DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Remarks and Amendments filed 09/29/2025 and Extension of time filed 10/24/2025.
Claims 1-7 and 12 have been amended.
Claims 13-25 are newly added.
Claims 1-25 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1-25 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 claims contain 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 7 have been amended to recite features directed towards: “compliance verification” and/or “compliance validation” for which there is no support in the original disclosure. The entire original disclosure (original claims, specification, and drawings) are silent regarding any such compliance checking, whether verification or validation or any other form of compliance auditing. The limitation is considered impermissible new matter.
Furthermore, the aforementioned claims (claims 1 and 7) have also been amended to recite features directed towards: “…the aggregated energy data is formatted in a predetermined data structure including at least a UUID, ZIP code, inverter ID,…”; Although applicant’s Specification contemplates per paragraph [13]: “The aggregated energy data may be formatted in a standardized form” [the aggregated energy data is formatted in a predetermined data structure], and contemplates per paragraph [0031]: “…IOT meters also collect a time, date, and/or GPS location for each USE and GEN reading…”, applicant’s original disclosure does not appear to contemplate “inverter ID” nor “ZIP code” specifically as data needing to be aggregated. The limitation is considered impermissible new matter.
Furthermore, new dependent claims 13-14 recite features directed towards: “…compliance verifications comprises validating energy data against one or more industry-recognized technical standards…”; and “…compliance verification comprises recording device certification status of devices compliant with recognized industry technical standards for energy devices.” for which there is no support in the original disclosure. The entire original disclosure (original claims, specification, and drawings) are silent regarding these ideas and features.
Furthermore, new dependent claims 16 recites features directed towards an “inverter” where “the inverter being operatively coupled to noncertified energy generation devices lacking centralized certification.” for which there is no support in the original disclosure. The entire original disclosure (original claims, specification, and drawings) are silent regarding these ideas and features.
Furthermore, new dependent claims 19 recites features directed towards an “…apply configurable data sampling intervals based on system bandwidth or inverter memory constraints.” for which there is no support in the original disclosure. The entire original disclosure (original claims, specification, and drawings) are silent regarding these ideas and features.
Furthermore, new dependent claims 21 recites features directed towards an “…generate compliance audit trails for distributed energy generation sources without centralized verification.” for which there is no support in the original disclosure. The entire original disclosure (original claims, specification, and drawings) are silent regarding these ideas and features.
Furthermore, new dependent claims 23 recites features directed towards an “recording…within cryptographic trust metadata…” for which there is no support in the original disclosure. The entire original disclosure (original claims, specification, and drawings) are silent regarding these ideas and features.
Furthermore, new dependent claims 24 recites features directed towards an “recording…associated metadata…” for which there is no support in the original disclosure. The entire original disclosure (original claims, specification, and drawings) are silent regarding these ideas and features.
Therefore, applicant fails to have support for each of these features as noted supra. Accordingly, the claims are improperly directed to impermissible new matter.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-25 inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claim and are also 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 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- 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent Claims 1 and 7 have each been amended to recite features directed towards the following: “compliance verification” and/or “compliance validation”. Respectfully, although the general idea of compliance is well-known, this idea also implicitly requires some established rule or regulation by which compliance is intended to be measured and then verified/validated. However, applicant’s entire original disclosure is actually silent regarding any such rule or regulation by which to verify or validate any measurement of compliance. Indeed, the entire original disclosure is silent regarding “compliance” of any sort. Therefore, it is wholly unclear what a step of “compliance verification” and/or “compliance validation” is necessary to infringe the invention. Although some function or step is supposedly being implied, applicant fails to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of subject matter which he intends to embrace by the claim. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
According to MPEP 2173.05(g) – “the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971).” The applicant’s functional language results in no boundaries on the method implied to be performed. No definite mechanism or metric is provided in the specification to teach how to perform the step (i.e. which results in “determining…”). The boundaries of what constitutes a “determination” is also not provided nor recited and no quantitative metrics are established.
According to MPEP 2173.05(g), “Applicant may resolve the ambiguities of a functional limitation in a number of ways. For example: (1) "the ambiguity might be resolved by using a quantitative metric (e.g., numeric limitation as to a physical property) rather than a qualitative functional feature" (see Halliburton Energy Servs., 514 F.3d at 1255-56, 85 USPQ2d at 1663); …; or (4) applicant could amend the claims to recite the particular structure that accomplishes the function.”
Furthermore, dependent claim 23 recites in part the following: “… the cryptographic trust metadata…” which lacks proper antecedent basis. The term “the” is a definite article. As such, this term must refer to a definite previous recitation of the noun which it modifies. However, no previous recitation of “metadata” or “cryptographic trust metadata” has been provided. The claims have not previously mentioned any such metadata and it is wholly unclear what specific metadata the applicant is now attempting to reference. Further exacerbating this issue, is the fact the entire original disclosure is silent regarding metadata. Although the general idea of metadata is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art, the entire original disclosure does not contemplate its use nor storage of anything in a data structure which may be considered metadata. Therefore, there is no context for a person of ordinary skill in the art to understand what specific metadata the applicant is now attempting to reference. For each of these reasons, the claims are held to be indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-25 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1 and 7:
“aggregate the energy data with other energy data;… convert aggregated energy readings from joules to kilowatt-hours…; share the aggregated energy data and perform carbon accounting on a blockchain… perform carbon accounting with compliance verification… the blockchain platform further configured to execute a smart contract that, upon aggregated generation ("GEN") or consumption ("USE") energy data reaching a configurable threshold, automatically generates a corresponding cryptographically verifiable digital certificate (NFT) for GEN or USE, each digital certificate being uniquely associated with the UUIDs of the underlying meter readings and the smart contract, thereby preventing double-counting or re-use of the data”
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations) Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, these steps are directed towards business methods of accounting for energy usage and/or generation (a standard business practice) for the purpose of enforcing contracts, where accounting necessarily requires adding and summing energy usage and/or generation [applicant’s aggregating] and sharing of data with a ledger, in this case a digital distributed ledger (called a blockchain) where a certificate (applicant’s NFT) is issued if an accounting balance surpasses a business defined threshold. An analog may be a bank issuing an overdraft charge certificate when withdrawal balance surpasses threshold of deposits, etc… these are all fundamental economic principles and thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Furthermore, the conversion of units from Joules to kWh is a standard business practice of implementing math and is not applicant’s invention but is merely a mathematical operation to convert a standard unit of SI measurement of energy (i.e. the Joule) into a typically used unit of energy by energy suppliers which is a non-SI unit (i.e. the kWh). This is basic math and falls into the category of mathematical concepts.
Additionally, the idea of “accounting” on a “blockchain” at this high-level of generality is also either merely a business decision falling within fundamental economic principles of using digital ledgers and therefore under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity or is purely a generic allusion to Mathematical Concepts (i.e. math necessary to generally log accounting information within a distributed ledger called a “block chain”) used for the purpose of accounting within a digital distributed ledger system. The references to the cryptographically verifiable digital certificates is nothing more than using known digital vehicles to convey and securely store certificate information within the framework of digital distributed ledgers and they are not applicant’s invention but instead are used to store data typically needing to be accounted for in any energy balance and accounting framework regardless of whether it’s a digital or paper/manual process.
There is no technical solution being claimed and no technical problem being solved. Applicant has not invented a distributed ledger “blockchain” nor NFTs nor cryptographic functions. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components (e.g. a “processor”) used to apply the identified abstract idea within a particular system (i.e. the distributed ledger blockchain) does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case accounting practices within a distributed ledger blockchain environment) or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. general receipt, transfer, and storage of data). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows: “A carbon accounting system configured as a cryptographic trust system, comprising: a data receiving arrangement configured to receive energy data from an energy data collection apparatus, the energy data collection apparatus comprising an IoT-enabled smart meter configured to collect energy data at configurable sampling intervals; a data aggregation processor …to form aggregated energy data… and to assign a unique identifier (UUID) to each meter reading, the UUID being recorded on all meter readings encompassed by a Carbon Credit Contract; and a data communicator configured to transfer the aggregated energy data to a blockchain platform, wherein the aggregated energy data is formatted in a predetermined data structure including at least a UUID, ZIP code, inverter ID, timestamp, and region,…”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not any particular apparatus or processor when recited at this high level of generality nor is it a technique nor technical solution for “receiving energy data” regardless of the description of such generic apparatus claimed as used to effectuate such transfer or receipt of such data, nor is it any particular apparatus or processor for performing the abstract aspect of “aggregating” data nor any particular apparatus or processor for “communicating” [i.e. transfer of data]. The idea that information may be transferred to a blockchain is part of the identified abstract idea and a statement that such transfer is by a generic “data communicator” is not significantly more. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts using generic computer components and link them to a field of use (e.g. accounting within a distributed ledger blockchain environment) or are insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. general receipt, transfer, and storage of data) as relates to the already identified abstract idea and they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components (e.g. by one or more processors or generic apparatus) and “link” them to a field of use, or as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. general receipt, transfer, and storage of data). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claims 2 and 8 recite the following: “…wherein the carbon accounting comprises calculating carbon emissions.” However, calculating is part of the identified abstract idea (e.g. mathematical concepts) as there is no particular calculation or method invented nor claimed for performing such calculation. The description that the calculation relates to carbon emissions merely adds context and is akin to relating the idea to a field of use but is not significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stuart et al. (U.S. 2020/0076891 A1; hereinafter, "Stuart") in view of Official Notice, and Wang (US 20240185233 A1
A1; hereinafter, "Wang”).
Claims 1, 7: (Currently amended)
Pertaining to claims 1 and 7 exemplified in the limitations of claim 1, Stuart as shown teaches the following:
A carbon accounting system, comprising:
a data receiving arrangement configured to receive energy data from an energy data collection apparatus (Stuart, see at least Figs. 1 and 4 and [0041], teaching ‘Distributed Ledger 150 and/or server processor 312’ [data receiving arrangements] receive energy measurement data from “smart meter 210” [energy data collection apparatus]; see also at least [0024]-[0028], teaching e.g. system processor receives data related to carbon emissions, e.g. “flow of natural gas” from a “meter 210”, the same “smart meter 210 of Fig. 4” [energy data collection apparatus]; e.g.: “…With regard to FIG. 1, a GHG tracking system 100 is provided having one or more GHG emitters 200, meters or oracles 210, carbon credit producers 400, and servers 300 communicating over a peer-to-peer network 150 that may be implemented as a distributed ledger… The meter or oracle 210 may comprise a transceiver 222 for writing blocks to the distributed ledger 150 using a blockchain protocol that may be distributed to the one or more servers 300 and/or other oracles 210. In some aspects, the meter or oracle 210 may also communicate using an https protocol and/or TCP/IP.…”; note again also [0041]: … where the meter 210 may be incapable of writing directly to the blockchain, the server processor 312 may receive packets from one or more of the meters 210 and the server processor 312 may determine which wallet corresponds to each of the meters 210…”), the energy data collection apparatus comprising an IoT-enabled smart meter configured to collect energy data at configurable sampling intervals (Stuart, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per Fig. 4 “Smart Meter 210” [energy data collection apparatus comprising an IoT-enabled smart meter] and per at least [0025]: “…the meter 210 may measure the amount of electricity generated and supplied [energy data] to an electrical grid (not shown),etc...”; Examiner notes the applicant’s system as claimed does not actually include the “energy collection apparatus” but instead the system, as claimed, receives data from this “energy collection apparatus” which, for the purpose of examination, appears to be an apparatus external to the boundaries of the claimed system. Therefore, the description of the external apparatus does not functionally limit the system components as claimed. Applicant may amend the claims if applicant desires the referenced energy data collection apparatus to be considered a component of his claimed system.)
a data aggregation processor configured to aggregate the energy data with other energy data to form aggregated energy data (Stuart, see citations noted supra, e.g. [0024]-[0028], teaching, e.g.: “…Periodically, the processor 212 may bundle [aggregated] the one or more fuel measurements [energy data], GPS coordinates, and/or time into one or more data packets that may be transformed into a carbon block [aggregated energy data]. The carbon block may be written to the distributed ledger 150 and distributed to the one or more servers 300 using the blockchain protocol and distributed to a fellow miner or node…”) the data aggregation processor being further configured […] to assign a unique identifier (UUID) to each meter reading, the UUID being recorded on all meter readings encompassed by a Carbon Credit Contract (Stuart, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0047]-[0049], teaching: “the identifier or signature of the meter 210… a serial number of the meter 210” [a unique identifier (UUID) to each meter reading], e.g: “…Any of the relevant data may be recorded in the nonce (e.g. starting block). A nonce may be generated from at least one of: the identifier or signature of the meter 210 … In particular for the meter 210, the nonce may comprise at least one of a serial number of the meter 210, one or more serial numbers of any peripherals attached to the meter 210 at a time of booting, initialization data from any of the peripherals (e.g. GPS, time, temp, etc… and/or random number generated by the meter during booting… the nonce may not be replicated by any other peer on the distributed ledger 150…”);
[the data aggregation processor being further configured to] convert aggregated energy readings from joules to kilowatt-hours (Although Stuart may not explicitly teach his system performs conversion of energy readings from Joules to kWh, Stuart in view of Official Notice does render such feature obvious. For example, Stuart, as noted supra, e.g. per [0024]-[0028] and [0041]-[0049] teaches he bundles measurements of data and these measurements are from sensors and/or smart meters taking energy readings, e.g. electricity usage or e.g. electricity generation such as from a solar array, time of energy usage/generation, location, GPS coordinates of sensor and/or smart meter, serial numbers of sensor and/or meter, etc… and hence implying some unit of energy usage is being transmitted in order to communicate the amount of energy consumed and/or generated. Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts: it was old and well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the standard measure of energy in SI units is the Joule and is a typical unit in which energy meters measure electrical energy and 1Joule is equal to 1Watt x 1sec (Watt-second). Furthermore, it is well known that kWh, i.e.kilowatt-hour (unit symbol: kW⋅h or kW h; commonly written as kWh), is a non-SI unit of energy equal to 3.6 megajoules (MJ) in SI units, which is the energy delivered by one kilowatt of power for one hour. Kilowatt-hours are also well-known to be a common billing unit for electrical energy supplied by electric utilities, because energy bills are calculated based on the total aggregated amount of energy consumed over a billing period; e.g. such as for a month and it is easier and more efficient to convey energy usage, or energy generation, in units of kWh rather than Joules. Furthermore, the conversion of Joules to kWh is straightforward, as noted supra, and taught to all engineering students and hence also is in the realm of knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the relevant art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, using such well-known facts, to convert energy readings of Stuart’s sensors, e.g. of his solar array, which one would expect to be denominated in typical SI units of Joules, to a unit convenient for billing, such as kWh as is typically used by utilities such as electricity companies and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
and
a data communicator configured to transfer the aggregated energy data to a blockchain platform, wherein the aggregated energy data is formatted in a predetermined data structure (Stuart, see citations noted supra, e.g. per e.g. [0027]-[0028], e.g.: “…Periodically, the processor 212 may bundle [aggregate] the one or more fuel measurements, GPS coordinates, and/or time into one or more data packets [a type of predetermined data structure for transmitting data] that may be transformed into a carbon block [a particular format of storing data in a predetermined data structure]… In this manner, the processor 212 may act as a miner whereby the processor 212 may execute proof of work calculations, proof-of-location (e.g. GPS), proof-of-identity (e.g. serial number), proof of time,…”) including at least a UUID (Stuart, see citations noted supra, e.g. per [0027]-[0028], e.g. smart meter “serial number” and per [0049], teaching smart meter 210 has: “the identifier or signature of the meter 210… a serial number of the meter 210” [a unique identifier (UUID) to each meter reading]; Examiner finds that these passages provide motivation to include this information into the data packet and carbon block even if not explicitly stated by Stuart, e.g. to enable Stuart’s teaching regarding proof-of-identity (e.g. serial number), proof of time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the meter’s serial number, identifier, or signature into the data packet and carbon block because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.), ZIP code (Stuart, see citations noted supra, e.g. per [0012] and [0027]-[0028], and [0050], teaching: “…the processor 212 may execute proof of work calculations, proof-of-location (e.g. GPS), proof-of-identity (e.g. serial number), proof of time…” and “…the meter 210 may also ping the distributed ledger for peers and the distributed ledger may return with a number of the closest peers (e.g. geographically, regionally [e.g. ZIP codes], network hops, ping time, or any combination thereof)…. The meter 210 may only be permitted to communicate with the closest peers in order to validate the integrity of the peers…”; In view of these passages, the Examiner understands there is motivation to transmit Stuart’s geographic region, e.g. in the form of known location codes such as “ZIP codes”, to enable his teachings, e.g. regarding: “…The meter 210 may only be permitted to communicate with the closest peers in order to validate the integrity of the peers…”. Furthermore, as ZIP codes are known codes, by which to communicate geographic and regional information, and within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to use such codes to transmit this type of information, especially as Stuart’s sensors and smart meters are taught as having GPS by which to determine location and hence also their regional location. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have included such ZIP codes in Stuart’s data packets carbon block as a means by which to convey the regional information necessary by which to enable closest peers to know which carbon blocks to validate, etc… because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.), inverter ID (Stuart, see at least [0048] teaching “solar array” and teaching his system/method provides carbon credits for the solar array when it is known the solar array is inputting energy to the grid and these credits may be adjusted depending on time of day and/or during specific time periods when the solar array is inputting energy, etc… Furthermore, Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts: it was old and well-known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that inverters are known to be a necessary component of solar arrays attached to an electrical grid such that the energy captured by the solar array may be properly input into such electrical grid. For example, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_inverter, a solar array inverter (or PV inverter) is a critical component that converts the variable direct current (DC) produced by solar panels into 120V/240V alternating current (AC) for household use or grid feedback. Furthermore, such inverters are known to have identifiers, e.g. from the manufacturer to uniquely identify such inverter in case of failure, recall, maintenance parts procurement, etc... Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to convey this information, i.e. an inverter ID, as part of the data packet information and carbon block transmitted by Stuart’s smart meter to his blockchain, and/or server, for the purpose of correctly identifying the solar array equipment to which his carbon credit/debit should be attributed when such credit/debit is created on Stuart’s blockchain and then validated by peers because some per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.), timestamp (Stuart, per at least [0014], [0027]-[0028], and [0062]-[0063] teaching the sensor and smart meter collect “a time [timestamp] related to the location” of the measured data and this is included in the data packet sent to the blockchain and/or server), and region (Stuart, again per [0027] and [0012] teaching the meter, e.g. smart meter 210 has: “…a global positioning sensor (GPS) for measuring a location [region] of the associated emitter and a clock set to a time zone [another region] determined by the GPS…” and this information is included in the data packet sent to the blockchain and/or server), and wherein the blockchain platform is configured to share the aggregated energy data and to perform carbon accounting with compliance verification and cryptographic attestation on a blockchain (Note 112(b) rejection guiding claim interpretation. Stuart, again see citations noted supra, e.g. [0024]-[0028], teaching, e.g.: “…The carbon block [aggregated energy data] may be written to [transferred to] the distributed ledger 150 [blockchain platform] and distributed to [shared with] the one or more servers 300 using the blockchain protocol [use of such protocol is for accounting with compliance verification and cryptographic attestation] and distributed to a fellow miner [i.e. cryptographic attestation and verification is performed by miners] or node…”; see also at least [0043]: “…Once the fuel measurement data has been converted to CO2e emissions [accounting of carbon emissions], the processor 312 may generate the carbon block…” see also at least [0056]-[0063], teaching, e.g.: “…The server processor 312 and/or the meter processor 212 may also execute instructions to effect one or more smart contracts to be added to the blockchain… The smart contract may serve to automatically generate a penalty to an income tax account corresponding to the emitters having a CO2e emission without a corresponding CO2e credit (e.g. a carbon debt)… The blocks and chains interact with each other… This aspect may permit a settling of accounts instruction [perform carbon accounting with compliance verification] permitting regulators to set an expiration time on carbon credits, such as within 12-months of creation or at an end of a quarter. Other deletion triggers may include if the block is transferred to an unauthorized market participant, if the chain indicates the block has past X transactions, if an audit of the producer of the block has become insolvent or has committed fraud, or in an event an owner of a carbon-credit deposits the block to a regulator's digital wallet for payment… Both SAD and MAD may require the record of the blockchain to remain on the ledger 150 for a specified amount of time, e.g. 7 days, to ensure the entire ledger 150 may be updated, and to afford time for any discrepancies to be resolved. MAD and SAD may be used for any other transaction that may require closure and deletion from the ledger 150, etc…”)
the blockchain platform further configured to execute a smart contract (Stuart, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0054]-[0060], teaching: “…The server processor 312 and/or the meter processor 212 may also execute instructions to effect one or more smart contracts to be added to the blockchain. The smart contract may comprise a computerized transaction protocol that executes one or more tem1s of the contract. One smart contract that may be embedded into the carbon block may comprise automatic reporting of outstanding carbon debts to the regulator. The automatic reporting may serve as an auditing tool for the regulator to ensure compliance with carbon trading protocols. The smart contract may serve to automatically generate a penalty to an income tax account corresponding to the emitters having a CO2e emission without a corresponding CO2e credit (e.g. a carbon debt)…”)
that, upon aggregated generation ("GEN") or consumption ("USE") energy data reaching a configurable threshold, automatically generates a corresponding cryptographically verifiable digital certificate (NFT) for GEN or USE (Stuart, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per at least [0054]-[0060], e.g.: “…the smart contract may automatically complete any outstanding transactions and report to the regulator. For example, if the carbon debtor has accumulated sufficient carbon credits [aggregated “GEN”] where the blocks [generation data] and anti-blocks [consumption data] cancel each other out, the blocks and anti-blocks delete each other and report a deletion transaction to the regulator. For a carbon debtor who is unable or unwilling to accumulate sufficient credits [aggregated GEN reaching a configurable threshold], a remaining carbon debt [automatically generated cryptographically verifiable digital certificate] may be reported to the regulator that may apply a financial penalty and/or may assume control of an outstanding carbon debt… the outstanding carbon debt may remain in the wallet until the debtor meets their obligation to acquire enough credit to pay the debt…”; the debt is in the “wallet” and therefore is digital and cryptographically verifiable by virtue of being in the blockchain wallet. Whether explicitly stated by Stuart, Stuart nonetheless provides sufficient motivation to provide this “debt” which is taught as being held in the “wallet”, implying it is a cryptographically verifiable digital certificate which may be audited and verified by regulators and/or those requiring repayment of such debt, e.g. in the form of more carbon credits and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such a provision as a mechanism by which to effect security and trust in this credit and debt vehicle held in a digital wallet and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.),
Although Stuart teaches the above limitations, including “smart contracts” associated with “smart meters 210”, and teaches aggregation of energy data from smart meters, and teaches calculation via a “smart contract” of a “remaining carbon debt” [automatically generated cryptographically verifiable digital certificate], which may be “…reported to the regulator,… the outstanding carbon debt [digital certificate] may remain in the wallet [digital wallet] until the debtor meets their obligation to acquire enough credit to pay the debt…”, Stuart may not explicitly teach that each such ‘carbon debt held in digital wallet’ [digital certificate] is uniquely associated with UUIDs of the underlying smart meter, e.g. “smart meter 210” which collected and transmitted energy data used to make the determination of such debt, and/or credit. However, regarding these features, Stuart in view of Wang teaches the following:
each digital certificate being uniquely associated with the UUIDs of the underlying meter readings and the smart contract, thereby preventing double-counting or re-use of the data (Wang, see at least [0046], e.g.: “…a blockchain system allocates a public key (PK.sub.i), a private key (SK.sub.i), a wallet address (WA.sub.i), and a certificate (Cert.sub.i) [NFT] to the power producer. The certificate [NFT] may include basic information of the power producer connected to a network, such as a company name, an address, an installed capacity, and a smart meter ID (SMID.sub.i) [UUID of the underlying meter]. After obtaining the above information, the newly joined power producer downloads a ledger by using a surrounding node, and officially becomes a node in the blockchain network after completing synchronization. After the purchaser registers with the proxy node, the system allocates a public key, a private key, and a wallet address to the purchaser. The purchaser can log in to the system based on the public key and a set password…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Wang (directed towards a technique whereby digital certificates [NFTs] may include basic information of the power producer connected to a network, such as a company name, an address, an installed capacity, and a smart meter ID (SMID.sub.i) [UUID of the underlying meter] used for energy readings) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Stuart (already directed towards systems/methods including “smart contracts”, associated with “smart meters 210”, where such smart contracts are used to determine a “remaining carbon debt” [automatically generated cryptographically verifiable digital certificate], which may be “…reported to the regulator,… the outstanding carbon debt may remain in the wallet [digital wallet] until the debtor meets their obligation to acquire enough credit to pay the debt…”) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Wang to the device/method of Stuart in order to perform the limitation in question regarding each “remaining carbon debt” [digital certificate] being uniquely associated with the UUIDs of the underlying smart meter readings and the smart contract, thereby preventing double-counting or re-use of the data because Stuart and Wang are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q20/38215 - Use of certificates or encrypted proofs of transaction rights; e.g. in blockchains and distributed ledgers) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 2, 8: (preamble amended / original)
Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Stuart teaches the following: …wherein the carbon accounting comprises calculating carbon emissions (Stuart, see citations noted supra, including at least [0043], e.g.: “…Once the fuel measurement data has been converted to CO2e emissions, the processor 312 may generate the carbon block…”)
Claims 3, 9: (preamble amended / original)
Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Stuart teaches the following: …wherein the energy data collection apparatus is configured to collect the energy data in real-time (Stuart, see citations noted supra, including e.g.: [0047]-[0050], the collected data includes time such that “The time may be used to provide a proof-of-time for the carbon block and may also be available in the blockchain… when the meter 210 boots, the meter 210 may also ping [i.e. in real-time] the distributed ledger for peers and the distributed ledger may return with a number of the closest peers (e.g. geographically, regionally, network hops, ping time, or any combination thereof). The number of the closest peers may be determined by the blockchain protocol. The meter 210 may then log the closest peers either as part of the nonce or as part of a first transaction of the blockchain by this particular meter 210…”)
Claims 4, 10: (preamble amended / original)
Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Stuart teaches the following: …wherein the energy data collection apparatus comprises a smart meter (Stuart, see at least Figs. 1 and 4 teaching: “smart meter”).
Claims 6, 12: (Currently amended)
Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Stuart teaches the following: …wherein the aggregated energy data is formatted in a standardized predetermined form, such as JSON, XML, or an equivalent structured schema. (Stuart, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least [0028] and [0072]. For example: “Periodically, the processor 212 may bundle [aggregate] the one or more fuel measurements, GPS coordinates, and/or time into one or more data packets [a type of predetermined normalized data structure for conveying data] that may be transformed into a carbon block [predetermined normalized data structure for storing data]. The carbon block may be written to the distributed ledger 150 and distributed to the one or more servers 300 using the blockchain protocol [another standardized predetermined form for exchanging data with the blockchain] and distributed to a fellow miner or node…”and “…the at least one block is distributed to other meters via a protocol…”; applicant fails to stipulate any particular definition of “standardized predetermined form”, except for an open-ended indeterminant example, e.g. JSON and XML, which does not convey any particular metes and bounds to a person of ordinary skill in the art beyond the simple idea that the form is an already previously known form for exchanging data and not applicant’s invention and therefore under a required plain meaning interpretation in view of the specification, applicant’s “standardized predetermined form” reads on Stuart’s teachings such as data packets which are read and processed via standard protocols to enable writing of the data to Stuart’s blockchain.)
Claim 13: (New)
Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Stuart in view of Official Notice teaches the following: The method of claim 7, wherein the compliance verification comprises validating energy data against one or more industry-recognized technical standards. (Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts: Compliance verification, as required by government regulation and/or business policy, was old and well-known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, it was old and well-known, to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the concept of Energy Validation Compliance, at its most elementary level, pertains to techniques for ensuring that energy-related systems and processes operate as they are intended and in accordance with established rules and standards. For example, see definition provided by https://energy.sustainability-directory.com/term/energy-validation-compliance/; Therefore, the Examiner understands that “energy data”, which is a representation of energy-related systems and processes, is the data by which to effect such assurance through validation; i.e. it is the data against which established rules and standards [industry-recognized technical standards] are compared to verify and ensure that energy-related systems and processes operate as they are intended and in accordance with these established rules and standards [industry-recognized technical standards]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform a step of validating energy data against these established rules and standards [industry-recognized technical standards], e.g. to perform compliance verification as required by government regulation and/or business policy because per MPEP 2143(I) (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
Claim 14: (New)
Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, Stuart in view of Official Notice teaches the following: The method of claim 7, wherein the compliance verification comprises recording device certification status of devices compliant with recognized industry technical standards for energy devices. (Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts: Compliance verification, as required by government regulation and/or business policy, was old and well-known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, it was old and well-known, to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that smart meters are certified for accuracy and safety by independent, accredited laboratories and organizations, primarily testing against standards set by ANSI (American National Standards Institute) or IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission). Key organizations include UL Solutions, KEMA Labs, and Eurofins, while state Public Service Commissions (PSCs) oversee accuracy complaints For example, per https://code-authorities.ul.com/about/blog/smart-meters/, meters and other equipment for metering of electricity that are not plugged into a traditional meter socket are certified by UL under the Energy Usage Monitoring Systems product category (FTRZ) in accordance with UL 916, the Standard for Safety for Energy Management Equipment. This category covers products intended for use in metering of utility and non-utility electric power. The primary function of these devices is to monitor power consumption on a building main supply or separate branch circuits. Therefore, the Examiner understands that compliance verification requires collection of device certification status, i.e. applicant’s “recording” of such status, e.g. for the purpose of verification of adherence to government rules and/or business policies during audit for compliance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform the generic step as claimed because per MPEP 2143(I) (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious.
Claim 16: (New)
Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as already shown supra, Stuart/Official Notice teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the energy data collection apparatus comprises a smart meter operatively coupled to an inverter. Although Stuart/ON teaches smart meter coupled to inverter, Stuart may not teach the inverter being operatively coupled to noncertified energy generation devices lacking centralized certification. However, Stuart in view of Official Notice teaches inverter being operatively coupled to noncertified energy generation devices lacking centralized certification (Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts: It was old and well-known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that UL certified inverters are compatible with non-certified generation devices, e.g. non-UL listed generators and other devices; i.e. the inverter is agnostic as to whether the generator to which it is connected has been certified or not by any particular certification authority. This merely presents a risk to the equipment such as a small, unregulated generator can be easily damaged by backfed power through the inverter. Such risks are up to personnel overseeing operations of such equipment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have operatively connected a non-UL listed small generator, e.g. temporarily during repair of a primary generator, to the certified inverter because substituting one device for another similar device merely lacking a certification is obvious, e.g. per MPEP 2143(I) (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious.
Claim 18: (New)
Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Stuart teaches the following: The system of claim 1, wherein the aggregated energy data is formatted in a predetermined normalized data structure. (Stuart, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least [0028] and [0072]. For example: “Periodically, the processor 212 may bundle [aggregate] the one or more fuel measurements, GPS coordinates, and/or time into one or more data packets [a type of predetermined normalized data structure for conveying data] that may be transformed into a carbon block [predetermined normalized data structure for storing data]. The carbon block may be written to the distributed ledger 150 and distributed to the one or more servers 300 using the blockchain protocol [another standardized predetermined form for exchanging data with the blockchain] and distributed to a fellow miner or node…” and “…the at least one block is distributed to other meters via a protocol…”; applicant fails to stipulate any particular definition of “standardized predetermined form”, except for an open-ended indeterminant example, e.g. JSON and XML, which does not convey any particular metes and bounds to a person of ordinary skill in the art beyond the simple idea that the form is an already previously known form for exchanging data and not applicant’s invention and therefore under a required plain meaning interpretation in view of the specification, applicant’s “standardized predetermined form” reads on Stuart’s teachings such as data packets which are read and processed via standard protocols to enable writing of the data to Stuart’s blockchain.)
Claim 24: (New)
Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Stuart teaches the following: The method of claim 7, wherein the blockchain platform records energy data and associated metadata using a cryptographic hashing function to ensure immutability and traceability. (Stuart, see at least [0052]: “…The carbon block may be created using a Secure Hash Algorithm (SHA). For example, the use of a SHA-3 or more specifically SHA-512/256 as is known in the art. Once the carbon block is created the server processor 312 updates a ledger and assigns the carbon block to the corresponding wallet…”).
Claims 5, 11, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stuart / Official Notice, in view of Wang, in view of Blaikie (U.S. 2022/0358547 A1; hereinafter, " Blaikie").
Claims 5, 11
Although Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, and Stuart teaches “smart contracts” regarding “carbon credits” and he teaches storage of such information within a “blockchain” he may not explicitly teach the following recited nuance. However, regarding this feature, Stuart in view of Blaikie teaches the following:
…wherein the blockchain platform is configured to automatically convert Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) into Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs ) (Blaikie, see at least [0032]-[0033], teaching, e.g.: “…When carbon credits are bought, an NFT is generated to track the ownership and lifecycle of each carbon credit and to permanently identify the credits that have been purchased, utilized, and retired. The NFTs may be utilized to clearly identify the related carbon signature (property or item) being offset or may denote the purchase of carbon credit future out of the token base for a future sale, trade, or retirement. When the NFT is generated the carbon credits assigned to the transaction and any associated data are clearly identified in the NFT and permanently removed from the carbon credit bank (e.g., G.E.C. controls are removed)…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Blaikie (directed towards techniques of tokenizing carbon credits as NFTs within a blockchain for the stated purpose of tracking the ownership and lifecycle of each carbon credit and to permanently identify the credits that have been purchased, utilized, and retired, etc…) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Stuart (already directed towards storage of carbon credits within a blockchain) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Blaikie to the device/method of Stuart and therefore perform the claimed limitation for the purpose given by Blaikie because Stuart and Blaikie are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 17 (New)
Although Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, and Stuart teaches “smart contracts” regarding “carbon credits” and he teaches storage of such information within a “blockchain” he may not explicitly teach the following recited nuance. However, regarding this feature, Stuart in view of Blaikie teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the blockchain platform is configured to automatically convert verified aggregated energy data into cryptographically verifiable digital certificates. (Blaikie, see at least [0032]-[0033], teaching, e.g.: “…When carbon credits are bought, an NFT is generated to track the ownership and lifecycle of each carbon credit and to permanently identify the credits that have been purchased, utilized, and retired. The NFTs may be utilized to clearly identify the related carbon signature (property or item) being offset or may denote the purchase of carbon credit future out of the token base for a future sale, trade, or retirement. When the NFT is generated the carbon credits assigned to the transaction and any associated data are clearly identified in the NFT and permanently removed from the carbon credit bank (e.g., G.E.C. controls are removed)…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Blaikie (directed towards techniques of automatically convert verified aggregated blockchain data, e.g. energy data such as carbon credits, into cryptographically verifiable NFTs [digital certificates]) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Stuart (already directed towards storage of carbon credits within a blockchain) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Blaikie to the device/method of Stuart and therefore perform the claimed limitation for the purpose given by Blaikie because Stuart and Blaikie are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 15, 19, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stuart / Official Notice, in view of Wang, in view of Wiehink (U.S. 2019/0356163 A1; hereinafter, "Wiehink").
Claim 15 (New)
Although Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, they may not explicitly teach the following recited nuance. However, regarding this feature, Stuart in view of Wiehink teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the energy data collection apparatus is configured to collect the energy data at one-minute or more frequent sampling intervals (Wiehink, see at least [0030]: “…The solution that is provided by the electrical power balancing device of the present invention makes use of the smart electricity meters in households. These meters can be configured to transfer the data of the energy that passes the meter to a central computer at regular time intervals, for example every ten seconds or every minute…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Wiehink which is applicable to a known base device/method of Stuart to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Wiehink to the device/method of Stuart in order to perform the limitation in question because Stuart and Wiehink are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 19 (New)
Although Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, they may not explicitly teach the following recited nuance. However, regarding this feature, Stuart in view of Wiehink and Official Notice teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the data aggregation processor is further configured to apply configurable data sampling intervals (Wiehink, see at least [0030]: “…The solution that is provided by the electrical power balancing device of the present invention makes use of the smart electricity meters in households. These meters can be configured to transfer the data of the energy that passes the meter to a central computer at regular time intervals, for example every ten seconds or every minute…”) based on system bandwidth or inverter memory constraints (Examiner takes Official Notice of the following facts: bandwidth constraints were old and well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and therefore, practitioners limit data transmissions to fit within these bandwidth constraints. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to perform Wiehink’s technique of configuring to transfer data of the energy, that passes through the meter, to a central computer at a regular time interval, to accommodate known bandwidth constraints, e.g. if every second uses too much bandwidth, then send every 10 seconds or every minute, or at whatever interval is deemed ideal and still within the bandwidth constraints because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Wiehink in view of Official Notice which is applicable to a known base device/method of Stuart to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Wiehink, based on the Offiically Noticed fact, to the device/method of Stuart in order to perform the limitation in question because Stuart and Wiehink are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 22 (New)
Although Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, they may not explicitly teach the following recited nuance. However, regarding this feature, Stuart in view of Wiehink teaches the following:
The system of claim 1, wherein the configurable sampling interval comprises at least one-minute or more frequent sampling intervals. (Wiehink, see at least [0030]: “…The solution that is provided by the electrical power balancing device of the present invention makes use of the smart electricity meters in households. These meters can be configured to transfer the data of the energy that passes the meter to a central computer at regular time intervals, for example every ten seconds or every minute…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Wiehink which is applicable to a known base device/method of Stuart to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of Wiehink to the device/method of Stuart in order to perform the limitation in question because Stuart and Wiehink are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q30/02) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stuart / Official Notice, in view of Wang, and further in view of Choi (US 20040174270 A1; hereinafter, "Choi”).
Claim 20 (New)
Although Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, and Stuart teaches bundling smart meter reading data into a data packet message, Stuart may not explicitly teach the following recited nuance. However, regarding this feature, Stuart in view of Choi teaches the following:
… The system of claim 1, wherein each meter reading is cryptographically bound to a UUID and timestamp, and the UUID is recorded on all meter readings encompassed by the Carbon Credit Contract. (Choi, see at least Fig. 5C and [0022], teaching: “…The short messaging structure comprises at least one of a subscriber number; meter ID; meterage information; meter reading time; and meter state information…”; per at least [0042] the message is “encoded” [cryptographically bound]; applicant’s claim does not stipulate any particular cryptographic cipher and therefore the generically recited idea reads on Choi’s teachings.
PNG
media_image1.png
118
428
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Choi (directed towards techniques of encoding messages from a smart meter to include ID of meter and the meter reading time [timestamp], etc…) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Stuart (already directed towards use of smart meters to gather and transmit energy meter readings to a blockchain and/or server) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Choi to the device/method of Stuart and therefore perform the claimed limitation because Choi is pertinent to the smart meter data packet message of Sturat and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Stuart / Official Notice, in view of Wang, and further in view of Oliver (U US 20140351278 A1; hereinafter, "Oliver”).
Claim 25: (New)
Stuart/Wang/Official Notice teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend, including UUID-bound meter readings and smart contracts. Stuart/ON may not explicitly teach recording his UUID-bound meter readings in the Carbon Credit Contract. However, Stuart/ON in view of Oliver teaches the following: The method of claim 14, further comprising recording UUID-bound meter readings in the Carbon Credit Contract, wherein the Carbon Credit Contract ensures that each meter reading is uniquely associated with one digital certificate. (Oliver, see at least [0029], teaching: a device “…upon receiving the customer identifier, retrieves any object identifiers such as the meter identifier and the contract identifier associated with the customer identifier.…”). In view of these teachings, the Examiner finds there is motivation to link a meter identifier with a contract for meter readings of a customer associated with a particular meter which affect said contract. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recorded Stuart’s/ON’s UUID-bound meter readings in Stuart’s Carbon Credit Contract e.g. to associate the contract with meter readings of a particular meter for the intended purpose of the ensuring that each meter reading is uniquely associated with one of Stuart’s carbon credits or debits [digital certificates] as per a Carbon Credit Contract because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended Claims 1-7 and 12 and added new claims 13-25 on 09/29/2025 and filed petition for extension of time on 10/24/2025. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 09/29/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 101, 112, and 103 rejections with Stuart in view of Wang and Official Notice.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights