DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to application filed 8/20/2025. It is noted that application is a continuation of 18/657,091 filed 05/07/2024 (US Patent No. 12417508) which is a continuation of 18/313,127 filed 05/05/2023 (US Patent No. 12014437) which is a continuation of 17/362,649 filed 06/29/2021 (US Patent No. 11694291) which is a continuation of 16/454,316 filed 06/27/2019 (US Patent NO. 11069013) which is a continuation of 13/573,711 filed 10/03/2012 (US Patent No. 10339618 which claims priority to Provisional Application NO. 61/542,586 filed 10/03/2011) Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statement dated 8/20/25 has been acknowledged and considered.
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, 3–7, and 15–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,417,508.
The patented claims recite a cloud-based health-quality-credit environment in which uniquely identified health-quality credits are maintained in a registry and associated with accounts, credits are determined to be retired, corresponding identifiers are designated as retired in the registry, and the identifiers are annotated within the cloud trade environment.
Pending claims 1 and 15 principally differ by further requiring that an offset credit verified under a first verification standard be retired, that an essentially equivalent replacement credit be verified under a second verification standard, and that the replacement credit be registered to an owner. These limitations constitute an obvious variation of the patented registration and retirement framework. Given the patented system in ‘508 for maintaining, registering, and retiring health-quality credits, it would have been obvious to retire a credit maintained under one applicable verification standard and register an essentially equivalent replacement credit under another applicable standard, thereby permitting the credit to be administered under the second verification regime while maintaining appropriate ownership and retirement records.
Claims 3–7 and 16–20 further specify different voluntary health-quality standards, client accounts, registry or participant notifications, multiple trades, book-entry records, and/or designation and annotation of retired credit identifiers. These limitations constitute predictable variations or implementations of the patented health-quality-credit registry, account, trading, registration, and retirement functionality and do not render the pending claims patentably distinct. Accordingly, claims 1, 3–7, and 15–20 are not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,417,508.
Claims 2 and 8–14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,014,437.
The patented claims recite generating health-quality credits based on healthcare-performance measures, assigning values and grade levels to the credits, determining emissions associated with a healthcare entity having corresponding values and grade levels, determining which health-quality credits are applicable to the emissions, applying the credits to reduce the healthcare entity's emission count, and retiring corresponding credit identifiers.
Pending claims 2 and 8 further specify determining, based on performance of the healthcare entity, that a credit associated with a first healthcare condition should be transformed into a different type of credit associated with a second healthcare condition, automatically performing the transformation, and applying the resulting credit to reduce an emission associated with the healthcare entity.
These limitations constitute an obvious species or variation of the patented performance-based health-quality-credit framework. The patented claims already establish classification of health-quality credits according to healthcare performance and relative credit values/grade levels, matching such credits to healthcare-entity emissions, and applying the credits against those emissions. Selecting particular healthcare-condition categories and transforming a credit from one category or type to another based on healthcare performance represents a predictable implementation of the patented performance-based credit-classification and application scheme and does not impart patentable distinctness.
Claims 9–14 further specify hierarchical credit values, voluntary health-quality standards, client accounts, notifications, multiple trades, and electronic book-entry records. These limitations constitute predictable variations in the classification, administration, communication, trading, and recordkeeping associated with the patented health-quality-credit framework and do not render the claims patentably distinct. Accordingly, claims 2 and 8–14 are not patentably distinct from the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,014,437.
A terminal disclaimer filed in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321 may be used to overcome the nonstatutory double-patenting rejections, provided the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements are satisfied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Claim 15 recites automatically annotating the health quality credit identifier within the trade environment in the cloud based at least in part on automatically designating health quality credit identifier. The phrase “automatically designating health quality credit identifier” lacks an article or other language identifying which health quality credit identifier is being designated. Although the preceding limitation refers to “a health quality credit identifier that is associated with the offset credit,” the recited phrase does not state “the health quality credit identifier” or otherwise clearly identify its antecedent. It is therefore unclear whether the recited automatic annotation is based on designation of the previously recited identifier or some other health quality credit identifier. For purposes of examination and prior-art searching, the limitation has been interpreted as reciting automatically annotating the previously recited health quality credit identifier based at least in part on automatically designating the health quality credit identifier as retired.
Claims 16–20 are rejected under § 112(b) by virtue of their dependency from claim 15.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-7 are drawn to a method of converting a health quality offset credit, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 8-14 are drawn to a system of converting a health quality offset credit, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 15-20 are drawn to a non-transitory computer readable medium for healthcare action sequencing, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. article of manufacture).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A method of converting a health quality offset credit, the method comprising: retiring, in a trade environment stored in a cloud, an offset credit verified under a first verification standard;
verifying, in the trade environment stored in the cloud, a new offset credit under a second verification standard, the new offset credit being essentially equivalent to the offset credit at least in terms of representing a desired reduction in emissions; and
automatically registering, in the trade environment stored in the cloud, the new offset credit in a registry to an owner thereof.
These recited underlined limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). Independent claim 1 recites retiring an offset credit verified under a first verification standard, verifying an essentially equivalent new offset credit under a second verification standard, and registering the new offset credit to an owner. These limitations recite commercial and financial activities concerning the creation, conversion, retirement, verification, ownership, and registration of tradable credits. The claimed activities constitute certain methods of organizing human activity, including fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions, and therefore fall within the abstract-idea grouping. That is other than reciting “in a trade environment stored in a cloud” language, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed between people or by a person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people or managing personal behavior or relationships then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A method of converting a health quality offset credit, the method comprising: retiring, in a trade environment stored in a cloud, an offset credit verified under a first verification standard;
verifying, in the trade environment stored in the cloud, a new offset credit under a second verification standard, the new offset credit being essentially equivalent to the offset credit at least in terms of representing a desired reduction in emissions; and
automatically registering, in the trade environment stored in the cloud, the new offset credit in a registry to an owner thereof.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)– for example, the recitation of in a trade environment stored in a cloud merely limits the abstract idea the environment of a computer,
This feature does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite an improvement to cloud computing, database operation, computer networking, or another technological field.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and the same analysis applies with regards to whether they amount to “significantly more.” Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the at least one abstract idea.
Independent claim 8 recites a processing system and storage media configured to retire a credit verified under a first standard, verify and register an essentially equivalent credit under a second standard, determine based on healthcare-entity performance that the credit should be transformed into a different type associated with a different healthcare condition, automatically perform the transformation, and apply the resulting credit against an emission. The substance of the claim remains a set of rules for creating, converting, classifying, registering, owning, and applying tradable credits based upon healthcare performance. Such activities constitute commercial/economic practices and therefore recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 15 recites computer-readable media storing instructions for retiring an offset credit, designating and annotating an identifier associated with the retired credit, verifying an essentially equivalent replacement credit under another verification standard, and registering the replacement credit. These limitations similarly recite the commercial practices of retiring, converting, verifying, registering, and maintaining ownership/status information for tradable credits.
Furthermore, for similar reasons as representative independent claim 1, analogous independent claims 8 and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor add significantly more.
The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims likewise fail to integrate the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitations of dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20 do not integrate the judicial exception recited in their respective independent claims into a practical application or provide significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 2 further recites determining, based on performance of a healthcare entity, that a credit associated with a first healthcare condition should be transformed into a different type of credit associated with a second healthcare condition, automatically transforming the credit, and applying the second credit to reduce an emission associated with the healthcare entity. These limitations further define rules for classifying, converting, and applying credits based on organizational performance and therefore form part of the abstract economic activity. Although the claim recites applying the credit to “reduce an emission,” the claim does not require physically reducing emissions or controlling an emissions-producing device or process; rather, the offset credit is applied against an emission associated with the healthcare entity.
Claims 3, 9, and 16 further specify different voluntary health-quality standards and, in claim 9, a hierarchical relationship between credit values. These limitations further define the standards, classification, and valuation rules governing the credits and do not recite an improvement to computer or other technology.
Claims 4, 10, and 17 require entering the new offset credit into a respective client account maintained in a database. These limitations constitute electronic recordkeeping associated with the credit transaction. The claims do not recite an improvement to database structure or operation.
Claims 5, 11, 12, and 18 require providing a notification concerning the credit to a national registry, buyer, or seller. These limitations merely communicate information resulting from the underlying credit transaction and do not recite an improvement in communications or networking technology.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 further recite executing multiple trades involving health-quality offset credits verified under different standards. The additional trading limitations further define the commercial activity itself and therefore remain part of the abstract economic practice.
Claims 6, 14, and 20 further require storing information representing a physical offset certificate in book-entry form maintained in a structured database. These limitations constitute electronic recordkeeping. The claims require storage of information representing the certificate rather than a technological transformation of the physical certificate and do not recite an improvement to database technology.
Claim 7 further requires automatically designating an identifier associated with a retired credit as retired in the health-quality-credit registry and automatically annotating the identifier within the cloud trade environment. These limitations electronically record the status of the credit following retirement. The claim does not recite a particular improvement to database architecture, data integrity, or computer functionality; rather, the computer is used as a tool to maintain a record of the commercial status of the credit.
Accordingly, the additional limitations of claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20, considered individually and as ordered combinations with their respective independent claims, merely further define the rules governing the credit transactions or use computer storage, communication, and recordkeeping functionality to implement or record those transactions. The additional limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the dependent claims, individually and as an ordered combination with the independent claims, fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and fail to recite significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Applicant may consider amending the claims to recite additional limitations that integrate the credit-processing operations into a practical application, such as a specific technological implementation that improves the operation of the claimed computer, registry, database, or other technical system. Merely further specifying the commercial rules governing verification, conversion, registration, trading, or retirement of credits, or performing such operations using generic computer components, would generally not be sufficient to overcome the §101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ariswala (2009/0157534).
As per claim 1, Ariswala teaches a method of converting a health quality offset credit, the method comprising:
retiring, an offset credit verified under a first verification standard (Arsiwala teaches retiring a credit from its original offset-credit scheme when converting it to a new standard. Arsiwala paras. [0036], [0111]. Arsiwala performs retirement within its trading platform: specifically identified offsets are debited from the account and marked as retired in the trade platform database. Arsiwala paras. [0096]–[0097] (steps S522, S524); FIG. 5.);
verifying, a new offset credit under a second verification standard, the new offset credit being essentially equivalent to the offset credit at least in terms of representing a desired reduction in emissions (Arsiwala teaches verifying a new offset credit under a second verification standard. The new credit is essentially equivalent to the first offset credit at least in terms of representing a desired reduction in emissions. Arsiwala paras. [0036], [0111]); and
registering, the new offset credit in a registry to an owner thereof (Arsiwala teaches, after verification, registering the new offset credit in a registry to an owner thereof. Arsiwala paras. [0036], [0111]; The trade platform itself may serve as the registry of record for voluntary programs. Arsiwala paras. [0032], [0042]. Registration is performed in the platform database. Arsiwala paras. [0070], [0092] (step S370), [0095] (step S470).
Ariswala does not expressly teach "automatically" registering. However, this is an obvious variant of the ARiswala teachings. IN particular, Arsiwala teaches that processor 102 is configured to register the offset to an owner in structured database 105 and to assign it a unique identifier.( Arsiwala para. [0070]). To the extent Arsiwala is read as involving any manual step in the registration sequence, automating it would have been obvious. Automating a manual activity that accomplishes the same result is ordinarily an obvious modification. See MPEP § 2144.04(III). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ariswala to register the converted credit promptly and accurately and to prevent double-counting. (Arsiwala paras. [0031], [0070], [0096]).
Arsiwala further does not expressly teach its networked trade environment as "stored in a cloud." Arsiwala does, however, teach a remotely accessible server/database trade environment: the processor, verification agents, broker/dealers, and investors are interconnected over the internet (paras. [0064]–[0065]); database records are retrieved by authorized users via a web interface (para. [0092]); and
participants get online access via a secure internet link (paras. [0073], [0077], [0101]).
Hosting that trade environment on cloud computing resources would have been an obvious implementation choice before the effective filing date. It would perform the same network-accessible processing and storage functions with predictable results. Because the retiring, verifying, and registering steps are all performed within Arsiwala's platform, each would be performed "in the trade environment stored in the cloud" once the platform is cloud hosted.
As per claim 15, Ariswala teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer- readable instructions that, when executed by a processing system, cause a system to perform operations comprising:
retiring, an offset credit verified under a first verification standard (Arsiwala teaches retiring a credit from its original offset-credit scheme when converting it to a new standard. Arsiwala paras. [0036], [0111]. Arsiwala performs retirement within its trading platform: specifically identified offsets are debited from the account and marked as retired in the trade platform database. Arsiwala paras. [0096]–[0097] (steps S522, S524); FIG. 5.);
In response to determining the offset credit verified under the first verification standard that is to be retired, automatically designating a health quality credit identifier that is associated with the offset credit as being retired in a health quality credits registry in the trade environment (Arsiwala further teaches maintaining specific identification information for individual credits. Arsiwala paras. [0070], [0077], [0092] (step S370). It also teaches marking specific identified offsets in the trading-platform database as retired. Arsiwala paras. [0096]–[0097] (step S524); FIG. 5; see also para. [0067] (database stores status of previously traded and/or expired offsets in registry-type format);
verifying, a new offset credit under a second verification standard, the new offset credit being essentially equivalent to the offset credit at least in terms of representing a desired reduction in emissions (Arsiwala teaches verifying a new offset credit under a second verification standard. The new credit is essentially equivalent to the first offset credit at least in terms of representing a desired reduction in emissions. Arsiwala paras. [0036], [0111]); and
registering, the new offset credit in a registry to an owner thereof (Arsiwala teaches, after verification, registering the new offset credit in a registry to an owner thereof. Arsiwala paras. [0036], [0111]; The trade platform itself may serve as the registry of record for voluntary programs. Arsiwala paras. [0032], [0042]. Registration is performed in the platform database. Arsiwala paras. [0070], [0092] (step S370), [0095] (step S470).
Ariswala does not expressly teach "automatically" registering. However, this is an obvious variant of the ARiswala teachings. IN particular, Arsiwala teaches that processor 102 is configured to register the offset to an owner in structured database 105 and to assign it a unique identifier.( Arsiwala para. [0070]). To the extent Arsiwala is read as involving any manual step in the registration sequence, automating it would have been obvious. Automating a manual activity that accomplishes the same result is ordinarily an obvious modification. See MPEP § 2144.04(III). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ariswala to register the converted credit promptly and accurately and to prevent double-counting. (Arsiwala paras. [0031], [0070], [0096]).
Arsiwala further does not expressly teach its networked trade environment as "stored in a cloud." Arsiwala does, however, teach a remotely accessible server/database trade environment: the processor, verification agents, broker/dealers, and investors are interconnected over the internet (paras. [0064]–[0065]); database records are retrieved by authorized users via a web interface (para. [0092]); and
participants get online access via a secure internet link (paras. [0073], [0077], [0101]).
Hosting that trade environment on cloud computing resources would have been an obvious implementation choice before the effective filing date. It would perform the same network-accessible processing and storage functions with predictable results. Because the retiring, verifying, and registering steps are all performed within Arsiwala's platform, each would be performed "in the trade environment stored in the cloud" once the platform is cloud hosted.
Ariswala further does not expressly teach automatically annotating the health quality credit identifier within the trade environment in the cloud based at least in part on automatically designating health quality credit identifier. However, this is an obvious variant of the Ariswala teachings. This teaching would require automatic electronic modification of the identifier's database record. Automating Arsiwala's marking of specifically identified credits as retired would have been an obvious implementation of the computerized retirement procedure. (Arsiwala para. [0097] (step S524)). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to make the database consistent with the completed retirement transaction. Arsiwala contemplates automated computer-to-computer processing in place of manual steps. (Arsiwala paras. [0012], [0064]). .
As per claim 17, Ariswala teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: entering the new offset credit to a respective client account maintained in a database (Arsiwala further teaches maintaining client information and current and historical offset positions in a database. Arsiwala paras. [0046], [0067], [0072], [0107]. Arsiwala also teaches crediting a client account upon registration of an offset. Arsiwala paras. [0092] (step S380), [0095] (step S480). Following conversion and registration of the replacement credit, entering that credit into the appropriate client account would have been an obvious account-update operation. That update is necessary to reflect the client's current holdings.)
As per claim 18, Ariswala teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: providing a notification of the new offset credit to a buyer or seller of the new offset credit (Arsiwala teaches electronic communications and reports to participants in the offset market. These include electronic reports concerning offset positions and transactions. Arsiwala paras. [0073], [0077], [0101], [0107]; FIG. 9. Arsiwala further teaches notifying the account holder upon crediting of a newly registered offset. Arsiwala paras. [0092] (step S390), [0095] (step S490). It also teaches sending a confirmation report upon retirement. Arsiwala para. [0097] (step S526)..
As per claim 20, Ariswala teaches the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 18, wherein the operations further comprise: storing information representing a physical offset certificate associated with the new offset credit into a book-entry form maintained in a structured database (Arsiwala teaches electronic communications and reports to participants in the offset market. These include electronic reports concerning offset positions and transactions. Arsiwala paras. [0073], [0077], [0101], [0107]; FIG. 9. Arsiwala further teaches notifying the account holder upon crediting of a newly registered offset. Arsiwala paras. [0092] (step S390), [0095] (step S490). It also teaches sending a confirmation report upon retirement. Arsiwala para. [0097] (step S526)).
Subject Matter free from Prior Art
Claims 2–14, 16, and 19 contain subject matter not shown or suggested by the prior art of record. In particular, the prior art does not teach or suggest determining, based on performance of a healthcare entity, that an offset credit associated with a first healthcare condition should be transformed into a different type of offset credit associated with a second healthcare condition, automatically performing such transformation, and applying the resulting credit to reduce an emission associated with the healthcare entity, as required by claims 2 and 8 and their respective dependent claims.
Additionally, the prior art does not sufficiently teach or suggest the claimed use of different voluntary health-quality standards or the execution of multiple trades of different health-quality offset credits verified under different standards, as further required by claims 16 and 19.
Accordingly, the prior art of record, either alone or in combination, does not provide a sufficient basis to reject claims 2–14, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103. These claims remain subject to the other rejections set forth herein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Musier (WO 2008/124474 A2), the closest foreign prior art of record, teaches a computerized platform for creating, registering, verifying, trading, tracking, serializing, and retiring environmental credits, including carbon-offset and emission-reduction credits, across different markets and jurisdictions. The platform may include a web-based or national registry, verification and retirement facilities, trading functionality, and support for different types of environmental credits. However, the reference does not sufficiently teach retiring a credit verified under a first verification standard, verifying an essentially equivalent replacement credit under a second verification standard, and registering the replacement credit as claimed, nor does it teach the healthcare-condition-based credit transformation of claims 2 and 8 or voluntary health-quality standards.
GAO Report (GAO-08-1048 (2008), Carbon Offsets: The U.S. Voluntary Market Is Growing, but Quality Assurance Poses Challenges for Market Participants), the closest non-patent literature of record, teaches voluntary offset markets employing multiple verification standards, third-party verification, registries for tracking ownership and retirement, and exchanges facilitating purchases and sales of offsets. The report further recognizes issues concerning the interchangeability of offsets produced under different standards. However, the report does not teach the claimed cross-standard retirement and replacement-credit conversion process or the healthcare-specific credit transformation limitations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH GIANG MICHELLE LE whose telephone number is (571)272-8207. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8:30am - 5:30pm PST.
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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
LINH GIANG "MICHELLE" LE
PRIMARY EXAMINER
Art Unit 3686
/LINH GIANG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686 9/25/26
