DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings received on 1 July 2022 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP §608.01.
Specification paragraphs 48 and 57 includes browser executable code.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “negating buffer pool EAVs.” However, buffer pool EAVs are not given antecedent basis until claim 14. Accordingly, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Abstract Idea
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.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Overall Summary
The claims are directed towards certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II). Examiner notes, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II) states “[the certain methods of organizing human activity] grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances.” These enumerated sub-groupings include: Fundamental Economic Practices; Commercial or Legal Interactions; and Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People.
For the instant application, the relevant sub-grouping is “Commercial or Legal Interactions.” See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) (“’Commercial interactions’ or ‘legal interactions’ include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.”). Specification paragraph 29 last sentence states “These third-party engineering firms present independent reserves certifications to oil and gas companies, governments, and regulatory authorities as well as to banks, law firms, courts, trustees, accountants, and arbiters.” Independent reserve certifications correspond with a contract and legal interaction. These certifications being presented to governments, regulatory authorities, law firms, courts, and arbiters confirms the legal interaction involved.
Specification paragraph 17 states:
Embodiments of the disclosure establish a market that enables financial compensation of hydrocarbon well owners that agree to prematurely abandon and plug hydrocarbon wells. More specifically, fungible carbon credits may be issued
Issuance of credits assumes a legal authority for such issuance. A market of financial compensation of tokens corresponds with commercial interactions related to the above discussed legal credit issuance. These commercial and legal interactions are reflected in the claims as follows:
Detailed claim analysis
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
1. A method for permanently reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the method comprising:
determining emission avoidance volumes (EAVs) associated with a hydrocarbon well,
wherein the EAVs are based on baseline hydrocarbon reserves determined to be producible from a hydrocarbon reservoir by the hydrocarbon well;
confirming that the hydrocarbon well is permanently plugged;
determining a number of carbon emission avoidance tokens (CEATs) to be issued, based on the EAVs; and
issuing the CEATs.
Determining the EAVs corresponds with making a legal finding using corresponding evaluation and judgment. The legal determination corresponds with a legal obligation.
Confirming a hydrocarbon well is plugged corresponds with a legal finding of fact with respective observation.
Determining and issuing a number of carbon emission avoidance tokens (CEATs) corresponds with making a final judgment and issuing a respective commercial token (CEAT) financial instrument and/or legal obligation.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Alternatively, this falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas as follows:
Determining the EAVs corresponds with evaluation and judgment which can be performed mentally in the human mind. See further Spec. ¶52.
Confirming a hydrocarbon well is plugged corresponds with mental processes in the form of observation, evaluation, and/or judgment.
Determining a number of carbon emission avoidance tokens (CEATs) corresponds with making a final judgment and issuing a respective commercial token (CEAT) financial instrument and/or legal obligation. The actual determination corresponds with further mental process evaluation and/or judgment.
Issuing the number of determined carbon emission avoidance tokens (CEATs) corresponds with outputting the result of the mental process determination. In this alternative mental process analysis the issuing is “additional” to the mental process and thus analyzed under step 2A(ii) and 2B.
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Alternatively, when analyzed as a mental process, the claim(s) recite:
issuing the CEATs.
Issuing the token is insignificant extra solution activity as insignificant outputting of the result of an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Alternatively, when analyzed as a mental process, the claim(s) recite:
issuing the CEATs.
Issuance of tokens is described in Specification paragraph 66 including stating “The fungible tokens may be based upon the ERC-20 standard, so that they may be traded on the Ethereum blockchain, e.g., at a token exchange. Other current or future blockchain standards and technologies may be used, without departing from the disclosure.” Because any standard may be used it is clear that the outputting is nonspecific and not confined to any particular issuance steps. The issuance of tokens is a simple electronic transmit/receive of the appropriate number of electronic tokens.
Current standards correspond with those which are well-understood, conventional, routine in the art. Accordingly, Specification ¶66 provides the necessary Berkheimer evidence for step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining an additionality of permanently plugging the well to confirm that plugging the well does reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Determining the additionality and confirming corresponds with making a legal finding using corresponding evaluation and judgment. The legal determination corresponds with a legal obligation. Determining corresponds with evaluation and judgment mental processes.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining the baseline hydrocarbon reserves using one selected from a group consisting of a hyperbolic decline model, an exponential decline model, and a hyperbolic to exponential decline model.
Determining the respective mathematical model to calculate the hydrocarbon reserve corresponds to a determination of respective legal obligation (i.e. credits). Determining corresponds with evaluation and judgment mental processes.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the baseline hydrocarbon reserves are determined for years from the date when the hydrocarbon well is permanently plugged.
Determining the baseline hydrocarbon reserve corresponds to a determination of respective legal obligation (i.e. credits). Determining corresponds with evaluation and judgment mental processes.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 5 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
after permanently plugging the hydrocarbon well, monitoring the baseline hydrocarbon reserves for compliance to ensure permanence.
Monitoring to ensure a compliance is a legal interaction and observation. Alternatively, monitoring compliance corresponds with mental processes in the form of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 5 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 5 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 6 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
6. The method of claim 5, wherein monitoring the baseline hydrocarbon reserves comprises determining a drainage area associated with the baseline hydrocarbon reserves.
Monitoring to ensure a compliance is a legal interaction and observation. Determining a particular drainage area is additional evaluation and/or judgment.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 6 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 6 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 7 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
7. The method of claim 6, wherein determining the drainage area associated with the baseline hydrocarbon reserves comprises determining a permanence polygon, and wherein the permanence polygon comprises one selected from the group consisting of a vertically oriented cylinder for the hydrocarbon well being a vertical well, and a rectangular block for the hydrocarbon well being a horizontal well.
Monitoring to ensure a compliance is a legal interaction and observation. Determining a particular drainage area is additional evaluation and/or judgment. Defining permanence polygon for monitoring of a respective geometric shape further details the respective mental evaluation which can be determined mentally in the human mind.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 7 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 7 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 8 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising, when detecting encroachment into the permanence polygon:
negating buffer pool EAVs of the CEATs.
Negating the buffer pool EAVs is a legal commercial interaction on the financial instrument CEATs.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 8 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Alternatively, when analyzed as a mental process, the claim(s) recite:
negating buffer pool EAVs of the CEATs.
Negating tokens is the opposite of the issuance and similarly corresponds with a simple electronic transmit/receive of the appropriate electronic tokens.
Claim 8 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Alternatively, when analyzed as a mental process, the claim(s) recite:
negating buffer pool EAVs of the CEATs.
Negating tokens is the opposite of the issuance and similarly corresponds with a simple electronic transmit/receive of the appropriate electronic tokens. Negating tokens is similar to issuance of tokens described in Specification paragraph 66 including stating “The fungible tokens may be based upon the ERC-20 standard, so that they may be traded on the Ethereum blockchain, e.g., at a token exchange. Other current or future blockchain standards and technologies may be used, without departing from the disclosure.” Because any standard may be used it is clear that the outputting is nonspecific and not confined to any particular issuance steps and therefore not confined to particular negating steps either. The negating of tokens is a simple electronic transmit/receive of the appropriate number of electronic tokens.
Current standards correspond with those which are well-understood, conventional, routine in the art. Accordingly, Specification ¶66 provides the necessary Berkheimer evidence for step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 9 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
9. The method of claim 7, wherein monitoring the baseline hydrocarbon reserves further comprises determining a drainage area associated with EAVs over a set time interval using an advance polygon inside the permanence polygon.
Monitoring to ensure a compliance is a legal interaction and observation. Determining a particular drainage area is additional evaluation and/or judgment. Determining an advance polygon for monitoring of a respective geometric shape further details the respective mental evaluation to be determined.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 9 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 9 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 10 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
10. The method of claim 9, further comprising, when detecting encroachment into the advance polygon:
negating all CEATs.
Negating all CEATs is a legal commercial interaction on the financial instrument CEATs.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 10 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Alternatively, when analyzed as a mental process, the claim(s) recite:
negating all CEATs.
Negating tokens is the opposite of the issuance and similarly corresponds with a simple electronic transmit/receive of the appropriate electronic tokens.
Claim 10 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Alternatively, when analyzed as a mental process, the claim(s) recite:
negating all CEATs.
Negating tokens is the opposite of the issuance and similarly corresponds with a simple electronic transmit/receive of the appropriate electronic tokens. Negating tokens is similar to issuance of tokens described in Specification paragraph 66 including stating “The fungible tokens may be based upon the ERC-20 standard, so that they may be traded on the Ethereum blockchain, e.g., at a token exchange. Other current or future blockchain standards and technologies may be used, without departing from the disclosure.” Because any standard may be used it is clear that the outputting is nonspecific and not confined to any particular issuance steps and therefore not confined to particular negating steps either. The negating of tokens is a simple electronic transmit/receive of the appropriate number of electronic tokens.
Current standards correspond with those which are well-understood, conventional, routine in the art. Accordingly, Specification ¶66 provides the necessary Berkheimer evidence for step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
…; and
determining baseline EAVs by multiplying the baseline hydrocarbon reserves with the composition of the baseline hydrocarbon reserves.
Determining the EAVs corresponds with making a legal finding using corresponding mathematical concept of the multiplication. The legal determination corresponds with a legal obligation. The determination can be performed mentally as evaluation and/or judgment. Furthermore, the multiplication is a mathematical calculation. A combination of certain methods of organizing human activity and mathematical concept is a combination of abstract idea which remains an abstract idea.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
determining a composition of the baseline hydrocarbon reserves representing a CO2 equivalent (CO2e) associated with a given volume of the baseline hydrocarbon reserves
Determining the composition of the hydrocarbon reserves in a non-specific manner is a generic recitation of data gathering. Mere data gathering does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
The claim(s) recite:
determining a composition of the baseline hydrocarbon reserves representing a CO2 equivalent (CO2e) associated with a given volume of the baseline hydrocarbon reserves
MPEP §2106.05(d) provides examples:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
These data gathering examples are encompassed by the generic recitation of data gathering recited by the claim. Accordingly, the claim recitation here is at least as abstract as the examples given in the MPEP.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 12 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
12. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
correcting the baseline EAVs for a leakage factor.
Determining the EAVs corresponds with making a legal finding using corresponding evaluation and judgment. Correcting the baseline EAVs for a leakage factor is further evaluation, judgment, and/or calculation of the legal obligation of the EAV(s). The legal determination corresponds with a legal obligation. The evaluation and judgment of the correction is mental process. A combination of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental process is a combination of abstract idea which remains an abstract idea.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 12 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 12 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 13 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising:
determining advance EAVs by discounting the baseline EAVs using the leakage factor, for a set time interval; and
using the advance EAVs as the EAVs for determining the number of CEATs to be issued.
Determining the advance EAVs corresponds with making a legal finding using corresponding evaluation and judgment. Discounting the baseline EAVs for a leakage factor is further evaluation, judgment, and/or calculation of the legal obligation of the EAV(s). The legal determination corresponds with a legal obligation. The determining advance EAVs and a number of CEATs corresponds with evaluation and judgment as a mental process.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 13 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 13 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 14 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
14. The method of claim 13, further comprising:
determining buffer pool EAVs by subtracting the advance EAVs from the baseline EAVs.; and
reserving the buffer pool EAVs as an insurance against unforeseen encroachment into the baseline hydrocarbon reserves.
Determining the EAVs corresponds with making a legal finding using corresponding evaluation and judgment. Subtracting advance EAVs from the baseline EAVs for a leakage factor is further evaluation, judgment, and/or calculation of the legal obligation of the EAV(s). The legal determination corresponds with a legal obligation. Each of the evaluations and judgment of the determining can be performed mentally in the human mind. Furthermore, the calculation by subtraction is mathematical concept. A combination of certain methods of organizing human activity, mental process, and mathematical concept is a combination of abstract idea which remains an abstract idea.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 14 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 14 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 15 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the CEATs are non-fungible tokens.
A non-fungible token is a recordation of a commercial or financial credit.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 15 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 15 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 16 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
16. The method of claim 15, further comprising:
converting the CEATs to fungible tokens; and
providing the fungible tokens to an owner of the hydrocarbon well.
A fungible token is a recordation of a commercial or financial credit. Providing those tokens to the owner of a well is a commercial and/or legal activity.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) and/or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 16 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Alternatively, when analyzed as a mental process, the claim(s) recite:
converting the CEATs to fungible tokens; and
providing the fungible tokens to an owner of the hydrocarbon well.
Converting and providing the token is insignificant extra solution activity as insignificant outputting of the result of an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 16 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Alternatively, when analyzed as a mental process, the claim(s) recite:
converting the CEATs to fungible tokens; and
providing the fungible tokens to an owner of the hydrocarbon well.
Converting of tokens is described in Specification paragraph 66 including stating “the NFTs may be converted to a fungible token. …. The fungible tokens may be based upon the ERC-20 standard, so that they may be traded on the Ethereum blockchain, e.g., at a token exchange. Other current or future blockchain standards and technologies may be used, without departing from the disclosure.” Because any standard may be used it is clear that the outputting is nonspecific and not confined to any particular issuance steps. The issuance of tokens is a simple electronic transmit/receive of the appropriate number of electronic tokens.
Current standards correspond with those which are well-understood, conventional, routine in the art. Accordingly, Specification ¶66 provides the necessary Berkheimer evidence for step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 17 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
17. A system for permanently reducing carbon dioxide emissions, the system comprising: configured to:
determine emission avoidance volumes (EAVs) associated with a hydrocarbon well,
wherein the EAVs are based on baseline hydrocarbon reserves determined to be producible from a hydrocarbon reservoir by the hydrocarbon well,
confirm that the hydrocarbon well is permanently plugged,
determine a number of carbon emission avoidance tokens (CEATs) to be issued, based on the EAVs and,
issue the CEATs.
Determining the EAVs corresponds with making a legal finding using corresponding evaluation and judgment. The legal determination corresponds with a legal obligation.
Confirming a hydrocarbon well is plugged corresponds with a legal finding of fact with respective observation.
Determining and issuing a number of carbon emission avoidance tokens (CEATs) corresponds with making a final judgment and issuing a respective commercial token (CEAT) financial instrument and/or legal obligation.
This falls within the methods of organizing human activity (Commercial or Legal Interactions) grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Alternatively, this falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas as follows:
Determining the EAVs corresponds with evaluation and judgment which can be performed mentally in the human mind. See further Spec. ¶52.
Confirming a hydrocarbon well is plugged corresponds with mental processes in the form of observation, evaluation, and/or judgment.
Determining a number of carbon emission avoidance tokens (CEATs) corresponds with making a final judgment and issuing a respective commercial token (CEAT) financial instrument and/or legal obligation. The actual determination corresponds with further mental process evaluation and/or judgment.
Issuing the number of determined carbon emission avoidance tokens (CEATs) corresponds with outputting the result of the mental process determination. In this alternative mental process analysis the issuing is “additional” to the mental process and thus analyzed under step 2A(ii) and 2B.
Claim 17 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
at least one processor
The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(b) (“Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223-24, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).”).
Alternatively, when analyzed as a mental process, the claim(s) further recite:
issuing the CEATs.
Issuing the token is insignificant extra solution activity as insignificant outputting of the result of an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 17 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(b) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same here under step 2B.
Alternatively, when analyzed as a mental process, the claim(s) recite:
issuing the CEATs.
Issuance of tokens is described in Specification paragraph 66 including stating “The fungible tokens may be based upon the ERC-20 standard, so that they may be traded on the Ethereum blockchain, e.g., at a token exchange. Other current or future blockchain standards and technologies may be used, without departing from the disclosure.” Because any standard may be used it is clear that the outputting is nonspecific and not confined to any particular issuance steps. The issuance of tokens is a simple electronic transmit/receive of the appropriate number of electronic tokens.
Current standards correspond with those which are well-understood, conventional, routine in the art. Accordingly, Specification ¶66 provides the necessary Berkheimer evidence for step 2B.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Dependent claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 5 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent claim 19 is substantially similar to claims 11-13 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent claim 20 is substantially similar to claims 15 and16 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 17, 18, and 20
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0101430 A1 Barton [herein “Barton”] in view of Plasynski, S., et al. “The critical role of monitoring, verification, and accounting for geologic carbon dioxide storage projects” Environmental Geoscience, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 19-34 (2011) [herein “Plasynski”].
Claim 1 recites “1. A method for permanently reducing carbon dioxide emissions.” Barton paragraph 20 discloses “Carbon credits are generated from projects around the world that pull Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) out of the atmosphere or keep them from ever entering the atmosphere. Each time a project verifies they have reduced, avoided, or destroyed one metric tonne of GHGs, one carbon credit is created.” Reducing, avoiding, or destroying GHGs is a permanent reduction of carbon dioxide emission.
Claim 1 further recites “the method comprising: determining emission avoidance volumes (EAVs) associated with a hydrocarbon well, wherein the EAVs are based on baseline hydrocarbon reserves determined to be producible from a hydrocarbon reservoir by the hydrocarbon well.” Barton paragraph 49 discloses:
At 71, an analysis is performed of a hydrocarbon deposit. The analysis can include size, Production Risk Value, or other characteristics as described above. At 72, regulatory approval is obtained of the analysis through an appropriate validation and verification process, or as otherwise set forth under the applicable cap and trade system. At 73, the analysis is converted into registered carbon credits.
The analysis of the hydrocarbon deposit of respective size or production risk value corresponds with determining at least one baseline hydrocarbon reserve producible from wells of the deposit. Converting the analysis into registered carbon credits is the determined emission avoidance volumes being based on this baseline hydrocarbon reserves.
Barton paragraph 52 discloses:
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) can be used to determine a possible volume of emissions ascribed to a deposit and is therefore useful in determining carbon offset credits. LCA of the recoverable oil in place is used to determine the equivalent volume of emissions derived from formulated recovery barrels of oil in place.
The equivalent volume of emissions corresponds to a determined emission avoidance volume associated with the deposit.
Claim 1 further recites “confirming that the hydrocarbon well is permanently plugged.” Barton paragraph 28 lines 15-16 disclose “a separate entity is brought in again to ‘verify’ that the promised emissions reductions have occurred.” Barton paragraph 50 lines 4-8 disclose “determining volume of recoverable fossil fuels sequestered …and third-party verification of any of these steps.” Verifying corresponds with a confirming process. Sequestering recoverable fossil fuels relates to, but does not explicitly disclose, plugging of hydrocarbon wells.
Barton does not explicitly disclose plugging wells; however, in analogous art of geological carbon storage, Plasynski page 24 stage 4 teaches “Monitoring, verification, and accounting activities during stage 4 involve following well plugging to ensure that it is done properly and establishing the location of the CO2 plume at the time of project completion for later comparison purposes.” Plasynski page 25 left column teaches “During stage 5, postclosure surveillance, the site will need to be monitored to ensure that no problems exist, such as CO2 leakage. …. The overall success and safety of the project is predicated on CO2 remaining in the intended target formation.” The CO2 remaining in the formation corresponds with a permanent plugging of the well.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Barton and Plasynski. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use monitoring and verification of plugged wells into the system of blockchain carbon credits for the advantageous purpose of ensuring the “overall success and safety of the project.” See Plasynski page 25 stage 5 second paragraph.
Claim 1 further recites “determining a number of carbon emission avoidance tokens (CEATs) to be issued, based on the EAVs.” Barton paragraph 52 discloses:
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) can be used to determine a possible volume of emissions ascribed to a deposit and is therefore useful in determining carbon offset credits. LCA of the recoverable oil in place is used to determine the equivalent volume of emissions derived from formulated recovery barrels of oil in place.
The determined carbon offset credits correspond with carbon emission avoidance tokens. Barton abstract discloses “The carbon credits can then be traded on the blockchain.”
Claim 1 further recites “and issuing the CEATs.” Barton abstract discloses “The carbon credits can then be traded on the blockchain.” Barton paragraph 47 discloses “Each transaction on the blockchain may comprise a mapped record of the location, ownership and issued carbon credit of the respective mineral deposit.” An issued carbon credit corresponds with an issued CEAT.
Claim 2 further recites “2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an additionality of permanently plugging the well to confirm that plugging the well does reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” Barton paragraphs 31-32 disclose:
Carbon credits must follow the principal of additionality. Additionality includes three concepts: Emission Additionality, Financial Additionality, and Technology Additionality.
Selecting mineral deposits under the present disclosure can be done in several steps. Deposits should have "additionality" meaning mineral deposit quantities should not be classified viable or potentially viable unless there is an expectation that the accumulation will be developed and placed on production or engaged in a capture activity within a reasonable timeframe.
Following the principal of additionality corresponds with determining an additionality for the corresponding carbon dioxide emissions associated with the carbon credits.
Claim 5 further recites “5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: after permanently plugging the hydrocarbon well, monitoring the baseline hydrocarbon reserves for compliance to ensure permanence.” Barton paragraph 28 lines 15-16 disclose “a separate entity is brought in again to ‘verify’ that the promised emissions reductions have occurred.” Barton paragraph 50 lines 4-8 disclose “determining volume of recoverable fossil fuels sequestered …and third-party verification of any of these steps.” Verifying corresponds with a confirming process. Sequestering recoverable fossil fuels relates to, but does not explicitly disclose, plugging of hydrocarbon wells.
Barton does not explicitly disclose plugging wells; however, in analogous art of geological carbon storage, Plasynski page 24 stage 4 teaches “Monitoring, verification, and accounting activities during stage 4 involve following well plugging to ensure that it is done properly and establishing the location of the CO2 plume at the time of project completion for later comparison purposes.” Plasynski page 25 left column teaches “During stage 5, postclosure surveillance, the site will need to be monitored to ensure that no problems exist, such as CO2 leakage. …. The overall success and safety of the project is predicated on CO2 remaining in the intended target formation.” The CO2 remaining in the formation corresponds with a permanent plugging of the well. Tracking the location of the CO2 plume corresponds with monitoring baseline hydrocarbon reserves of the subsurface formation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Barton and Plasynski. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use monitoring and verification of plugged wells into the system of blockchain carbon credits for the advantageous purpose of ensuring the “overall success and safety of the project.” See Plasynski page 25 stage 5 second paragraph.
Claim 11 further recites “11. The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a composition of the baseline hydrocarbon reserves representing a CO2 equivalent (CO2e) associated with a given volume of the baseline hydrocarbon reserves; and determining baseline EAVs by multiplying the baseline hydrocarbon reserves with the composition of the baseline hydrocarbon reserves.” Barton paragraph 49 discloses:
At 71, an analysis is performed of a hydrocarbon deposit. The analysis can include size, Production Risk Value, or other characteristics as described above. At 72, regulatory approval is obtained of the analysis through an appropriate validation and verification process, or a