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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Sep. 12, 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9, 13-15, and 27-29 are all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 1-9 and 13-15 are amended.
Claims 27-29 are new.
Claims 10-12 and 16-26 are cancelled.
Claims 1-9, 13-15, and 27-29 are rejected.
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to amendments and remarks filed Sep. 12, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 101 rejections, Applicant asserts the rejections should be withdrawn because the human mind cannot measure carbon levels sequestered in nature. Examiner respectfully does not find this assertion persuasive because the use of probes is recited too broadly and generally to be more than mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding the 102 rejections, the rejections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims. Please see below for the new rejections of the claims as amended.
In response to arguments in reference to any depending claims that have not been individually addressed, all rejections made towards these dependent claims are maintained due to a lack of reply by Applicant in regards to distinctly and specifically pointing out the supposed errors in Examiner's prior office action (37 CFR 1.111). Examiner asserts that Applicant only argues that the dependent claims should be allowable because the independent claims are unobvious and patentable over the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 13-15, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-9, 13-15, and 27-29 are directed to a system. Therefore, we proceed to Step 2.
Independent Claim 1
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
Independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the limitations (emphasized):
…a programmable computer system, the programmable computer system comprising one or more programmable processors, one or more memory units, one or more searchable databases, and one or more communications interfaces;
a sensor system; a qualifying system; a measuring system; a coding system; and an encrypting system,
wherein the sensor system, qualifying system, measuring system, coding system, and encrypting system are in communication with the programmable computer system over the one or more communications interfaces,
wherein the sensor system comprises one or more detection devices that detect and track one or more carbon sources that constitutes or has been processed into one or more carbon sequestered materials and records data relating to the one or more carbon sources in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system, wherein the recorded data comprise nature, source, origin, and location of the one or more carbon sources, and wherein the one or more detection devices include a probe configured to measure carbon levels sequestered in nature,
wherein the qualifying system is programmed to qualify the nature of the carbon detected and tracked by the sensor system and record the qualified nature of the carbon in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system,
wherein the measuring system is programmed to measure and calculate CO2e based on the carbon that is detected and tracked by the sensor system and record calculated carbon credits of the CO2e in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system,
wherein the coding system is programmed to encode the source, origin and quantity of the CO2e measured and calculated by the measuring system and associate the CO2e with a unique identifier, and thereafter record the unique identifier of the CO2e in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system, and
wherein the encrypting system is programmed to encrypt information comprising data relating to the CO2e measured and calculated by the measuring system to create one or more uniform encrypted carbon credit certificates that are representative of the amount and source of the CO2e and thereafter to place the one or more uniform encrypted carbon credit certificates on one or more distributed ledgers.
These limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations are encompass obtaining data to track and verify the requisite conditions to obtain the legal rights of a carbon offset credit. This is a method of organizing human activity, specifically legal interactions. Because the instant invention is verifying whether data are appropriate to achieve the creation of a carbon offset credit, the invention is reciting a certain method of organizing human activities, specifically legal interactions (i.e., ensuring that the activity underlying the desired carbon credit meets the legal criteria for such a credit). Claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements of independent claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements (emphasized):
…a programmable computer system, the programmable computer system comprising one or more programmable processors, one or more memory units, one or more searchable databases, and one or more communications interfaces;
a sensor system; a qualifying system; a measuring system; a coding system; and an encrypting system,
wherein the sensor system, qualifying system, measuring system, coding system, and encrypting system are in communication with the programmable computer system over the one or more communications interfaces,
wherein the sensor system comprises one or more detection devices that detect and track one or more carbon sources that constitutes or has been processed into one or more carbon sequestered materials and records data relating to the one or more carbon sources in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system, wherein the recorded data comprise nature, source, origin, and location of the one or more carbon sources, and wherein the one or more detection devices include a probe configured to measure carbon levels sequestered in nature,
wherein the qualifying system is programmed to qualify the nature of the carbon detected and tracked by the sensor system and record the qualified nature of the carbon in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system,
wherein the measuring system is programmed to measure and calculate CO2e based on the carbon that is detected and tracked by the sensor system and record calculated carbon credits of the CO2e in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system,
wherein the coding system is programmed to encode the source, origin and quantity of the CO2e measured and calculated by the measuring system and associate the CO2e with a unique identifier, and thereafter record the unique identifier of the CO2e in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system, and
wherein the encrypting system is programmed to encrypt information comprising data relating to the CO2e measured and calculated by the measuring system to create one or more uniform encrypted carbon credit certificates that are representative of the amount and source of the CO2e and thereafter to place the one or more uniform encrypted carbon credit certificates on one or more distributed ledgers.
The additional elements of claim 1 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application for the following reasons. First, the additional elements of the computer, sensor, qualifying, measuring, coding, and encrypting systems, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are merely reciting instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer (e.g., “programmable computer system”), which is insufficient to provide a practical application of the claims and provide subject matter eligibility, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Second, the additional elements of the detection devices including a probe, as claimed, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because using a probe, as claimed, is only mere data gathering (i.e., insufficient extra-solution activity) and is insufficient to provide a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception and insufficient extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception and insufficient extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites the additional elements of the ledgers being a blockchain. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements are only a general link to a field of use of the invention, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 3-5 provide further embellishments on the legal aspects of auditing or validating (e.g., “attesting to”) the data, which are further abstract for the reasons stated above.
Claims 6-9 provide further embellishments regarding a trading exchange for the generated carbon credits, thereby providing a further abstract idea: a fundamental economic activity because trading a product, commodity, or derivative is part of basic market practices, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Claims 13-15 recite the additional elements of the invention utilizing artificial intelligence or machine learning to perform the steps of the invention, but the use of this technology is not really provided with any specificity and is at such a high level of generality that it is merely a general link to a technological environment, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 27-29 recite how the invention gathers data, however these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these additional elements are only general links to various technological fields, (i.e., soil mapping, spectroscopy, and autonomous drones), see MPEP 2106.05(h).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9, 13-15, and 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivan et al., US Pub. No. 2023/0177474, herein referred to as “Ivan”, in view of Nagel et al., US Pub. No. 2022/0349815 herein referred to as “Nagel”.
Regarding claim 1, Ivan teaches:
a programmable computer system, the programmable computer system comprising one or more programmable processors, one or more memory units, one or more searchable databases, and one or more communications interfaces (see, e.g., at least ¶s 54, 71, 75, 78, 108, 132, and Figure 1 teaching that the invention operates as a computer system with memory that is programmable and includes interfaces such as display interface 140 and input/output interface 150 and ¶s 52-54 teach searchable databases);
a sensor system (see, e.g., at least ¶s 99-106 teaching the various system of sensors 225);
a qualifying system (see, e.g., at least ¶s 125-146 teaching a gas verification apparatus, verificatory node, and validator node that verify and validate the carbon sequestration before a carbon credit can be provided);
a measuring system (see, e.g., at least ¶s 99-106 teaching the various system of sensors 225 noting that the sensors can measure the data such as how much carbon has been captured);
a coding system (see, e.g., ¶ 106 teaching the sensors being associated with a unique ID or address and signing their measured data with a respective cryptographic key or checksum; see also, e.g., ¶s 10 and 197 teaching using encryption techniques to encrypt the data on the blockchain); and
an encrypting system (see, e.g., ¶s 10 and 197 teaching using encryption techniques to encrypt the data on the blockchain; see also, e.g., ¶s 157-158 and 197 teaching putting the data on the blockchain/distributed ledger),
wherein the sensor system, qualifying system, measuring system, coding system, and encrypting system are in communication with the programmable computer system over the one or more communications interfaces (see, e.g., at least ¶s 54, 71, 75, 78, 108, 132, and Figure 1 teaching that the entire invention operates as a computer system with memory that is programmable and includes interfaces such as display interface 140 and input/output interface 150 and ¶s 52-54 teach searchable databases),
wherein the sensor system comprises one or more detection devices that detect and track one or more carbon sources that constitutes or has been processed into one or more carbon sequestered materials and records data relating to the one or more carbon sources in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system, wherein the recorded data comprise nature, source, origin, and location of the one or more carbon sources (see, e.g., at least ¶s 99-106 teaching the various system of sensors 225 noting that the sensors can measure the data such as how much carbon has been captured);
wherein the qualifying system is programmed to qualify the nature of the carbon detected and tracked by the sensor system and record the qualified nature of the carbon in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system (see, e.g., at least ¶s 125-146 teaching a gas verification apparatus, verificatory node, and validator node that verify and validate the carbon sequestration before a carbon credit can be provided),
wherein the measuring system is programmed to measure and calculate CO2e based on the carbon that is detected and tracked by the sensor system and record calculated carbon credits of the CO2e in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system (see, e.g., ¶ 106 teaching storing the data by signing the measured data with a key or checksum, noting that ¶s 100 and 102 teach measuring the sequestered carbon and ¶ 104 notes that it is all part of the programmable computer system),
wherein the coding system is programmed to encode the source, origin and quantity of the CO2e measured and calculated by the measuring system and associate the CO2e with a unique identifier, and thereafter record the unique identifier of the CO2e in the one or more memory units of the programmable computer system (see, e.g., ¶ 106 teaching the sensors being associated with a unique ID or address and signing their measured data with a respective cryptographic key or checksum; see also, e.g., ¶s 10 and 197 teaching using encryption techniques to encrypt the data on the blockchain), and
wherein the encrypting system is programmed to encrypt information comprising data relating to the CO2e measured and calculated by the measuring system to create one or more uniform encrypted carbon credit certificates that are representative of the amount and source of the CO2e and thereafter to place the one or more uniform encrypted carbon credit certificates on one or more distributed ledgers (see, e.g., ¶s 10 and 197 teaching using encryption techniques to encrypt the data on the blockchain; see also, e.g., ¶s 157-158 and 197 teaching putting the data on the blockchain or distributed ledger).
However Ivan does not teach but Nagel does teach:
and wherein the one or more detection devices include a probe configured to measure carbon levels sequestered in nature (see ¶s 62, 63 and Figures 1 and 2, discussing probes and ¶ 0086 discussing measuring soil organic carbon).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the system for measuring carbon and generating carbon coins taught by Ivan with the soil sampling of Nagel because Nagel explicitly teaches using its embodiments achieve the maximum generalization capacity for the calibration of a particular soil properties, ¶ 86, see also MPEP 2143.I(G).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Ivan further teaches:
wherein at least one of the one or more distributed ledgers comprises a blockchain (see at least Figure 5 feature 544 teaching that all of the obtained, logged, and authenticated data are blocks on a blockchain; see further ¶s 2 and 10 teaching that the purpose of the invention is to place carbon sequestration data on the blockchain).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Ivan further teaches:
wherein authenticity of ownership of a location of the carbon source is attested to by a landowner or a leaseholder of the location (see, e.g., ¶ 10 teaching an operator certifying a block in the blockchain, noting ¶ 92 teaches that the gas capture apparatus can be owned by the gas emitting entity 212; see also ¶s 112 and 127 teaching the operator providing or certifying authenticity of the data on the blockchain; see further ¶ 166 teaching an operator of a worker node authenticating a time of the data. Please note, Examiner finds this limitation does not substantially further limit the scope of the claim because attestations of ownership do not functionally alter or relate to the system and merely labeling information does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention, see MPEP 2111.05).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Ivan further teaches:
wherein an operator of the climate technology ecosystem for computer-generation of uniform carbon credit certificates attests to the authenticity of the uniform encrypted carbon certificate (see, e.g., ¶ 10 teaching an operator certifying a block in the blockchain; see also ¶s 112 and 127 teaching the operator providing or certifying authenticity of the data on the blockchain; see further ¶ 166 teaching an operator of a worker node authenticating a time of the data).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Ivan further teaches:
a financial system, wherein the financial system issues one or more of the uniform encrypted carbon credit certificates for trading in one or more voluntary carbon markets (see, e.g., at least ¶s 10, 113, 157, 194, and 197 teaching that the cryptographic carbon credit may be traded on a carbon exchange market).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 5 and Ivan further teaches:
wherein the voluntary carbon markets comprise peer-to-peer or on any exchange that trades carbon credits or carbon credit certificates (see, e.g., at least ¶s 10, 113, 157, 194, and 197 teaching that the cryptographic carbon credit may be traded on a carbon exchange market).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Ivan further teaches:
a physical system in communication with the programmable computer system over the communications interface, wherein the physical system registers the one or more uniform encrypted carbon certificates to be traded in one or more voluntary carbon markets (see, e.g., ¶ 49 teaching that it is a physical computer that records all of the data that results in the registration of the carbon certificates registered in the carbon markets).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Ivan further teaches:
an exchange system in communication with the programmable computer system over the communications interface, wherein the wherein the exchange system places the one or more uniform encrypted carbon credit certificates on an exchange for the trading of carbon credits as derivatives (see, e.g., at least ¶s 10, 113, 157, 194, and 197 teaching that the cryptographic carbon credit may be traded on a carbon exchange market, and Examiner notes that carbon credits are known by one of ordinary skill in the art to be derivatives or that they can be treated as derivatives).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Ivan further teaches:
wherein at least one of the programmable processors is programmed using predetermined machine-learning algorithms (ML), artificial intelligence (AI) and combinations thereof (see, e.g., ¶ 136 teaching using machine learning models to determine and verify the amount of gas captured based on the sensed data; see ¶ 177 teaching substantially the same).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 13 and Ivan further teaches:
wherein at least one of the programmable processors is programmed using ML, AI or combinations thereof by utilizing standards and laws for the geographic area where the one or more carbon sources are detected by the sensoring system (see, e.g., ¶ 136 teaching using machine learning models to determine and verify the amount of gas captured based on the sensed data sensed by those very same sensors in that same area; see ¶ 177 teaching substantially the same).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 14 and Ivan further teaches:
wherein at least one of the programmable processors is programmed using ML, AI and combinations thereof by providing a plurality of data sets of known standards for sensing, quantifying and qualifying carbon (see, e.g., ¶ 136 teaching using machine learning models to determine and verify the amount of gas captured based on a training set of sensed data sensed by those very same sensors in that same area that are now sensing the data; see ¶ 177 teaching substantially the same).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Ivan further teaches:
wherein the probe is further configured to detect location (see e.g., ¶¶ 32, 62, 65 noting system produces soil maps; and ¶ 71 discussing GPS, etc.)
and amount of the carbon sequestered materials being measured (see ¶s 62, 63 and Figures 1 and 2, discussing probes and ¶ 0086 discussing measuring soil organic carbon).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the system for measuring carbon and generating carbon coins taught by Ivan with the soil sampling of Nagel because Nagel explicitly teaches using its embodiments achieve the maximum generalization capacity for the calibration of a particular soil properties, ¶ 86, see also MPEP 2143.I(G).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Ivan further teaches:
wherein the probe comprises a VisNIR spectroscopy probe (¶ 86, uses visible-near-infrared (vis-NIR) to measure soil carbon).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the system for measuring carbon and generating carbon coins taught by Ivan with the soil sampling of Nagel because Nagel explicitly teaches using its embodiments achieve the maximum generalization capacity for the calibration of a particular soil properties, ¶ 86, see also MPEP 2143.I(G).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 1 and Ivan further teaches:
wherein the one or more detection devices further include an autonomous or manually operated drone aircraft (¶ 24 systems is implemented via flight of unmanned vehicles such as drones).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the system for measuring carbon and generating carbon coins taught by Ivan with the soil sampling of Nagel because Nagel explicitly teaches using its embodiments achieve the maximum generalization capacity for the calibration of a particular soil properties, ¶ 86, see also MPEP 2143.I(G).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ivan and Nagel further in view of Stuart et al. US Pub. No. 2020/0076891, herein referred to as “Stuart”.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ivan and Nagel teaches the limitations of claim 1 and does not teach but Stuart does teach:
an index system in communication with the programmable computer system over the communications interface, wherein the wherein the index system calculates commodity spot pricing, multiple component pricing or fixed forward pricing for the one or more uniform encrypted carbon certificates (see, e.g., ¶ 55 teaching pricing the market in a dynamic way).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the system for measuring carbon and generating carbon coins taught of Ivan and Nagel with the pricing features of Stuart because Stuart suggests doing so to allows for pricing to change as markets change, ¶ 55, see also MPEP 2143.I(G).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626