DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Non-Final, First Office Action on the Merits in response to communications filed September 5, 2023. Currently, claims 1–20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “the received carbon credit information” in the step to “perform”. However, claims 1, 8, and 15 previously recite “carbon credit information” in the step to “receive” and subsequently recite “the carbon credit information” in the step to “determine and assign values”. In view of the above, Examiner recommends amending the claims to recite functionality to “perform analysis of the carbon credit certificate based on the .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite “the other plurality of attributes” in the step to “determine and assign values” and “the carbon credit weighted attribute values” in the step to “determine … a score”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
For purposes of examination, claims 1, 8, and 15 are interpreted as reciting functionality to “determine and assign values to a plurality of attributes of the carbon credit certificate based on the analysis of the carbon credit information, wherein each carbon credit attribute is given a weighting relative to other attributes of the each carbon credit weighted attribute value[[s]]”.
In view of the above, claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20, which depend from claims 1, 8, and 15, inherit the deficiencies described above. As a result, claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 are similarly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 recite “the carbon credit certificate attributes” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, and in view of claims 1, 8, and 15, the element is interpreted as reciting “the plurality of attributes of the carbon credit certificate”.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “the carbon credit certificate attributes” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, and in view of claims 1, 8, and 15, the element is interpreted as reciting “the plurality of attributes of the carbon credit certificate”.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 recite “the weighting scheme” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, the element is interpreted as reciting “[[the]] a weighting scheme”.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 further recite “the carbon credit certificate attributes” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, and in view of claims 1, 8, and 15, the element is interpreted as reciting “the plurality of attributes of the carbon credit certificate”.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 recite “the carbon credit certificate attributes” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, and in view of claims 1, 8, and 15, the element is interpreted as reciting “the plurality of attributes of the carbon credit certificate”.
In view of the above, Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant thoroughly review the claims for compliance with the requirements set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1–20 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes elements to “perform analysis of the carbon credit certificate based on the received carbon credit information”; “determine and assign values to a plurality of attributes of the carbon credit certificate based on the analysis of the carbon credit information, wherein each carbon credit attribute is given a weighting relative to the other plurality of attributes”; “determine, by a scoring algorithm, a score for the carbon credit certificate, based on the carbon credit weighted attribute values”; and “determine a carbon credit rating based on the score and a mapping of score ranges to carbon credit ratings.”
The limitations above recite an abstract idea. More particularly, the elements above recite certain methods of organizing human activity related to fundamental economic principles or practices and/or commercial sales activities or behaviors because the elements describe a process for rating carbon credits. Further, the elements recite mental processes because the elements describe observations or evaluations that could be practically performed in the mind or by using pen and paper. Finally, the element to “determine … a score” recite a mathematical concept because the recited algorithm describes a mathematical calculation. As a result, claim 1 recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 8 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. As a result, claims 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 further describe the process for rating carbon credits and further recite certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and/or mathematical concepts for the same reasons as stated above. As a result, claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device comprising at least one processor and a memory and a step to “receive” information. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step to “receive” is an insignificant extrasolution activity to the recited abstract idea. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although claim 15 further includes at least one computer-readable media, the additional element, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 depend. As a result, claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two for the same reasons as stated above.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claim 1 does not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claim 1 includes additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements include a computing device comprising at least one processor and a memory and a step to “receive” information. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing components that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea, and the step to “receive” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function in view of MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claim 1 does not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
As noted above, claims 8 and 15 include substantially similar limitations to those included with respect to claim 1. Although 15 further includes at least one computer-readable media, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because the additional element is a generic computing component that is merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 8 and 15 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 do not include any additional elements beyond those included with respect to the claims from which claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 depend. As a result, claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 do not include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea under Step 2B for the same reasons as stated above.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashtekar et al. (U.S. 2022/0138649 in view of Psota et al. (U.S. 2015/0073929).
Claims 1, 8, and 15: Ashtekar discloses a carbon credit marketplace (CCM) computing device comprising at least one processor in communication with a memory device (See FIG. 10 and paragraph 152), the at least one processor configured to:
receive carbon credit information associated with a carbon credit certificate (See paragraphs 125–26, in view of paragraph 131, wherein parcel data associated with carbon credits is obtained);
perform analysis of the carbon credit certificate based on the received carbon credit information (See paragraphs 130–131, wherein obtained parcel data is analyzed with respect to calculated carbon credits);
determine and assign values to a plurality of attributes of the carbon credit certificate based on the analysis of the carbon credit information (See paragraphs 76 and 81, in view of paragraph 131, wherein parcels are assigned attribute values with respect to parcel attributes; see also paragraphs 130–132, wherein compliance/non-compliance indicators are scored); and
determine, by a scoring algorithm, a score for the carbon credit certificate, based on the carbon credit attribute values (See paragraph 131, in view of paragraphs 76 and 18, wherein carbon credit values are calculated; see also FIG. 3 and paragraph 146). Although Ashtekar discloses utilizing weights (See paragraph 50), Ashtekar does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Psota discloses functionality to determine and assign values to a plurality of attributes of the commodity based on the analysis of the commodity information, wherein each commodity attribute is given a weighting relative to the other plurality of attributes (See paragraphs 144–145, in view of paragraph 133, wherein commodity scores are generated by weighting dimensions);
determine, by a scoring algorithm, a score for the commodity, based on the commodity weighted attribute values (See paragraphs 144–145, in view of paragraph 133, wherein commodity scores are generated by weighting dimensions); and
determine a commodity rating based on the score and a mapping of score ranges to commodity ratings (See paragraphs 180 and 307, in view of paragraph 133, wherein commodity ratings are determined by applying rating buckets to the commodity score, and wherein the buckets are implicitly configurable).
Ashtekar discloses a system directed to analyzing and scoring a carbon footprint within a carbon marketplace. Psota discloses a system directed to scoring commodities and entities within a marketplace. The technique of utilizing weights and score mappings is applicable to the system of Ashtekar as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to scoring commodities.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Psota would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Psota to the teachings of Ashtekar would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate commodity scoring into similar systems. Further, applying weights and score mappings to Ashtekar would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more detailed analysis and more reliable results.
With respect to claim 15, Ashtekar discloses at least one non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-executable instructions (See FIG. 10 and paragraphs 152 and 154).
Claims 2, 9, and 16: Ashtekar discloses the CCM computing device of claim 1, wherein when the carbon credit certificate is issued by an entity, the carbon credit certificate attributes include carbon dioxide emission rights (See paragraphs 131 and 146, wherein carbon emission credits are disclosed).
Claims 3, 10, and 17: As an initial matter, Examiner notes that the recited categories are afforded limited patentable weight as nonfunctional descriptive material. More particularly, the recited categories merely describe the recited attributes and do not patentably limit any of the claimed functions. The elements have been addressed only in the interest of compact prosecution.
Ashtekar discloses the CCM computing device of claim 1, wherein when the carbon credit certificate is issued by an entity, the carbon credit certificate attributes include at least one category selected from the following: nature loss; nature-based sequestration; emission-reduction avoidance; and technology-based removal of carbon dioxide (See paragraphs 131 and 146, wherein carbon emission credits are determined from nature-based sequestration).
Claims 4, 11, and 18: Ashtekar discloses the CCM computing device of claim 1, further comprising: receiving the weighting scheme as input for the carbon credit certificate attributes (See paragraph 50, wherein users specify weights using the client device).
Claims 5, 12, and 19: Ashtekar discloses the CCM computing device of claim 1, further comprising: receiving the carbon credit certificate attributes as input (See paragraph 50, wherein users specify constraints using the client device; see also paragraphs 76 and 163, wherein attributes are implicitly entered).
Claims 6, 13, and 20: Although Ashtekar discloses data granularity (See paragraph 88), Ashtekar does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Psota discloses wherein the scoring algorithm is configured to set a desired level of granularity (See paragraphs 488–489, wherein conflict rules configure data granularity with respect to the scoring process).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Psota would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 7 and 14: Although Ashtekar discloses the CCM computing device of claim 1, wherein the analysis is configurable (See paragraph 50, wherein constraints are configurable), Ashtekar does not expressly disclose the remaining claim elements.
Psota discloses the mapping of score ranges to commodity ratings (See paragraphs 180 and 307, as above).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Psota would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 1.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,702. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1–20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,702 anticipate every element of pending claims 1–20, respectively.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Gotthelf et al. (U.S. 2008/0228665) discloses a system directed to managing carbon credits in an environmental commodities exchange.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III whose telephone number is (571)270-3400. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached on 571-272-6045. 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.
/WILLIAM S BROCKINGTON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623