings from the instant specification, the Memorial Park includes these features.
However, Memorial Park fails to teach or disclose:
-fencing surrounding the running track.
Alternatively, Scott discloses a self-contained triathlon complex with environmental features and a fencing surrounding the track. Scott discloses: -fencing surrounding the running track.(Scott [0016] In the practice of the present invention, a permanent, compact, integrated facility is constructed that includes swimming, biking and running tracks in close proximity to each other, permanent stadium seating adjacent the tracks, and a fence or other access barrier with a controlled access gate surrounding the tracks and stadiums.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Memorial Park by adding fencing surrounding the running track as taught by Scott. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine as it would result in the predictable outcome and benefit of limiting and controlling access to the complex. (Scott [0016]) This motivation is relevant to Memorial Park since Memorial Park teaches in [0004] “Timing track hours are from 5:00a.m. – 9:00p.m. daily. The track is for pedestrian use only. Dogs are not allowed on the track, and metal spikes are not permitted.” Fencing as taught by Scott would enable Memorial Park to enforce these rules by controlling access.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Orr et al. (US 5818737 A) discloses an electronic general plan for a municipality including building cross-relationships between environmental concerns, preservation, economic baselines, etc and utilizing the data for presentation purposes to staff or public meetings to simulate and portray the potential scenarios in development.
-Mark E. Vande Pol (US 20030014342 A1) discloses a free-market management system to raise funds for environmental and public projects by partnering with developers, and regulating capitalistic behaviors.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626