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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 8-20 in the reply filed on 10/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Examiner suggests that Applicant response to the status of claims 1-7 in the next office action as being withdrawn or canceled.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/15/2024 are accepted by the examiner.
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 8-20 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 9-16 and 18-20 fail to remedy these deficiencies.
The claims 8 and 17 recite 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 a carbon protocol; creating the carbon-based asset for a building material passing the assessment; and creating a marketable CBA security from the carbon-based asset.
Claims 8 and 17 recite 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 “one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations”, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed by managing personal behaviors. For example, but for “the one or more processors and the one or more computer-readable media” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually 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 receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of receiving input 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 opening, receiving, assessing, and creating in a computer environment. The claimed computer components such as the one or more processors and the one or more computer-readable media are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform opening, receiving, assessing, 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 one or more processors and the one or more computer-readable media to perform opening, receiving, assessing, 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 9, 10, and 18 recite adding, receiving, and changing steps.
Claims 9, 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”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by organizing personal behaviors. For example, but for “the CBA registry” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually adds/records the CBA, receives a new owner 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 the CBA registry is 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 9, 10, and 18 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 9, 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 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 9, 10, and 18 are not patent eligible.
Claims 11, 12, 16, and 19, disclose insignificant helpful content to further describe content, such as the CBA is implemented as a data object, the security is a debit instrument/a carbon right via pooled CBAs, which are merely descriptive content to further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 11, 12, 16, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because descriptive content in claims 11, 12, 16, and 19 further limit the abstract idea but not make it less abstract. Thus, the claims 11, 12, 16, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
There are no additional claim element limitations recited in the claims 11, 12, 16, and 19. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claims 11, 12, 16, and 19 are not patent eligible.
The claims 13-15 and 20 recite triggering a processing, automatically generating assurance policies, and employing a rule engine that enforces rules steps.
Claims 13-15 and 20 recite triggering, generating, 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 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 and the rules engine” in the context of these claims encompasses a person manually triggers a process to compensate a loss, generates assurance polices, and employes/enforces rules to achieve a threshold return on investment or fund growth. 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 triggering, generating, and enforcing steps in a computer environment. The claimed computer component such as the CBA registry and the rules engine is recited at a high level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform triggering, generating, 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 and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 13-15 and 20 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 and the rules engine to perform triggering, generating, and enforcing 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 13-15 and 20 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Please refer to form 892 for cited references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL J YU whose telephone number is (571)270-3312. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM - 7PM (M-F).
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, 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