DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/07/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 7, and 10 have been amended. Claims 3 and 9 were previously canceled. Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
In light of the Applicant’s amendments, filed 08/07/2025, claim objections to claims 7 and 10, presented in Final Rejection 05/08/2025, have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-2 and 4-6, previously set forth in the Final Rejection 05/08/2025. Applicant’s remarks state “Applicant has amended claim 1 to specify that the claims cover the recited modules and the nodes are characteristics of the DLT network.” The amendments and this statement does not clarify whether the claim scope covers both the recited modules and the nodes of the DLT network, or only the recited modules. Please see below for more details.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 08/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Crawford et al. U.S. 2016/0004798.
Applicant's arguments, see pgs. 8-9, filed 08/07/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12, Applicant’s remarks state –
“The Office Action alleges that Abbott, paragraphs [0010] and [0014] disclose "a predictive analytics module." Office Action, p. 9. Applicant respectfully traverses this characterization of Abbott. Neither cited portion, nor anywhere else, in Abbott mentions a predictive analytics module, let alone one with the claimed features recited above. For at least this reason, the rejections of claims 1 and 7 are improper. Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections be withdrawn.”
In response to the Applicant’s remarks, “a predictive analytics module” is characterized and limited by its claimed function(s) – that is, to compare the amount of electricity incoming against the amount of energy savings from the energy savings equipment and calculate a total savings. The new ground of rejection introduces prior art to teach such claimed function(s). Please see below for more details. Furthermore, the instant specification discloses that “Each module represents a light node on the system” in [0018]. A “predictive analytics module” is a “module” and is therefore a “light node” by the definition provided in paragraph [0014] of the instant specification. Abbott also discloses the “light node” (or “module”) in the same manner in paragraphs [0010] and [0014]. Therefore, Abbott does disclose, at a minimum, the same “modules” that are used to collect data and work with other light nodes to validate the data.
“Finally, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action uses improper hindsight to provide an improper motivation to combine the applied references. Absent the teachings in Applicant's disclosure one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Abbott, Hanson, and Ashley. See, e.g., MPEP 2145(X.)(A.); In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971) (judgements on obviousness should not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure). For at least these additional reasons Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed combination of Abbott, Hanson, and Ashley is improper and requests that the rejections be withdrawn.”
In response to the Applicant's remark that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/416,181 in view of Hanson “Meter Collars for Distributed Generation,” in view of Abbott et al. U.S. 2020/0175504 (herein referred to as “Abbott”), and further in view of Crawford et al. U.S. 2016/0004798 (herein as “Crawford”).
Instant Application 18/099,284
Copending Application 18/416,181
Claim 1. A computer-implemented distributed ledger technology ("DLT") module system based at least in part upon electricity usage, the module system comprising:
instructions to cause at least one server device and related data processing and storage apparatus to operate over a peer-to-peer network to provide a system comprising:
an electricity tracker module comprising a physical monitoring device connected
via a collar to an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) meter that records a transaction comprising an amount of electricity incoming from a power grid and an amount of energy savings from energy savings equipment, along with environmental and other attributes of such energy;
wherein the transaction includes identifying data and the electricity tracker module
functions as a node on a DLT network that
comprises a plurality of nodes that execute a software verification algorithm that includes a cryptographic hash value based at least in part upon transaction identifying data;
a predictive analytics module to compare the amount of electricity incoming against the amount of energy savings from the energy savings equipment and calculate a total savings;
a timer module to monitor the electricity tracker module through a defined term;
and
an invoice module for generating an invoice for the calculated total savings through the
defined term.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented distributed ledger technology ("DLT") system based at least in part upon energy usage or savings, the system comprising:
instructions to cause at least one server device and related data processing and
storage apparatus to operate over a peer-to-peer network to provide a system
comprising:
a carbon credit tracker module that records a transaction comprising an amount of energy incoming from a power grid and an amount of energy savings from energy savings equipment, environmental attributes, and other attributes of the amount of energy savings;
wherein the transaction includes identifying data and the carbon tracker module sends such data to a DLT network after verification and validation utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML); and
wherein the DL T network comprises a plurality of nodes that execute a software verification algorithm that includes a cryptographic hash value based at least in part upon transaction identifying data;
a predictive analytics module to compare the incoming electricity savings or usage against the amount of energy savings expected from the energy production or savings equipment, utilizing AI and ML algorithms applied to third party data for verification and validation of the energy generation or savings;
a timer module to monitor the carbon tracker module through a defined term; and
a pricing module for generating an value for the carbon credits or offsets through the defined term.
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 7. A computer-implemented method of operating a distributed ledger technology ("DLT") token exchange system based at least in part upon electricity usage, the method comprising:
executing instructions to cause at least one server device and related data processing
and storage apparatus to operate over a peer-to-peer network to provide a method
comprising:
recording, with an electricity tracker module comprising a physical monitoring device connected via a collar to an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) meter, a
transaction comprising an amount of electricity incoming from a power grid and an amount of energy savings from energy savings equipment, along with environmental and other attributes of such energy;
wherein the transaction includes identifying data and the electricity tracker module
functions as a node on a DLT network that comprises a plurality of nodes that execute a software verification algorithm that includes a cryptographic hash value based at least in part upon transaction identifying data;
comparing, with a predictive analytics module, the amount of electricity incoming
against the amount of energy savings from the energy savings equipment and calculating a total savings;
monitoring, with a timer module, the electricity tracker module
through a defined term; and
generating an invoice, with an invoice module, for the calculated total savings through the defined term.
Claim 7. A computer-implemented method of operating a distributed ledger technology
("DLT") token exchange system based at least in part upon energy usage, the method
comprising:
executing instructions to cause at least one server device and related data processing and storage apparatus to operate over a peer-to-peer network to provide a method comprising:
recording, with a carbon tracker module, a transaction comprising an amount of energy incoming from a power grid and an amount of energy savings from energy savings equipment, environmental attributes, and other attributes of the amount of energy savings;
wherein the transaction includes identifying data and the carbon tracker module sends such data to a DLT network after verification and validation utilizing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML); and
wherein the DLT network comprises a plurality of nodes that execute a software verification algorithm that includes a cryptographic hash value based at least in part upon transaction identifying data;
comparing, with a predictive analytics module, the incoming energy usage or savings against the amount of energy usage savings from the energy generation or savings equipment;
timing, with a timer module, to monitor the carbon tracker module through a defined term; and
generating an invoice, with an invoice module, for the energy used or saved through the defined term.
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim 7
Claim 9
Claim 10
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 12
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite similar distinguishing features as highlighted above. Regarding terms that are not exactly the same, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that energy and electricity are analogous terms. Carbon tracker module and electricity tracker module, albeit having different labels, are functionally the same, as highlighted above.
Claims 5 and 11 of the instant application recite “the DLT network” and claims 5 and 11 of the copending application recite “the cloud network.” [0051] of the instant application suggests that DLT and cloud are synonymous, e.g. “each tracker 208 is a node that feeds generation and energy related data 216 through a cellular or other connection to the DLT 218 stored in the cloud.” Therefore, although the terms may differ between the instant application and the copending application, the instant specification suggests that the differing terms between the applications are similar, if not the same, to one another.
Claim 7 of the instant application recites “monitoring” while claim 7 of the copending application recites “timing…to monitor.” Although “monitoring” and “timing” are not the same terminology, the positively claimed action of “to monitor” in the copending application would reasonably read upon the “monitoring” step of the instant application.
Claims 3 and 9 of the copending application 18/416,181 disclose all of the limitations of claims 1 and 7 of the instant application, respectively, except for “a physical monitoring device connected via a collar,” “the electricity tracker module functions as a node on a DLT network,” “calculating a total savings,” and “generating an invoice for the calculated total savings.”
Hanson discloses
a physical monitoring device connected via a collar pg. 2 – What Is A Meter Collar? – “A meter collar is a device that is inserted between the residential utility electrical meter and the meter socket,” Fig. 2 illustrates a meter collar that connects the residential utility electrical meter, i.e. physical monitoring device, to the meter socket.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1 and 7 of copending application 18/416,181 with the teachings of a collar in Hanson to arrive at the instant claims. One would be motivated to make this combination because a meter collar creates a new interface between the meter and socket, and creates space to install other devices for the utility’s benefit Hanson, pg. 2, What Is A Meter Collar?.
Abbott discloses
the electricity tracker module functions as a node on a DLT network [0035] – “module 104 itself may also be used as a node on the DLT network 112.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1 and 7 of copending application 18/416,181 with the teachings of a module functioning as a node on the DLT network in Abbott to arrive at the instant claims. Modifying the carbon tracker module to function as a node on the DLT network would yield predictable results since the carbon tracker module would function the same as a node on the DLT network as it does individually.
Crawford discloses
calculating a total savings Fig. 7, [0061]-[0067] – the cost savings 440 is computed based on comparing various data that includes amount of energy required to cool or heat (e.g. CDD/HDD), i.e. amount of electricity incoming, and data of the new equipment (e.g. SEER), including energy savings, i.e. amount of energy savings;
generating an invoice for the calculated total savings [0060] – “The resultant cost savings is then incorporated into the terms of the energy savings warranty (i.e. invoice),” [0054] – “the warranted energy savings 160 provides that, as evaluated on an annual basis for three years after the installation of the new equipment (i.e. the defined term).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1 and 7 of copending application 18/416,181 with the teachings of calculating and generating an invoice for total cost savings in Crawford to arrive at the instant claims. One would be motivated to make this combination to incentivize consumers to invest in energy-efficient equipment Crawford, [0006]-[0007].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: a predictive analytics module, a timer module, and an invoice module in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof, see specification [0014], [0018].
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 “compare the amount of electricity incoming against the amount of energy savings” and “comparing…the amount of electricity incoming against the amount of energy savings,” respectively. The specification of the instant application discloses in [0009] – “savings are then confirmed and validated against the actual equipment usage,” “This (usage of such energy) can then be compared against the energy that would have been generated or consumed if not for the equipment installed or replaced in the facility,” [0020] – “compare the incoming electricity usage against the amount of energy savings,” in [0026] – “comparing, with a predictive analytics module, the incoming electricity usage against the amount of energy savings,” in [0049] – “compare the energy usage against the calculations of the energy usage utilizing the previous installed or replaced equipment.” In all instances of disclosure of comparison, it is the energy usage that is being compared to the energy savings, not “the amount of electricity incoming.” While the amount of electricity incoming can reasonably encompass the interpretation of energy usage, it can also reasonably encompass energy that is generated, but not necessarily used. Therefore, the claim amendments are claiming an element broader than what is disclosed in the specification. As such, the amendments introduce new matter.
Claims 1 and 7 recite “a predictive analytics module to…calculate a total savings” and “…with a predictive analytics module, and calculating a total savings,” respectively. The amendments suggest that it is the predictive analytics module that is calculating a total savings. However, the specification of the instant application discloses in [0052] – “The DLT 218 is utilized to calculate the actual energy savings versus the predicted energy usage.” Fig. 3 suggests the DLT 218 and the Predictive Analytics 220 are disparate elements. Therefore, the instant specification discloses an element, that is not the predictive analytics module, that calculates a total savings. Accordingly, the amendments introduce new matter.
Claims 2, 4-6 and 8, 10-12 depend from claims 1 and 7, respectively. They fail to cure the deficiencies presented above. Therefore, they are also rejected at least based on their dependency from their rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a DLT network that comprises a plurality of nodes…” in lines 11-12. Claim 1 is directed to a DLT module system, such module system comprising the positively claimed modules. However, it is unclear what is the scope of the claimed invention, i.e. does the scope of the claimed invention include all of the nodes of the DLT network, which also includes the claimed module system, or does the scope only include the modules of the claimed system, and not the rest of the nodes of the DLT network? Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2 and 4-6 depend from claim 1. They fail to cure the deficiencies presented above. Therefore, they are also rejected at least based on their dependency from their rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbott et al. U.S. 2020/0175504 (herein referred to as “Abbott”) in view of Hanson “Meter Collars for Distributed Generation,” in view of Ashley et al. U.S. 2020/0148072 (herein referred to as “Ashley”), and further in view of Crawford et al. U.S. 2016/0004798 (herein as “Crawford”).
Re Claims 1 and 7, Abbott discloses a computer-implemented method of operating a distributed ledger technology ("DLT") token exchange system based at least in part upon electricity usage [0016], the method comprising:
executing instructions to cause at least one server device and related data processing and storage apparatus to operate over a peer-to-peer network [0007] to provide a method comprising:
recording, with an electricity tracker module comprising a physical monitoring device connected […] to an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) meter, a transaction comprising an amount of electricity incoming from a power grid […] [0029] – “Electrical energy generated by the electrical generators 102 is measured by a module 104 (i.e. electricity tracker module) embodiments of which may be an ANSI certified physical monitoring device connected to any standard AMI meter which monitors and stores the measurements of the amount of the flow of electricity measured on a utility feed or interconnect line 106 by such standard AMI meter.”;
wherein the transaction includes identifying data [0016] and the electricity tracker module functions as a node on a DLT network [0035] – “module 104 itself may also be used as a node on the DLT network 112” that comprises a plurality of nodes that execute a software verification algorithm that includes a cryptographic hash value based at least in part upon transaction identifying data [0016].
a predictive analytics module, a timer module, and an invoice module [0010] – “system architecture encompasses light nodes…(or “module”) is responsible for collecting time-stamped data (e.g., kWh produced or consumed, and geolocation data) from a meter and working with other light nodes to validate the data,” [0014] – “Each module represents a light node on the system. There are multiple modules that interact with each other and confirm the validity of the transactions on the system by validating the time stamps between nodes.”
However, Abbott does not expressly disclose
a physical monitoring device connected via a collar.
Hanson discloses meter collars for distributed generation. Specifically, Hanson discloses
a physical monitoring device connected via a collar pg. 2 – What Is A Meter Collar? – “A meter collar is a device that is inserted between the residential utility electrical meter and the meter socket,” Fig. 2 illustrates a meter collar that connects the residential utility electrical meter, i.e. physical monitoring device, to the meter socket.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott’s DLT token exchange system with the teachings of a collar in Hanson. The combination teaches a physical monitoring device that is connected via a collar to the AMI meter. One would be motivated to make this combination because a meter collar creates a new interface between the meter and socket, and creates space to install other devices for the utility’s benefit Hanson, pg. 2, What Is A Meter Collar?.
However, Abbott in view of Hanson do not explicitly teach
recording an amount of energy savings from energy savings equipment, along with environmental and other attributes of such energy;
monitoring the electricity tracker module through a defined term.
Ashley discloses a system and method for tracking energy credits using blockchain. Specifically, Ashley discloses
recording an amount of energy savings from energy savings equipment, along with environmental and other attributes of such energy Fig. 1, [0019], [0023] – tracking credits from generation in a blockchain, and clean energy/energy-efficient assets are inspected and verified, and their verification will be tied to all future data submissions associated with the assets;
monitoring the electricity tracker module through a defined term [0031] – “smart meter interval data is fed into a cloud database,” [0024] – predetermined time intervals dictate when the energy data is uploaded.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott in view of Hanson’s DLT token exchange system with the teachings of energy credit accounting and management using blockchain in Ashley. The combination teaches modules or light nodes that facilitate in tracking energy credits generated by an asset owner over a period of time. One would be motivated to make this combination to incentivize investments in clean energy, while also providing transparency, security, and simple reconciliation and auditability for reductions in the associated time and cost directed to managing energy-related credits Ashley [0008], [0029].
However, Abbot in view of Hanston and Ashley do not explicitly teach
comparing the amount of electricity incoming against the amount of energy savings from the energy savings equipment and calculating a total savings;
generating an invoice for the calculated total savings through the defined term.
Crawford discloses determining the performance of an environmental system using a predictive model. Specifically, Crawford discloses
comparing the amount of electricity incoming against the amount of energy savings from the energy savings equipment and calculating a total savings Fig. 7, [0061]-[0067] – the cost savings 440 is computed based on comparing various data that includes amount of energy required to cool or heat (e.g. CDD/HDD), i.e. amount of electricity incoming, and data of the new equipment (e.g. SEER), including energy savings, i.e. amount of energy savings;
generating an invoice for the calculated total savings through the defined term [0060] – “The resultant cost savings is then incorporated into the terms of the energy savings warranty (i.e. invoice),” [0054] – “the warranted energy savings 160 provides that, as evaluated on an annual basis for three years after the installation of the new equipment (i.e. the defined term).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abbott in view of Hanson and Ashley’s DLT token exchange system with the teachings of comparing, calculating, and generating an invoice for total cost savings in Crawford to arrive at the claimed invention. One would be motivated to make this combination to incentivize consumers to invest in energy-efficient equipment Crawford, [0006]-[0007].
Re Claims 2 and 8, Abbott in view of Hanson, Ashley, and Crawford teach the DLT system and method of claims 1 and 7, and Abbott in view of Hanson, Ashley, and Crawford further teach wherein the cryptographic hash value is additionally based upon at least one prior verified transaction Abbott, [0023].
Re Claims 4 and 10, Abbott in view of Hanson, Ashley, and Crawford teach the DLT system and method of claims 1 and claim 7, and Abbott in view of Hanson, Ashley, and Crawford further teach wherein the physical monitoring device comprises an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) certified physical monitoring device Abbott [0029] – “module may be an ANSI certified physical monitoring device.”
Re Claims 5 and 11, Abbott in view of Hanson, Ashley, and Crawford teach the DLT system and method of claims 1 and claim 7, and Abbott in view of Hanson, Ashley, and Crawford further teach wherein the electricity tracker module communicates with the DLT network through a cellular network connection Abbott [0029] – “Embodiments of module 104 can use public or other cellular communications 108.”
Re Claims 6 and 12, Abbott in view of Hanson, Ashley, and Crawford teach the DLT system and method of claims 1 and claim 7, and Abbott in view of Hanson, Ashley, and Crawford further teach wherein the invoice module for generating an invoice comprises a smart contract Abbott [0030] – smart contracts are used within/across the DLT network.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holzmann U.S. 20170063083 – directed to emulator for optimizing energy consumption management systems. See at least [0052].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5880. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm MT.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/CHRISTINE DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3698