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 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. Analysis of hydrocarbon deposit characteristics corresponds with determining a composition of the 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. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the derived volume of emission from “recovery barrels of oil in place” corresponds to a multiplication by appropriate conversion factors. See further Barton paragraph 55 multiplication example.
Claim 17 recites “17. A system 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 17 further recites “the system comprising: at least one processor.” Barton paragraph 44 discloses “an apparatus comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable memories coupled to the one or more processors and configured with instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause the system to perform operations.”
Claim 17 further recites “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.” 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 17 further recites “confirm 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 17 further recites “determine 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 17 further recites “and, issue 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.
Dependent claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 5 above and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20 further recites “20. The system of claim 17, wherein the CEATs are non-fungible tokens.” Barton paragraph 38 discloses “A blockchain under the present disclosure can include Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other similar private or publicly accessible blockchains or distributed ledger technologies (DLT) including NFT's.” NFTs correspond with non-fungible tokens.
Claim 20 further recites “and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: convert the CEATs to fungible tokens, and provide the fungible tokens to an owner of the hydrocarbon well.” Barton paragraph 47 disclose “Each transaction on the blockchain may comprise a mapped record of the location, ownership and issued carbon credit of the respective mineral deposit.” Ownership of the mineral deposit corresponds with an owner of the hydrocarbon well(s).
Barton paragraph 49 discloses:
At 73, the analysis is converted into registered carbon credits. At 74, a blockchain is created (or a preexisting one can be used in other embodiments). At 75, the carbon credits can be associated with a node on the blockchain. Preferably the node is owned by the owner of the carbon credits. At 76, the carbon credits are allowed to be traded or otherwise sold on the blockchain.
The carbon credit associated with the respective node and mapped recorded location of the mineral deposit corresponds with providing respective fungible tokens to the owner.
Dependent Claims 3 and 4
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton and Plasynski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marhaendrajana, T. & Blasingame, T.A. “Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves – Evaluation of Well Performance Behavior in a Multiwell Reservoir System” Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 71517 (2001) [herein “Marhaendrajana”].
Claim 3 further recites “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.” From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “a hyperbolic decline model.”
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.
But neither Barton nor Plasynski explicitly disclose a hyperbolic decline model; however, in analogous art of analysis of hydrocarbon reservoirs, Marhaendrajana abstract teaches “the estimation of total reservoir volume and flow properties within the drainage area of an individual well.” Marhaendrajana page 3 teaches equations (2)-(9) which describe equations of a “decline type curves” for the reservoir wells. Marhaendrajana page 3 left column fourth paragraph last sentence teaches:
This equation suggests that if we plot [equation] versus the ‘total material balance time’ function then we can estimate the original-oil-in-place for the entire reservoir using decline type curves.
The decline equations (2)-(9) correspond with hyperbolic decline models for respective wells. Estimating the oil-in-place corresponds with determining a baseline hydrocarbon reserve using the respective decline curves.
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, Plasynski, and Marhaendrajana. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use decline curves to estimate hydrocarbon reserves associated with wells into the system of blockchain carbon credits for the advantageous purpose of providing “consistent estimates of in-place fluids and reservoir properties.” See Marhaendrajana abstract last paragraph.
Claim 4 further recites “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.” Marhaendrajana equation (9) is an integration over time. Marhaendrajana page 3 left column fourth paragraph last sentence teaches:
This equation suggests that if we plot [equation] versus the ‘total material balance time’ function then we can estimate the original-oil-in-place for the entire reservoir using decline type curves.
Total material balance time of the integration corresponds with a time from a date zero. Without loss of generality this time can be represented in units of years.
Dependent Claims 6 and 7
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton and Plasynski as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 2019/0325331 A1 Benhallam, et al. [herein “Benhallam”].
Claim 6 further recites “6. The method of claim 5, wherein monitoring the baseline hydrocarbon reserves comprises determining a drainage area associated with 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 as otherwise set forth under the applicable cap and trade system. At 73, the analysis is converted into registered carbon credits.
But neither Barton nor Plasynski explicitly disclose a drainage area associated with a hydrocarbon reserve; however, in analogous art of modeling and analyzing hydrocarbon reservoirs, Benhallam paragraph 74 teaches “During the drainage analysis, an algorithm estimates a drainage radius for every well/zone.” A radius in two dimensions corresponds with a cylindrical drainage area in three dimensions. The drainage of each well corresponds with drainage areas of those wells.
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, Plasynski, and Benhallam. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use drainage areas of wells into the system of blockchain carbon credits for the advantageous purpose of identifying production forecasts. See Benhallam paragraphs 4 and 76.
Claim 7 further recites “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.” From the above list of alternatives the Examiner is selecting “a vertically oriented cylinder for the hydrocarbon well being a vertical well.”
Benhallam paragraph 74 teaches “During the drainage analysis, an algorithm estimates a drainage radius for every well/zone.” A radius in two dimensions corresponds with a cylindrical drainage area in three dimensions. The drainage of each well corresponds with drainage areas of those wells.
Dependent Claims 12, 13, and 19
Claims 12, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barton and Plasynski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent 12,198,146 B2 Zeng [herein “Zeng”].
Claim 12 further recites “12. The method of claim 11, further comprising: correcting the baseline EAVs for a leakage factor.” 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.
Barton does not explicitly disclose a leakage factor; however, in analogous art of carbon sequestration, Zeng column 8 lines 8-13 teach “For sample sites, sensors will be installed to directly observe underground oxygen (02) level, temperature, moisture, as well as potential
C
O
2
/
C
H
4
leakage rate. The site-specific data can be used to calibrate carbon accounting model parameters.” A rate is over a time. Calibrating carbon accounting based on the sensed leakage rate corresponds with using a leakage factor to determine a number of CEATs to be issued.
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, Plasynski, and Zeng. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a leakage factor into the system of blockchain carbon credits for the advantageous purpose to provide suitable storage project evaluation and monitoring. See Zeng column 30 lines 19 and 38-42.
Claim 13 further recites “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.” Barton does not explicitly disclose a leakage factor; however, in analogous art of carbon sequestration, Zeng column 8 lines 8-13 teach “For sample sites, sensors will be installed to directly observe underground oxygen (02) level, temperature, moisture, as well as potential
C
O
2
/
C
H
4
leakage rate. The site-specific data can be used to calibrate carbon accounting model parameters.” A rate is over a time. Calibrating carbon accounting based on the sensed leakage rate corresponds with using a leakage factor to determine a number of CEATs to be issued. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a leakage rate to correspond to a discounting in respective subsequent accounting modeling.
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, Plasynski, and Zeng. One having ordinary skill in the art would have found motivation to use a leakage factor into the system of blockchain carbon credits for the advantageous purpose to provide suitable storage project evaluation and monitoring. See Zeng column 30 lines 19 and 38-42.
Dependent claim 19 is substantially similar to claims 11-13 above and are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and under 35 U.S.C. §101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9, 10, and 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101 set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
US 2022/0101430 A1 Barton [herein “Barton”] figure 6 teaches trading carbon credits on the blockchain. Barton paragraph 49 teaches “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.” Barton paragraph 52 teaches determining equivalent volume emissions.
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”] page 25 et seq. discusses monitoring tools for geologic CO2 storage projects.
Marhaendrajana, T. & Blasingame, T.A. “Decline Curve Analysis Using Type Curves – Evaluation of Well Performance Behavior in a Multiwell Reservoir System” Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 71517 (2001) [herein “Marhaendrajana”] abstract teaches decline curve analysis to estimate total reservoir volume and flow properties of individual wells.
US 2019/0325331 A1 Benhallam, et al. [herein “Benhallam”] teaches assessment of hydrocarbon reservoir. Benhallam paragraph 58 teaches “automate multiple geologic and engineering workflows including remaining pay interpretation, drainage analysis, geoengineering attribute mapping, production forecast, uncertainty quantification, and mechanical feasibility assessment to list a few.”
US patent 12,198,146 B2 Zeng [herein “Zeng”] teaches carbon sequestration and management using wood vault storage.
US 2023/0139137 A1 Slack [herein “Slack”] teaches a tokenized carbon credit trading platform. Slack abstract teaches carbon credit NFTs. Slack paragraph 39 teaches “such as the reduction in emissions due to plugging so-called ‘orphan wells,’ which are abandoned oil and gas wells that release methane into the environment.”
US 2024/0003244 A1 Debs [herein “Debs”] paragraph 40 et seq. teaches carbon credit sources from remediation of leaking orphan wells. Debs paragraph 81 teaches carbon credit management system. Debs paragraph 26 defines orphaned and abandoned wells.
Benson, S.M. “Monitoring Carbon Dioxide Sequestration in Deep Geological Formations for Inventory Verification and Carbon Credits” Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 102833 (2006) [herein Benson” teaches carbon capture and storage in geologic formation with verification and carbon credits. Benson page 2 teaches IPCC “protocols for inventory verification.”
Mensah, L. “Missed Opportunity: Excluding Carbon Emissions Markets from Comprehensive Oversight” William & Mary Environmental Law & Policy Review, vol. 2014, issue 3, article 8 (2014) [herein “Mensah”] page 799 discusses the need for financial regulation of carbon emission markets and the Dodd-Frank act.
US patent 10,221,659 B2 Baranov, et al. [herein “Baranov”] figure 7 item (718) shows deriving a region of influence for a well. Baranov column 6 lines 39-45 teach “The region of influence may be determined in a number of ways, and in at least one embodiment, the system relies on a programmable distance parameter to estimate the maximum horizontal extent of the volume that is drainable by the well candidate zone.” But Baranov is in the context of well placement and not an avoidance volume for an existing well. These are related as the influence region defines a hydrocarbon reserve associated with the well, but an estimate of hydrocarbon reserve is not equivalent to an emission avoidance volume.
Rotblat, C. “Caring for the Orphans: Approaches for Mitigating Fugitive Methane Emissions From Orphaned Oil and Gas Wells” Environmental Law Reporter, vol. 47, pp. 10529-10541 (2017) [herein “Rotblat”] page 10540 discusses legal/regulatory framework of carbon offset market incentives of plugging orphaned wells.
Regarding claims 8 and 10:
Barton paragraph 54 last sentence teaches “a government, regulator, or other entity could apply a multiplier to adjust up or down the carbon credits.” But Barton fails to teach negating CEATs based on a detected encroachment.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “when detecting encroachment into the permanence polygon: negating buffer pool EAVs of the CEATs” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9:
Benhallam fails to teach a polygon within the first cylindrical volume defined by the well drainage radius. Accordingly, Benhallam fails to teach the advance polygon as claimed.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “determining a drainage area associated with EAVs over a set time interval using an advance polygon inside the permanence polygon” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 14-16:
Rotblat page 10533 section II(A) “Bonding and Financial Assurances” teaches:
To ensure that operators properly plug and decommission their oil and gas wells, states require operators to post a financial assurance for the well at the time it is drilled. While states may accept a wide range of assurances, such as cash, certificates of deposit, or letters of credit, the most common form of assurance is a surety bond.62 The bond functions as a type of insurance policy for the state in the event that a well is not properly decommissioned.
However, this financial bond refers to money, not a buffer pool of EAVs or tokens. Furthermore, this insurance policy is against not properly decommissioning a well and not an insurance against an encroachment.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose “reserving the buffer pool EAVs as an insurance against unforeseen encroachment into the baseline hydrocarbon reserves” in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 6 November 2025
Prosecution Insights