DETAILED ACTION
Amendment received on October 10, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-20 have not been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 16, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “The improvement provided by the claimed method and system in the technical field is provided by the interactions and communications that establish the industry wide tiered pricing where each user has an allocation of carbons to use for purchasable items in an industry which forces the user to manage their consumption of the purchasable item during the period of time of the allocation….Thus any abstract idea recited in the claims is integrated into a practical application and all of the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter under Step 2A Prong 2 and MPEP 2106.05(a).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, such as a computer system having a processor and a plurality of instructions and display.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Secondly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In addition to the above, establish an industry-wide tiered pricing having an allocation of a total number of carbons, for purchase of a purchasable item in the industry, for the purchaser for a period of time: represent little more than mere instructions to apply a judicial exception (see: MPEP 2106.05(f)).
For example, the claim recites on the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. the claim fails to detail how the industry-wide tiered pricing is established. The recitation of “establishing an industry-wide tiered pricing” attempts to cover the solution to the identified problem of providing each user with an allocation of carbon credits to use for purchasable items in an industry which forces the user to manage their consumption of the purchasable item during the period of time of the allocation, with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application. Applicant is advised to include limitations that identify how the tiered pricing is implemented across all companies in an industry.
Applicant argues: “Pursuant to Enfish (for the reasoning in Desjardins) and the reasoning in Desjardins, the abstract idea rejection of these claim should be withdrawn.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Desjardins (16/319,040) is directed toward a method of training a machine learning model and on March 4, 2025 the Board maintained the 35 USC 101 rejection stating (pg.24):
Utilizing generic computer components (e.g., processors and memory) to train a machine learning model (algorithm) on multiple machine learning tasks in sequence does not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As our reviewing court has observed, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 222); see Spec. ¶¶ 2-3, 21, 27-29, 30-35.
In any event, the similarity between Desjardins and the instant case is that the claims recite a judicial exception and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Upon looking whether the claim adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field, or simply appends well-understood, routine conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception. The dependent claims and combination of claimed elements do not contain any “inventive concept” beyond the abstract concept into patent-eligible application.
Applicant argues: “…the ergo in Sgouridis cannot be the claimed carbon since the ergo has the same definition throughout the disclosure. Thus, Sgouridis does not disclose of suggest the claimed carbon nor the claimed industry-wide tiered pricing having an allocation of a total number of carbons, for purchase of a purchasable item in the industry, for the purchaser for a period of time.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sgouridis is applied to teach the establishing of an industry wide tiered pricing. As stated in Sgouridis a central authority issues ergos in limited batches, similar to how carbons are allocated. The similarities between ergos and carbons are interchangeable, as each user with an allocation of ergos to use for purchasable items in an industry which forces the user to manage their consumption of the purchasable item during the period of time of the allocation. The equivalence of carbons and ergos for their use in the carbon emission reduction art and the selection of any of these known equivalents to be established industry-wide and used in a transaction would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) displaying a purchasable item to a purchaser, the purchasable item having a monetary price and a carbon price for a predetermined number of carbons, the carbon price having a value corresponding to amount of greenhouse gases emitted during a manufacturing and use of the purchasable item;
establish an industry-wide tiered pricing having an allocation of a total number of carbons, for purchase of a purchasable item in the industry, for the purchaser for a period of time:
receive a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase the purchasable item;
debit, in response to the received transaction, the monetary price of the purchasable item from an account of the purchaser; and
debit, in response to the received transaction, the carbon price of the purchasable item from a carbon account of the purchaser having the allocation of the total number of carbons linked to the account of the purchaser, wherein the carbon account receives a yearly allocation of carbon credits.
The limitations, as drafted, provide a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions such as sale activities such as using carbon credits in a transaction.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial or legal interactions, sales activities or a business relationship, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites a computer system having a processor, which are generic computer elements performing generic computer functions.
To the extent that displaying may be interpreted as an additional element (if interpreted as a display monitor or screen), then this additional element would also fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If the displaying step is interpreted to include a computer monitor or screen, then this is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic device performing a generic function of displaying) such that it amounts to 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. Similarly, a computer monitor or screen would not be sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a display (such as a computer screen) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim is patent ineligible.
A similar analysis is applied to claim 10 which recites essentially the same abstract idea as in claim 1, which also includes a computer system. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Similarly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a computer system amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. When considering the claim as a whole, the claim is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims also are patent ineligible. For example, claims 2 and 11 include a carbon exchange connected to the computer system which further describes the sales activities or business relations using mere instructions to execute the abstract idea.
Claims 9 and 18 recites a point of sale device, which is used to debit information from a card, which also further describes the abstract idea of sales activities using generic computer elements to execute the abstract idea.
Claims 3-8 and 12-17 further describe the abstract idea with limitations directed to presenting a monetary price, determining a monetary surcharge, selling credits on an exchange.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform a transaction using carbon credits steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,461,845.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both cases are concerned with using carbon credits within a transaction and trading on a carbon exchange.
Claim 1 of the instant application teaches displaying a purchasable item having a monetary price and a carbon price and conducting a transaction using carbon credits. Claim 1 of the instant application does not include a user computer system having a display that interfaces with a computer system and displays a purchasable item to a purchaser, the purchasable item having a monetary price and a carbon price, the carbon price having a value corresponding to a number of kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted during a manufacturing and use of the purchasable item; a carbon cost computer system separate from the computer system that determines the carbon price of the purchasable item.
Claim 1 of the issued patent recites similar limitations disclosed in Claim 1 of the instant application.
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the first device recited in claim 1 of the instant application to include a user computer system having a display that interfaces with a computer system and displays a purchasable item to a purchaser, the purchasable item having a monetary price and a carbon price, the carbon price having a value corresponding to a number of kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted during a manufacturing and use of the purchasable item; a carbon cost computer system separate from the computer system that determines the carbon price of the purchasable item as taught by the issued patent to improve the system in order to provide a computer system to determine the carbon price of a purchasable item.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter with substantially similar claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 6-7, 9-11, 15-16 and 18-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, II et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0145833 in view of Sgouridis et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0332327.
As per Claim 1, Hamilton et al. discloses a system, comprising:
a computer system having a processor and a plurality of instructions executed by the processor that is configured to (Figure 5, Computer System 304):
display a purchasable item to a purchaser, the purchasable item having a monetary price and a carbon price (pg.2, ¶ [0021] discusses the composite price having a monetary portion and carbon credit portion),
the carbon price having a value corresponding to amount of greenhouse gases emitted during a manufacturing and use of the purchasable item (pg.2, ¶ [0019] discusses carbon credits are exchanged for fossil carbon emissions liberated into the atmosphere for production and/or consumption of goods…¶ [0020] discusses setting carbon prices paid for each ton of fossil carbon liberated at a highest sequestered carbon price offered by the auction market);
receive a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase the purchasable item (pg.2, ¶ [0022] discusses the buyer accepts the offer, for example agreeing to purchase an offered item, thorough an input to the interface provided by the arbitrating device);
debit, in response to the received transaction, the monetary price of the purchasable item from an account of the purchaser (pg.2, ¶ [0023] discusses At 20 the arbitrating device charges a monetary payment from the buyer's monetary account in consideration of some of a monetary portion of the composite price); and
debit, in response to the received transaction, the carbon price of the purchasable item from a carbon account of the purchaser having the allocation of the total number of carbons linked to the account of the purchaser (pg.2, ¶ [0023] discusses charges a carbon credit payment from the buyer's linked carbon credit account in consideration of some of a carbon credit portion of the composite price),
Hamilton et al. pg.4, ¶ [0029] teaches consumers may also engage in activities that are rewarded directly by carbon credits to one or more personal accounts, which may allow consumers to spend carbon credit capital so acquired during transactions involving both monetary and carbon prices…. thus the more gallons of fuel purchased by the purchaser 102, in some examples as a function of elapsed time periods (e.g. per week, month, year, etc.), the greater the relative level or total amount of carbon offset automatically acquired and charged, debited or subsidized in the fueling transaction.
Therefore Hamilton et al. discloses the claimed apparatus, however fails to explicitly state wherein the carbon account receives a yearly allocation of carbon credit. Hamilton discloses that it is known in the art to provide.
Hamilton discloses that it is known in the art to provide a customer with carbon credits by rewarding the customer based on particular activities, e.g. the more gallons of fuel purchased by a customer as a function of time (per year), the greater total amount of carbon offset is automatically acquired. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the customer with carbon credits of Hamilton with the yearly allocation of carbon credits, in order to provide a system and method for linking and utilizing monetary and carbon credit accounts through a programmable arbitrating device providing a transaction interface to a buyer. Abstract
However, Hamilton et al., fails to disclose establish an industry-wide tiered pricing having an allocation of a total number of carbons, for purchase of a purchasable item in the industry, for the purchaser for a period of time.
Sgouridis et al. teaches the purchasable item having a monetary price and a carbon price for a predetermined number of carbons (pg.6, ¶ [0076] discusses a product or service that is included in the MEC system may have an ergo "price" associated with its energy costs and a monetary price associated with overhead and non-energy related costs).
The Examiner is construing the ergo price as a carbon price for a predetermined number of carbons because Sgouridis et al. provides a formula for calculating the ergo price for services. See Equation (1)
establish an industry-wide tiered pricing having an allocation of a total number of carbons, for purchase of a purchasable item in the industry, for the purchaser for a period of time (pg.4, ¶ [0043] discusses One ergo is equivalent to one unit of energy. The chosen energy unit could be one kWh, one Joule or any other amount as the price can be scaled accordingly. Ergos are issued in limited batches by a centralized energy administration, hereafter referred to as the City Energy Authority (CEA), such that the number of credits issued matches the forecasted energy generation. By limiting the issuance of ergos to equal the total forecasted renewable energy output over a defined time horizon, energy consumers are made immediately aware of the finite energy resource and are incentivized to limit their energy consumption to the available supply over that period. Ergos have an expiration time signifying the difficulty of energy storage. They can be exchanged for the energy portion of services until their expiration, by which time they may be redeemed for their monetary value if they remain unused…pg.7, ¶ [0088] discusses the regular residential and commercial users could subscribe to different tiers according to the quantity of ergo provisions at a predetermined rate such that the cities energy targets are met. A simpler system, with the potential to be more equitable and more acceptable to users, is to allocate the ergos based on the surface area leased. The common city utilities providers may also be allocated ergos based on their expected resource use. Any ergos not allocated for demand by regular users, common utilities, and visitors represent additional power generation that can be exported to the external grid).
debit, in response to the received transaction, the carbon price of the purchasable item from a carbon account of the purchaser having the allocation of the total number of carbons linked to the account of the purchaser (pg.9, ¶ [0102] discusses Positive ergo balance. Consuming desired service if utility U(t)> p(t) and surrendering ergos. Users are reimbursed the monetary difference and their monetary account is credited with S-p(t)).
The cited portions of Sgouridis et al., teaches a system and method capable of establishing an industry wide tiered pricing, by issuing ergos to users and establishing different tiers for residential and commercial users.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of resource conservation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hamilton et al., to include an industry wide currency system for energy management as taught by Sgouridis to provide a hybrid energy market and currency system to manage energy consumption in an energy market comprising a community of users. Abstract
As per Claim 2, Hamilton et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to determine, in response to the received transaction, that the purchaser does not have a number of carbon credits in the carbon account of the purchaser to cover the carbon price of the purchasable item, purchase, on a carbon exchange connected to the computer system, the number of carbon credits to cover the carbon price of the purchasable item and debit, for the purchased carbon credits, the account of the purchaser (pg.3, ¶ [0026] discusses arbitrating device may be configured to automatically finance debiting of a seller's carbon credit value subsidy account by automatically purchasing carbon credits from a carbon credit supplier entity (e.g. a carbon banking and sequestering entity) in communication with the arbitrating device, the carbon credits purchased as a function of a monetary-credit exchange rate and in an amount equaling a debiting of the seller's carbon credit value subsidy account).
However, Hamilton et al., fails to disclose that the carbon price of the purchasable item exceeds the allocation of the total number of carbons minus any prior purchases by the purchaser.
Sgouridis et al. teaches that the carbon price of the purchasable item exceeds the allocation of the total number of carbons minus any prior purchases by the purchaser (pg.9, ¶ [0105] discusses Zero ergo balance. Consume desired service if U(t)>p(t). Users monetary account is charged with p(t)).
The cited portion of Sgouridis teaches a scenario when the user has used all ergos from previous purchases, and the monetary account is deducted to execute the purchase.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of resource conservation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hamilton et al., to include the ability to utilize a monetary account when a user exceeds available credits as taught by Sgouridis to provide a hybrid energy market and currency system to manage energy consumption in an energy market comprising a community of users. Abstract
As per Claim 6, Hamilton et al. discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to sell, on the carbon exchange, a number of unused carbons by an individual and receive a monetary price for each unused carbon (pg.4, ¶ [0030] discusses in which a buyer 102 rich in carbon credits uses them in place of dollars, the device 112 automatically converting the carbon credits into monetary values).
Hamilton et al. does not explicitly state “sell on the carbon exchange”, however, Hamilton et al. pg.3, ¶ [0026] teaches where the arbitrating device may be configured to automatically finance debiting of a seller's carbon credit value subsidy account by automatically purchasing carbon credits from a carbon credit supplier entity ( e.g. a carbon banking and sequestering entity) in communication with the arbitrating device, the carbon credits purchased as a function of a monetary-credit exchange rate and in an amount equaling a debiting of the seller's carbon credit value subsidy account.
The Examiner notes, buying and selling on a carbon exchange does not modify the operation of Hamilton’s method and to have modified the method of Hamilton et al. to have included a carbon exchange would have been obvious to the skilled artisan because the inclusion of such step would have been an obvious matter of design choice in light of the method already disclosed by Hamilton et al. Such modification would not have otherwise affected the method of Hamilton et al., and would have merely represented one of numerous steps that the skilled artisan would have found obvious for the purposes already disclosed by Hamilton et al. Additionally, applicant has not persuasively demonstrated the criticality of providing this step versus the steps disclosed by Hamilton et al.
As per Claim 7, Hamilton et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the purchasable item is a product or a service (pg.2, ¶ [0021] discusses a price of an item offered for sale).
As per Claim 9, Hamilton et al. discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the account of the user is linked to a card and wherein the processor is further configured to receive debit information for the card from a point of sale device (pg.3, ¶ [0028] discusses a credit card provider establishing the buyer’s monetary account and buyer’s carbon account…pg.4, ¶ [0032] discusses engages a pump input interface 120 (e.g. presenting a credit, debit or other physical account card or token associated with the buyer's accounts card to the pump interface 120).
As per Claim 10, Hamilton et al. discloses a method comprising:
displaying a purchasable item to a purchaser, the purchasable item having a monetary price and a carbon price(pg.2, ¶ [0021] discusses the composite price having a monetary portion and carbon credit portion), the carbon price having a value corresponding to amount of greenhouse gases emitted during a manufacturing and use of the purchasable item (pg.2, ¶ [0019] discusses carbon credits are exchanged for fossil carbon emissions liberated into the atmosphere for production and/or consumption of goods…¶ [0020] discusses setting carbon prices paid for each ton of fossil carbon liberated at a highest sequestered carbon price offered by the auction market);
receiving, at a computer system, a transaction in which the purchaser chooses to purchase the purchasable item (pg.2, ¶ [0022] discusses the buyer accepts the offer, for example agreeing to purchase an offered item, thorough an input to the interface provided by the arbitrating device);
debiting, by the computer system in response to the received transaction, the monetary price of the purchasable item from an account of the purchaser (pg.2, ¶ [0023] discusses At 20 the arbitrating device charges a monetary payment from the buyer's monetary account in consideration of some of a monetary portion of the composite price); and
debiting, by the computer system in response to the received transaction, the carbon price of the purchasable item from a carbon account of the purchaser linked to the account of the purchaser (pg.2, ¶ [0023] discusses charges a carbon credit payment from the buyer's linked carbon credit account in consideration of some of a carbon credit portion of the composite price).
Hamilton et al. pg.4, ¶ [0029] teaches consumers may also engage in activities that are rewarded directly by carbon credits to one or more personal accounts, which may allow consumers to spend carbon credit capital so acquired during transactions involving both monetary and carbon prices…. thus the more gallons of fuel purchased by the purchaser 102, in some examples as a function of elapsed time periods (e.g. per week, month, year, etc.), the greater the relative level or total amount of carbon offset automatically acquired and charged, debited or subsidized in the fueling transaction.
Hamilton discloses that it is known in the art to provide a customer with carbon credits by rewarding the customer based on particular activities, e.g. the more gallons of fuel purchased by a customer as a function of time (per year), the greater total amount of carbon offset is automatically acquired. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the customer with carbon credits of Hamilton with the yearly allocation of carbon credits, in order to provide a system and method for linking and utilizing monetary and carbon credit accounts through a programmable arbitrating device providing a transaction interface to a buyer. Abstract
However, Hamilton et al., fails to disclose establish an industry-wide tiered pricing having an allocation of a total number of carbons, for purchase of a purchasable item in the industry, for the purchaser for a period of time.
Sgouridis et al. teaches the purchasable item having a monetary price and a carbon price for a predetermined number of carbons (pg.6, ¶ [0076] discusses a product or service that is included in the MEC system may have an ergo "price" associated with its energy costs and a monetary price associated with overhead and non-energy related costs).
The Examiner is construing the ergo price as a carbon price for a predetermined number of carbons because Sgouridis et al. provides a formula for calculating the ergo price for services. See Equation (1)
establish an industry-wide tiered pricing having an allocation of a total number of carbons, for purchase of a purchasable item in the industry, for the purchaser for a period of time (pg.4, ¶ [0043] discusses One ergo is equivalent to one unit of energy. The chosen energy unit could be one kWh, one Joule or any other amount as the price can be scaled accordingly. Ergos are issued in limited batches by a centralized energy administration, hereafter referred to as the City Energy Authority (CEA), such that the number of credits issued matches the forecasted energy generation. By limiting the issuance of ergos to equal the total forecasted renewable energy output over a defined time horizon, energy consumers are made immediately aware of the finite energy resource and are incentivized to limit their energy consumption to the available supply over that period. Ergos have an expiration time signifying the difficulty of energy storage. They can be exchanged for the energy portion of services until their expiration, by which time they may be redeemed for their monetary value if they remain unused…pg.7, ¶ [0088] discusses the regular residential and commercial users could subscribe to different tiers according to the quantity of ergo provisions at a predetermined rate such that the cities energy targets are met. A simpler system, with the potential to be more equitable and more acceptable to users, is to allocate the ergos based on the surface area leased. The common city utilities providers may also be allocated ergos based on their expected resource use. Any ergos not allocated for demand by regular users, common utilities, and visitors represent additional power generation that can be exported to the external grid).
debit, in response to the received transaction, the carbon price of the purchasable item from a carbon account of the purchaser having the allocation of the total number of carbons linked to the account of the purchaser (pg.9, ¶ [0102] discusses Positive ergo balance. Consuming desired service if utility U(t)>p(t) and surrendering ergos. Users are reimbursed the monetary difference and their monetary account is credited with S-p(t)).
The cited portions of Sgouridis et al., teaches a system and method capable of establishing an industry wide tiered pricing, by issuing ergos to users and establishing different tiers for residential and commercial users.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of resource conservation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hamilton et al., to include an industry wide currency system for energy management as taught by Sgouridis to provide a hybrid energy market and currency system to manage energy consumption in an energy market comprising a community of users. Abstract
As per Claim 11, Hamilton et al. discloses the method of claim 11 further comprising determining, by the computer system in response to the received transaction, that the purchaser does not have a number of carbon credits in the carbon account of the purchaser to cover the carbon price of the purchasable item, purchasing, on a carbon exchange connected to the computer system, the number of carbon credits to cover the carbon price of the purchasable item and debiting, for the purchased carbon credits, the account of the purchaser (pg.3, ¶ [0026] discusses arbitrating device may be configured to automatically finance debiting of a seller's carbon credit value subsidy account by automatically purchasing carbon credits from a carbon credit supplier entity (e.g. a carbon banking and sequestering entity) in communication with the arbitrating device, the carbon credits purchased as a function of a monetary-credit exchange rate and in an amount equaling a debiting of the seller's carbon credit value subsidy account).
However, Hamilton et al., fails to disclose that the carbon price of the purchasable item exceeds the allocation of the total number of carbons minus any prior purchases by the purchaser.
Sgouridis et al. teaches that the carbon price of the purchasable item exceeds the allocation of the total number of carbons minus any prior purchases by the purchaser (pg.9, ¶ [0105] discusses Zero ergo balance. Consume desired service if U(t)>p(t). Users monetary account is charged with p(t)).
The cited portion of Sgouridis teaches a scenario when the user has used all ergos from previous purchases, and the monetary account is deducted to execute the purchase.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of resource conservation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hamilton et al., to include the ability to utilize a monetary account when a user exceeds available credits as taught by Sgouridis to provide a hybrid energy market and currency system to manage energy consumption in an energy market comprising a community of users. Abstract
As per Claim 15, Hamilton et al. discloses the method of claim 12 further comprising selling, on the carbon exchange, a number of unused carbons by an individual and receiving a monetary price for each unused carbon (pg.4, ¶ [0030] discusses in which a buyer 102 rich in carbon credits uses them in place of dollars, the device 112 automatically converting the carbon credits into monetary values).
As per Claim 16, Hamilton et al., the method of claim 11, wherein the purchasable item is a product or a service (pg.2, ¶ [0021] discusses a price of an item offered for sale).
As per Claim 18, Hamilton et al. discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the account of the user is linked to a card and further comprising receiving debit information for the card from a point of sale device (pg.3, ¶ [0028] discusses a credit card provider establishing the buyer’s monetary account and buyer’s carbon account…pg.4, ¶ [0032] discusses engages a pump input interface 120 (e.g. presenting a credit, debit or other physical account card or token associated with the buyer's accounts card to the pump interface 120).
As per Claim 19, Hamilton et al. discloses the system of the claimed invention. However, Hamilton et al., fails to disclose wherein the allocation is one of a daily allocation and a yearly allocation.
Sgouridis et al. teaches wherein the allocation is one of a daily allocation and a yearly allocation (pg.9, ¶ [0107] discusses the daily ergo allowance).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of resource conservation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hamilton et al., to include the ability to issue daily ergo allowance to citizens as taught by Sgouridis to provide a hybrid energy market and currency system to manage energy consumption in an energy market comprising a community of users. Abstract
As per Claim 20, Hamilton et al., discloses the method of the claimed invention. However, Hamilton et al., fails to disclose wherein the allocation is one of a daily allocation and a yearly allocation.
Sgouridis et al. teaches wherein the allocation is one of a daily allocation and a yearly allocation (pg.9, ¶ [0107] discusses the daily ergo allowance).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of resource conservation before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hamilton et al., to include the ability to issue daily ergo allowance to citizens as taught by Sgouridis to provide a hybrid energy market and currency system to manage energy consumption in an energy market comprising a community of users. Abstract
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamilton, II et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0145833 in view of Sgouridis et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0332327 further in view of https://ecosphere.plus/2018/05/27/ecosphere-helps-bring-carbon-pricing-point-sale/, hereinafter Ecosphere.
As per Claim 3, Hamilton et al. discloses a system and method throughout to display composite pricing of products which includes a monetary price and a carbon price. When a customer makes a purchase a debit is made on the monetary account and carbon account to satisfy the purchase.
However, Hamilton et al. is fails to provide an example, wherein the account of the purchaser is cash and wherein the processor is further configured to present the monetary price and a monetary price of the carbons to the purchaser for the purchasable item,
and charge in response to the received transaction, the monetary price of the purchasable item and the monetary price of the carbons to the purchaser.
Ecosphere teaches wherein the account of the purchaser is cash and wherein the processor is further configured to present the monetary price and a monetary price of the carbons to the purchaser for the purchasable item, and charge in response to the received transaction, the monetary price of the purchasable item and the monetary price of the carbons to the purchaser (Ecosphere discloses an influential and scalable way of connecting consumers with the climate impact of the products they buy is through pricing the carbon emissions of a product at the point of sale, using grams of carbon credits to rebalance its impact. In a pilot this month with the London store of Ben & Jerry’s, we have worked together not only to rebalance each scoop of ice-cream purchased there, but to give customers a choice of going “climate positive” – protecting more trees than is needed to absorb the levels of carbon generated from producing one scoop of ice-cream).
The cited portion of Ecosphere teaches where customer can enter a brick-and-mortar retail location and make a transaction by purchasing ice cream. One of ordinary skill within the art would recognize that cash transactions are widely accepted at a brick and mortar location and that the combination of Hamilton et al. and Ecosphere would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ecosphere to the teachings of Hamilton et al. would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate accepting cash transactions and receiving payment to include the carbon pricing into similar systems.
Further, applying retail purchases for carbon offsetting to Hamilton et al., with the ability to make cash transactions accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more products to be purchased to include the monetary price and carbon price.
As per Claim 4, Hamilton et al. pg.2, ¶ [0017] discloses proposed carbon tax solutions are generally imposed by agreement or by a third party (e.g. a governing body) and are aimed at adding to the monetary price of a product the marginal economic cost of the fossil carbon liberated in producing and/or consuming said product.
However, Hamilton fails to explicitly state wherein the processor is further configured to determine a monetary surcharge for the purchasable item for the purchaser at a particular consumption level (Ecosphere teaches Ben & Jerry’s is the first use-case to demonstrate this carbon pricing model for retail, and so far, customers have responded with enthusiasm when asked to protect trees through paying an extra penny on the cost of their scoop of ice-cream).
The Examiner is construing the extra penny as the surcharge and the scoop of ice-cream as the consumption level.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary still in the art to include in the field of carbon offsetting the ability to charge a surcharge to customers to offset the carbon footprint of a product as taught by Ecosphere since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 12, Hamilton et al. discloses a system and method throughout to display composite pricing of products which includes a monetary price and a carbon price. When a customer makes a purchase a debit is made on the monetary account and carbon account to satisfy the purchase.
However, Hamilton et al. is fails to provide an example, wherein the account of the purchaser is cash and wherein the processor is further configured to present the monetary price and a monetary price of the carbons to the purchaser for the purchasable item,
and charge in response to the received transaction, the monetary price of the purchasable item and the monetary price of the carbons to the purchaser.
Ecosphere teaches wherein the account of the purchaser is cash and wherein the processor is further configured to present the monetary price and a monetary price of the carbons to the purchaser for the purchasable item, and charge in response to the received transaction, the monetary price of the purchasable item and the monetary price of the carbons to the purchaser (Ecosphere discloses an influential and scalable way of connecting consumers with the climate impact of the products they buy is through pricing the carbon emissions of a product at the point of sale, using grams of carbon credits to rebalance its impact. In a pilot this month with the London store of Ben & Jerry’s, we have worked together not only to rebalance each scoop of ice-cream purchased there, but to give customers a choice of going “climate positive” – protecting more trees than is needed to absorb the levels of carbon generated from producing one scoop of ice-cream).
The cited portion of Ecosphere teaches where customer can enter a brick-and-mortar retail location and make a transaction by purchasing ice cream. One of ordinary skill within the art would recognize that cash transactions are widely accepted at a brick and mortar location and that the combination of Hamilton et al. and Ecosphere would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Ecosphere to the teachings of Hamilton et al. would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate accepting cash transactions and receiving payment to include the carbon pricing into similar systems.
Further, applying retail purchases for carbon offsetting to Hamilton et al., with the ability to make cash transactions accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow more products to be purchased to include the monetary price and carbon price.
As per Claim 13, Hamilton et al. pg.2, ¶ [0017] discloses proposed carbon tax solutions are generally imposed by agreement or by a third party (e.g. a governing body) and are aimed at adding to the mone