DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim(s) 1-16 are pending for examination. Claim(s) 1 and 9 have been amended. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-16 have been withdrawn as claim 1 and claim 9 have been amended to correct the insufficient antecedent basis issue.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
STEP 2A PRONG 1: JUDICIAL EXCEPTION ANALYSIS
Applicant Argues: The Office Action characterizes the claims as falling within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, asserting they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. Specifically, the Examiner argues the claims recite receiving data, modeling, processing, validating, and displaying results, which constitute "business relations." (Office Action at Page 5-6).
This characterization misrepresents the technical nature of the claimed system and method. The claims are directed to a greenhouse gas emissions management system that implements specific technical operations using ML engines, ML models, cryptographic mechanisms on the blockchain, and real-time data processing architectures.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations as claimed do in fact fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. More specifically, the claims recite features which constitute as "business relations." Further, the claimed technical features as argued by the applicant (i.e., using ML engines, ML models, cryptographic mechanisms on the blockchain, and real-time data processing architecture) are noted to be additional elements that are 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 and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (i.e., Step 2A-Prong 2). Further, these elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B). Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
WHY THE CLAIMS DO NOT RECITE ABSTRACT IDEAS
Applicant Argues: The Examiner's characterization of the claims as directed to "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" ignores the specific technical implementation of the claimed system. The claims do not recite agreements, contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing, or sales activities. The claims recite specific technical mechanisms for monitoring, validating, verifying, and reporting greenhouse gas emissions.
The USPTO's August 4, 2025, Memorandum reminds examiners that "claim limitations that encompass Al in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not fall within this grouping." The Independent Claims 1 and 9 recite multiple technical operations that cannot be performed by a human mind or through manual processes.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations as claimed do in fact fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. More specifically, the claim validates real-time greenhouse gas emission data for storage and further verifies such emission data by dynamically adjusting one or more values based on historical data patterns, seasonal variations, and one or more operational schedules then subsequently transforming the verified data into carbon credits that can be visualized and reported. Verification and reporting reasonably falls under “a business relation.” Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Of note, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection did not reject the claims with respect to Mental Processes under Step 2A-Prong 1, therefore, applicant’ argument is misplaced regarding the claims cannot be performed by a human mind or through manual processes. The claims still are enumerated under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: 1. ML Engine and ML Model Training Requirements
Independent Claims 1 and 9 further recite "train a plurality of machine learning (ML) models using a plurality of ML engines using historical data and the received real- time greenhouse gas emission data." Human minds cannot: Train machine learning models through iterative weight adjustment. Process large volumes of historical and real-time data simultaneously. Execute backpropagation algorithms to adjust node weights. Maintain multiple trained models with consistent parameters.
Further, the USPTO's July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 39, Page
establishes that "training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set" does not recite a judicial exception. The USPTO guidance states that "even though 'training the neural network' involves a broad array of techniques and/or activities that may involve or rely upon mathematical concepts, the limitation does not set forth or describe any mathematical relationships, calculations, formulas, or equations using words or mathematical symbols.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully notes that the claims were noted to fall under "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. More specifically, the claim validates real-time greenhouse gas emission data for storage and further verifies such emission data by dynamically adjusting one or more values based on historical data patterns, seasonal variations, and one or more operational schedules then subsequently transforming the verified data into carbon credits that can be visualized and reported. Verification and reporting reasonably falls under “a business relation.” The claimed technical features as argued by the applicant (i.e., ML Engine and ML Model Training Requirements) were noted to be additional elements (i.e., use of machine learning module that was trained with data) that are 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 and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (i.e., Step 2A-Prong 2). Further, these elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B). Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Of note, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection did not reject the claims with respect to Mental Processes under Step 2A-Prong 1, therefore, applicant’ argument is misplaced regarding the claims cannot be performed by a human mind or through manual processes. The claims still are enumerated under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: 2. Proof of History Blockchain Architecture with Variable Delay Function
Independent Claims 1 and 9 recite "generating one or more timestamp blocks using a proof of history blockchain architecture implementing a variable delay function, wherein the blockchain architecture includes a plurality of temporal references for each of the real-time greenhouse gas emission data." Human minds cannot: Implement cryptographic hash functions. Generate timestamp blocks through iterative hashing procedures. Execute variable delay functions that require verifiable time delays. Maintain blockchain data structures with temporal references.
Cryptographic operations are machine-based computations that the human mind cannot perform.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully notes that the claims were noted to fall under "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. More specifically, the claim validates real-time greenhouse gas emission data for storage and further verifies such emission data by dynamically adjusting one or more values based on historical data patterns, seasonal variations, and one or more operational schedules then subsequently transforming the verified data into carbon credits that can be visualized and reported. Verification and reporting reasonably falls under “a business relation.” Further, use of a time delay function for storage was noted to be part of the abstract idea. The claimed technical features as argued by the applicant (i.e., Proof of History Blockchain Architecture with Variable Delay Function) were noted to be additional elements (i.e., use of block chain architecture to store data) that are 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 and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (i.e., Step 2A-Prong 2). Further, these elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B). Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Of note, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection did not reject the claims with respect to Mental Processes under Step 2A-Prong 1, therefore, applicant’ argument is misplaced regarding the claims cannot be performed by a human mind or through manual processes. The claims still are enumerated under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: 3. Multi-Stage Validation Using ML Engines and Trained ML Models
Independent Claims 1 and 9 recite "validating the received real-time greenhouse gas emission data using the one or more ML engines and the trained plurality of ML models, wherein the validation includes a multi-stage validation consisting of one or more of a validation of an integrity of a data structure by confirming a presence and format of a plurality of parameters, and further includes an execution of a plurality of validation rules based on an emission type and source of emissions." Human minds cannot: Perform continuous real-time validation of large data streams. Execute multi-stage validation processes with automated rule execution. ° Implement anomaly detection algorithms across multiple data sources. Perform cross-validation across distributed data sources simultaneously.
These are machine-based operations, including artificial intelligence, machine learning, and algorithmic processing, that the human mind cannot perform.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully notes that the claims were noted to fall under "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. More specifically, the claim validates real-time greenhouse gas emission data for storage and further verifies such emission data by dynamically adjusting one or more values based on historical data patterns, seasonal variations, and one or more operational schedules then subsequently transforming the verified data into carbon credits that can be visualized and reported. Verification and reporting reasonably falls under “a business relation.” Further, use of validation was noted to be part of the abstract idea. The claimed technical features as argued by the applicant (i.e., Multi-Stage Validation Using ML Engines and Trained ML Models) were noted to be additional elements (i.e., use of machine learning module that was trained with data) that are 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 and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (i.e., Step 2A-Prong 2). Further, these elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B). Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Of note, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection did not reject the claims with respect to Mental Processes under Step 2A-Prong 1, therefore, applicant’ argument is misplaced regarding the claims cannot be performed by a human mind or through manual processes. The claims still are enumerated under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: 4. Dynamic Verification Based on Historical Patterns and Seasonal Variations
Independent Claims 1 and 9 recite "verify the stored real-time greenhouse gas emission data, wherein the verification includes dynamically adjusting one or more values based on historical data patterns, seasonal variations, and one or more operational schedules." Human minds cannot: Continuously monitor and verify large volumes of stored data. Dynamically adjust verification thresholds based on multiple variables. Process seasonal variations and operational schedules in real-time. Implement statistical analysis across historical data patterns.
These are automated, machine-based operations that require continuous computational analysis beyond the capabilities of the human mind.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully notes that the claims were noted to fall under "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. More specifically, the claim validates real-time greenhouse gas emission data for storage and further verifies such emission data by dynamically adjusting one or more values based on historical data patterns, seasonal variations, and one or more operational schedules then subsequently transforming the verified data into carbon credits that can be visualized and reported. Verification and reporting reasonably falls under “a business relation.” The argued verification based on historical patterns and seasonal variations were noted to be part of the abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Of note, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection did not reject the claims with respect to Mental Processes under Step 2A-Prong 1, therefore, applicant’ argument is misplaced regarding the claims cannot be performed by a human mind or through manual processes. The claims still are enumerated under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: 5. Real-Time Data Reception from Distributed Data Sources
Independent Claims 1 and 9 recite "receive real-time greenhouse gas emission data from a plurality of distributed data sources, wherein the plurality of distributed data sources consists of a plurality of Internet of Things (loT) sensors, a plurality of optical character recognition systems, and a plurality of augmented reality measurement devices." Human minds cannot: Simultaneously receive data from multiple IoT sensors. Process OCR system outputs in real-time. Integrate AR measurement device data streams. Maintain continuous data reception without interruption.
These are machine-based data-acquisition operations that require specialized hardware and software.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully notes that the claims were noted to fall under "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. More specifically, the claim validates real-time greenhouse gas emission data for storage and further verifies such emission data by dynamically adjusting one or more values based on historical data patterns, seasonal variations, and one or more operational schedules then subsequently transforming the verified data into carbon credits that can be visualized and reported. Verification and reporting reasonably falls under “a business relation.” The claimed technical features as argued by the applicant (i.e., Real-Time Data Reception from Distributed Data Sources) were noted to be additional elements (i.e., receive real time.... data [from] a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, a plurality of optical character recognition systems, and a plurality of augmented reality measurement devices) that are 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 and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (i.e., Step 2A-Prong 2). Further, these elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (Step 2B). Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Of note, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection did not reject the claims with respect to Mental Processes under Step 2A-Prong 1, therefore, applicant’ argument is misplaced regarding the claims cannot be performed by a human mind or through manual processes. The claims still are enumerated under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: CLAIMS DO NOT RECITE "COMMERCIAL INTERACTIONS" OR "LEGAL INTERACTIONS"
The Examiner's characterization of the claims as reciting "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" is incorrect. The claims do not recite: Agreements or contracts between parties. Legal obligations or requirements. Advertising, marketing, or sales activities. Business relationships or negotiations.
The Independent Claims 1 and 9 recite technical operations for monitoring, validating, verifying, and reporting greenhouse gas emissions. The transformation of verified emission data into standardized carbon credit tokens is a technical transformation operation, not a commercial transaction.
The USPTO's August 4, 2025, Memorandum states that "Examiners are reminded not to expand this grouping in a manner that encompasses claim limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." The technical operations recited in the Independent Claims 1 and 9, including ML model training, blockchain timestamp generation with variable-delay functions, multi-stage ML-based validation, and dynamic verification based on historical patterns, are machine-based operations that the human mind cannot practically perform.
Therefore, Independent Claims 1 and 9 do not recite abstract ideas. The Independent Claims 1 and 9 recite specific technical operations implemented using ML engines, ML models, a blockchain architecture with variable-delay functions, and specialized data processing mechanisms. These technical operations cannot be performed in the human mind or through manual processes.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations as claimed do in fact fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas, as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. More specifically, the claim validates real-time greenhouse gas emission data for storage and further verifies such emission data by dynamically adjusting one or more values based on historical data patterns, seasonal variations, and one or more operational schedules then subsequently transforming the verified data into carbon credits that can be visualized and reported. Verification and reporting reasonably falls under “a business relation.” Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Of note, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection did not reject the claims with respect to Mental Processes under Step 2A-Prong 1, therefore, applicant’ argument is misplaced regarding the claims cannot be performed by a human mind or through manual processes. The claims still are enumerated under the abstract idea grouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity", as they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" including agreements, contracts, or business relations. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
STEP 2A PRONG 2: PRACTICAL APPLICATION ANALYSIS
Applicant Argues: TECHNICAL SOLUTION TO TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
Independent Claims 1 and 9 provide a technical solution to specific technical problems inherent in prior art greenhouse gas management.
Problem: Reliance on Manual Documentation and Errors
The specification describes that current measures are "largely document-based," which is "prone to errors, inaccuracies, and lack of transparency". The reliance on "manual documentation and presentation-based verification also hinders the ability to track greenhouse gas emissions accurately and efficiently".
Technical Solution 1: Integrated Multi-Source Hardware Architecture
Independent Claims 1 and 9 integrate "a plurality of Internet of Things (loT) sensors, a plurality of optical character recognition systems, and a plurality of augmented reality measurement devices" to receive real-time data. This specific combination of distributed data sources addresses the technical challenge of accurate data collection. The specification describes "optical character recognition (OCR) systems... reduce steps and errors in storing in the system." Further, the "augmented reality (AR) devices... include a combination of reality and the virtual world by creating simulation or virtual objects with information technology devices and performing color detection to check." Integrating these specific hardware inputs improves the technical quality of the data received by the system.
Technical Solution 2: Proof of History Blockchain with Variable Delay Function
Independent Claims 1 and 9 utilize a "proof of history blockchain architecture
implementing a variable delay function" (VDF). This is a specific technical improvement to data storage and verification, not a generic database application. The specification explains that the VDF "creates a sequential timestamp that cryptographically proves the reading occurred at 14:00:00, establishing an immutable chronological record". This mechanism provides "technical characteristics of transparent, secure, and verifiable record-keeping." The VDF specifically "generates timestamps through an iterative hashing procedure" and "enables the temporal integrity of recorded emissions information". This implementation solves the problem of data tampering and lack of transparency identified in the background.
Technical Solution 3: Multi-Stage ML Validation and Dynamic Verification
Independent Claims 1 and 9 integrate "multi-stage validation consisting of... a validation of the integrity of a data structure by confirming a presence and format... and further includes an execution of a plurality of validation rules." Additionally, the verification involves "dynamically adjusting one or more values based on historical data patterns, seasonal variations, and one or more operational schedules." The specification describes that this validation mechanism "can detect inconsistencies, verify data integrity, and ensure the reliability of emissions information through advanced algorithmic techniques." The dynamic adjustment allows the system to "automatically adjust the acceptable emission range" based on factors like "current ambient temperature." This creates an adaptive technical system that improves the accuracy of emission verification beyond static rule sets.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that the claim does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field by integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim merely claims the idea of a solution or outcome. The additional elements as argued by applicant (i.e., Integrated Multi-Source Hardware Architecture, Proof of History Blockchain with Variable Delay Function, Multi-Stage ML Validation and Dynamic Verification) are 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 and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The examiner further notes the improvement of “Reliance on Manual Documentation and Errors” is still only an improvement to the abstract idea itself. The elements as noted above amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: IMPROVEMENTS TO COMPUTER FUNCTIONALITY
The Independent Claims 1 and 9 recite technical elements or limitations that improve the functioning of the computer system for emissions monitoring.
1. Enhanced Data Integrity: By implementing the "proof-of-history-based blockchain architecture," the system maintains "multiple temporal references for each of the real- time greenhouse gas emission data". This architecture "optimizes data storage and verification through temporal referencing".
2. Scalability: The VDF mechanism enables "enhanced scalability through lightweight timestamp-based storage".
3. Automated Anomaly Detection: The use of trained ML models for validation allows the system to "identify subtle anomalies and potential fraudulent entries by analyzing temporal patterns".
Furthermore, the USPTO's August 4, 2025, Memorandum states that claims may be found eligible at Step 2A Prong 2 if they "reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field." The Independent Claims 1 and 9 recite specific technical improvements to greenhouse gas emission monitoring, including ML-based validation, blockchain-based verification, and dynamic threshold adjustment.
Therefore, Independent Claims 1 and 9 integrate any alleged abstract ideas into practical application by providing specific technical improvements to greenhouse gas emission monitoring systems. The Independent Claims 1 and 9 address concrete technical problems created by document-based monitoring and manual verification processes. The elements recited by Independent Claims 1 and 9 impose meaningful limits that transform any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that the claim does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field by integrating a recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim merely claims the idea of a solution or outcome. The additional elements as argued by applicant (i.e., Enhanced Data Integrity, Scalability and Automated Anomaly Detection) are 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 and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-16 are directed to a machine and/or process. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
receive real-time greenhouse gas emission data from a plurality of distributed data sources
using
validating the received real-time greenhouse gas emission data using the one or more
generating one or more timestamp blocks
storing the validated real-time greenhouse emission data in the generated one or more timestamp blocks by encoding the validated real-time greenhouse emission current timestamp block and the previous timestamp block, and wherein timestamped emission data is organized into a data structure that includes a timestamp identifier, a previous block's
verify the stored real-time greenhouse gas emission data, wherein the verification includes dynamically adjusting one or more values based on historical data patterns, seasonal variations, and one or more operational schedules;
transform the verified real-time greenhouse emission data into a plurality of standardized carbon credit
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9, includes receive real-time greenhouse gas emission data from a plurality of distributed data sources...; model... using historical data and the received real-time greenhouse gas emission data; using [the model] process the received real-time greenhouse gas emission data using..., comprising: validating the received real-time greenhouse gas emission data using the one or more ... models, wherein the validation includes a multi-stage validation consisting of one or more of a validation of an integrity of a data structure by confirming a presence and format of a plurality of parameters, and further includes an execution of a plurality of validation rules based on an emission type and source of emissions; generating one or more timestamp blocks ... implementing a variable delay function, ... includes a plurality of temporal references for each of the real-time greenhouse gas emission data; storing the validated real-time greenhouse emission data in the generated one or more timestamp blocks by encoding the validated real-time greenhouse emission wherein for each emission data point stored in a current timestamp block, a value of a previous timestamp block is retrieved and combined with current temporal information and a sequential function is performed using a verifiable time delay, and generates a new value that proves the passage of time between the current timestamp block and the previous timestamp block, and wherein timestamped emission data is organized into a data structure that includes a timestamp identifier, a previous block's value, a newly created and a reference to an associated data record; and verify the stored real-time greenhouse gas emission data, wherein the verification includes dynamically adjusting one or more values based on historical data patterns, seasonal variations, and one or more operational schedules; transform the verified real-time greenhouse emission data into a plurality of standardized carbon credit; and visualize of greenhouse gas, including the plurality of standardized carbon, wherein the one or more visualizations include information on a real-time greenhouse gas emission report, thus, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite “commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" in the form of business relations.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 9, recite i.e., system w/ processor, medium, instructions, receive real time.... data [from] a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, a plurality of optical character recognition systems, and a plurality of augmented reality measurement devices, a use of machine learning module that was trained with data, use of block chain architecture to store data, and parallel processing. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋⁋ [0022]-[0023] and ⁋ [0030]). These elements in the steps are 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 and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 9 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does 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 to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, and for similar claim(s) 9, i.e., system w/ processor, medium, instructions, receive real time.... data [from] a plurality of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, a plurality of optical character recognition systems, and a plurality of augmented reality measurement devices, a use of machine learning module that was trained with data, use of block chain architecture to store data, and parallel processing; thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1, and similar claim(s) 9 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 2-8, and 10-16; claims 2-8 and 10-16 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations i.e., further features related to emissions data analysis. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., smart contracts as used in claims 5, and 13, non fungible tokens as used in claims 6 and 14, role based user interface as used in claims 8 and 16). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626