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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 11 – Please change the phrase “to is untradeable” to “is untradeable.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15 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) the abstract ideas of a mathematical algorithm for determining a CHG emission metric [See Paragraphs [0036] and [0038]-[0039] of the instant Specification] and then creating a token for listing on a market (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A) – falling under the judicial exception of the “organizing human activity” by performing “fundamental economic practices or principles.”)[See Paragraphs [0041]-[0045] of the instant Specification]. The abstract idea is a combination of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(II)(B)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no specific actions to reduce CHG emissions need to be performed.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the gathering of data for calculating the updated CHG emission metric amounts to routine data gathering necessary for implementing the algorithm. The recited “process” is generic and the step of “implementing a change” to the process is non-specific and could amount to mere planning. The use of a general-purpose computer to implement the algorithm does not serve to amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself (see Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)). The step of “managing a fleet of vehicles” is non-specific and could amount to mere planning. The steps of “flagging” the token as untradeable, “irreversibly alter” the token to be untradable, and “refusing to list” the token on the market amount to the recitation of causing the token to expire, which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional practice in managing a token market [See Paragraph [0089] of US 20220188781 A1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooner (US 20200027096 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, and 15, Cooner discloses a method (and corresponding computer system including a processor, memory, and programming instructions [Claim 1 – “wherein the maintaining and adding are implemented by a computer system operatively coupled to a memory associated with the given computing node and connected in signal communication with Internet of Things (IoT) equipment.”]), comprising:
collecting, from one or more sensors, first sensor data regarding a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission level of a process at a first time; establishing a baseline GHG emission metric based on the first sensor data [Claim 1 of Cooner – “A method of securely tracking atmospheric emissions, comprising: maintaining a secure chain of data blocks at a given computing node in a distributed network of computing nodes, wherein each of the computing nodes maintains the secure chain of data blocks, and wherein the secure chain of data blocks maintained at each computing node comprises one or more data blocks that respectively represent one or more transactions associated with a carbon credit, allowance, offset, asset or greenhouse gas atmospheric emissions representation; and adding at least one data block to the secure chain of data blocks maintained at the given computing node in response to a triggering event associated with the atmospheric emissions representation, wherein the triggering event is a function of at least one measurement relevant to the atmospheric emissions representation”Claim 2 of Cooner – “monitoring electricity use, detecting greenhouse gases, or using sensor-based computing devices to automate the validation or verification of carbon credits per ISO 14064-6 or like standards”];
implementing a change to at least one step of the process; collecting from the one or more sensors, second sensor data regarding the GHG emission level of the process at a second time after the first time [Claim 3 of Cooner – “measuring renewable energy production, energy efficiency, or alternative greenhouse gas emissions reduction before and after implementation of an emissions improvement”];
calculating an updated GHG emission metric based on the second sensor data; and in response to the updated GHG emission metric being less than the baseline GHG emission metric, minting an exhaustible non-fungible token with a value representing a difference between the updated GHG emission metric and the baseline GHG emission metric [Claim 3 of Cooner – “using the before and after measurements to generate carbon credits or a token-based representation of carbon credits on a blockchain”As the tokens are issued in response to an improvement where carbon credits would be produced, this reads on the language “the updated GHG emission metric being less than the baseline GHG emission metric” and the token value representing the difference between the two.].
Regarding Claims 2 and 9, Cooner discloses listing, at a third time after the second time, the exhaustible non-fungible token on a market [Claim 4 of Cooner – “managing carbon credits or a token-based representation of carbon credits though generation, validation, verification, or monetization on a trading market or through non-market mechanisms, wherein stakeholders are compensated by fiat currency payment, credit issuance, or digital currency or token issuance.” This would inherently take place after token issuance.].
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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooner (US 20200027096 A1) and El-Bizri (US 20220188781 A1).
Regarding Claims 3 and 10, Cooner fails to disclose causing, at a fourth time after the third time, the exhaustible non-fungible token to execute code to flag the exhaustible non-fungible token as untradable.
However, El-Bizri discloses assigning expiration dates to tokens [Paragraph [0089]]. It would have been obvious to take such an approach in order to ensure the viability of a healthy token market. Using a flag would allow doing so.
Regarding Claims 4 and 11, Cooner fails to disclose the code causes the exhaustible non-fungible token to irreversibly alter at least one characteristic of the exhaustible non-fungible token to indicate that the exhaustible non-fungible token is untradeable.
However, El-Bizri discloses assigning expiration dates to tokens [Paragraph [0089]]. It would have been obvious to take such an approach in order to ensure the viability of a healthy token market.
Regarding Claims 5 and 12, Cooner fails to disclose refusing, at a fifth time after the fourth time, to list the exhaustible non-fungible token on the market when the exhaustible non-fungible token is flagged as untradeable.
However, El-Bizri discloses assigning expiration dates to tokens [Paragraph [0089]]. It would have been obvious to take such an approach in order to ensure the viability of a healthy token market. It would have been obvious to refuse listing of expired tokens in order to keep the token market uncluttered.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooner (US 20200027096 A1) and Knight et al. (US 20110231055 A1)[hereinafter “Knight”].
Regarding Claims 6 and 13, Cooner fails to disclose that the process is managing a fleet of vehicles and the baseline and updated GHG emission metrics are based on fuel consumption of the fleet of vehicles.
However, Knight discloses the tracking of the fuel consumption of a fleet of vehicles in order to optimize vehicle performance and driving habits [Paragraph [0031] – “It will be appreciated by one skilled in the art that the availability of telemetry data and use according to the present invention generally improves fleet management. More specifically, a better picture of vehicle usage and demand may be provided. For example, the telemetry module may analyze the fuel consumption of a particular vehicle in the fleet, a group of vehicles in the fleet and of the entirety of the fleet. In this regard, vehicle performance and driving habits may be optimized to reduce fuel consumption, by, for example, identifying vehicles and driving habits where fuel consumption is above particular benchmark numbers.”]. It would have been obvious to track fuel consumption as an emission metric because fuel consumption directly relates to greenhouse gas emissions.
Regarding Claims 7 and 14, Cooner fails to disclose that implementing the change to the at least one step of the process includes reducing an average idle time of vehicles in the fleet of vehicles.
However, Knight discloses tracking engine idle time as it relates to fuel consumption [Paragraph [0035] – “In terms of fuel management, the system herein described may be used for tracking and tracing of leakage points in fuel consumption, including monitoring engine idle time, monitoring emission/engine parameters to improve performance, monitoring driver behaviour related to an increase in fuel consumption, including high acceleration, speed and hard braking and allows for the tracking of unnecessary miles.”]. It would have been obvious to track fuel consumption as an emission metric because fuel consumption directly relates to greenhouse gas emissions. It would have been obvious to track engine idle time as a parameter because it directly relates to fuel consumption. It would have been obvious to set a goal of reducing an average idle time of vehicles in the fleet of vehicles because doing so would have allowed for optimizing the emission performance of the entire fleet.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220297546 A1 – MODIFICATION OF TRANSPORT FUNCTIONALITY BASED ON CARBON FOOTPRINT
US 20220156754 A1 – SECURE TOKEN-BASED EXCHANGE OF POLLUTION CREDITS FOR THE REDUCTION OF WORLDWIDE POLLUTION
US 20210248523 A1 – DISTRIBUTED LEDGER PLATFORM FOR TRACKING CROWDSOURCED AND INDIVIDUAL-BASED CARBON OFFSETS IN REAL TIME
US 20140114867 A1 – SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING ACTIONS TO REDUCE A CARBON FOOTPRINT
Bauldry, New cryptocurrency rewards CO2 reduction, Delano, 2018 (https://delano.lu/article/delano_new-cryptocurrency-rewards-co2-reduction)
Kahya et al., Blockchain-enabled Personalized Incentives for Sustainable Behavior in Smart Cities, IEEE, 2021
Khanji et al., Boosting Ridesharing Efficiency Through Blockchain: GreenRide Application Case Study, IEEE, 2019
Waters et al., CERCoin: Carbon tracking enabling Blockchain system for Electric Vehicles, IEEE, 2021
Wright, Fiat and crypto together at last thanks to new driver rewards system, cointelegraph, 3.18.2021 (https://cointelegraph.com/news/fiat-and-crypto-together-at-last-thanks-to-new-driver-rewards-system)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-9PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857