DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 19/013,236, filed 8 January 2025. Claims 1-12 are pending and are considered below.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “demand amount acquisition part” and “method allocation part” in claims 1, 12 and some dependent claims, “request generation part”, “decided method acquisition part” and “total supply calculation part” in claims 2-4, “demand satisfaction determination part” and “demand adjustment part” in claim 5, “optimization part” in claims 7 and 8, and “outcome selling part” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to an apparatus or system (machine), method (process) or non-transitory computer readable medium (manufacture). The claim(s) recite(s) acquiring a financial instrument (a carbon credit) and allocating it by storing certain information.
This recites three abstract ideas in two categories. First, acquiring financial instruments and keeping track of them are both a fundamental business practice and a commercial interaction, each of which is among the “certain methods of organizing human activity” deemed abstract. Second, these are steps which, in the absence of computers, could be performed mentally and using paper records.
Investors could acquire financial instruments by the use of paper documents and could keep track of them in paper files, long before there was any such thing as a computer. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology beyond the use of paper records.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of generic computers, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of generic, networked computers. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manipulate data relating to financial instruments and distributions thereof, they do not improve the “processing of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim to patent eligibility. Taking claims 10, 11 and 12 together, they include two networked devices, at least one of which includes a processor and medium storing instructions.
These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification is clear, § 12, that no particular type of computer is required that “any arbitrary combination” of the described components “are also effective embodiments” of the invention, such that a generic computer will suffice. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim limitations when considered as an ordered combination – at most, two generic computers collectively performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The other independent claims are simply different embodiments but are likewise directed to one or two generic computers performing, essentially, the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2, 5, 7 and 8 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data; claims 3 and 4 simply recite mathematics; claim 6 is simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated, and claim 9 requires nothing more than output.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nguyen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,694,258, filed 19 October 2020).
With regard to Claim 1:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a demand amount acquisition part that acquires a demand amount of carbon credit; [abstract; the system receives “a request to offset a carbon footprint” and in response may assign an “amount of carbon credits”] and
a method allocation part that allocates one or more creation methods, required for creating carbon credits corresponding to the demand amount, to the extent that they are feasible for each of one or more carbon credit creators [Col. 3, lines 15-17; the system “may generate credits based on the difference of CO2 emission for actions, products, individuals, or activity relative to a baseline value”] with reference to i) a method database storing a plurality of the creation methods for creating carbon credits and respective carbon credit creation capacities of the plurality of creation methods in association with each other and ii) a creator database storing one or more of the creators and one or more of the creation methods feasible for each of the creators in association with each other. [Col. 4, line 46; a “database” is used; Col. 5, line 3; it may store “user data”; Col. 10, lines 27-29; the database may store information related to the CO2 emissions (which, as seen above, are a basis for the credit); abstract; the credits are based on user activity which reads on the user being a creator of the credits]
In this and the subsequent claims, referring to what are apparently software components by name, such as “demand amount acquisition part”, “method allocation part”, and the like, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 6:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of creation methods for creating carbon credits include a creation method involving a product as an outcome,
the demand amount acquisition part further acquires designation of a product to purchase, and
the method allocation part allocates the creation method so as to include a creation method involving production of the product designated for purchasing. [Col. 3, lines 27-28; a carbon credit can be purchased by an individual; they were created, as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 9:
The information processing apparatus of claim 6, further comprising:
an outcome selling part that sells at least some of an outcome to a potential purchaser of the outcome resulting from a creation method involving a product as an outcome. [Col. 3, lines 27-28 as cited above in regard to claim 6]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 6 as it includes embodiments which consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and is therefore considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 10:
An information processing method, executed by a processor, [Col. 4, lines 50-51; the process is effectuated by “applications executing on the processor of a computing device”] the method comprising the steps of:
acquiring a demand amount of carbon credit; [abstract; the system receives “a request to offset a carbon footprint” and in response may assign an “amount of carbon credits”] and
allocating one or more creation methods, required for creating carbon credits corresponding to the demand amount, to the extent that they are feasible for each of one or more carbon credit creators [Col. 3, lines 15-17; the system “may generate credits based on the difference of CO2 emission for actions, products, individuals, or activity relative to a baseline value”] with reference to i) a method database storing a plurality of the creation methods for creating carbon credits and respective carbon credit creation capacities of the plurality of creation methods in association with each other and ii) a creator database storing one or more of the creators and one or more of the creation methods feasible for each of the creators in association with each other. [Col. 4, line 46; a “database” is used; Col. 5, line 3; it may store “user data”; Col. 10, lines 27-29; the database may store information related to the CO2 emissions (which, as seen above, are a basis for the credit); abstract; the credits are based on user activity which reads on the user being a creator of the credits]
With regard to Claim 11:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to realize the functions [Col. 4, lines 50-51; the process is effectuated by “applications executing on the processor of a computing device”; line 52; software may be stored in a memory] of:
acquiring a demand amount of carbon credit; [abstract; the system receives “a request to offset a carbon footprint” and in response may assign an “amount of carbon credits”] and
allocating one or more creation methods, required for creating carbon credits corresponding to the demand amount, to the extent that they are feasible for each of one or more carbon credit creators [Col. 3, lines 15-17; the system “may generate credits based on the difference of CO2 emission for actions, products, individuals, or activity relative to a baseline value”] with reference to i) a method database storing a plurality of the creation methods for creating carbon credits and respective carbon credit creation capacities of the plurality of creation methods in association with each other and ii) a creator database storing one or more of the creators and one or more of the creation methods feasible for each of the creators in association with each other. [Col. 4, line 46; a “database” is used; Col. 5, line 3; it may store “user data”; Col. 10, lines 27-29; the database may store information related to the CO2 emissions (which, as seen above, are a basis for the credit); abstract; the credits are based on user activity which reads on the user being a creator of the credits]
With regard to Claim 12:
An information processing system comprising:
a terminal used by a carbon credit buyer; and
an information processing apparatus connected to the terminal via a communication network, [Sheet 1, Fig. 1 showing the network topology] wherein
the information processing apparatus includes:
a demand amount acquisition part that acquires a demand amount of carbon credit; [abstract; the system receives “a request to offset a carbon footprint” and in response may assign an “amount of carbon credits”] and
a method allocation part that allocates one or more creation methods, required for creating carbon credits corresponding to the demand amount, to the extent that they are feasible for each of one or more carbon credit creators [Col. 3, lines 15-17; the system “may generate credits based on the difference of CO2 emission for actions, products, individuals, or activity relative to a baseline value”] with reference to i) a method database storing a plurality of the creation methods for creating carbon credits and respective carbon credit creation capacities of the plurality of creation methods in association with each other and ii) a creator database storing one or more of the creators and one or more of the creation methods feasible for each of the creators in association with each other. [Col. 4, line 46; a “database” is used; Col. 5, line 3; it may store “user data”; Col. 10, lines 27-29; the database may store information related to the CO2 emissions (which, as seen above, are a basis for the credit); abstract; the credits are based on user activity which reads on the user being a creator of the credits]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. in view of Margolis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0049667).
With regard to Claim 2:
The information processing apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a request generation part that generates a request to one or more of the carbon credit creators to implement one or more of the creation methods;
a decided method acquisition part that acquires one or more decided methods that are one or more of the creation methods and their extent, and that one or more of the carbon credit creators have decided to implement; and
a total supply calculation part that calculates a total supply that is a total of carbon credits that can be created by the decided methods, on the basis of one or more of the decided methods.
Nguyen teaches the apparatus of claim 1 including the requesting as cited above in regard to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach this selecting and calculating, but it is known in the art. Margolis teaches a system for combining securities and carbon credits. [title] It selects a fund from among a plurality of funds and calculates an amount of carbon credit necessary to neutralize a carbon footprint of a security included in the fund. [Claim 1] Margolis and Nguyen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing information related to carbon credits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Margolis with that of Nguyen in order to incentivize the use of socially responsible investments, as taught by Margolis; [0076] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using a carbon credit datum in the manner of Margolis in place of, or in addition to, that of Nguyen; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 3:
The information processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the total supply calculation part calculates the total supply by subtracting a) greenhouse gas emissions required for introducing the decided methods, in reference gas emission terms, from b) a reduction amount of greenhouse gas emissions due to the introduction of one or more of the decided methods, in predetermined reference gas emission terms. [Claim 1; “the emissions reduction is calculated by subtracting an estimated emission value of the user activity from a baseline emissions value”]
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. in view of Margolis et al. further in view of Rawat et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0031533).
With regard to Claim 4:
The information processing apparatus of claim 2, wherein
the total supply calculation part calculates the total supply by subtracting a) greenhouse gas emissions required for introducing the decided methods, in reference gas emission terms, from b) a reduction amount of greenhouse gas emissions due to the introduction of one or more of the decided methods, in predetermined reference gas emission terms, and then further subtracting c) greenhouse gas emissions before introducing one or more of the decided methods, in reference gas emissions terms.
Nguyen and Margolis teach the apparatus of claim 2, including the first subtraction as cited above in regard to claim 3, but do not explicitly teach the use of the second subtraction, but it is known in the art. Rawal teaches a system for real-time carbon emissions calculations. [title]It subtracts “calculated carbon emissions” for one or more devices after a specific event from “the calculated carbon emissions for each of the one or more devices prior to initiation of the” event. [Claim 3] Rawat and Nguyen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing data related to carbon emissions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Rawat with that of Nguyen and Margolis in order to increase energy efficiency, as taught by Rawat; further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing Rawat’s mathematical operation before or after that of Nguyen. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. in view of Margolis et al. further in view of Oates (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0253869, filed 26 January 2022).
With regard to Claim 5:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising:
a demand satisfaction determination part that determines a size relationship between the total supply calculated by the total supply calculation part and the demand amount acquired by the demand amount acquisition part; and
a demand adjustment part that acquires one or more procurement sources of carbon credits so that an additional supply from the procurement sources is equal to or greater than a difference between the demand amount and the total supply, if the total supply is less than the demand amount.
Nguyen and Margolis teach the apparatus of claim 2 but do not explicitly teach this use of supply and demand, but it is known in the art. Oates teaches systems for determining marginal emission rates. [title] The systems may interact with a “carbon credit exchange entity”. [0026] It may provide for adjusted supply-demand parameters and transmission parameters in the process of solving an optimization problem. [0119] This relates to managing a “supply-demand balance” [0039] and may readjust parameters if supply and demand are not in balance. [0070] Oates and Nguyen are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing data related to carbon credits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Oates with that of Nguyen and Margolis in order to manage data related to reduction of carbon emissions from a very large source, as taught by Oates; [0002-03] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing Oates’ calculations before or after those of Nguyen. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. in view of Ma et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0209533).
With regard to Claim 7:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
the plurality of creation methods for creating carbon credits include a creation method involving a product as an outcome, [Nguyen as cited above in regard to claim 6; as one can purchase a carbon credit, it reads on a product]
the creator database includes balance information for specifying a balance between a yield of product based on a creation method involving production of the product and a carbon credit creation capacity, and
the method allocation part includes:
an optimization part that allocates one or more of the creation methods required for creating carbon credits corresponding to the demand amount to the creator, by optimizing an objective function incorporating the balance information as a constraint.
Nguyen teaches the apparatus of claim 1 including the step cited above, but does not explicitly teach this optimization, but it is known in the art. Ma teaches an energy management method [title] that discusses the desirability of meeting a “low-carbon environmental protection standard”. [0004] It manages capacity, [0064] and optimizes an “objective function” subject to several constraints. [Claim 2] The constraints may include “balance constraints”. [0025] Ma and Nguyen are analogous art as each is directed to the management of information used to mitigate environmental impacts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Ma with that of Nguyen in order to improve reliability, as taught by Ma; [abstract] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results while applying Ma’s optimization to data such as that of Nguyen, simply performing optimization such as that of Ma at any point during Nguyen’s process. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
With regard to Claim 8:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a combination database that stores creation method combination information indicating a condition to be imposed when different creation methods are used in combination, [Col. 13, lines 4-7; data are combined on a blockchain indicating different “activities and events supporting generation of credits”] wherein
the method allocation part includes:
an optimization part that allocates one or more of the creation methods required for creating carbon credits corresponding to the demand amount to the creator, by optimizing an objective function incorporating the creation method combination information as a constraint. [Ma, as cited above in regard to claim 7; the difference is at most a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, using Nguyen’s datum as a constraint in place of, or in addition to, those of Ma]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694