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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s “Amendment” filed on 05/04/2026 has been considered.
Claims 8, 10, 11, 13-15,and 17-20 are amended. Claim 9 is canceled. Claims 21-28 are added. Claims 8 and 10-28 remain pending in this application and an action on the merits follow.
Applicant’s response by virtue of amendment to claims has not overcome the Examiner’s rejection under 35 USC § 101.
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 8, 10-28 are rejected under 35 USC 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because claims 8 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 9, 10-16 and 18-28 fail to remedy these deficiencies.
The claims 8 and 17 recite obtaining a machine-readable carbon protocol for a build, certifying a building material resource supplier of a building material resource for the build, verifying provenance of the building material resource, scanning an identification code, confirming compliant sourcing of the building material resource and accuracy of carbon activity representations, reading the machine-readable carbon protocol, receiving, by the build auditing computer system, building material resource delivery data, the confirmed compliant building material resource provenance data, building material resource consumption data, building material resource variance data, and a showing of authority to create a carbon easement and execute a carbon-based asset creation agreement (CABACA), generating an audit report, opening a CBA building session; receiving input of a carbon-based asset creation agreement (CABACA) for creation of a marketable CBA security, a specification for an easement, and an audit report to create the CBA; assessing the CABACA, easement, and audit report against the machine-readable carbon protocol; creating the carbon-based asset for the one or more building material resources passing the assessment; comparing the CABACA, easement, and audit report to machine-readable rules specified in the machine-readable carbon protocol in a structured document format, determining compliance, identifying any shortcoming in the assessed CABACA, easement, and audit report, and creating a marketable CBA security from the carbon-based asset.
The claims 8 and 17 recite certifying, verifying, confirming, comparing, determining, and identifying as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a multi-module carbon-based asset (CBA) registry, one or more processors, a scanner, and a build auditing computer system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the multi-module carbon-based asset (CBA) registry, the one or more processors, the scanner, and the building auditing computer system” language, “certifying, verifying, confirming, comparing, determining, and identifying” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually certifies a building material resource supplier, verifies provenance of the building material resource, confirms compliance sourcing and accuracy of carbon activity, compares the CABACA, easement, and audit report to machine-readable rules in a structured document format, determines compliance, identifies any shortcoming in the assessed CABACA, easement, and audit report. 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.
Claims 8 and 17 recite scanning, generating, opening, assessing, and creating steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing personal behaviors, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the multi-module carbon-based asset (CBA) registry, the one or more processors, the scanner, and the building auditing computer system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by managing personal behaviors. For example, but for “the multi-module carbon-based asset (CBA) registry, the one or more processors, the scanner, and the building auditing computer system” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually scans an identification code, generates/forms an audit report, opens/creates a CBA building project/session, assesses the CABACA, easement, and audit report against a carbon protocol, creates the carbon-based asset for a building material, and creates a marketable CBA security. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing personal behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because obtaining, reading, and receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining a carbon protocol, reading the carbon protocol, and receiving data) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of obtaining, certifying, verifying, scanning, confirming, reading, receiving, generating, opening, assessing, comparing, determining, identifying, and creating in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the multi-module carbon-based asset (CBA) registry, the one or more processors, the scanner, and the building auditing computer system are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform obtaining, certifying, verifying, scanning, confirming, reading, receiving, generating, opening, assessing, comparing, determining, identifying, and creating steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 8 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 8 and 17 do 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 using the multi-module carbon-based asset (CBA) registry, the one or more processors, the scanner, and the building auditing computer system to perform obtaining, certifying, verifying, scanning, confirming, reading, receiving, generating, opening, assessing, comparing, determining, identifying, and creating steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 8 and 17 are not patent eligible.
The claims 10, and 18 recite adding, receiving, and changing steps.
Claims 10, and 18 recite adding, receiving, and changing steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing personal behaviors, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a CBA registry, a carbon-based asset database, a records database, and a user database”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by organizing personal behaviors. For example, but for “the CBA registry, the carbon-based asset database, the records database, and the user database” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually adds/records the CBA, receives a new owner cryptographic token/identification, and changes the ownership record. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing personal behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of adding, receiving, and changing steps in a computer environment. The claimed computer component such as t the CBA registry, the carbon-based asset database, the records database, and the user database are recited at a high level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform adding, receiving, and changing steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 10, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 10, and 18 do 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 using the CBA registry, the carbon-based asset database, the records database, and the user database to perform adding, receiving, and changing steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 10, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Claims 11, 12, 16, 19, and 26-28 disclose insignificant helpful content to further describe content, such as the CBA is implemented as a data object, a list for the data object, the data objects are immutable, the security is a debit instrument/a carbon right via pooled CBAs, the identification code is applied to the building material resource/a packaging or container, and a cryptographic identification token or tamper-resistant seal can be scanned, which are merely descriptive content to further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 11, 12, 16, 19, and 26-28 are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because descriptive content in claims 11, 12, 16, 19, and 26-28 further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 11, 12, 16, 19, and 26-28 are directed to an abstract idea.
There are no additional claim element limitations recited in the claims 11, 12, 16, 19, and 26-28. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 11, 12, 16, 19, and 26-28 are not patent eligible.
The claims 13-15, 20, and 23 recite triggering a processing to compensate for a loss, initiating a rules-based compensation workflow, generating a risk curve based on the historical performance data, automatically generating assurance policies, generating policies from templates from individual CBAs, storing the policies, initiating a rules-based claims process, making a rule-based assessment, authorizing a payout from an assurance fund, employing a rule engine that enforces rules steps to determine that particular type of CBA are ineligible for assurance fund coverage based on a predetermined risk evaluation and threshold.
Claims 13-15, 20, and 23 recite triggering, initiating, generating, storing, making, authorizing, and enforcing steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing personal behaviors, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a CBA registry, a policy database, and a rules engine”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by organizing personal behaviors. For example, but for “the CBA registry, the policy database, and the rules engine” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually triggers a process to compensate a loss, initiates a rules-based compensation workflow, generates a risk curve, automatically generates assurance policies, generates policies from templates from individual CBAs, stores the policies, initiates a rules-based claims process, makes a rule-based assessment, authorizes a payout from an assurance fund, and employes/enforces rules to achieve a threshold return on investment or fund growth to determine that particular type of CBA are ineligible for assurance fund coverage based on a predetermined risk evaluation and threshold. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing personal behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because receiving and providing steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving input data and providing information) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of receiving, triggering, initiating, providing, generating, storing, making, authorizing, and enforcing steps in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the CBA registry, the policy database, and the rules engine are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform receiving, triggering, initiating, providing, generating, storing, making, authorizing, and enforcing steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 13-15, 20, and 23 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 13-15, 20, and 23 do 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 using the CBA registry, the policy database, and the rules engine to perform receiving, triggering, initiating, providing, generating, storing, making, authorizing, and enforcing amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 13-15, 20, and 23 are not patent eligible.
The claims 21-22 recite selecting, from a pool of CBAs, one or more CBAs, and combining the carbon leakage risk curves.
Claims 21-22 recite selecting and combining steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing personal behaviors. For example, in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually selects, from a pool of CBAs, one or more CBAs, and combines the carbon leakage risk curves. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing personal behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of selecting and combining steps in a computer environment. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 21-22 are directed to an abstract idea.
There are no additional claim element limitations recited in the claims 21-22. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
The claims 24-25 recite adding the CBA, controlling permissions, receiving an update to one or more properties of the CBA, processing the update request, receiving a notification of an event, and triggering a rules-bases compensation workflow to compensate for loss due to the event.
Claims 24-25 recite adding, controlling, processing, and triggering steps as drafted, are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of managing personal behaviors, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a restricted-access CBA registry, a searchable carbon-based asset database, a permissions database, a carbon-based asset database, a records database, and a user database”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by organizing personal behaviors. For example, but for “the restricted-access CBA registry, the searchable carbon-based asset database, the permissions database, the carbon-based asset database, the records database, and the user database” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually adds the CBA, controls permissions, processes the update request, and triggers a rules-bases compensation workflow to compensate for loss due to the event. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by managing personal behaviors but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because receiving steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving an update and a notification) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of adding, controlling, receiving, processing, and triggering steps in a computer environment. The claimed computer component such as the restricted-access CBA registry, the searchable carbon-based asset database, the permissions database, the carbon-based asset database, the records database, and the user database are recited at a high level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform a adding, controlling, receiving, processing, and triggering steps. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims 24-25 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 24-25 do 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 using the restricted-access CBA registry, the searchable carbon-based asset database, the permissions database, the carbon-based asset database, the records database, and the user database to perform adding, controlling, receiving, processing, and triggering steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 24-25 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicants remark that “the proposed amendment overcome 101 rejection”.
Examiner directs Applicants' attention to the office action above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to Ariel Yu whose telephone number is 571-270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Obeid Fahd A can be reached on 571-270-3324. 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.
/ARIEL J YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights