Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected in the application. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues:
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are allegedly directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Applicant respectfully traversed these rejections.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant’s 35 USC § 101 arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is fundamentally directed to organizing, structuring, storing, and querying information to generate a calculated value (carbon credits), which constitutes certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. The steps of collecting carbon-related data, generating an immutable data object arranged in a hierarchical tree structure, storing the data in a relational database, querying the stored data, and generating carbon credits based on the retrieved data merely recite the manipulation and analysis of information using generic computer components (e.g., “one or more processors,” “relational database,” “electronic session”). The hierarchical structuring, mapping, and querying operations amount to data organization and retrieval techniques that could be performed conceptually or with pen and paper, and do not improve the functioning of the computer or database itself, but instead use conventional computing technology as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements, individually and in combination, amount only to well-understood, routine, and conventional computer activities and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claim remains directed to ineligible subject matter.
Applicant Argues
Per the Parties' agreement during the Examiner Interview, the claims (as amended and presented herein) overcome this rejection. Accordingly, the Applicant requests that this rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner Responds:
Applicant’s 35 USC § 103 arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection for claims 1-20.
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 claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-7 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 1 recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 1 recites a method for structuring data in databases, the method comprising:
generating, by the one or more processors, an immutable data object based on the collected data, the immutable data object comprising the attributes organized according to a hierarchical structure corresponding to a tree structure that defines a plurality of horizontal and vertical relationships between one or more devices associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols and one or more locations associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols;
and
generating, by the one or more processors, using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object.
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “one or more processors” and “one or more devices” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In addition, “one or more processors” and “one or more devices” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere generic computer components. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, but for the one or more processors, “generating, by the one or more processors, an immutable data object based on the collected data, the immutable data object comprising the attributes organized according to a hierarchical structure corresponding to a tree structure that defines a plurality of horizontal and vertical relationships between one or more devices associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols and one or more locations associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols;” encompasses mentally a person generating the immutable data object comprising the attributes organized according to a hierarchical structure corresponding to a tree structure that defines a plurality of horizontal and vertical relationships between one or more devices associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols and one or more locations associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols.
Next, but for the one or more processors, “generating, by the one or more processors, using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object.” encompasses mentally a person generating using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object. The mere nominal recitation of “one or more processors” and “one or more devices” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If the claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional limitation:
collecting, by one or more processors during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;
structuring, by the one or more processors, collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;
receiving, by the one or more processors during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity;
querying, by the one or more processors, the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;
Here, “collecting, by one or more processors during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “structuring, by the one or more processors, collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In addition, “receiving, by the one or more processors during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “querying, by the one or more processors, the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 1 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere generating carbon credits cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “collecting, by one or more processors during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity”, “structuring, by the one or more processors, collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure”, “receiving, by the one or more processors during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity;”, and “querying, by the one or more processors, the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” step are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “collecting, by one or more processors during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “structuring, by the one or more processors, collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “receiving, by the one or more processors during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “querying, by the one or more processors, the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “collecting, by one or more processors during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity”, “structuring, by the one or more processors, collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure”, “receiving, by the one or more processors during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity;”, and “querying, by the one or more processors, the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, the limitation “wherein the immutable data object is a JavaScript object notation (JSON) file.” of dependent claim 2 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the immutable data object is a JavaScript object notation (JSON) file. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 2 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the tree structure further corresponds to one or more readings associated with one or more carbon-related protocols, one or more reporting periods, or any combination thereof.” of dependent claim 3 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the tree structure further corresponds to one or more readings associated with one or more carbon-related protocols, one or more reporting periods, or any combination thereof. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the entity is associated with a plurality of reporting periods and generating the value comprises: calculating, for each reporting period of the plurality of reporting periods and by the one or more processors, an amount of carbon offset based on one or more rules associated with the carbon-related data protocol.” of dependent claim 4 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person calculating, for each reporting period of the plurality of reporting periods and by the one or more processors, an amount of carbon offset based on one or more rules associated with the carbon-related data protocol. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “further comprising: obtaining, by the one or more processors, second data corresponding to a project during a reporting period;” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, “updating the immutable data object stored as the data record based on the second data.” of dependent claim 5 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 5 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “further comprising: comparing, by the one or more processors, the data corresponding to the entity with a plurality of data records of the relational database” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing the data corresponding to the entity with a plurality of data records of the relational database. Further, the limitation “determining, by the one or more processors, the data is duplicate data associated with a fraudulent act based on the comparing;” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the data is duplicate data associated with a fraudulent act based on the comparing. Next, the limitation “flagging, by the one or more processors, the duplicate data.” of dependent claim 6 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person flagging the duplicate data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 6 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the relational database comprises a history of one or more projects of the entity, the history comprising a plurality of data records, wherein each of the plurality of data records is associated with an identifier of a user and a time of creation.” of dependent claim 7 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 7 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 8-14 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 8 recites a system and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 8 recites a system for structuring data in database, the system comprising:
generate an immutable data object based on the collected data, the immutable data object comprising the attributes organized according to a hierarchical structure corresponding to a tree structure that defines a plurality of horizontal and vertical relationships between one or more devices associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols and one or more locations associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols;
generate using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object.
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “one or more processors”, “memory”, and “one or more devices” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In addition, “one or more processors”, “memory”, and “one or more devices” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere generic computer components. Thus, claim 8 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “generate an immutable data object based on the collected data, the immutable data object comprising the attributes organized according to a hierarchical structure corresponding to a tree structure that defines a plurality of horizontal and vertical relationships between one or more devices associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols and one or more locations associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols;” encompasses mentally a person generating an immutable data object based on the collected data, the immutable data object comprising the attributes organized according to a hierarchical structure corresponding to a tree structure that defines a plurality of horizontal and vertical relationships between one or more devices associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols and one or more locations associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols.
Next, but for the one or more processors, “generate using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object.” encompasses mentally a person generating using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object. The mere nominal recitation of “one or more processors”, “memory”, and “one or more devices” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If the claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 8 recites the additional limitation:
one or more processors coupled with memory and configured to:
collect, during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;
structure collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;
receive, during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity;
query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;
Here, “one or more processors coupled with memory and configured to:” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “collect, during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “structure collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In addition, “receive, during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 8 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere generating carbon credits cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 8 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “collect, during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;”, “structure collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;”, “receive, during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity”, and “query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” step are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “collect, during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “structure collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “receive, during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “collect, during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;”, “structure collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;”, “receive, during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity”, and “query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, the limitation “wherein the immutable data object is a JavaScript object notation (JSON) file.” of dependent claim 9 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the immutable data object is a JavaScript object notation (JSON) file. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 9 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the tree structure further corresponds to one or more readings associated with one or more carbon-related protocols, one or more reporting periods, or any combination thereof.” of dependent claim 10 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the tree structure further corresponds to one or more readings associated with one or more carbon-related protocols, one or more reporting periods, or any combination thereof. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the entity is associated with a plurality of reporting periods and generating the value comprises: calculating, for each reporting period of the plurality of reporting periods and by the one or more processors, an amount of carbon offset based on one or more rules associated with the carbon-related data protocol.” of dependent claim 11 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person calculating, for each reporting period of the plurality of reporting periods and by the one or more processors, an amount of carbon offset based on one or more rules associated with the carbon-related data protocol. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “further comprising: obtain second data corresponding to a project during a reporting period;” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, “update the immutable data object stored as the data record based on the second data.” of dependent claim 12 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 12 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: compare the data corresponding to the entity with a plurality of data records of the relational database” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing the data corresponding to the entity with a plurality of data records of the relational database. Further, the limitation “determine the data is duplicate data associated with a fraudulent act based on the comparing;” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the data is duplicate data associated with a fraudulent act based on the comparing. Next, the limitation “flag the duplicate data.” of dependent claim 13 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person flag the duplicate data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the relational database comprises a history of one or more projects of the entity, the history comprising a plurality of data records, wherein each of the plurality of data records is associated with an identifier of a user and a time of creation.” of dependent claim 14 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 14 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 15-20 are ineligible:
As to step one, claim 15 recites a computer readable storage medium and, therefore, is a machine which is a statutory category.
As to step 2A-prong one, claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium for structuring data in databases, the computer-readable medium comprising instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
generate an immutable data object based on the collected data, the immutable data object comprising the attributes organized according to a hierarchical structure corresponding to a tree structure that defines a plurality of horizontal and vertical relationships between one or more devices associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols and one or more locations associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols;
generate using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object.
The limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a processor”, and “one or more devices” nothing in the claim’s elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. In addition, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a processor”, and “one or more devices” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere generic computer components. Thus, claim 15 is not patentable eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For example, “generate an immutable data object based on the collected data, the immutable data object comprising the attributes organized according to a hierarchical structure corresponding to a tree structure that defines a plurality of horizontal and vertical relationships between one or more devices associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols and one or more locations associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols;” encompasses mentally a person generating an immutable data object based on the collected data, the immutable data object comprising the attributes organized according to a hierarchical structure corresponding to a tree structure that defines a plurality of horizontal and vertical relationships between one or more devices associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols and one or more locations associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols.
Next, but for the one or more processors, “generate using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object.” encompasses mentally a person generating using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object. The mere nominal recitation of “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a processor”, and “one or more devices” do not take the claim limitations out of the mental processes grouping. If the claim limitation(s), under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
As to Step 2A-prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 15 recites the additional limitation:
collect, during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;
structure collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;
receive, during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity;
query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;
Here, “one or more processors coupled with memory and configured to:” amounts to mere generic computer components which does not amount to an inventive concept.
Next, “collect, during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “structure collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In addition, “receive, during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next, “query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
As to step 2B, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, claim 15 additional limitation amounts to no more than mere extra solution activity and generic computer components do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the generic computer components are implementing the limitations in a generic manner. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Mere generating carbon credits cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 15 is not patentable eligible under 35 USC 101.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “collect, during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;”, “store the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with the hierarchical structure;”, “receive, during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity”, and “query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” step are considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification does not provide any indication that the limitations are anything other than extra solution activity.
Here, “collect, during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “structure collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “receive, during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Here, “query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” is merely data gathering. OIP Techs court decision cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere retrieving data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the “collect, during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity;”, “structure collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;”, “receive, during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity”, and “query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols;” steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Next, the limitation “wherein the immutable data object is a JavaScript object notation (JSON) file.” of dependent claim 16 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the immutable data object is a JavaScript object notation (JSON) file. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 16 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the tree structure further corresponds to one or more readings associated with one or more carbon-related protocols, one or more reporting periods, or any combination thereof.” of dependent claim 17 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining wherein the tree structure further corresponds to one or more readings associated with one or more carbon-related protocols, one or more reporting periods, or any combination thereof. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the entity is associated with a plurality of reporting periods and generating the value comprises: calculating, for each reporting period of the plurality of reporting periods and by the one or more processors, an amount of carbon offset based on one or more rules associated with the carbon-related data protocol.” of dependent claim 18 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person calculating, for each reporting period of the plurality of reporting periods and by the one or more processors, an amount of carbon offset based on one or more rules associated with the carbon-related data protocol. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea.
Next, the limitation “wherein the instructions further cause the processors to: obtain second data corresponding to a project during a reporting period;” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In addition, “update the immutable data object stored as the data record based on the second data.” of dependent claim 19 is abstract because the claim encompasses insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim does not recite additional limitations to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is insignificant extra-solution because 2106.05(d) court decision OIP Techs court states retrieving data is extra solution activity. Thus, claim 19 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Next, the limitation “wherein the instructions further cause the processors to: compare the data corresponding to the entity with a plurality of data records of the relational database” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person comparing the data corresponding to the entity with a plurality of data records of the relational database. Further, the limitation “determine the data is duplicate data associated with a fraudulent act based on the comparing;” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person determining the data is duplicate data associated with a fraudulent act based on the comparing. Next, the limitation “flag the duplicate data.” of dependent claim 20 is abstract because the claim encompasses mentally a person flag the duplicate data. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation "structuring, by the one or more processors, collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;” is not found in the specification. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-7 depends from rejected claim 1 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 1 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claims 9-14 depends from rejected claim 8 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 8 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claims 16-20 depends from rejected claim 15 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 15 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15 the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The limitation "structuring, by the one or more processors, collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;” is not found in the specification. Specifically, “the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure” is not found in the specification. Thus, claims 1, 8, and 15 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2-7 depends from rejected claim 1 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 1 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claims 9-14 depends from rejected claim 8 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 8 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claims 16-20 depends from rejected claim 15 respectively, comprise the same deficiencies as claim 15 directly or indirectly by dependence, and are therefore rejected on the same basis because none of the dependents add anything to otherwise overcome the rejection.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gogerty et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0298042; hereinafter: Gogerty) in view of Ramde et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0420158; hereinafter: Ramde) and further in view of Menon et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0403786; hereinafter: Menon)
Claims 1, 8, and 15
As to claims 1, 8, and 15, Gogerty discloses a system for structuring data in database, the system comprising:
one or more processors coupled with memory and configured to (paragraph[0269], the reference describes using a processor.):
collect, during a first electronic session, carbon-related data comprising attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols performed by an entity (paragraph[0026]-paragraph[0027], the reference describes tracking and retrieving carbon related data and attributes.);
generate an immutable data object based on the collected data, the immutable data object comprising the attributes organized according to a hierarchical structure corresponding to a tree structure that defines a plurality of horizontal and vertical relationships between one or more devices associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols and one or more locations associated with the one or more carbon-related protocols (figures 11 and 24, paragraph[0198]-paragraph[0199], the reference describes a tree carbon object branch. As shown in Figure 24, the branch shows horizontal and vertical relationships of devices and attributes related to carbon data (i.e., protocols, as claimed).);
receive, during a second electronic session, a request to generate a value associated with the entity (paragraph[0425], the reference describes users generating carbon data. The Examiner interprets a user is able to generate multiple carbon data objects based on multiple request.);
Gogerty discloses query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols; and
generate using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object.
Gogerty does not appear to explicitly disclose structure collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure;
query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols; and
generate using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object.
However,Ramde discloses structure collected data configured in accordance with an arrangement that corresponds to the immutable data object as a data record in a dynamic field of a relational database, wherein when the immutable data object is queried, the attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols are provided in accordance with a mapping of the query to the hierarchical structure (paragraph[0067], the reference describes carbon credit government database for rules and regulations regarding carbon credits (i.e., carbon-related protocols, as claimed).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Gogerty with the teachings of Ramde to have a carbon credit protocol which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Gogerty with the teachings of Ramde to efficiently register, track, and verify carbon credits (Ramde: paragraph[0002]).
The combination of Gogerty and Ramde do not appear to explicitly disclose query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols; and
generate using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object.
However, Menon discloses query the data record, wherein when the data record is queried, the one or more processors access the hierarchical structure of the immutable data object to access attributes of one or more carbon-related protocols (paragraph[0160], the reference describes querying data associated with carbon attributes.); and
generate using the data retrieved from the hierarchical structure of the data object, one or more carbon credits based on the stored data object (paragraph[0173], the reference describes querying and updating carbon credit data.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Gogerty with the teachings of Ramde and Menon to update carbon credit data which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Gogerty with the teachings of Ramde and Menon to efficiently provide plans, workflow, and recommendations for improving sustainability parameters across enterprise operations (Menon: paragraph[0003]).
Claims 2, 9, and 16
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, the combination of Gogerty, Ramde, and Menon discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, and Gogerty further disclose wherein the immutable data object is a JavaScript object notation (JSON) file (paragraph[0254], the reference describes using JSON schemas for the data objects.).
Claims 3, 10, and 17
As to claims 3, 10, and 17, the combination of Gogerty, Ramde, and Menon discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, and Gogerty further disclose wherein the tree structure further corresponds to one or more readings associated with one or more carbon-related protocols, one or more reporting periods, or any combination thereof (Figure 11, paragraph[0201], the reference describes the system adding to carbon objects.).
Claims 4, 11, and 18
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, the combination of Gogerty, Ramde, and Menon discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, and Menon further disclose wherein the entity is associated with a plurality of reporting periods and generating the value comprises: calculating, for each reporting period of the plurality of reporting periods an amount of carbon offset based on one or more rules associated with the carbon-related data protocol (paragraph[0058], the reference describes reporting out carbon data.).
Claims 5, 12, and 19
As to claims 5, 12, and 19, the combination of Gogerty, Ramde, and Menon discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, and Menon further disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
obtain second data corresponding to a project during a reporting period (paragraph[0154], the reference describes receiving updates of the datasets used in the reporting system.); and
update the immutable data object stored as the data record based on the second data (paragraph[0155], the reference describes updating the data in the stored objects.).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gogerty et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0298042; hereinafter: Gogerty) in view of Ramde et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0420158; hereinafter: Ramde) and further in view of Menon et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0403786; hereinafter: Menon) and Pattanavekin et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2025/0086660; hereinafter: Pattanavekin)
Claims 6, 13, and 20
As to claims 6, 13, and 20, the combination of Gogerty, Ramde, and Menon discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
compare the data corresponding to the entity with a plurality of data records of the relational database;
determine the data is duplicate data associated with a fraudulent act based on the comparing; and
flag the duplicate data.
However, Pattanavekin discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
compare the data corresponding to the entity with a plurality of data records of the relational database (paragraph[0075], the reference describes detecting recurring patterns in emission data.);
determine the data is duplicate data associated with a fraudulent act based on the comparing (paragraph[0077], the reference describes detecting a recurring pattern (i.e., duplicate data, as claimed) which is checked against known fraud signatures (i.e., a fraudulent act, as claimed).); and
flag the duplicate data (pargraph[0075], the reference describes the fraudulent data is flagged.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Gogerty with the teachings of Menon, Ramde, and Pattanavekin to detect fraudulent activity which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Gogerty with the teachings of Menon, Ramde, and Pattanavekin to efficiently provide real-time digital monitoring reporting verification of greenhouse gas emissions (Pattanavekin: paragraph[0002]).
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gogerty et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2023/0298042; hereinafter: Gogerty) in view of Ramde et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0420158; hereinafter: Ramde) and further in view of Menon et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2024/0403786; hereinafter: Menon) and Glenn et al. U.S. Patent Publication (2011/0099489; hereinafter: Glenn)
Claims 7 and 14
As to claims 7 and 14, the combination of Gogerty, Ramde, and Menon discloses all the elements in claim 8, as noted above, but do not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the relational database comprises a history of one or more projects of the entity, the history comprising a plurality of data records, wherein each of the plurality of data records is associated with an identifier of a user and a time of creation.
However, Glenn discloses wherein the relational database comprises a history of one or more projects of the entity, the history comprising a plurality of data records, wherein each of the plurality of data records is associated with an identifier of a user and a time of creation (paragraph[0012] and paragraph[0181], the reference describes recording the user identifier and creation date.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified the teachings of Gogerty with the teachings of Menon, Ramde, and Glenn to create a record of user identification and time creation which would result in the claim invention. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve the teachings of Gogerty with the teachings of Menon, Ramde, and Glenn to efficiently compute emission values for an activity that generates an emission (Glenn: paragraph[0001]).
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAUNE A CONYERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3552. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm EST. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil can be reached on (571) 270-0474. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 August 8, 2025
/DAWAUNE A CONYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152 February 24, 2024