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
This Final office action is in response to the application filed on December 31, 2024 and the amendments to the claims filed on July 28, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to the claims filed July 28, 2026 have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejections from the office action mailed on May 12, 2026.
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 and 10 are 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. 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 recitation, “wherein the user terminal automatically generates and sends the consumption signal on the basis of a result of monitoring by a consumption amount monitoring section which monitors the amount of carbon dioxide consumed by the user” in lines 9-11 of claim 1, similarly recited in claim 10, is not supported by the specification. While the specification does contain support for, “the user terminal 30 generates and sends a consumption signal on the basis of the result of monitoring by the consumption amount monitoring section 42” in paragraph [0064], the specification is silent as to this step, or any other step, occurring automatically. Claims 2-9 and 11 are considered to be rejected based on their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-11 are directed to a system, method, or product which are/is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified independent method Claim 10 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent system Claim 1. Claim 10 recites the limitations of supporting carbon dioxide emission trading in which a management system having a token issuance section for issuing a token, and a manager wallet associated with the management system are used, wherein, in a case where a user account and a user wallet are associated with each other, and a consumption signal for notifying an amount of consumption of carbon dioxide is sent from a user terminal associated with the user account to the management system, the token issuance section issues the token on the basis of the consumption signal, and the management system instructs storage of the issued token in the user wallet, and wherein the user terminal automatically generates and sends the consumption signal on the basis of a result of monitoring by a consumption amount monitoring section which monitors the amount of carbon dioxide consumed by the user.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. Supporting carbon dioxide emission trading recites a fundamental economic practice. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The management system and user terminal in Claims 1 and 10 is just applying generic computer components to the recited abstract limitations. The token issuance section in Claims 1 and 10 appears to be just software. Claim 1 is also abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite management system and user terminal in Claims 1 and 10 and the token issuance section in Claims 1 and 10. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 1 and 10 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Applicant’s specification para. [0068-0070] about implementation using general purpose or special purpose computing devices and MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claims 1 and 10 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-9 and 11 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 10 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. Claim 2 further details a sell request without adding significantly more; Claims 3, 4, & 11 further define an emitter account and wallet without adding significantly more; Claims 5 & 6 further define the management system to include a certificate issuance section; Claim 7 further details that the user terminal generates and sends the consumption signal; Claims 8 and 9 include details of the history of the consumption signal without adding significantly more. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-9 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-11 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub. 2020/0111105 (Gupta et al. ‘105) in view of U.S. PGPub. 2020/0372498 (Chen et al. ‘498).
Re Claim 1: Gupta et al. ‘105 disclose a support system for carbon dioxide emission trading comprising: a management system having a token issuance section for issuing a token (paragraphs [0020, 0032]); and a manager wallet associated with the management system (paragraph [0021]), wherein, in the case where a user account and a user wallet are associated with each other (paragraph [0027]), and a consumption signal for notifying an amount of consumption of carbon dioxide is sent from a user terminal associated with the user account to the management system (Figure 1, paragraphs [0025-0027]), the token issuance section issues the token on the basis of the consumption signal (paragraphs [0025-0027]), and the management system instructs storage of the issued token in the user wallet (paragraphs [0021-0027]).
Gupta et al. ‘105 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, with the exception of requiring wherein the user terminal automatically generates and sends the consumption signal on the basis of a result of monitoring by a consumption amount monitoring section which monitors the amount of carbon dioxide consumed by the user. Chen et al. ‘498 disclose that the user terminal generates and sends the consumption signal based on monitoring a consumption amount monitoring section which monitors the amount of carbon dioxide consumed by the user (Chen et al. ‘498: paragraphs [0040-0047]). Chen et al. ‘498 further discloses that any step of the process can be performed automatically (paragraph [0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to modify the system of Gupta et al. ‘105, in view of the teachings of Chen et al. ‘498, to include automatically generating and sending the consumption signal based on the monitoring for the basic reason of combining known systems to yield the predictable result of a system that functions with less user input.
Re Claim 2: Gupta et al. ‘105 in view of Chen et al. ‘498 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that when a sell request that requests selling of the token stored in the user wallet is notified from the user terminal to the management system, the management system moves the token from the user wallet to the manager wallet on the basis of the sell request (Gupta et al. ‘105: Figure 1; paragraphs [0019, 0032]).
Re Claim 3: Gupta et al. ‘105 in view of Chen et al. ‘498 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that in the case where an emitter account and an emitter wallet are associated with each other, and a buy request that requests buying of the token is notified from an emitter terminal associated with the emitter account to the management system, the management system moves the token from the manager wallet to the emitter wallet on the basis of the buy request (Gupta et al. ‘105: Figure 1; paragraphs [0019, 0032, 0034]).
Re Claim 4: Gupta et al. ‘105 in view of Chen et al. ‘498 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that in the case where an emitter account and an emitter wallet are associated with each other, and a buy request that requests buying of the token is notified from an emitter terminal associated with the emitter account to the management system and a sell request that requests selling of the token stored in the user wallet is notified from the user terminal to the management system, the management system moves the token from the user wallet to the emitter wallet on the basis of the buy request and the sell request (Gupta et al. ‘105: paragraphs [0018,0024, 0032-0035]).
Re Claim 5: Gupta et al. ‘105 in view of Chen et al. ‘498 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that the management system includes a certificate issuance section, and wherein, in the case where the token is stored in the emitter wallet, after an issuance request that requests issuance of an emission right use certificate is notified from the emitter terminal to the management system, the management system deletes the token stored in the emitter wallet on the basis of the issuance request, and the certificate issuance section issues the emission right use certificate to the emitter account (Gupta et al. ‘105: abstract; paragraphs [0018, 0024, 0032-0035]).
Re Claim 6: Gupta et al. ‘105 in view of Chen et al. ‘498 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that the management system includes a certificate issuance section, and wherein the certificate issuance section issues a consumption certificate to the user account on the basis of the consumption signal (Gupta et al. ‘105: Figure 1; abstract; paragraphs [0018, 0024, 0032-0035]).
Re Claim 7: Gupta et al. ‘105 in view of Chen et al. ‘498 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that the user terminal generates and sends the consumption signal on the basis of a result of monitoring by a consumption amount monitoring section which monitors the amount of carbon dioxide consumed by the user (Gupta et al. ‘105: paragraphs [0024, 0027, 0032-0035]).
Re Claim 8: Gupta et al. ‘105 in view of Chen et al. ‘498 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that the token issuance section issues the token while setting a validity period, and includes an invalidating section which invalidates the token when the validity period set for the token elapses (Gupta et al. ‘105: paragraphs [0022, 0024, 0031, 0032, 0039]).
Re Claim 9: Gupta et al. ‘105 in view of Chen et al. ‘498 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that the management system records at least one of a history of the consumption signal and a history of trading of the token on the blockchain after hashing the at least one of the history of the consumption signal and the history of trading of the token on the blockchain (Gupta et al. ‘105: paragraphs [0004, 0015]).
Re Claim 10: Method claim 10 is substantially similar to previously rejected system claim 1 and is therefore considered to be rejected here using the same art and rationale.
Re Claim 11: Gupta et al. ‘105 in view of Chen et al. ‘498 disclose the system substantially as claimed in supra, including that wherein the management system includes a certificate issuance section, and wherein, in the case where the token is stored in the emitter wallet, after an issuance request that requests issuance of an emission right use certificate is notified from the emitter terminal to the management system, the management system deletes the token stored in the emitter wallet on the basis of the issuance request, and the certificate issuance section issues the emission right use certificate to the emitter account (Gupta et al. ‘105: paragraphs [0027, 0032, 0035, 0040]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because arguments do not apply to the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection of record on the grounds that, “the claim limitations are integrated into a practical application” (Remarks, pages 6-8) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. Specifically, the claims only recite management system and user terminal in Claims 1 and 10 and the token issuance section in Claims 1 and 10. The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments that, “the claims provide significantly more than the judicial exception” (Remarks, pages 8-10) are acknowledged, however they are not persuasive. The additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f) where applying a computer as a tool is not indicative of significantly more. Even assuming there was a technical problem, the claims, as written, fail to recite the details of how a technical solution to the technical problem was accomplished. If there was a technical problem (e.g., existing technology was incapable of performing the claimed functions) then the claims should recite the details of the technical solution (e.g., how existing technology was improved to overcome this inability). However, the claims, as written, provide no such details and merely recite that the claimed functions (i.e., the outcome) are being performed. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDSAY M MAGUIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-6039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
Lindsay Maguire
9/1/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights