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
This action is in response to papers filed on 5/26/2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17 ,and 18 have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are pending.
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, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 10), and/or system (Claim 19), and/or electronic device (Claim 1), thus Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 recite (as represented by the language of Claim 10):
receiving building information including usage type and parcel number-specific energy usage information;
converting address information included in the parcel number-specific energy usage information into unique number information;
matching unique number information of the building information with the unique number information of the parcel number-specific energy usage information;
generating energy usage information per unit area according to the usage type by using the parcel number-specific energy usage information of matched buildings;
identifying a usage type from the building information of the non-matched buildings;
estimating energy usage information of non-matched buildings by using gross floor areas of the non-matched buildings and the energy usage information per unit area according to the usage type;
generating energy usage information for all buildings by using the parcel number-specific energy usage information of the matched buildings and estimated energy usage information of the non-matched buildings;
performing industry classification using spatial analysis to generate industry classification information of each building;
constructing map information by combining the building information and industry classification information;
matching the energy usage information for all buildings with the industry classification information including industry classification of each building;
calculating an energy usage ratio of each building within the same industry;
converting sector information of greenhouse gas emissions information for cities and provinces into industry information by using a linkage model1 linking sectors and industries;
calculating greenhouse gas emissions of each building by using industry-specific greenhouse gas emissions acquired from the greenhouse gas emissions information for cities and provinces and the energy usage information according to usage type and parcel number for all the buildings matched with the industry classification information
constructing building-level greenhouse gas index information and generating GIS-utilized data by combining the greenhouse gas emissions of each building and the map information; and
transmitting the building-level greenhouse gas index information and the GIS-utilized data to a display unit.
1 It is noted that the model recited is recited very broadly and, and as written, does not necessarily include computer-implemented models (such as artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), etc.). Although the claims do not currently include computer-implemented models, Examiner has consulted the specification, and would like to note for future reference, that any recitations to AI, ML, etc. are presented generically at a high-level of generalization (see at least [63] and [64]. These descriptions merely describe the AI, ML, etc. as tools that can be used by the general-purpose computers (as addressed below) to process the data.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) in the form of observing/collecting data in order to calculate energy usage and emissions for creating an index. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of concepts performed in the human mind which represents the abstract idea of mental processes. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for collecting and analyzing data in order to calculate energy usage and emissions for creating an index which could be performed in the human mind or by using pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
an electronic device for constructing building-level greenhouse gas index information;
a memory including at least one instruction;
a processor;
at least one management server of a related institution; and/or
a display unit configured to display data according to an operation of the processor.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [42]-[44], recites examples of generic computers for performing the claimed invention). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, and 20 recite further elements related to the analysis and processing steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claims 4 and 13 recite “wherein the industry classification information includes commercial facility information, public facility information, and industrial-use facility information, each including industry classification for each building”, which further specifies additional steps related to the analysis and processing steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional analysis and processing steps are part of the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 15 recite “wherein, when multiple industries are located in the same building, the processor is configured to designate a representative industry of each building as the most frequently aggregated industry in the building and perform industry classification”, which further specifies additional steps related to the analysis and processing steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional analysis and processing steps are part of the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 16 recite “wherein, when regions where buildings and commercial facilities are marginally misaligned occur in the process of performing industry classification by using spatial analysis, the processor is configured to perform industry classification by supplementing map information through combining a building having the same parcel number with a commercial facility, using a parcel number of the commercial facility”, which further specifies additional steps related to the analysis and processing steps of the parent claims, but does not lead toward eligibility. The additional analysis and processing steps are part of the abstract idea and merely adding that they are performed by the processor does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the electronic device comprises: an input unit configured to generate input data in response to a user input; a communication unit configured to perform communication with an external device to transmit and receive information necessary for constructing greenhouse gas index information; the display unit configured to display data according to an operation of the electronic device; a storage unit configured to store operation programs of the electronic device; and a processor configured to control at least one other component of the electronic device and perform data processing and calculation.” The claim merely recites additional computer components that are part of the general-purpose computer recited to perform the claimed invention (see the “Step 2A, Prong 2” section, above). These elements are recited at a high level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 4, 6, 7, 13, 15, 16, and 20 are ineligible.
Affidavit/Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 5/26/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 based upon 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the last office action because:
The arguments are directed to features that are not part of the claims (such as interactive visualization interfaces, web-based visualization platform, etc.). The included drawings are not part of the original disclosure and include features that were not part of the original disclosure. The discussed features (such as interactive visualization interfaces, web-based visualization platform, etc.) are not described in the specification and any discussions of displays is described in highly general or generic technical terms (for example, see [57]). As such, the remarks regarding improvements are directed to the intended use of the displayed information and not to any of the features claimed (the claims merely transmit the constructed index to a display unit and includes no further features regarding a display unit or its use). Remarks regarding improvements are directed to the intended use of the display/interface because the visualization, interactive interfaces, etc. are not part of the claimed invention or disclosure and are therefore not relevant to the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Prior Art Identified, but not Relied Upon
No prior art references were identified, alone or in combination, that teach(es) the claimed invention using the particular method/system as recited in the independent claims. The closest prior art identified includes:
Theodoridou (EP 4488896 A1). Discloses the determination of expected energy usage and environmental footprint of buildings and of all the buildings in an urban area. Also uses building data such as location of the buildings (which may be comparable to parcel identification), map information, and building usage type (see at least Abstract, page 2, lines 7-40; page 3, lines 10-15; page 4, lines 1-16; page 5, lines 26-33). However, the reference fails to disclose the use of the location (parcel) data and usage type to estimate information for unmatched buildings (buildings not matched to allocation/parcel), not does it use industry classifications or per unit area usage information. The reference also fails to disclose the construction of a building level greenhouse gas index using the steps recited in the instant claims.
Wallander et al. (US 2015/0363874 A1). Discloses property parcel numbers (and addresses) associated with building related data including energy usage and use type (see at least [0010]-[0012]). However, the reference fails to disclose any of the other features of the instant claims.
Kontokosta et al. (A data-driven predictive model of city-scale energy use in buildings). Discloses the use of models to calculate energy usage for buildings and the geographical areas in which those buildings are located (cities, zip codes, etc.). Uses property data, such as parcel information and use type. Uses gross floor area as a factor in energy usage determination (see at least Abstract; page 304, [1-4]; page 305, “3.1. Data collection and description”; page 306, “3.1.2. PLUTO tax lot and land use data”; page 309, lines 22-25). However, the reference fails to disclose all of the features or detail described in the instant claims. For example, the usage determination for matched properties is not generated for per unit areas, and the gross floor area is not used to determine usage information for unmatched buildings. Additionally, the reference does not disclose the creation of a greenhouse gas index, use industry classification, nor calculate energy usage ratios of buildings. Although the reference dose discuss emissions (greenhouse gases) in relation to anergy use, it does not calculate greenhouse gas emissions for the buildings.
Kim et al. (KR 20220122361 A). Discloses using energy use data of similar buildings to determine energy usage estimates for supplementing missing energy usage of a target building. Also discloses building data including use type and type of business and buildings grouped by similar attributes (see at least Abstract; page 4, lines 15-24 and 37-42; page 5, lines 4-6). However, the reference fails to disclose any of the other features of the instant claims.
Drees et al. (US 2014/0142905 A1). Discloses using energy use data of similar buildings to determine energy usage estimates for supplementing missing energy usage of a building (see at least page 13, lines 24-page 14, line 18). However, the reference fails to disclose any of the other features of the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Applicant argues that the conversion of the address information into unique number information and the matching between the unique number information of the building information and the unique number information of the parcel number-specific energy usage information cannot be read abstractly. Applicant also argues that the office action acknowledges that no prior art was identified to disclose the recited system/method.
First, Applicant is reminded that the considerations under 35 U.S.C. §101 and 35 U.S.C. §102/103 use different fact patterns and analysis. The fact that a claim passes under one does not necessarily mean that it also passes under the other. For example, a novel invention may be unpatentable and vice versa.
Second, the remarks and disclosure do not make clear how/why such information conversion and number matching cannot be an abstract idea (in the instant case, mental steps as identified in the above rejection). These steps are recited/described broadly and there is no indication regarding how/why they could not be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
the parcel number-specific energy usage information is converted into unique number information, and that the matching is performed between the unique number information of the building information and the unique number information of the parcel number-specific energy usage information
Step 2A-Prong 1:
Applicant argues that the claim steps “cannot, as a practical matter, be performed in the human mind, for at least the following four reasons”
First, the index information is on a national scale which could number building in the thousands or millions. Examiner has consulted the specification, and unfortunately, this information is not described in detail. There is no discussion of the number of buildings that are analyzed or the size of the data pool or index. Examiner reviewed references to “cities” and “provinces”, however, details of these are not provided (such as the size of the city/province or number of buildings that may be involved). The provinces or cities may not necessarily be a high number. Although, the specification does refence “national”, this national data appears to be based on the data from the smaller units (cities, provinces, and localities). For example, there is no indication that all of the buildings in the national level are analyzed together or that an extremely large index/data pool is used (or how/why that would be outside of mental ability). Additionally, the analysis can be further broken down into smaller grouping, such as (but not limited to) buildings within the same industry (see at least [8]). The analysis is performed on these smaller units may indicate data sizes that can be processed by humans. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that these building groupings and related data/indexes could be at a size that is feasible to analyses mentally and not are necessarily a large set of data or index.
Second, the conversion and matching of unique numbers cannot be performed mentally because “…source data sets are recorded in different address formats - unique numbers in the building information versus parcel numbers in the energy usage information - means that they cannot be associated by simple inspection; they must first be brought into a common identifier space by an automated transformation…” The current claims merely recite converting and matching data without any technical detail. It is not clear why the unique numbers cannot be associated with visual inspection or why they would need to be brought into a common identifier space by an automated transformation (which it is noted is not part of the claimed invention or the disclosure). There is no detail regarding the numbers, how the numbers are converted, or regarding automated transformation that would indicate any level of technical complexity.
Third, “…the performance of industry classification using spatial analysis, as recited in the independent claims, necessarily involves geometrical computation in a Geographic Information System (GIS) coordinate space…” Applicant’s claims merely recite that the claimed invention generates GIS-utilized data and transmits GIS-utilized data to a display unit2. There is no material regarding the use of a GIS system as part of the claimed invention.
Fourth, as with the above arguments, the material Applicant is arguing (matrixes) is not part of the claimed invention and has little technical detail to demonstrate that it would be too complex to be performed mentally (see [112]).
2This “GIS-Utilized” data is being interpreted as data that is intended to be utilized by a GIS system. The claims merely generate and transmit this data labeled as “GIS-utilized”, however, there is no limitations in which GIS systems are used or in which the “GIS-utilized” data is actually utilized by a GIS (i.e. GIS systems and GIS utilization are not positively claimed features of the claimed invention).
Step 2A-Prong 2:
First, Applicant argues that the claims recite a specific algorithm to solve a specific technical problem. The claim steps are recited broadly and it is unclear what the “specific” algorithmic process is. The processes, even if read as an algorithmic process, represents a generic process (regardless of what type of data it is applied to). It recites general steps for processing the data (regardless of the type of data or contact in which it is used). The claims lack any technical specificity and it is not clear how the claims would address the specific technical problem in a meaningful manner beyond the abstract ideas.
Second, Applicant fails to demonstrate how/why the claims steps represent “specific-computer implemented operations”. The claims do not include any specific technical operations or technical specify (see Step 2A-Prong 2, First section, above). The lack of technical features also applies to “data normalization” and its effect on “ambiguity” because the steps related to normalizing data are written very broadly and at a high level of generality (see Step 2A-Prong 2, First section; and Step 2A-Prong 1 discussion of conversion and matching steps, above).
Third, Applicant fails to demonstrate how/why the claims would be comparable to MCRO. Applicant asserts that the claims are allowable for the same reasons, but provides no comparisons, analysis, explanations, etc. to demonstrate how/why Applicant’s claims features would be comparable to the findings in MCRO.
Fourth, the transmissions step of Applicant’s claims are recited at a high level of generality and merely transmits the data. As discussed above, GIS systems and processes performed on data by GIS systems are not part of the claimed invention (see Step 2A-Prong 1, Third section, above; and Affidavit/Declaration section, above). As a GIS-based visualization system is not a positively recited part of the claims, this does not tie it to a specific technological environment (see also Affidavit/Declaration section, above).
Step 2B:
Applicant is reminded that the considerations under 35 U.S.C. §101 and 35 U.S.C. §102/103 use different fact patterns and analysis. The fact that a claim passes under one does not necessarily mean that it also passes under the other. For example, a novel invention may be unpatentable and vice versa.
In regards to Berkheimer, as stated in the previous office action, the above rejections do not rely on a Berkheimer analysis at this time, nor has Applicant provided evidence to demonstrate how/why the claim elements are not well-known or conventional. The references cited in the office action are not cited as Berkheimer evidence. The fact that the claims pass U.S.C. §102/103 consideration does not necessarily render the claims patentable under U.S.C. §101.
For example, Applicant has not identified or analyzed the additional features to demonstrate why they are not well-understood, routine, or conventional (WURC) or in respect to the abstract ideas3. The references cited by Examiner do not inherently indicate that the additional elements in the claims are not WURC and Applicant has not provided any evidence or support to demonstrate why any or all of the cited references would demonstrate that the additional elements in the claims are not WURC.
3The cited claim limitations, “conversion of address information of the parcel number-specific energy usage information into unique number information and the matching by means of the unique number information” are part of the abstract tide and not additional features, as outlined in the above rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/May 29, 2026
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights