DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on June 5, 2026 and July 13, 2026 is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 19, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 19, 2026.
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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 1-2, 4, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsafack Chetsa (US 20240427940 A1) in view of Winand (US 20160284033 A1), and in further view of Ferenczi (US 20210406878 A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8-9, Tsafack Chetsa teaches A data storage method implemented by a computer for managing transaction records in a distributed ledger system utilizing blockchain technology, the method comprising (Tsafack Chetsa: Abstract): A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a data storage program for managing transaction records in a distributed ledger system utilizing blockchain technology, the data storage program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform processing comprising (Tsafack Chetsa: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0036, 0187): An information processing apparatus for managing transaction records in a distributed ledger system utilizing blockchain technology, the information processing apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store… and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform processing including (Tsafack Chetsa: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0036, 0187):
acquiring, from a first … device in an electric power exchange system, first data that includes a production record indicating a production amount of a transaction resource measured by the first … device being a … device associated with a producer in the electric power exchange system; acquiring, from a second … device in the electric power exchange system, second data that includes a consumption record indicating a consumption amount of the transaction resource measured by the second … device being a … device associated with a consumer in the electric power exchange system (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0029, 0059, 0003, 0008, 0010, 0018, 0071-0072, 0080 teach(es) Processing the energy supply transaction may comprise: obtaining consumption data specifying energy consumption by an energy consumer; determining a consumption value based on the consumption data and optionally based on past payment transaction data for the energy consumer; and creating payment transaction data based on the consumption value; wherein the data to be stored comprises the payment transaction data. The consumption data may be received from an energy meter associated with the energy consumer; The control information may comprise a status indicator indicating a status (e.g. operational state) of the energy supply system, the status preferably selected from a group comprising at least an available status, and an unavailable status);
in response to the acquired first and second data, generating proof information that proves that a condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied regarding allocation of the transaction resource for the production record of the producer as a supplier of the transaction resource for the consumption record of the consumer (Tsafack Chetsa: Abstract; Paragraph(s) 0085, 0001, 0005, 0010, 0008, 0018, 0071-0072, 0080 teach(es) in addition to the control data that is read by the charging site to determine when to activate/deactivate supply of energy via the charging station, the public blockchain also stores integrity validation data, in the form of validation hashes, pertaining to transactions or data records stored in the private database. The validation can be used to verify integrity of data in the private database), …;
generating third data that includes the proof information and has a data size smaller than a total data size of the first data and the second data (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0085, 0001, 0005, 0010, as stated above, including validation hashes, which may have smaller data size); and
storing, in a blockchain of the distributed ledger system, a transaction record that includes the third data and indicates that the transaction resource is consumed by the consumer, the blockchain being configured to store a transaction history of a supply right of the transaction resource produced by the producer, … (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0054, 0063, 0066, 0068-0069, 0085, 0179 teach(es) Due to the inherent security and the distributed nature, a blockchain can provide an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way; Consumption data received from the metering platform is stored by the control node in the database and is used to process charging transactions. Consumption data may additionally or alternatively be recorded in the blockchain; energy provider A operates various internal functionality, including processing of transactions relating to energy supply/consumption. Transactions are stored in Provider A's private storage (here termed a “throughput ledger”) with validation data stored to a public blockchain (here termed the “integrity ledger”)) while enabling verification of the consistency between the first data and the second data by using the proof information included in the third data of the transaction record stored in the blockchain (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0112, 0054, 0085 teach(es) in the energy payment application example, energy providers can verify information exchanged between providers (e.g. during a customer transfer). Similarly, individual customers, or even unconnected third parties (e.g. regulatory authorities) can check the integrity of data in the blockchain),
wherein the generating of the proof information includes
comparing, for each unit period in a predetermined resource supply period, the production record included in the first data and the consumption record included in the second data, to perform determining whether the production amount indicated in the production record of the first data covers the consumption amount indicated in the consumption record of the second data for the each unit period within the predetermined resource supply period (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0010, 0018 teach(es) The method may comprise determining whether a status indicator in the control information indicates an available status, and in response, storing an updated status indicator for the energy supply system in the blockchain, the updated status indicator indicating an unavailable (active/operational/in use) status, e.g. to signal to the energy supply system that it should transition to an active/operational status); and
executing, based on a result of the determining, at least one of: (a) generating the proof information … to perform the generating of the third data, in response to the result of the determining indicating that the production amount indicated in the production record of the first data covers the consumption amount indicated in the consumption record of the second data for the each unit period within the predetermined resource supply period, or (b) rejecting the generating of the proof information to refrain the generating of the third data, in response to the result of the determining indicating that the production amount indicated in the production record of the first data does not cover the consumption amount indicated in the consumption record of the second data for the each unit period within the predetermined resource supply period (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0071-0072, 0080).
However, Tsafack Chetsa does not explicitly teach first/second smart meter device.
Winand from same or similar field of endeavor teaches first/second smart meter device (Winand: Paragraph(s) 0187 teach(es) The quantum of energy that was actually supplied may be provided by a smart meter, such as metering application software associated with either or both of the energy resource and the energy-consuming-device. Such information may be cryptographically-secured).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Tsafack Chetsa to incorporate the teachings of Winand for first/second smart meter device.
There is motivation to combine Winand into Tsafack Chetsa because Winand’s teachings of smart meter devices for energy producer and consumer would facilitate managing of power supply system (Winand: Paragraph(s) 0187).
However, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Winand does not explicitly teach wherein the proof information is generated using zero-knowledge proof technology to prevent disclosure of the first data and the second data while enabling verification of the consistency between the first data and the second data, and the storing of the transaction record being performed without storing the first data and the second data in the blockchain, and …generating the proof information by using the zero-knowledge proof technology to perform the generating of the third data.
Ferenczi from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the proof information is generated using zero-knowledge proof technology to prevent disclosure of the first data and the second data while enabling verification of the consistency between the first data and the second data, and …generating the proof information by using the zero-knowledge proof technology to perform the generating of the third data (Ferenczi: Paragraph(s) 0014-0015, 0039-0040 teach(es) The zero-knowledge proof payment system and process may be used to complete transactions between a customer and a merchant without the customer needing to expose sensitive data, including transaction account data), the storing of the transaction record being performed without storing the first data and the second data in the blockchain (Ferenczi: Paragraph(s) 0040-0041 teach(es) Issuer system generates a proving key pk and a verification key vk using the key generator function from the zero-knowledge proof algorithm. For example, issuer system may generate a random number (e.g., a secret parameter lambda) and input the random number into the key generator function to generate the proving key pk and the verification key vk; issuer system may publish the keys by transmitting the keys to merchants and users registered for zero-knowledge proof payments (e.g., transmitting the verification key vk to merchant system and the proving key pk to customer device)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Winand to incorporate the teachings of Ferenczi for wherein the proof information is generated using zero-knowledge proof technology to prevent disclosure of the first data and the second data while enabling verification of the consistency between the first data and the second data, and the storing of the transaction record being performed without storing the first data and the second data in the blockchain, and …generating the proof information by using the zero-knowledge proof technology to perform the generating of the third data.
There is motivation to combine Winand into the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Winand because Ferenczi’s teachings of zero-knowledge proof payments and verification key would facilitate managing transaction records (Ferenczi: Paragraph(s) 0014-0015, 0039-0041).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa, Winand, and Ferenczi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; and Tsafack Chetsa further teaches wherein the storing of the transaction record includes generating, by a first computer, the transaction record, transmitting, by the first computer, the generated transaction record to a second computer that stores the blockchain (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0066, 0068, 0080, 0138-0139 teach(es) Consumption data received from the metering platform is stored by the control node in the database and is used to process charging transactions. Consumption data may additionally or alternatively be recorded in the blockchain), verifying, by the second computer, that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied, based on the proof information (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0054, 0085 teach(es) Due to the inherent security and the distributed nature, a blockchain can provide an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way; The validation can be used to verify integrity of data in the private database. For example, it allows a user to verify that their energy consumption data has not been altered after the initial creation of the transaction), and storing, by the second computer, the transaction record in the blockchain in a case where a check is correctly performed (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0138-0139 teach(es) Storage records in the Storage Contract and/or transaction records in the Transact Contract may be stored as JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) objects, or in other suitable formats).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa, Winand, and Ferenczi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the generating of the proof information includes calculating a commitment function value regarding a total amount of the consumption record indicated in the second data, and generating the proof information that proves that the commitment function value is correct in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied.
Winand from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the generating of the proof information includes calculating a commitment function value regarding a total amount of the consumption record indicated in the second data, and generating the proof information that proves that the commitment function value is correct in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied (Winand: Paragraph(s) 0141-0142 teach(es) A publicly-verifiable, cryptographically-secured record of the transaction, or acceptance of the offer, can serve as a non-repudiatable commitment to the transaction by an energy-consuming-device).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi to incorporate the teachings of Winand for wherein the generating of the proof information includes calculating a commitment function value regarding a total amount of the consumption record indicated in the second data, and generating the proof information that proves that the commitment function value is correct in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied.
There is motivation to combine Winand into the combination of Tsafack Chetsa and Ferenczi because Winand’s teachings of Public verifiability of the encrypted ledger would facilitate commitment of the users of energy resource (Winand: Paragraph(s) 0142).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsafack Chetsa in view of Winand in further view of Ferenczi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in still further view of Hong (KR 20210063992 A; refer to attached English Translation).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa, Winand, and Ferenczi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein transaction information of a right to supply the transaction resource on the blockchain is managed with an unspent transaction output (UTXO) method, and the transaction resource to be a target of input and output in the UTXO method is specified based on a production period and a production amount per unit time of the producer.
Hong from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein transaction information of a right to supply the transaction resource on the blockchain is managed with an unspent transaction output (UTXO) method, and the transaction resource to be a target of input and output in the UTXO method is specified based on a production period and a production amount per unit time of the producer (Hong: Page 4, lines 18-24 teach(es) FabToken provides users with the ability to easily represent their assets as tokens on fabric channels. This is done by using the Unspent Transaction Output (UTXO) method, which is the concept of the sum of transaction results, and providing tokens to users who produce and share the energy consumption and supply transaction data set).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Tsafack Chetsa, Winand, and Ferenczi to incorporate the teachings of Hong for wherein transaction information of a right to supply the transaction resource on the blockchain is managed with an unspent transaction output (UTXO) method, and the transaction resource to be a target of input and output in the UTXO method is specified based on a production period and a production amount per unit time of the producer.
There is motivation to combine Hong into the combination of Tsafack Chetsa, Winand, and Ferenczi because Hong’s teachings of UTXO would facilitate to efficient energy consumption and production (Hong: Page 4, lines 18-24).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsafack Chetsa in view of Winand in further view of Ferenczi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in still further view of Ashley (US 20200148072 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa, Winand, and Ferenczi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the first data includes a first electronic signature of the producer regarding the production record, the second data includes a second electronic signature of the consumer regarding the consumption record, and the generating of the proof information includes generating the proof information that proves that the first electronic signature of the producer and the second electronic signature of the consumer are valid, in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied.
Ashley from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the first data includes a first electronic signature of the producer regarding the production record, the second data includes a second electronic signature of the consumer regarding the consumption record, and the generating of the proof information includes generating the proof information that proves that the first electronic signature of the producer and the second electronic signature of the consumer are valid, in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied (Ashley: Paragraph(s) 0011, 0020-0021, 0024 teach(es) tracking and otherwise managing energy credits; a utility-grade end-to-end accounting, management, and exchange system for energy-related credits, with generation, ownership trades, and retirement. In embodiments of the system and methods disclosed herein, these functions are provided by recording data on a blockchain-based ledger or other type of distributed ledger technology secured by cryptographic signatures).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Tsafack Chetsa, Winand, and Ferenczi to incorporate the teachings of Ashley for wherein the first data includes a first electronic signature of the producer regarding the production record, the second data includes a second electronic signature of the consumer regarding the consumption record, and the generating of the proof information includes generating the proof information that proves that the first electronic signature of the producer and the second electronic signature of the consumer are valid, in addition to that the condition of consistency between the first data and the second data is satisfied.
There is motivation to combine Ashley into the combination of Tsafack Chetsa, Winand, and Ferenczi because Ashley’s teachings of cryptographic signature would facilitate the security of managing energy-related credits or transaction including production and consumption of energy (Ashley: Paragraph(s) 0011, 0020-0021, 0024).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Tsafack Chetsa, Winand, and Ferenczi teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above; however the combination does not explicitly teach wherein the storing of the transaction record includes storing, in the blockchain, the transaction record that includes a signature of a person who has a right to supply the transaction resource in the blockchain.
Ashley from same or similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the storing of the transaction record includes storing, in the blockchain, the transaction record that includes a signature of a person who has a right to supply the transaction resource in the blockchain (Ashley: Paragraph(s) 0011, 0020-0021, 0024, as stated above with respect to claim 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of the combination of Tsafack Chetsa, Winand, and Ferenczi to incorporate the teachings of Ashley for wherein the storing of the transaction record includes storing, in the blockchain, the transaction record that includes a signature of a person who has a right to supply the transaction resource in the blockchain.
There is motivation to combine Ashley into the combination of Tsafack Chetsa, Winand, and Ferenczi because Ashley’s teachings of cryptographic signature would facilitate the security of managing energy-related credits or transaction including production and consumption of energy (Ashley: Paragraph(s) 0011, 0020-0021, 0024).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 that “Tsafack Chetsa significantly lacks any disclosure pertaining to the explicit "acquiring [...] first data that includes a production record indicating a production amount of a transaction resource produced by a producer." The claimed invention fundamentally relies on the acquisition of both production records from producers and consumption records from consumers, specifically from distinct "smart meter devices" within an "electric power exchange system.",” examiner respectfully argues that Tsafack Chetsa teaches a status indicator indicating a status (e.g. operational state) of the energy supply system (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0008, 0010, 0018, 0071-0072, 0080), and Winand teaches a smart meter, such as metering application software associated with the energy resource (Winand: Paragraph(s) 0187).
Regarding applicant' s argument that “Tsafack Chetsa explicitly lacks any teaching or suggestion for such an intricate comparative determination across disparate data sources needed to establish a resource allocation condition of this nature,” examiner respectfully argues that Tsafack Chetsa teaches that the charging point status is associated with a number of operations, including an “isChargingPointAvailable” operation for reading the status to check availability and “start charging” and “stop charging” operations, which modify the charge point status to unavailable/available respectively (Tsafack Chetsa: Paragraph(s) 0071-0072, 0080).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Giordano (WO 2020188614 A1) teaches Blockchain Of Criptocurriences, Smart Meter For Utilities And 5g Wireless Technology, including an electricity meter connected to power lines on one side and a load on the other side, new smart meter in addition to optimizing the management of dynamics in real consumption time, and production from renewable and non-renewable sources.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAY LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached on (571)270-1492. 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.
/CLAY C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights