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
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the case" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the case" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The recitation “the history(s)” in line 5 of claim 9 renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if applicant is attempting to set forth one or multiple histories. 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 the 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.
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; Claim 8 includes 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. PGPub. 2020/0111105 (Gupta et al. ‘105).
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]).
Re Claim 2: Gupta et al. ‘105 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 (Figure 1; paragraphs [0019, 0032]).
Re Claim 3: Gupta et al. ‘105 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 (Figure 1; paragraphs [0019, 0032, 0034]).
Re Claim 4: Gupta et al. ‘105 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 (paragraphs [0018,0024, 0032-0035]).
Re Claim 5: Gupta et al. ‘105 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 (abstract; paragraphs [0018, 0024, 0032-0035]).
Re Claim 6: Gupta et al. ‘105 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 (Figure 1; abstract; paragraphs [0018, 0024, 0032-0035]).
Re Claim 7: Gupta et al. ‘105 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 (paragraphs [0024, 0027, 0032-0035]).
Re Claim 8: Gupta et al. ‘105 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 (paragraphs [0022, 0024, 0031, 0032, 0039]).
Re Claim 9: Gupta et al. ‘105 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 history(s) (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 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 (paragraphs [0027, 0032, 0035, 0040]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References A-D on PTO-892 have been included as representing the state of the art at the time of filing.
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
5/8/26
/LINDSAY M MAGUIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights