Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on March 20, 2025, which paper has been placed of record in the file.
2. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted March 20, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
4. Claims 1, 6, and 11:
The first occurrence of acronyms NFT recited in the step “tokenizing” should be spelled out.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claim 6, which is analyzing as the following:
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim recites a system for tokenization of Sustainability Development Goals (SDGs) based farm sustainability indices (FSIs) and certificates. The method includes tokenizing, (i) the FSI into a parent FSI NFT based on the categorized sustainability level among the plurality of sustainability levels, and (ii) the FVF certificate into a FVF NFT, the Re-CoF certificate into a RE-CoF NFT, and the LASOL certificate into a LASOL NFT, in addition to a farmland NFT created for the farmland, wherein the parent FSI NFT, the FVF NFT, the Re-CoF NFT, the LASOL NFT, and the farmland NFT is open for trade on blockchain based transactions. The claim recites the steps: acquiring for a farmland a plurality of historical and current parameters…; estimating the FSI as a weighted summation of the plurality of indicators…; determining compliance of the farmland to one or more SDGs and SDG indicators…; generating a plurality of certificates for the farmland…; and tokenizing (i) FSI into a parent FSI NFT…, (ii) the FVF certificate into a FVF NFT…, wherein the parent FSI NFT, the FVF NFT, the Re-CoF NFT, the LASOL NFT, and the farmland NFT is open for trade on blockchain based transactions, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, the claim falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they cover performance of commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, business relations.
Moreover, the claim recites the steps of: acquiring for a farmland a plurality of historical and current parameters…; estimating the FSI as a weighted summation of the plurality of indicators…; determining compliance of the farmland to one or more SDGs and SDG indicators…; generating a plurality of certificates for the farmland…; and tokenizing (i) FSI into a parent FSI NFT…, (ii) the FVF certificate into a FVF NFT…, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the Specification, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, can be practically performed by human in their mind or with pen/paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a computer/processor/automatically”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of generic computing devices does not take the claim limitation out of the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. Thus, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements of “a memory storing instructions”, “one or more Input/Output interfaces”, and “one or more hardware processors” for performing the steps acquiring for a farmland a plurality of historical and current parameters…; estimating the FSI as a weighted summation of the plurality of indicators…; determining compliance of the farmland to one or more SDGs and SDG indicators…; generating a plurality of certificates for the farmland…; and tokenizing (i) FSI into a parent FSI NFT…, (ii) the FVF certificate into a FVF NFT…, and the farmland NFT is open for trade on blockchain based transactions. The memory, the Input/Output interfaces, and the hardware processors are recited at a high level of generality and is used to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements recite generic computer components the memory, the Input/Output interfaces, the hardware processors, and software programming instructions that are recited a high-level of generality that merely perform, conduct, carry out, implement, and/or narrow the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the additional elements evaluated individually and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they comprise or include limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application such as 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 -- See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the processors, the memory, the Input/Output interfaces, they are just merely used as general means for performing the abstract idea.
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of the memory, the Input/Output interfaces, and the hardware processors to perform limitations “acquiring for a farmland a plurality of historical and current parameters…; estimating the FSI as a weighted summation of the plurality of indicators…; determining compliance of the farmland to one or more SDGs and SDG indicators…; generating a plurality of certificates for the farmland…; and tokenizing (i) FSI into a parent FSI NFT…, (ii) the FVF certificate into a FVF NFT…, and the farmland NFT is open for trade on blockchain based transactions”, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
(Step 2B: NO).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 11, Alice Corp. establishes that the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims. Therefore, independent claim 1 directed to a method, independent claim 11 directed to a medium, are also rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent medium claim 12.
Regarding dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15, the dependent claims do not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the outcome of the two-part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 7, and 12, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the FSI to SDG matrix and the FSI to SDG indicator matrix are generated from definitions of the plurality of SDGs and the SDG indicators…, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 6. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 3, 8, and 13, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein the FSI is mathematically expressed as…, that fall under the category of Mathematical Concepts and Mental process groupings of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 6. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 4, 9, and 14, t the claims recite the additional elements wherein the plurality of historical and current parameters related to the plurality of indicators contributing to the FSI are obtained from a plurality of sensors deployed on the farmland, satellite imagery, and external databases., which are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and outputting, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. These elements amount to gathering and displaying data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. Moreover, these additional elements do not provide any improvement to the technology, improvement to the functioning of the computer, improving the sensors, satellite imagery, external databases, they are just merely used as general means for collecting data. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 5, 10, and 15, the claims simply refine the abstract idea by further reciting wherein approval is obtained for each of the plurality of certificates with a unique certificate ID by a certifying body, that fall under the category of Mental process grouping of abstract ideas as described above in the independent claim 6. Thus, the dependent claims do not add any additional element or subject matter that provides a technological improvement (i.e., an integration into a practical application under Step 2A-Prong Two), results in the claim being directed to patent eligible subject matter or include an element or feature that is significantly more than the recited abstract idea (i.e., a technological inventive concept under Step 2B).
Therefore, none of the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1-15 are not draw to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Novelty and Non-Obviousness
7. No prior arts were applied to the claims because the Examiner is unaware of any prior arts, alone or in combination, which disclose at least the limitations of “tokenizing, by one or more hardware processors, (i) the FSI into a parent FSI NFT based on the categorized sustainability level among the plurality of sustainability levels, and (ii) the FVF certificate into a FVF NFT, the Re-CoF certificate into a RE-CoF NFT, and the LASOL certificate into a LASOL NFT, wherein the parent FSI NFT, the FVF NFT, the Re-CoF NFT, the LASOL NFT, and the farmland NFT is open for trade on blockchain based transactions.”
Conclusion
8. Claims 1-15 are rejected.
9. The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Strickland et al. (US 2025/0156920) disclose the platform can capture, rate, score, trace, and distribute content for the health and sustainability factors/attributes of a product. A multifactor holistic scoring process is implemented that produces a reliable estimate of the sustainability of the product (in context).
Harel (US 2024/0012944) discloses authenticating certificates using NFT smart contract blockchain technology and NFTs, smart contracts, and blockchain infrastructure combined with elements of NFT marketplaces to enable authenticating certification and documentation, individual data collection, and individual monetization for such certificates.
Grant et al. (US 2023/0368257) disclose utilizing S2 cell values to characterize arbitrary portions of land parcels and storing the S2 cell values in association with a non-fungible token (NFT) that is stored on a blockchain network, or other peer-to-peer (P2P) network.
Eisenberg et al. (US 2023/0356091) disclose virtual characters, objects, and land are represented by data associated with cryptographic tokens, such as non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The data is dynamically updated in response to conditions in the physical and virtual world. As a result, properties of the virtual characters, objects, and land, such as appearance, may change as reflected in a virtual environment and as propagated to other virtual environments that have access to the NFT.
Timpson (US 2023/0325792) discloses a cryptocurrency based platform for supporting sustainable forest management. The platform comprises a multitude of non-fungible tokens (NFTs), wherein each NFT corresponds to an individual or shared forest plot, said forest plot being subject to a binding agreement executed in exchange of issuing the NFT.
Spangenberg et al. (US 2023/0177480) disclose a system and method which assesses for stakeholders or ownership holders in intangible property is disclosed, which utilizes tokens such as NFTs (non-fungible tokens) to represent ownership of unique stakes in intellectual property.
Regenor (US 2022/0351165) discloses a system and method for creating, maintaining and tracking a cryptographic digital asset tied to physical asset, including creating a digital asset file representative of a respective physical asset; initializing a digital asset generator to create a blockchain-enabled NFT having a unique digital asset ID code; linking the unique digital asset ID code with a unique user ID code which is associated with the first party; creating a first transaction block in a distributed blockchain ledger to record possession with the first party.
Grant et al. (US 12,333,587) disclose utilizing S2 cell values to characterize arbitrary portions of land parcels and storing the S2 cell values in association with a non-fungible token (NFT) that is stored on a blockchain network, or other peer-to-peer (P2P) network.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner NGA B NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6796. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NGA B NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625 June 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights