DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response to Applicant's arguments filed on August 29, 2025. Applicant has amended claims 15 and 24 and canceled claims 18-20. Currently, claims 15-17, 21-24 are pending. 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 Amendments
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 15-17, 21-24 are maintained in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 15 and 24.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 15-17, 21-24 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments to claims 15 and 24.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 8/29/25 have been considered and are partially persuasive. Applicant’s arguments on p. 9-12 of the remarks related to the 103 rejections are persuasive and the 103 rejections are withdrawn. Applicant argues on p. 7 of the remarks that the 101 rejections are improper. Examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims recite improvements in efficiency, accuracy and reliability of ESG management. Examiner notes this improvement is an improvement to the abstract idea as opposed to a computer or another technology. Applicant argues on p. 7 of the remarks that the efficiency is improved by automating the process. Examiner notes this is merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea itself. This is also true of the improvements to accuracy and objectivity by having automation instead of manual evaluation. Examiner further notes the visualization which is an ESG report with a comparison diagram is just an output of the data and part of the abstract idea and that using a computer to display or generate data is simply using a computer in a generic and conventional manner and are also just tools for implementing the abstract idea. Therefore, the 101 rejections are maintained.
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 15-17, 21-24 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (device and method). Claims 15-17, 21-24 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. Claims 15 and 24 recite the abstract idea of an ESG diagnosis module configured to generate ESG diagnosis results for a target company based on a plurality of ESG evaluation items including environmental evaluation items, social evaluation items, governance evaluation items, and general evaluation items and a materiality topic selection module configured to select materiality topics corresponding to the target company from among ESG topics included in an ESG topic pool and an ESG report generation module configured to generate an ESG report based on the ESG diagnosis results and responses to the materiality topics and an ESG management support module configured to provide an ESG management screen including at least one of the ESG diagnosis results, the materiality topics, and the ESG report, wherein the ESG diagnosis module is configured to select the ESG evaluation items from an ESG evaluation item pool that compiles evaluation items from domestic and international corporate evaluation agencies or evaluation items by category from large corporations, wherein the ESG evaluation items are selected in order of highest frequency for each category and the ESG evaluation items of the ESG evaluation item pool is continuously updated, and an ESG supply chain management module that stores information on supply chain companies managed by the target company and configures the ESG evaluation items by selecting one or more from evaluation items corresponding to the supply chain companies wherein the materiality topic selection module collects priority survey results for the ESG topics from pre-registered stakeholders, and selects the materiality topics based on the priority survey results and the report author's priority input for the ESG topics and wherein the materiality topic selection module provides topics pre-selected by the report author from among the ESG topics to the pre-registered stakeholders, and collects the priority survey results for the selected topics from the stakeholders and wherein the ESG report generation module generates the ESG report including a materiality comparison diagram that compares the priority input and the priority survey results. The claims are directed to a type of managing diagnosis and evaluations of companies for ESG. Under prong 1 of Step 2A, these claims are considered abstract because the claims are certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic principles (including business relations). Applicant’s claims are organized human activity because the claims show evaluating (organizing) data of companies (where a company is a business that is considered human activity). Under prong 2 of Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and any additional elements individually or in combination such as a management device) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. These limitations at best are merely implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as a management device (as evidenced by p. 9-10, 12, 31, 33 of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field. Dependent claims 16-17, 21-22 also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself by further showing wherein the ESG diagnosis module sets evaluation item weights for each of the evaluation items corresponding to the supply chain companies, and generates ESG diagnosis results for the supply chain companies by reflecting the evaluation item weights and wherein the ESG report generation module generates the ESG report including at least one of an ESG comprehensive diagnosis score, ESG category-specific diagnosis scores, ESG diagnosis feedback based on the ESG diagnosis results, ESG diagnosis score history, or benchmark company comparison information and a disclosure standard recommendation module configured to recommend disclosure standards corresponding to the target company based on at least one of the target company's industry group, company size, primary markets, disclosure targets, or disclosure purposes, wherein the ESG report generation module generates the ESG report based on the recommended disclosure standards or disclosure standards selected by the report author and wherein the disclosure standard recommendation module recommends the disclosure standards by applying higher importance to the disclosure targets and disclosure purposes than to the importance of the industry group, company size, and primary markets. Dependent claim 23 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements individually or in combination such as wherein the ESG report distribution module provides the ESG report corresponding to the public ESG report when a hash corresponding to the public ESG report is input (as evidenced by p. 9-10, 12, 31, 33 of applicant’s own specification) are well understood, routine and conventional in the field.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17, 21-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220012660 A1
US 20150262105 A1
US 20040073477 A1
US 20230068433 A1
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUJAY KONERU whose telephone number is (571)270-3409. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30 AM to 5 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on 571- 270-5396. 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.
/SUJAY KONERU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights