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 3/12/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 19, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 12 ,and 14 have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 13, and 15-20 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, 6-10, 13, and 15-20 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):
matching building information including usage type with parcel number-specific energy usage information of matched buildings to generate energy usage information per unit area according to the usage type, the parcel number-specific energy usage information of the matched buildings being acquired in advance;
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 ratio of each building; and
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, 6-9, 13, 15-18, 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.
Claims 8 and 17 recite “wherein the processor is configured to: receive building information and parcel number-specific energy usage information, respectively, through a management server of a related institution managing each piece of information; and match the building information with the parcel number-specific energy usage information by using a common key value between the two pieces of information”, 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.
Claims 9 and 18 recite “wherein the processor is configured to: convert address information included in the parcel number-specific energy usage information into unique number information; and match the unique number information of the building information with the unique number information of the parcel number-specific energy usage information”, 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, 6-9, 13, 15-18, and 20 are ineligible.
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 3/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Step 2A-Prong 1: Applicant asserts that "the human mind is not equipped to use spatial analysis to perform industry classification, to construct map information, or to generate GIS-utilized data, as these steps inherently involve complex data integration and visualization" but fails to provide any support or evidence to demonstrate how/why these activities would be too complex for performing mentally. Examiner reviewed the specification and was unable to find evidence demonstrating how/why the data would be too complex and/or how/why the determinations could not be made mentally.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
Step 2A-Prong 2 and Step 2B: Applicant summarizes the claimed device, but fails to identify the specific additional features and how they would provide significantly more to the abstract ideas. Applicant's remarks merely assert to improvements and benefits, but do not provide any evidence to demonstrate how these alleged improvements are achieved over conventional systems in a meaningful manner.
Step 2B: Applicant argues “[t]his process is not well-known or conventional. Instead, it provides a specific and improved technique for constructing more accurate building-level greenhouse gas index information based on data that is currently accessible only at national, city, or provincial levels.“ It is noted that the above rejections do not rely on well-known or conventional reasoning at this time. Additionally, Applicant has not provided evidence to demonstrate how/why the process is not well-known or conventional. Nor has Applicant demonstrated how/why the claimed invention would represent a specific and improved technique for constructing more accurate building-level greenhouse gas index information.
Conclusion
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 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.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626