DETAILE 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 .
Status of Claims
This Office action is in response to correspondence received April 27, 2026.
Claims 1-5 are amended. Claims 6-8 are added. Claims 1-8 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on April 22, 2024. A certified copy of the Japanese application was filed as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
On September 22, 2025, a document indicating retrieval request was unsuccessful was posted into the file folder for this application. This should be available to applicant to review. However, because the priority document was previously received on April 22, 2025, it is unclear why a second certified copy would be necessary.
Drawings
Receipt of drawings on March 24, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
acquire a remaining amount of improvement credits held by an object corporation, the improvement credits being for improving a value of an impact indicator regarding an environment; and distribute at least a part of the remaining amount of the improvement credits of an account of each of one or more supply corporations that supply each of one or more inclusion products included as one or more upstream-side products in an object product of the object corporation, wherein: each upstream-side product is a product identified by following upstream a product tree that hierarchically represents a supply relation of a product group containing the object product of the object corporation in a supply chain to which the object corporation belongs.
The abstract idea recited above is a certain method of organizing human activity – commercial interaction – because it describes steps of determining values of improvement credits and value indicators in a supply chain. These steps are similar to accounting or other commercial tasks and therefore are a commercial interaction. For these reasons claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of “An information processing device comprising: one or more processors configured to” describes a generic computer and the execution is the commonplace business method of performing steps similar to accounting. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), Alice. This is an “apply it” step where the abstract idea is instructed to be performed on a computer. For these reasons the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, for the same reasoning as in the practical application step above, which is carried over here. The element being apply it is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-8 further define the abstract idea with the kinds of credits or limitations defining credits as renewable energy.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Singh et al., US PGPUB 20240296459 A1 (“Singh”).
Per claim 1, Singh teaches An information processing device comprising: one or more processors configured to: acquire a remaining amount of improvement credits held by an object corporation, the improvement credits being for improving a value of an impact indicator regarding an environment in par 42: “At 606C, the apparatus may determine whether the TF calculated at 606B is above a threshold value. For example, 606C may be performed by SCM partner recommendation and enforcement engine 350 or processors 810 of computing device 805 of FIGS. 3 and 8, respectively. The threshold value for the TF, in some aspects, may be one of the parameters obtained at 402 of FIG. 4. The TF threshold, in some aspects, may indicate an acceptable level of GF from a particular partner compared to a target GF calculated for the current recommendation (e.g., a target GF of the SCM Company's associated supply chain network with the current recommendation). If the apparatus, at 606C determines that the TF calculated at 606B is above the threshold, the apparatus may identify, at 606D, an intent by one or more partners to purchase and/or invest in a carbon offset (e.g., a CC, or GF offset) and an opportunity cost, σ.sub.i, associated with the carbon offset intended to be purchased by a partner, i.”
See also par 048: “The TF may be used, in some aspects to evaluate the desirability of one or more carbon credit purchases and a distribution of the carbon credit purchases across the supply chain. In some aspects, the TF may guide a carbon credit purchase decision and indicate a quantity of CCs to purchase based on the variable and fixed opportunity cost incurred by one or more partners.”
The apparatus teaches information processing device comprising one or more processors configured to execute.
TF means total footprint and GF means Greenhouse Gas Footprint.
Identify a remaining amount of improvement credit held by an object corporation is taught at 606D where a carbon offset is purchased this is also taught in par 004: “The project may include, e.g., a conservation project 111 (preventing the destruction of a carbon sink such as a forested area), a green energy installation 112 (preventing additional GHG and/or CO.sub.2 emissions), or a reforestation project 113 (capturing carbon in the trees). The project may be evaluated and verified 114 by a third party (e.g., a certification organization or governmental office) to determine a number of tons of CO.sub.2 the project may be used to offset. A carbon offset wholesaler and/or retailer 120 may be notified of the availability of the verified and/or certified carbon offset and may then coordinate the sale of the carbon offset between the project developer 110 and a carbon credit end buyer 130”
Under a broadest reasonable interpretation the carbon credits are for improving a value of an impact indicator is taught in pars 042, 048 because the total footprint (“TF”) is above a threshold value, that is to say, there is more Greenhouse Gases being produced than is desired.
Singh then teaches and distribute at least a part of the remaining amount of the improvement credits of an account of each of one or more supply corporations that supply each of one or more inclusion products included as one or more upstream-side products in an object product of the object corporation in par 48 “In some aspects, during a second pass evaluation, the apparatus may compute a tradeoff factor and determine if the TF is above a threshold TF value. The TF, in some aspects, may be based on the GF value and the decision value. The TF, in some aspects, may be based on the GF value (e.g., the second factor) and the decision value (e.g., the first factor). The TF may be used, in some aspects to evaluate the desirability of one or more carbon credit purchases and a distribution of the carbon credit purchases across the supply chain. In some aspects, the TF may guide a carbon credit purchase decision and indicate a quantity of CCs to purchase based on the variable and fixed opportunity cost incurred by one or more partners.” Partners teach corporations. Across the supply chain teaches the entire supply chain therefore teaching supply corporations that supply each of the one or more inclusion products.
Singh then teaches wherein: each upstream-side product is a product identified by following upstream a product tree that hierarchically represents a supply relation of a product group containing the object product of the object corporation in a supply chain to which the object corporation belongs in par 26: “FIG. 2 is a diagram 200 illustrating a set of stakeholders in a GHG marketplace. The set of stakeholders, in some aspects, may include a SCM company 201, a set of carbon credit producers/intermediaries 210 (e.g., including a reforestation project 211, a green energy project 212, and a carbon credit bank/intermediary 213) and a set of GHG market participants 220 (e.g., members of a blockchain green supply chain consortium or potential partners). The GHG market participants 220 may include a set of manufacturers 221 (e.g., potential manufacturing partners), a set of transportation partners 222 (e.g., potential transportation partners), a set of distribution partners 223 (e.g., potential distribution partners), and a set of retail partners 224 (e.g., potential manufacturing partners). Each market participant of the GHG market participants 220 may be associated with a value computed based on a quality of service (QoS) and a GHG footprint (GF) (e.g., V.sub.i,j=QoS.sub.i,j*GF.sub.i,j, for each group of partners, i, and each potential partner, j, within the group) used to calculate a value associated with a set of partners selected for a particular objective.”
Object corporation is taught by SCM (supply chain management) company: see par 027: “For example, the SCM company 201 may determine a target GF (TGF) for the supply chain (e.g., the sum of the partners GHG footprint in the SCM company's supply chain).” Manufacturing partners teaches product tree.
Per claim 2, Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Singh further teaches wherein the impact indicator regarding the environment includes carbon dioxide emissions, and the improvement credits includes carbon credits in par 25: “In some aspects, system, method, and/or apparatus (e.g., a Green Supply Chain Partner Recommendation system) in accordance with some aspects of this disclosure may provide a method to recommend partners that minimizes or achieves a target Total GHG/Carbon Footprint (TGF) for a project and/or a time period. The system, method, and/or apparatus, in some aspects may enable the onboarding of SC partners to share non-repudiated and/or validated environmental qualitative and/or quantitative data that is trackable and/or traceable. The system, method, and/or apparatus, in some aspects may provide a single truth (a shared view of a GHG marketplace) and evidence-based tracking of environmental activities among SC partners. Automation of SC partner selection and policy implementation for carbon emission reductions using smart contracts may be provided in some aspects by the system, method, and/or apparatus. Additionally, the system, method, and/or apparatus may recommend ways to reduce emissions and use carbon offsets by carbon credits at the level of supply chain partners.”
Per claim 3, Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Singh further teaches wherein the impact indicator regarding the environment includes a degree of use of renewable energy, and the improvement credits includes credit for the renewable energy in par 026: “FIG. 2 is a diagram 200 illustrating a set of stakeholders in a GHG marketplace. The set of stakeholders, in some aspects, may include a SCM company 201, a set of carbon credit producers/intermediaries 210 (e.g., including a reforestation project 211, a green energy project 212,” See also Fig 2 item 212 where solar energy resources is taught, for the carbon credit marketplace.
Per claim 4, Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Singh further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to receive specification of a condition for distributing the improvement credits, and the distributing of the at least the part of the remaining amount of the improvement credits is made up of distributing the at least the part of the remaining amount of the improvement credits according to the condition specified in par 49: “If the apparatus determines that the calculated TF is above the threshold, the apparatus may proceed to obtain data for at least one candidate partner entity regarding a potential GF offset by the at least one candidate partner entity. The data obtained, in some aspects, may be obtained from a carbon offset commitment blockchain (or other data structure storing information regarding a carbon offset market). The data obtained, in some aspects, may indicate an intent by one or more partners to purchase and/or invest in a carbon offset (e.g., a CC, or GF offset) and an opportunity cost, oi, associated with the carbon offset intended to be purchased by a partner, i. The apparatus may then return to evaluate the objective function based on data obtained (e.g., a set of opportunity costs for each partner). For example, referring to FIGS. 3 and 6, the SCM partner recommendation and enforcement engine 350 may determine that a TF value is above a threshold value at 606C and proceed to 606D to identify an intent by one or more partners to purchase and/or invest in a carbon offset (e.g., a CC, or GF offset) and an opportunity cost, σ.sub.i, associated with the carbon offset intended to be purchased by a partner, i.”
Per claim 5, Singh teaches the limitations of claim 4, above. Singh further teaches the condition includes distributing the improvement credits such that, a poorer the value of the impact indicator of an inclusion product of the one or more inclusion products is, a more of the improvement credits distributed to the account of a supply corporation of the one or more supply corporations that supplies such inclusion product in par 58-59: "As discussed above in relation to FIG. 4, the evaluation may be based on the first factor, α.sub.i, relating to a QoS and/or a fraction of the particular service or product provided by each partner and a second factor, ϑ.sub.i, relating to a value of a contribution of each partner (e.g., a value indicating and/or representing the contribution of the partner to the attributes to be maximized). In some aspects, the first factor and the second factor may be sets of values (e.g., a first set of QoS values and a corresponding second set of contribution values). During a first pass, the evaluation at 708 may not consider attributes of CCs associated with the different partners, σ.sub.i, while subsequent passes (for a same recommendation or a different recommendation) may consider the attributes of CCs associated with the different partners as described in relation to 406 and 506 of FIGS. 4 and 6, respectively. Evaluating the objective function, in some aspects, may include evaluating a weight W.sub.j associated with the recommendation as discussed in relation to the calculation at 406 of FIG. 4 above. For example, referring to FIGS. 3-6, the SCM partner recommendation and enforcement engine 350 may calculate a GF value function at 406 and/or 506 based on the information obtained at 402.
At 710, the apparatus may compute a tradeoff factor and determine if the TF is above a threshold TF value. For example, 710 may be performed by SCM partner recommendation and enforcement engine 350 or processors 810 of computing device 805 of FIGS. 3 and 8, respectively. The TF, in some aspects, may be based on the GF value and the decision value. The TF, in some aspects, may be based on the GF value (e.g., the second factor) and the decision value (e.g., the first factor). The TF may be used, in some aspects to evaluate the desirability of one or more carbon credit purchases and a distribution of the carbon credit purchases across the supply chain. In some aspects, the TF may guide a carbon credit purchase decision and indicate a quantity of CCs to purchase based on the variable and fixed opportunity cost incurred by one or more partners. The threshold value for the TF, in some aspects, may be one of the parameters received as part of the request at 706. The TF threshold, in some aspects, may indicate an acceptable level of GF from a particular partner compared to a target GF calculated for the current recommendation (e.g., a target GF of the SCM Company's associated supply chain network with the current recommendation). For example, referring to FIGS. 3 and 6, the SCM partner recommendation and enforcement engine 350 may calculate a TF at 606B and determine whether it is above a threshold value at 606C."
Per claim 6, Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Singh further teaches the one or more processors are further configured to acquire an amount of the improvement credits held by the object corporation in par 032: “Once the partners have agreed to the set of transactions and/or agreements associated with the recommendation and/or selection the set of transactions and/or agreements may be recorded in the GHG accounting blockchain 355. The GHG accounting blockchain 355, in some aspects, may further provide an indication of the nature of the transactions and/or agreements to one or more of the carbon offset commitment blockchain 330 or the GHG emission reporting blockchain 340 to update the state of the GHG marketplace 320.”
Singh then teaches the one or more processors are further configured to apportion an apportion amount of the improvement credits to the object corporation; and the remaining amount of the improvement credits held by the object corporation not apportioned to the object corporation are the remaining amount of the improvement credits in par 041: “The TF (or the result of the conditional statement associated with the TF), in some aspects, may guide a carbon credit purchase decision and indicate a quantity of CCs to purchase based on the variable and fixed opportunity cost incurred by one or more partners. In some aspects, the TF indicates the extent to which the supply chain's value function is impacted by the carbon-footprint-based penalization determined by the allocation algorithm.” See also par 048: “The TF may be used, in some aspects to evaluate the desirability of one or more carbon credit purchases and a distribution of the carbon credit purchases across the supply chain. In some aspects, the TF may guide a carbon credit purchase decision and indicate a quantity of CCs to purchase based on the variable and fixed opportunity cost incurred by one or more partners. The threshold value for the TF, in some aspects, may be one of the parameters received as part of the request at 606. The TF threshold, in some aspects, may indicate an acceptable level of GF from a particular partner compared to a target GF calculated for the current recommendation (e.g., a target GF of the SCM Company's associated supply chain network with the current recommendation). For example, referring to FIGS. 3 and 6, the SCM partner recommendation and enforcement engine 350 may calculate a TF at 606B and determine whether it is above a threshold value at 606C.” Under a broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, anything not distributed (Singh teaches distributing carbon credits) is retained.
Per claim 7, Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Singh further teaches the object product is logically positioned at a root node or a branch node of the product tree; and the one or more processors logically follow the product tree upstream by traversing the product tree in a direction from the root node or the branch node toward a leaf node in par 037: “In some aspects, W.sub.j represents the operational capacities of the partners in the supply chain. For example, to fill an order for 10 units with an associated manufacturing process that takes 15 hours, w.sub.i,j may represent the portion of the 15 hours assigned, or distributed, to the i.sup.th option available in a corresponding supply chain registry. In some aspects, the distribution of hours decision is made based on the manufacturer's capacity to handle additional hours.” See also par 027: “For example, if an order is allocated to the i.sup.th partner then the value of x.sub.i may be determined to be 1. If the order is not allocated (or assigned) to the i.sup.th partner the value of x.sub.i may be determined (or assigned) to be 0. The function ƒ which provides the supply chain value, in some aspects, may be derived as the sum of the value provided by all the participating partners in the ecosystem. The value factor is determined based on a quality-of-service parameter assigned to each participant in the ecosystem based on the supply chain service request that been handled.” See also Fig 2 Items 221-224. The object product is at the root node which is taught by 221 and then is distributed ultimately ending on a leaf node 224.
Per claim 8, Singh teaches the limitations of claim 1, above. Singh further teaches the object product is logically positioned relatively at a root node of the product tree; and the one or more processors logically follow the product tree upstream by moving away from the root node in Fig 2 Items 221-224.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 102.
Response to Arguments
25 USC 112(f)
Overcome by amendment.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues that because there is no explicit buying or selling in the claims that this is not a commercial interaction. Applicant points to Examples 7 and 8 of the subject eligibility guidance. However examples 7 (based on BuySAFE) and 8 (based on Ultramercial) are not merely buying and selling either. Example 7 discusses a transaction performance guaranty, like a form of insurance or a credit obligation. Example 8 discusses exchanging copyrighted material (a movie, a tv show) in exchange for people watching commercials. Commercial interaction is not limited to a narrow buy or sell or equivalent. Some of the definitions of commercial interaction include “agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” but are not limited to this. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Here, the claims describe agreements, legal obligations, and business relations because they describe transferring and acquiring carbon credits and distributing them. It is understood that when items are acquired between two parties that they are done in an agreement in the form of a contract. At any rate, even if this is not what was intended (Applicant intended to claim items that were transferred with no exchange or expectation of performance), contracts teach on these limitations. At their heart, the claims are interpreted as limitations on various environmental (greenhouse, carbon etc) credits as they are applied to a manufacturing process. This is not patent eligible because it is a government/business interaction between people or companies (certain method of organizing human activity) and therefore, while it is a process, it is not a patent eligible process.
The argument that even if there is an abstract idea then there is a practical application is not persuasive, this is limited to the additional elements of an abstract idea, for example the one or more processors of claim 1. As processors are generic computing components and nearly the rest of the claim is the abstract idea, this would not be a practical application or significantly more as this is a commonplace business process being performed on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), Alice, Versata.
The arguments have been carefully considered but the rejection is maintained.
35 USC 103
Applicant argues that Singh does not teach a product tree or upstream direction. This is not persuasive as upstream and product tree are taught by the directions of the diagram in Figure 2. Singh does not teach these terms literally but teaches their equivalent with the supply chain. Singh also showed distributing carbon credits as taught in par 048 wherein even if partners are distributing credits this teaches the limitation, as nothing in the limitation prevents another party from performing the distribution. Applicant argues that offsets flow downstream not upstream however it depends on where one is standing, and Applicant’s argument is not persuasive as the credits can go to each part of Singh’s supply chain and therefore can go upstream if one is downstream. Applicant then argues that the threshold factor has a different meaning when reading all of Singh however the rejection is maintained as Applicant is trying to say that if Singh teaches other aspects of the TH or the GHG footprint then it does not teach Applicant’s claims. Here, though, what is asserted does teach it and Applicant, in (without citation) trying to say no, it really teaches something else, fails to argue against the assertion. Singh’s teachings only teach additional aspects that do not change what Singh still teaches what Applicant claims. These arguments were carefully considered. For these reasons Singh is maintained as anticipating the claims as well as the new claims.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD W. CRANDALL whose telephone number is (313)446-6562. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anita Coupe can be reached at (571) 270-3614. 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.
/RICHARD W. CRANDALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights