DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on May 26, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled. Claims 11-14 have been newly added. Thus, claims 1-14 are pending and rejected for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In sum, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) and do not include an inventive concept that is something “significantly more” than the judicial exception under the January 2019 patentable subject matter eligibility guidance (2019 PEG) analysis which follows.
Under the 2019 PEG step 1 analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying step 1 of the analysis for patentable subject matter to the claims, it is determined that the claims are directed to the statutory category of a process, (claims 7-8 and 11-12), a machine (claims 1-6), and a manufacture (claims 9-10 and 13-14), where the machine and manufacture are substantially directed to the subject matter of the process. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.03). Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories of patent ineligible subject matter (i.e., organizing human activity, mathematical concepts, and mental processes) that amount to a judicial exception to patentability. Here, the claims recite the abstract idea of acquiring certain amount of greenhouse gas absorption in order to determine an amount of carbon credit that is issued by:
…receiving product information of a greenhouse gas-absorbing product from the product business operator,…, wherein the product information of the greenhouse gas-absorbing product comprises breathability and an estimated service life of the greenhouse gas-absorbing product, wherein the absorption amount acquisition,…, is configured to acquire an estimated value of a greenhouse gas absorption amount based on a greenhouse gas absorption capacity determined in accordance with the product information on the greenhouse gas-absorbing product;
…to manage the absorption amount acquired, in association with the greenhouse gas-absorbing product;
…periodically provide a usage environment of the greenhouse gas-absorbing product which comprises weather information including temperature, humidity and an atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration, wherein the periodically provided usage environment represents progress information of the greenhouse gas-absorbing product over time until the greenhouse gas-absorbing product becomes unusable, wherein the absorption amount correction,…, periodically receives the progress information from the,…, wherein the absorption amount correction,…, is configured to correct and update the absorption amount associated with the greenhouse gas-absorbing product based on the periodically received progress information and to provide the corrected and updated absorption amount of the greenhouse gas-absorbing product.
Here, the recited abstract idea falls within one or more of the three enumerated 2019 PEG categories of patent ineligible subject matter, to wit: the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes fundamental economic practices or principles and commercial or legal interactions (e.g., acquiring certain amount of greenhouse gas absorption in order to determine an amount of carbon credit that is issued).
Under the 2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the identified abstract idea to which the claim is directed does not include limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the recited features of the abstract idea are being applied on a computer or computing device or via software programming that is simply being used as a tool (“apply it”) to implement the abstract idea. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under the 2019 PEG step 2B analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea. (i.e., an innovative concept). Here, the additional elements, such as: a “unit” and “monitor,” do not amount to an innovative concept since, as stated above in the step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, the claims are simply using the additional elements as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e., “apply it”) on a computer or computing device and/or via software programming. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05(f)). The additional elements are specified at a high level of generality to simply implement the abstract idea and are not themselves being technologically improved. (See, e.g., MPEP §2106.05 I.A.); (see also, paragraph [0009] of the specification). Claims 7 and 9 are nearly identical to claim 1 so the same analysis applies to these claims as well.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8, and 10-14 have all been considered and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 2, 8, and 10 are nearly identical to the each other, and include the limitation (“a certification recording step of recording a carbon credit issued for the greenhouse gas-absorbing product by matching and associating the carbon credit with the greenhouse gas-absorbing product”). This limitation is merely stating a generic step of recording a carbon credit issued which is gathering data and storing it for recordation, implementing the abstract idea noted above.
Dependent claim 3 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes managing a correction history relating to the absorption amount. Dependent claims 4, 11, and 13 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe what the product information comprises. Dependent claims 5, 12, and 14 recite nearly identical limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that they describe that the product information includes aging and service life of the greenhouse gas-absorbing product. Dependent claim 6 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1 in that it describes determining a transaction price of the carbon credit to be issued.
The elements of the instant process steps when taken in combination do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. The claims as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not effect an improvement to another technology or technical field (e.g., the field of computer coding technology is not being improved); the claims do not amount to an improvement to the functioning of an electronic device itself which implements the abstract idea (e.g., the general purpose computer and/or the computer system which implements the process are not made more efficient or technologically improved); the claims do not perform a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (i.e., the claims do not use the abstract idea in the claimed process to bring about a physical change. See, e.g., Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was imparted by the claimed process; contrast, Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978), where a physical change, and thus patentability, was not imparted by the claimed process); and the claims do not move beyond a general link of the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., simply claiming the use of a computer and/or computer system to implement the abstract idea).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on May 26, 2026 have been fully considered.
As a result of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and arguments, the pending rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) is hereby withdrawn. The newly amended independent claims include the limitations relating to describing how the monitoring device coupled to the appraisal unit. These features are not taught by the primary reference of Tateo.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, including supposed deficiencies in the rejection, are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Therefore, all these processes of the claimed invention integrate the computing processes into ‘practical applications.’ The product information and the progress information are not computer-generated information, but are tangible information obtained by using hardware devices in real time. Therefore, the product information and the progress information in real time are significant additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical applications, and claim 1 specifically recites processes how the judicial exception is integrated into practical applications with the significant additional elements.” (See Applicant’s Arguments, p. 8). However, the amended claim limitations are not indicative of an integration into a practical application as improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field is not evidenced. Merely using generic data gathering devices (even if it is weather or other climate-related data) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These elements are merely generic components that are implementing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Amit Patel whose telephone number is (313) 446-4902. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 8 AM - 6 PM EST. If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart, can be reached at (571) 272-3955. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-6087. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (USA or CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/Amit Patel/
Examiner, Art Unit 3696
/EDWARD CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3696
Prosecution Insights