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
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 10/22/2025.Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On Remarks pages 6-7, Applicant argues Applicant’s amendments. Specifically here Applicant argues that the claims now recite encryption which cannot be performed by a human via pen and paper and require electronic computation, secure key handling and digital transmission management.
While the Examiner understands Applicant’s arguments here the Examiner strongly disagrees. Encryption, as recited here, in its basic and broad form is a mental process and or method of organizing human activity, that does not require a computer or computer elements (for example sending a message that is deciphered by another through use of a key, which could be done by pen and paper), and therefore part of the abstract idea. There are instances where encryption would require a computer, but that is not found in Applicant’s broad claim language here. Rather the use of encryption here is so broadly recited in the claims that these recite mental process and or human activity steps, therefore this part of the abstract.
Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues the claims are similar to Example 42. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The argued Example 42 was found eligible at Prong 2. Applicant’s arguments that the claims are similar based on encryption is non persuasive as in section 3 above the encryption as broadly recited in the claims as amended is part of the abstract idea. Therefore the fact patterns are different and therefore not persuasive.
On Remarks page 8, Applicant argues the 112 second/b rejections and this is acknowledged. Based on Applicant’s amendments the 112 second/b rejections have been withdrawn.
On Remarks page 9, Applicant argues Aggarwal does not teach the amended automatic contract generation by calibration or learning. The Examiner strongly disagrees, as Aggarwal clearly teaches generating proposal and contact information based on previous determinations in paragraph 0155.
On Remarks page 10, Applicant argues that Aggarwal does not teach encryption or data security management as claimed. The Examiner disagrees. Aggarwal clearly teaches providing information securely over the interface (see paragraphs 0173-0174 and 0197). Further Aggarwal clearly teaches administrators assigning different permissions to different users, and administrators can have more permissions than other users (See paragraphs 0036, 0093, 0110-0113, and 0175).
Aggarwal nor Louisell specifically disclose that the security is “encryption”
However the new grounds of rejection below addresses the specific type of security of “encryption”, therefore Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 recite a device with a processor and therefore recite a machine.
The claim(s) 1-20 recite(s) the idea of an intermediary or 3rd party broker collecting information and matching groups to form a contract between people based on the collected information and bid where the information is related to climate change and water sustainability, and then providing information regarding the status of the contract as well as ways for the formed group of people in the contract to communicate.
In the idea of an intermediary or 3rd party broker collecting information and matching groups to form a contract between people based on the collected information and bid where the information is related to climate change and water sustainability, and then providing information regarding the status of the contract as well as ways for the formed group of people in the contract to communicate, the claims recite observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions that can be performed by a human or humans or with the aid of pen and paper, accordingly the claims recite a mental process.
Further in the idea of an intermediary or 3rd party broker collecting information and matching groups to form a contract between people based on the collected information and bid where the information is related to climate change and water sustainability, and then providing information regarding the status of the contract as well as ways for the formed group of people in the contract to communicate, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform as the claims recite human activities related to subject matter regarding managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities accordingly the claims recite a certain method of organizing human activities.
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims:
Examiner notes that the Examiner has bolded and underlined the additional elements for distinction. Limitations not bolded and underlined are considered a part of the abstract idea.
1. A collaborative nexus device for solving climate change mitigation and water sustainability, comprising:
a connecting port, connected to a plurality of request ends and a plurality of bidding ends;
and a processor, connected to the connecting port, wherein the processor obtains at least one task data from the request ends and at least one candidate data from the bidding ends through the connecting port,
wherein items of the task data include data insights, and the candidate data includes items about skills possessed by an individual or a group of people, and the processor matches these items, and the items are related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability,
wherein the processor provides a collaborative contract to one of the request ends corresponding to the matched task data and to one of the bidding ends corresponding to the matched candidate data through the connecting port,
and displays the collaborative contract on the request end and the bidding end and asks for signatures, and wherein the collaborative contract is automatically generated by calibrating or learning the items form the task data and the candidate data, and the data of the collaborative contract is encrypted before it is sent,
wherein the processor provides a collaborative space to both the matched request end and the matched bidding end, and the both ends display the collaborative space showing information about progress of a task generated from the task data and interface for both input and output,
wherein the collaborative space comprises a data security and protection providing encryption function to every data uploaded, created, or combined on the collaborative space, and wherein users of the collaborative nexus device are allowed to apply different encryption on different documents, data transmission, and an administrator of the collaborative space is allowed to assign different permission to different users, so as to improve security
2. The collaborative nexus device of claim 1, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: a plurality of analyses of renewable energy as climate changes; an analyzing duration; and a required deadline, and the analyses comprise availability of renewable energy.
3. The collaborative nexus device of claim 1, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: a plurality of river flow data collections of varied locations; and at least one requirement related to river flow data collection.
4. The collaborative nexus device of claim 1, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: at least one visualizing format; at least one visualizing style; and at least one language.
5. The collaborative nexus device of claim 1, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: at least one carbon footprint analysis method; and at least one analysis equipment.
6. The collaborative nexus device of claim 1, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: at least one fintech domain; and at least one required fund.
7. The collaborative nexus device of claim 1, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: at least one weather prediction period; and at least one weather prediction location.
8. The collaborative nexus device of claim 1, wherein the collaborative space comprises a task management interface.
9. The collaborative nexus device of claim 1, wherein the collaborative space comprises a data security and protection.
10. The collaborative nexus device of claim 1, wherein the collaborative space comprises a quality control and dispute interface.
11. A system of collaborative nexus for solving climate change mitigation and water sustainability, comprising: the collaborative nexus device of claim 1; the request ends; and the bidding ends, wherein the collaborative nexus device comprises
a matching platform and the collaborative space, wherein the collaborative nexus device is connected to of the request ends and bidding ends through internet, wherein the matching platform displays interfaces for input on the request ends and the bidding ends individually, and the collaborative nexus device obtains the task data and the candidate data through the interfaces of the matching platform, wherein the matching platform matches the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability of the task data with the candidate data, and the matching platform provides the collaborative contract, wherein the collaborative nexus device provides the collaborative space to both the matched request end and the matched bidding end.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: a plurality of analyses of renewable energy as climate changes; an analyzing duration; and a required deadline, and the analyses comprise availability of renewable energy.
13. The system of claim 11, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: a plurality of river flow data collections of varied locations; and at least one requirement related to river flow data collection.
14. The system of claim 11, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: at least one visualizing format; at least one visualizing style; and at least one language.
15. The system of claim 11, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: at least one carbon footprint analysis method; and at least one analysis equipment.
16. The system of claim 11, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: at least one fintech domain; and at least one required fund.
17. The system of claim 11, wherein the items related to climate change mitigation and water sustainability comprises: at least one weather prediction period; and at least one weather prediction location.
18. The system of claim 11, wherein the collaborative space comprises a task management interface.
19. The system of claim 11, wherein the collaborative space comprises a data security and protection.
20. The system of claim 11, wherein the collaborative space comprises a quality control and dispute interface.
As per claim 1, the claims recites connecting different users (bidding and request) based on information matching between the two groups, where this information is related to water sustainability and climate management and further providing a contract between the two users based on the matching and providing a way that the user can interact with each other and see updates or information about the contracts. These all describe limitations a human or humans could perform. The additional elements that these limitations a human or humans could perform are instead recited as being performed by a processor and over a network like the internet (connecting port) merely result in “apply it”.
Here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a partial application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” This is the case here as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution rather than how the computer performs the modifications.
Further limitations that could be performed by a user or users that instead recite these limitations being performed by a processor and over a network like the internet (connecting port) merely result in generally linking the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As to Applicant’s amendments submitted 10/22/2025, encrypting data, providing information (e.g. generating a contract) based on calibrated or learned information from tasks and candidates, using different encryption for different documents created or combined or, and users like administrators being able to provide permissions to different users of a group are all mental process and or certain methods of organizing human activities steps as broadly recited in the claims and therefore part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that these mental process and or human activity steps are being performed “automatically”, the users are users of a “device”, and the content is “uploaded” merely recites in apply it. Here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a partial application or provide significantly more.
Further mental process steps or human activity steps that instead recite these activities are being broadly performed “automatically”, the users are users of a “device”, and the content is “uploaded” merely recites generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claims merely describe details or constraints of the climate change mitigation and water substantiality, all of which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide to another user. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 3, the claims merely describe details or constraints of the climate change mitigation and water substantiality, all of which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide to another user. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 4, the claims merely describe display formats or ways of displaying information on a display, all of which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide on a display. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, the claims merely describe details or constraints of the climate change mitigation and water substantiality, all of which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide to another user. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 6, the claims merely describe details or constraints of the climate change mitigation and water substantiality, which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide to another user. The additional element that one of the provided constraints relates to “fintech” or essentially online financial information or banking merely result in apply it.
Here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a partial application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” This is the case here as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution rather than how the computer performs the modifications.
Further limitations that could be performed by a user or users that instead recite these limitations being provided related to “fintech” or essentially online financial information or online banking result in generally linking the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 7, the claims merely describe details or constraints of the climate change mitigation and water substantiality, all of which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide to another user. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 8, the claims merely describe display of information related to a task in a collaborative environment. These are limitations a human or humans could perform, as humans could collaborate in a room with for example a whiteboard or display. The additional elements that the display is instead an “interface” merely results in apply it.
Here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a partial application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” This is the case here as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution rather than how the computer performs the modifications.
Further limitations that could be performed by a user or users that instead recite the display being an interface result in generally linking the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 9, the claims merely describe the collaborative space includes data security and protection. This could be merely protecting the data from other users, which are a limitation a human or humans could perform. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed in claim 1.
As per claim 10, the claims merely describe the collaborative space includes quality control and dispute resolution. This could be merely providing a mediator, which are a limitation a human or humans could perform. The additional element that describes the display as an interface is addressed above in claim 8.
As per claim 11, the claims recites connecting different users (bidding and request) based on information matching between the two groups, where this information is related to water sustainability and climate management and further providing a contract between the two users based on the matching and providing a way that the user can interact with each other and see updates or information about the contracts. These all describe limitations a human or humans could perform.
The additional elements that these limitations a human or humans could perform are instead recited as being performed by a device (which includes a processor as defined in claim 1 from which this claim depends), the network being the internet, and the displays are interfaces merely result in apply it.
Here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a partial application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” This is the case here as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution rather than how the computer performs the modifications.
Further limitations that could be performed by a user or users that instead recite these limitations being performed by a device which includes a processor, the network being the internet, and the displays are interfaces merely result in generally linking the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 12, the claims merely describe details or constraints of the climate change mitigation and water substantiality, all of which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide to another user. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in claim 11.
As per claim 13, the claims merely describe details or constraints of the climate change mitigation and water substantiality, all of which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide to another user. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in claim 11.
As per claim 14, the claims merely describe display formats or ways of displaying information on a display, all of which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide on a display. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in claim 11.
As per claim 15, the claims merely describe details or constraints of the climate change mitigation and water substantiality, all of which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide to another user. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in claim 11.
As per claim 16, the claims merely describe details or constraints of the climate change mitigation and water substantiality, which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide to another user. The additional element that one of the provided constraints relates to “fintech” or essentially online financial information or online banking merely result in apply it.
Here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a partial application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” This is the case here as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution rather than how the computer performs the modifications.
Further limitations that could be performed by a user or users that instead recite these limitations being provided related to “fintech” or essentially online financial information or online banking result in generally linking the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 17, the claims merely describe details or constraints of the climate change mitigation and water substantiality, all of which are claimed at a level of detail a user or user could provide to another user. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed above in claim 11.
As per claim 18, the claims merely describe display of information related to a task in a collaborative environment. These are limitations a human or humans could perform, as humans could collaborate in a room with for a whiteboard or display. The additional elements that the display is instead an “interface” merely results in apply it.
Here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer component after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a partial application or provide significantly more. Further the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanisms for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.” This is the case here as the claims merely recite a result oriented solution rather than how the computer performs the modifications.
Further limitations that could be performed by a user or users that instead recite the display being an interface result in generally linking the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 19, the claims merely describe the collaborative space includes data security and protection. This could be merely protecting the data from other users, which are a limitation a human or humans could perform. There are no additional elements beyond those discussed in claim 11.
As per claim 20, the claims merely describe the collaborative space includes quality control and dispute resolution. This could be merely providing a mediator, which are a limitation a human or humans could perform. The additional element that describes the display as an interface is addressed above in claim 18.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Specifically Applicant amends independent claim 1 to recite all the limitations found in claims 9 and 19 therefore the claims fail to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, there are in improper dependent form.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-a connecting port, connected to a plurality of request ends and a plurality of bidding ends; and a processor, connected to the connecting port, wherein the processor obtains at least one task data from the request ends and at least one candidate data from the bidding ends through the connecting port, (See claim 1)
-wherein the processor provides a collaborative contract to one of the request ends corresponding to the matched task data and to one of the bidding ends corresponding to the matched candidate data through the connecting port, (see claim 1)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
From review of the specification the Examiner interprets the following to be the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof:
Paragraph 0093 - Each of the functional units and modules in accordance with various embodiments also may be implemented in distributed computing environments and/or Cloud computing environments, wherein the whole or portions of machine instructions are executed in distributed fashion by one or more processing devices interconnected by a communication network, such as an intranet, Wide Area Network (WAN), Local Area Network (LAN), the Internet, and other forms of data transmission medium.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Further the Examiner notes that the Examiner interprets claims 11-20 to be proper dependent claims in view of MPEP 608.01(n), cited herein:
III. TEST FOR PROPER DEPENDENCY
In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, a claim in dependent form shall contain:
(i) a reference to a claim previously set forth, and
(ii) then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.
A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Following the statute, the test as to whether a claim is a proper dependent claim is that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which it depends and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. For example, if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements. A dependent claim does not lack compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) simply because there is a question as to the significance of the further limitation added by the dependent claim.
The fact that a dependent claim, which is otherwise proper might relate to a separate invention that would require a separate search or be separately classified from the claim on which it depends would not render it an improper dependent claim.
The fact that the independent and dependent claims are in different statutory classes does not, in itself, render the latter improper. Thus, if claim 1 recites a specific product, a claim for the method of making the product of claim 1 in a particular manner would be a proper dependent claim since it further specifies limitations relating to the method of making the product of claim 1. Similarly, if claim 1 recites a method of making a product, a claim for a product made by the method of claim 1 could be a proper dependent claim. On the other hand, if claim 1 recites a method of making a specified product, a claim to the product set forth in claim 1 would not be a proper dependent claim if the product can be made by a method other than that recited in the base method claim, and thus, does not include the limitations of the base claim.
Examiners are reminded that a dependent claim is directed to a combination including everything recited in the base claim and what is recited in the dependent claim. It is this combination that must be compared with the prior art, exactly as if it were presented as one independent claim.
When examining a dependent claim, the examiner should determine whether the claim complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(d), which requires that dependent claims contain a reference to a previous claim in the same application, specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed, and include all the limitations of the previous claim. If the dependent claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d), the examiner should reject the dependent claim under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as unpatentable rather than objecting to the claim. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92, 79 USPQ2d 1583, 1589-90 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a dependent claim in a patent invalid for failure to comply with pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph (now 35 U.S.C. 112(d) )). Although the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are related to matters of form, non-compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(d) renders the claim unpatentable just as non-compliance with other paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 112 would. For example, a dependent claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) if it omits an element from the claim upon which it depends or it fails to add a limitation to the claim upon which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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.
15. 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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2012/0330759) further in view of Louisell, III et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0229928) further in view of Camarador et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2008/0103916).
As per claim 1, Aggarwal et al. teaches A collaborative nexus device for solving climate change mitigation, comprising: (see paragraphs 0033, 0187, 0143-0145, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions (see paragraph 0187). Paragraphs 0033 and 0143-0145 teach this being renewable or clean energy like solar power).
a connecting port, (see paragraphs 0036-0037 and 0172, Examiner’s note: online environment on the internet).
‘connected to a plurality of request ends and a plurality of bidding ends; (see paragraphs 0037, 0042, 0093-0094, Figures 5B-D, 5H, 5M, and 6C-6F, Examiner’s note: teaches users interacting with devices and the various figures show the users inputting proposal requests and installers providing bids and then providing selections where they can interact).
and a processor, connected to the connecting port, (see paragraphs 0036-0037 and 0187, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions and teaches being connected over the internet).
wherein the processor obtains at least one task data from the request ends and at least one candidate data from the bidding ends through the connecting port, wherein items of the task data include data insights, (see paragraphs 0037, 0042, 0093-0094, Figures 5B-D, 5H, 5M, and 6C-6F, Examiner’s note: teaches users interacting with devices and the various figures show the users inputting proposal requests and installers providing bids and then providing selections where they can interact).
and the candidate data includes items about skills possessed by an individual or a group of people, (see Figures 6C, 6I, 10B, and paragraphs 0069, 0093, and 0128, Examiner’s note: teaches installer experience taking into consideration when making a decision).
and the processor matches these items, and the items are related to climate change mitigation, (see paragraphs 0017, 0034, and 0039, Figures 5H, 5J, 5M, 6J, and 10C, Examiner’s note: providing quotes based on information input by the user for different energy savings like solar).
wherein the processor provides a collaborative contract to one of the request ends corresponding to the matched task data and to one of the bidding ends corresponding to the matched candidate data through the connecting port, and displays the collaborative contract on the request end and the bidding end and asks for signatures, (see paragraphs 0012, 0127, 0136, and 0160-163, and Figures 5K and 6J, Examiner’s note: teaches contracts between requests and bidders and shows that contracts may include requests for signatures).
And wherein the collaborative contract is automatically generated by calibrating or learning the items from the task data and the candidate data, and the data of the collaborative contract is secure before it is sent; (see paragraph 0155 and 0173-0174, Examiner’s note: providing quotes based on past data which is calibrated or learned information as broadly recited in the claim (see paragraph 0155). Further teaches that the information is performed in a secure environment or interface (see paragraphs 0173-0174)).
wherein the processor provides a collaborative space to both the matched request end and the matched bidding end, and the both ends display the collaborative space showing information about progress of a task generated from the task data and interface for both input and output (see paragraphs 0006, 0084, 0103, 0127, and 0184, Examiner’s note: online interface allows property owners to communicate using text, images, video, or documents with one or more installers).
Wherein the collaborative space comprises a data security and protection providing security function to every data uploaded, created, or combined on the collaborative, and wherein users of the collaborative nexus device are allowed to apply different security on different documents, data transmission, (see paragraphs 0173-0174, 0197, examiner’s note: individual user interface secured by an authentical protocol, here this is different security as it is based on the interface).
And an administrator of the collaborative space is allowed to assign different permissions to different users, so as to improve security (see paragraph 0036, 0093, 0110-0113, and 0175, Examiner’s note: here teaches the numerous permission decisions regarding users of the system the user can make and that administrators have more permissions then other users).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach (1) another known element of climate change like water sustainability and (2) while Aggarwal clearly teaches above securely providing information across a collaborative space, Aggarwal does not expressly teach encrypting information or more specifically as recited in the claims encrypted before it is sent, providing encryption function, and different encryption on different documents.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches (1) another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal witih the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraph 0044, 0060, 0080).
Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. does not expressly teach (2) encrypting information or more specifically as recited in the claims encrypted before it is sent, providing encryption function, and different encryption on different documents.
However, Camarador et al. which is in the art of proposals for services (See paragraphs 0047 and 0080-0082) teaches encrypting information or more specifically as recited in the claims encrypted before it is sent, providing encryption function, and different encryption on different documents (see paragraphs 0043-0046, Examiner’s note: teaches encrypting information on the web browser used for proposals).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Camarador et al. with the motivation of providing a known type of security like encryption to provide information from one entity to another (see Camarador et al. paragraphs 0047 and 0080-0082), when providing information securely from one type of entity to another is known (See Aggarwal et al. paragraphs 0173-0174, 0197).
As per claim 2, Aggarwal et teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation comprises: a plurality of analyses of renewable energy as climate changes; (see paragraph 0033, 0144-0144, and 0183, Examiner’s note: teach this being renewable or clean energy like solar power).
an analyzing duration; (see Figure 9B and paragraph 0136, Examiner’s note: teaches a user durations for the process and completion dates).
and a required deadline, (see paragraph 0072, 0111, 0115, Figure 8D, Examiner’s note: teaches when communication consent expires and solicitation for quotes ends),
and the analyses comprise availability of renewable energy. (see paragraph 0033, 0144-0144, and 0183, Examiner’s note: teach this being renewable or clean energy like solar power).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraph 0044, 0060, 0080).
As per claim 3, Agrawal teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation comprises: (see paragraphs 0037, 0042, and 0093-0094, Figures 5B-D, 5H, 5M, and 6C-6F, Examiner’s note: teaches users interacting with devices and the various figures show the users inputting proposal requests and installers providing bids and then providing selections where they can interact).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability and a plurality of river flow data collections of varied locations; and at least one requirement related to river flow data collection.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability and a plurality of river flow data collections of varied locations; and at least one requirement related to river flow data collection (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraph 0044, 0060, 0080).
As per claim 4, Agrawal teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation comprises: at least one visualizing format; at least one visualizing style; and at least one language. (see Figures 5J, 5M, 10C-10E and paragraphs 0008, Examiner’s note: teaches communicating this information between the requesters and the installers and displaying the information).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell in view of Camarador et al, III et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al.with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraphs 0044, 0060, and 0080).
As per claim 5, Agrawal teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation comprises: at least one carbon footprint analysis method; (see paragraph 0044, 0052, 0076, and 0137, Examiner’s note: teaches carbon emissions avoided in a year)
and at least one analysis equipment (see paragraph 0137, 0151, and 0159, Examiner’s note: information on the type of system).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information related to a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraph 0044, 0060, 0080).
As per claim 6, Agrawal teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation: at least one fintech domain; (see paragraphs 0047, 0052, 0060, 0064-0065, 0068, Examiner’s note: teaches lenders and computer algorithms both of which can be interpreted as fintech).
and at least one required fund (see paragraphs 0052, 0062, 0065, and 0098, Figures 5M and 9b, Examiner’s note: teaches required costs).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information related to a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraphs 0044, 0060, and 0080).
As per claim 7, Agrawal teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation: at least one weather prediction and at least one weather prediction location. (see paragraphs 0054 and 0183, Examiner’s note: bids based on weather predictions and providing a return on investment over time (see Figure 5I)).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability and weather prediction period.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
and weather prediction period (see paragraph 0060, Examiner’s note: daily and hourly predicted precipitation potential).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraph 0044, 0060, 0080).
As per claim 8, Agrawal teaches
wherein the collaborative space comprises a task management interface (see Figures 5M, 6F, 6J, 7C-7D, 10C, and 10E, Examiner’s note: shows many different interfaces where users can perform tasks).
As per claim 9, Agrawal teaches
wherein the collaborative space comprises a data security and protection (see paragraphs 0173-0174 and 0197, Examiner’s note: teaches a secure user interface).
As per claim 10, Agrawal teaches
wherein the collaborative space comprises a quality control (see Figure 10B-10C, Examiner’s note: reviews on previous projects and business information)
and dispute interface (see paragraphs 0161-0162, Examiner’s note: modifying terms of the contract).
As per claim 11, Agarwal teaches A system of collaborative nexus for solving climate change mitigation, comprising: the collaborative nexus device of claim 1;(see paragraphs 0033, 0144-0147, 0187, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions. Paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0147 teach this being renewable or clean energy like solar power).
the request ends; and the bidding ends, wherein the collaborative nexus device comprises a matching platform and the collaborative space, (see paragraphs 0037, 0042, and 0093-0094 and Figures 5B-D, 5H, 5M, and 6C-6F, Examiner’s note: teaches users interacting with devices and the various figures show the users inputting proposal requests and installers providing bids and then providing selections where they can interact).
wherein the collaborative nexus device is connected to of the request ends and bidding ends through internet, (see paragraphs 0036-0037, Examiner’s note: devices connected over the Internet).
wherein the matching platform displays interfaces for input on the request ends and the bidding ends individually, (see Figures 5B-5E, 6B, 6E, 6F, and 6I-6J, Examiner’s note: teaches interfaces where users can input information).
and the collaborative nexus device obtains the task data and the candidate data through the interfaces of the matching platform, (see paragraphs 0041, 0052 and 0139-0140, Examiner’s note: users inputting their information into the system via interfaces).
wherein the matching platform matches the items related to climate change mitigation of the task data with the candidate data, (see paragraphs 0017, 0034, 0039 and Figures 5H, 5J, 5M, 6J, and 10C, Examiner’s note: providing quotes based on information input by the user for different energy savings like solar).
and the matching platform provides the collaborative contract, (see paragraphs 0012, 0127, 0136, and 0160-163 and Figures 5K and 6J, Examiner’s note: teaches contracts between requests and bidders and shows that contracts may include requests for signatures).
wherein the collaborative nexus device provides the collaborative space to both the matched request end and the matched bidding end. (see paragraphs 0006, 0084, 0103, 0127, and 0184, Examiner’s note: online interface allows property owners to communicate using text, images, video, or documents with one or more installers).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraphs 0044, 0060, and 0080).
As per claim 12, Agarwal teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation comprises: a plurality of analyses of renewable energy as climate changes; (see paragraphs 0033, 0144-0144, and 0183, Examiner’s note: teach this being renewable or clean energy like solar power).
an analyzing duration; (see Figure 9B and paragraph 0136, Examiner’s note: teaches a user durations for the process and completion dates).
and a required deadline, (see paragraphs 0072, 0111, 0115, and Figure 8D, Examiner’s note: teaches when communication consent expires and solicitation for quotes ends),
and the analyses comprise availability of renewable energy. (see paragraph 0033, 0144-0144, and 0183, Examiner’s note: teach this being renewable or clean energy like solar power).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al.with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraphs 0044, 0060, and 0080).
As per claim 13, Agarwal teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation: (see paragraphs 0037, 0042, and 0093-0094 and Figures 5B-D, 5H, 5M, and 6C-6F, Examiner’s note: teaches users interacting with devices and the various figures show the users inputting proposal requests and installers providing bids and then providing selections where they can interact).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability and a plurality of river flow data collections of varied locations; and at least one requirement related to river flow data collection.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability and a plurality of river flow data collections of varied locations; and at least one requirement related to river flow data collection (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraph 0044, 0060, 0080).
As per claim 14, Agarwal teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation comprises: at least one visualizing format; at least one visualizing style; and at least one language. (see Figure 5J, 5M, 10C-10E and paragraphs 0008, Examiner’s note: teaches communicating this information between the requesters and the installers and displaying the information).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraphs 0044, 0060, and 0080).
As per claim 15, Agarwal teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation comprises: at least one carbon footprint analysis method; (see paragraph 0044, 0052, 0076, and 0137, Examiner’s note: teaches carbon emissions avoided in a year)
and at least one analysis equipment. (see paragraph 0137, 0151, and 0159, Examiner’s note: information on the type of system).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraphs 0044, 0060, and 0080).
As per claim 16, Agarwal teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation comprises: at least one fintech domain; (see paragraphs 0047, 0052, 0060, 0064-0065, 0068, Examiner’s note: teaches lenders and computer algorithms both of which can be interpreted as fintech).
and at least one required fund. (see paragraphs 0052, 0062, 0065, and 0098, Figures 5M and 9b, Examiner’s note: teaches required costs).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraph 0044, 0060, 0080).
As per claim 17, Agarwal teaches
wherein the items related to climate change mitigation comprises: at least one weather prediction; and at least one weather prediction location. (see paragraphs 0054 and 0183, Examiner’s note: bids based on weather predictions and providing a return on investment over time (see Figure 5I)).
While Aggarwal clearly teaches the system being used for several different types of climate change mitigations (see paragraphs 0033 and 0144-0144), Aggarwal does not expressly teach another known element of climate change like water sustainability and weather prediction period.
However, Louisell, III et al. which is in the art of determining how local building effects climate change mitigation (see paragraphs 0003-0004) teaches another known element of climate change like water sustainability (see paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055, Examiner’s note: teaches river flow changes).
and weather prediction period (see paragraph 0060, Examiner’s note: daily and hourly precipitation potential).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aggarwal in view of Louisell, III et al. in view of Camarador et al with the aforementioned teachings from Louisell, III et al. with the motivation of providing a way of providing other environmental information to a user regarding a project (see Louisell, III et al. paragraphs 0031-0032, 0040, 0045-0046, and 0055), when providing a user with climate change information regarding a project is known (see Aggarwal paragraphs 0044, 0060, and 0080).
As per claim 18, Agarwal teaches
wherein the collaborative space comprises a task management interface. (see Figures 5M, 6F, 6J, 7C-7D, 10C, and 10E, Examiner’s note: shows many different interfaces where users can perform tasks).
As per claim 19, Agarwal teaches
wherein the collaborative space comprises a data security and protection. (see paragraphs 0173-0174 and 0197, Examiner’s note: teaches a secure user interface).
As per claim 20, Agarwal teaches
wherein the collaborative space comprises a quality control (see Figure 10B-10C, Examiner’s note: reviews on previous projects and business information)
and dispute interface. (see paragraphs 0161-0162, Examiner’s note: modifying terms of the contract).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bartels et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2005/0283428) teaches a system for trading of carbon dioxide emissions (see title and abstract)
Barrow (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2012/0095897) teaches a system for trading carbon credits (see abstract)
Deal et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2015/0339762) teaches a system for generating an online solar energy marketplace (See abstract)
Levine et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2016/0350778) teaches a system for providing carbon reduction incentives and tracking (see title)
Judd et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2018/0246479) teaches an energy selection which includes encryption, solar energy and permissions from an administrator (see paragraphs 0088 and 0128)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626