DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Applicant Remarks and Amendments filed on 02/26/2026.
Claims 1, 4, and 7-9 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 7-10, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-9 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Page 8: “When considering claim 1 as a whole, as required, the claim sets forth an improvement to the technology of automatically determining how economic restoration of one or more sites affects other sites in an ecosystem function network… For example, as described in the specification, it is possible to evaluate how an increase in economic value of an ecosystem function restored by conservation performed at a conservation site propagates to other sites, and to create a conservation plan so that an increase in economic value of the entire area becomes larger. Para. [0131] of the pre-grant publication corresponding to the present application (US 2025/0265613).”. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that “specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” In this case, the specification does not provide any discussion on what the technical problem is. Instead, the specification just simply describes that “it is possible to evaluate how an increase in economic value of an ecosystem function restored by conversion performed at a conservation site propagates to other sites, and to create a conservation plan so that an increase in economic value of the entire area becomes larger” (See Paragraph [0131] of the PG Pub of the present application). That is not enough to make it apparent for one of ordinary skilled in the art to understand the technical improvement. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Page 9: “In addition, claim 1 has been amended to narrowly tailor the claim to an ecosystem function network having nodes and edges between the nodes which indicates interactions between each of the nodes are based on a distance between the nodes and a strength of an economic function of the respective nodes. This claim language relates to the improvement because without generating an ecosystem function network having the nodes and interactions, the influence that restoring one site has on other sites cannot be meaningfully estimated.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited limitations “the interactions between the nodes being edges that connect the nodes, and the interactions between each of the nodes are based on a distance between the nodes and a strength of an economic function of the respective nodes” are considered to be part of the abstract idea. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments on Page 10: “Even further, the improvement set forth in claim 1 is not to the alleged abstract idea itself.” and “Thus, Applicant's claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because claim 1 includes additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea demonstrated by a particular improvement to the technology of automatically determining how economic restoration of one or more sites affects other sites in an ecosystem function network, as set forth in claim 1, rather than merely claiming the result.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claims do not provide improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to other technology or technical field. Instead, they provide improvement to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a)II - “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-14, filed 02/02/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claims 1-9 has been withdrawn.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter) since the claimed invention falls into “a process” (a method for evaluating an environment conservation scenario) and “a machine” (an environment evaluation system) categories.
Regarding Claims 1-9, the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations:
An environment evaluation system comprising:
…; and
…, wherein … stores;
first data on an ecosystem of a conservation target area,
second data on land use of the conservation target area, and
third data on a conservation scenario in the conservation target area, and
wherein …:
extracts … in which areas having natural capital in the conservation target area are nodes based on the second data,
estimates an ecosystem function network that represents types of ecosystem functions of the nodes and time-related functions of interactions between the nodes based on the first data, the third data, and the network structure, the interactions between the nodes being edges that connect the nodes, and the interactions between each of the nodes are based on a distance between the nodes and a strength of an economic function of the respective nodes,
calculates an economic value of a change in the ecosystem function of the node using a conservation scenario for the node based on a budget constraint related to the conservation scenario for the node which is calculated from the ecosystem function network and the third data, and
outputs the economic value.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 1 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of storing, extracting, estimating, calculating, and outputting an economic value are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites additional element – “a computation device”, “a storage device”, and “a network structure”. The additional element “a network structure” in the claim limitation represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of storing, extracting, estimating, calculating, and outputting an economic value by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for evaluating an environment conservation scenario (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for evaluating an environment conservation scenario amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2 and 3 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. Additionally, these claims also recite mathematical concepts such as mathematical relationships/calculation/equation. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein the time-related function of the interaction between the nodes is a function estimated from a model described by elements of dissipation and diffusion of the ecosystem functions of the nodes” in Claim 2 and by defining “wherein the model described by the elements of dissipation and diffusion of the ecosystem functions of the nodes is based on a reaction diffusion equation” in Claim 3.
Step 2A, Prong 2: These dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not recite additional elements.
Step 2B: These dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite additional elements. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4-8 are directed to substantially the same abstract idea as Claim 1 and are rejected for substantially the same reasons. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the claims further narrow the abstract idea. These dependent claims further narrow the abstract idea of Claim 1 such as by defining “wherein … calculates the economic value using a utility function set for each node, and wherein the utility function is a time-related function including an increase in economy of each node and an increase in an environment conservation effect” in Claim 4, by defining “wherein … calculates an economic value for maximizing the utility function by setting, as constraint conditions, functions described based on the budget constraint, the dissipation of the ecosystem functions on the nodes of the ecosystem function network, and the diffusion of the ecosystem functions due to the interactions between the nodes” in Claim 5, by defining “wherein … calculates an imputed price of each node for maximizing the utility function by setting, as constraint conditions, functions described based on the budget constraint, the dissipation of the ecosystem functions on the nodes of the ecosystem function network, and the diffusion of the ecosystem functions due to the interactions between the nodes” in Claim 6, by defining “wherein … calculates the economic value using a utility function, and wherein the utility function is a time-related function including an increase in economy of the entire conservation target area and an increase in an environment conservation effect” in Claim 7, and by defining “wherein … displays evaluation information including the economic value on …, and wherein the evaluation information includes a map of the conservation target area, an ecosystem function network of the conservation target area, a change in an imputed price of the entire target area in the conservation scenario, and a change in an imputed price of the entire conservation target area in the conservation scenario” in Claim 8.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claims 4-8 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claims 2-7 recite an additional element – “the computation device” and Claim 8 recites additional elements – “the computation device” and “a display device”. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations of these dependent claims do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because individually or in combination, this additional element does not impose any meaningful limits on a practicing the abstract idea and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: Claims 4-8 do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 4-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for evaluating an environment conservation scenario amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites the following limitations:
A method of evaluating an environment conservation scenario by …, the method comprising:
storing:
first data on an ecosystem of a conservation target area,
second data on land use of the conservation target area, and
third data on a conservation scenario in the conservation target area, and
extracting … in which areas having natural capital in the conservation target area are nodes based on the second data,
estimating an ecosystem function network that represents types of ecosystem functions of the nodes and time-related functions of interactions between the nodes based on the first data, the third data, and the network structure, the interactions between the nodes being edges that connect the nodes, and the interactions between each of the nodes are based on a distance between the nodes and a strength of an economic function of the respective nodes,
calculating an economic value of a change in the ecosystem function of the node using a conservation scenario for the node based on a budget constraint related to the conservation scenario for the node which is calculated from the ecosystem function network and the third data, and
outputting the economic value.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations for Claim 9 described above are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve commercial interactions. The limitations of storing, extracting, estimating, calculating, and outputting an economic value are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover concepts that involve a commercial interaction. Therefore, other than reciting a generic computerized system, a generic database, and generic user devices, nothing in the claim elements preclude anything outside the grouping of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 9 recites additional element – “a system” and “a network structure”. The additional element “a network structure” in the claim limitation represents mere generally linking of the use of the judicial exception (the abstract idea) to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of storing, extracting, estimating, calculating, and outputting an economic value by using generic computer components. The claimed computer components are recited at high level of generality and merely invoked as a tool to perform a process for evaluating an environment conservation scenario (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component is not a practical application. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. This claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer system to perform a process for evaluating an environment conservation scenario amount to no more than how to generally “apply” the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and representing mere generally linking of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. As a result, this claim is not patent eligible.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-9 would be allowable over prior art of record; however, they remain rejected under other statues. After having performed an updated search of prior art, including all feature limitations of amended independent claims 1 and 9, the references fail to teach or suggest alone, or in combination with other art, independent claims 1 and 9 in their entirety; and in particular, “estimates an ecosystem function network that represents types of ecosystem functions of the nodes and time-related functions of interactions between the nodes based on the first data, the third data, and the network structure, the interactions between the nodes being edges that connect the nodes, and the interactions between each of the nodes are based on a distance between the nodes and a strength of an economic function of the respective nodes” in combination with other claim limitations, as recited in Claim 1, similarly in Claim 9.
Regarding the novelty/non-obviousness of the invention, the closet prior art was found to be Taylor in view of CONWAY. Taylor teaches systems and methods for implementing automated data modeling and scaling of a Soil Health Data Fabric. CONWAY teaches systems and methods for identifying a recommended treatments to land. In light of the claim amendments, Examiner updated the search, did not find new prior art for the limitation described above, and found that the next closest prior art is Taylor in view of CONWAY and Nitidharmatut et al. (US 2022/0394126 A1; hereinafter, “Nitidharmatut”). Nitidharmatut teaches methods and systems for enabling multiple parties to conduct real time commerce, personal or social interactions, and professional or work collaborations, in a content rich and voice enabled network environment using devices that obtain content/data from, and actively write content/data to, proprietary and public web-based and cloud-based computing environments. Nitidharmatut also teaches that the users of the commercial platform can be associated with nodes and be connected by edges in the network topology as well as the content quality metrics and network topology can impact rankings based on the strength and connection of specific the edges, but also based on the location of nodes within different groups. However, the combination of references fails to disclose “estimates an ecosystem function network that represents types of ecosystem functions of the nodes and time-related functions of interactions between the nodes based on the first data, the third data, and the network structure, the interactions between the nodes being edges that connect the nodes, and the interactions between each of the nodes are based on a distance between the nodes and a strength of an economic function of the respective nodes” as recited in Claims 1 and 9. As a result, neither alone nor in combination, do the references teach the amended limitations described above.
Examiner concludes that the references mentioned above, alone or in combination, fail to teach independent claims 1 and 9, in their entirety.
By virtue of their dependence on novel/non-obvious claim 1, claims 2-8 are novel/non-obvious, respectively.
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 TAYAR M KYU whose telephone number is (571)272-3419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/T.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights