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 07/09/2025.
Claims 1 and 3 are amended.
Claims 6-9 are newly added.
Claims 1-9 have been examined and are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed foreign application under 35 U.S.C. 119(b) is acknowledged.
(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(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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Dependent claim 3 has been amended to recite the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
96
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Respectfully, the limitation remains indefinite; the feature as claimed appears to be nothing more than non-functional descriptive material – i.e. a description of the intended purpose for performing the “recording” step as recited in parent claim 1. It is not clear what further limitation is required by the feature as recited in claim 3. Stated another way, although it is clear from parent claim 1, that “the information about the credits” is claimed as being “record[ed]… in a blockchain comprising a second data structure”, it is not clear what aspect of the either “the information” or the “recording” or the “blockchain” is further limited by the feature of claim 3 – on its face, it appears the feature is merely stating the intended purpose or reason for performing the recording step and such intended purpose is non-functional descriptive material and does not alter any of the steps of the method as claimed. If the applicant believes there is some functional limitation imbued then applicant is respectfully requested to clarify. However, on its face, the claim as presented is ambiguous as regards what limitation the applicant may be intending to introduce. Therefore, because it is not clear what further limitation is being required, the claim is held to be indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, claim 3 is interpreted to merely be a non-functional description of the purpose for performing the “recording” step as recited in parent claim 1
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. On its face, claim 3 appears to merely state the intended purpose or reason for performing the recording step of parent claim 1. Such intended purpose is non-functional descriptive material and does not alter any of the steps of the method as claimed. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 claim 1:
calculating the amount of greenhouse gas emissions based on the information on the amount of energy used; storing information on credits to offset the [amount of] greenhouse gas emissions
recording the information about the credits in a blockchain.
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 groups Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations) and 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, the calculating step, as drafted, is a mathematical concept and the “storing” and “recording” step appears to be directed towards some type of record keeping of business transactions (in this case involving carbon credits) thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Furthermore, there is no particular hardware necessary to carry out these steps except a generic “business terminal” [computer] for data entry and some suggested hardware to “store” and “record” data in a “blockchain” but such generic computer component does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated groupings. 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 using generic computer components (e.g. use of “a business terminal” [computer] for the purpose of data entry/data-gathering) and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case transaction record keeping regarding greenhouse gas emissions carbon credits) or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data-gathering such as the “input information by a business terminal” [input via a computer]). The claimed computer components (i.e. the “business terminal(s)”, blockchain, and implied storage) 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 method for managing greenhouse gas emissions, comprising: a business organization determining information on energy consumption based on input information from a business terminal; … the calculating referencing a first data structure including a category selected from at least one of the following of a customer, transportation and delivery, processing of products sold, use of products sold, disposal of products sold, leased assets;…[a blockchain] comprising a second data structure”
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. Applicant’s invention is not a technique nor technical solution for “determining information” nor of receiving “input information by a business terminal” nor is it any particular first or second “data structure”. 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 at this very high-level of generality merely serve to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts through use of a “business terminal” [computer] or are insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. mere data-gathering or storage of received data in generic storage – i.e. the first and second “data structure”) as relates to the already identified abstract idea and 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 business terminals) and “link” them to a field of use (i.e. in this case record keeping), or as insignificant extra-solution activity as already noted. 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 business terminal [computer]) 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 recites the following: “The method of management according to claim 1, wherein the information on the credits is recorded for a predetermined period of time.” However, this description of a general time established to maintain records is a business decision and therefore part of the abstract idea but nothing significantly more. There is no technical problem being solved and no technical solution presented to solve a technical problem.
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.
Claim 1-3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McConnel (US 2008/0255899 A1; hereinafter, "McConnell") in view of Barton (U.S. 2022/0101430 A1; hereinafter, "Barton").
Claim 1: (Currently amended)
Pertaining to claim 1, McConnell as shown teaches the following:
A method for managing greenhouse gas emissions, comprising:
a business organization determining information on energy consumption based on input information by a business terminal (McConnell, see at least [0002], and [0182]-[0190], e.g.: “…Each company/entity then enters its energy consumption and/or GHG emissions information as prompted by the system...”);
calculating the amount of greenhouse gas emissions based on the information on the amount of energy used, the calculating referencing a first data structure (McConnell, see citations noted supra, e.g. per [0182]-[0190]: “…The system stores the information in a database [data structure] and software utilizes [references] the information to calculate the total aggregate GHG emissions by the companies and entities in the state…”) including a category selected from at least one of the following of a customer, transportation and delivery, processing of products sold, use of products sold, disposal of products sold, leased assets (McConnell, see citations noted supra, including also at least [0043]-[0047], e.g.: noting “…Further, the energy
consumption information varies depending on the type or category of equipment….” and “…The databases 60, 62, 64 [datastructure(s)] serve as the inputs to and information storage for the management and tracking system 50, which processes the information as described below and generates any one or more of notifications, reports, work orders, predictive analysis, suggested actions, and/or instructions to a user or to a piece of equipment or a third party system. …The asset or equipment database 64 [first data structure of products] includes general asset information relating to each asset in the system and service information for each asset. As used herein, "asset" is intended to include any item or piece of equipment that an enterprise might have an interest in tracking or managing. The asset information may include… any other relevant information for each asset. If the asset is one part of a system comprised of more than one asset, the asset information may include system information, including the system name, description of the system, identification of the assets in the system, system status, along with any other relevant information. The system status options may include, for example and without limitation, normal operation [use of products], provisional operation, under repair, or being retrofitted…” );
storing information on credits to offset the amount of greenhouse gas emissions (McConnell, see citations noted supra in view of at least [0009]: “…The database is configured to store emissions information, including at least …carbon credit information, including at least financial carbon credit information…”; see also [0136]-[0144]: “… In accordance with a further implementation, certain systems and methods described herein can provide for tracking and managing tradable credits relating to greenhouse gases, including carbon credits. "Carbon credits," as used herein, shall mean any tradable commodity that assigns a value to GHG emissions… various systems described herein allow for tracking and verifying carbon credits awarded or otherwise earned for reducing of emissions over a predetermined period of time. Certain GHG emission reduction programs currently available to entities with GHG emitting assets and/or locations allow for accumulation of carbon credits for reducing GHG emissions by a predetermined amount for predetermined periods of time such as five years or twenty years or any such period…”);
Although McConnell teaches the above limitations, and teaches, e.g. per [0136]: “It is understood that there are currently two exchanges for carbon credits: the Chicago Climate Exchange and the European Climate Exchange, etc...”, where he records carbon credit transactions, he may not explicitly teach that such exchanges make use of a distributed ledger such as a blockchain nor that he explicitly records his information regarding his credits in such blockchain. However, regarding this feature, McConnell in view of Barton teaches the following:
And recording the information about the credits in a blockchain comprising a second data structure (Barton, see at least [0049], teaching, e.g.: “…At 73, the analysis is converted into registered carbon credits. At 74, a blockchain is created (or a preexisting one can be used in other embodiments). At 75, the carbon credits can be associated with a node on the blockchain. Preferably the node is owned by the owner of the carbon credits. At 76, the carbon credits are allowed to be traded or otherwise sold on the blockchain…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Barton (directed towards techniques of recording registered carbon credits in a blockchain for the purpose of trading or selling such credits as is done in a market exchange) which is applicable to a known base device/method of McConnell (already directed towards tracking and managing tradable credits relating to greenhouse gases, including carbon credits and using carbon credit exchange for trading/selling such credits) 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 Barton to the device/method of McConnell in order to implement the limitation as claimed because McConnell and Barton are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q20/389 - Keeping log of transactions for guaranteeing non-repudiation of a transaction) 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 2: (Original)
McConnell/Barton teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown McConnel teaches the following:
The method of management according to claim 1, wherein the information on the credits is
recorded for a predetermined period of time (McConnell, see citations noted supra, e.g. [0136]-[0144]: “… In accordance with a further implementation, certain systems and methods described herein can provide for tracking and managing tradable credits relating to greenhouse gases, including carbon credits. "Carbon credits," as used herein, shall mean any tradable commodity that assigns a value to GHG emissions… various systems
described herein allow for tracking and verifying carbon credits awarded or otherwise earned for reducing of emissions over a predetermined period of time….”)
Claim 3: (Currently amended)
McConnell/Barton teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends and teaches. Furthermore, McConnel in view of Barton teaches the following: The method of management according to claim 1, wherein the information regarding the credit is recorded for each customer of a plurality of customers of the business organization (Note the 112(b) and (D) rejections which guide claim interpretation. Barton, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least [0047]-[0049], teaching, e.g.: “…Each transaction on the blockchain may comprise a mapped record of the location, ownership [customer] and issued carbon credit… At 73, the analysis is converted into registered carbon credits. At 74, a blockchain is created (or a preexisting one can be used in other embodiments). At 75, the carbon credits can be associated with a node on the blockchain. Preferably the node is owned by the owner [customer] of the carbon credits. At 76, the carbon credits are allowed to be traded or otherwise sold on the blockchain…”)
Claim 5: (Original)
McConnell/Barton teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends and teaches. Furthermore, McConnel in view of Barton teaches the following: The method of management according to claim 1, wherein the information about the credit is recorded together with the customer information of the transaction (Barton, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least [0047]-[0049], teaching, e.g.: “…Each transaction on the blockchain may comprise a mapped record of the location, ownership [customer information] and issued carbon credit… At 73, the analysis is converted into registered carbon credits. At 74, a blockchain is created (or a preexisting one can be used in other embodiments). At 75, the carbon credits can be associated with a node on the blockchain. Preferably the node is owned by the owner [customer] of the carbon credits. At 76, the carbon credits are allowed to be traded or otherwise sold on the blockchain…”)
Claim 6: (New)
McConnell/Barton teaches the above limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, McConnell in view of Barton teaches the following:
The method of management according to claim 1 further comprising: if the credit was traded, including an ID of the customer in the second data structure (Barton, see at least [0004], teaching, e.g.: “…the present disclosure comprises a system for converting hydrocarbon bearing mineral deposits to carbon offset credits and allowing for the trading of such carbon offset credits…”; therefore, it is clear the credits are intended to be traded. Furthermore, Barton teaches, per at least [0081]-[0085]: “…The events may in examples identify a participant [ID of the customer] (e.g., a participant), provide authorization to interact with a blockchain object, identify a list of currently associated blockchain objects, generate new blockchain objects, provide documents for hashing, uploading to a blockchain, provide documents for storage on the off-chain storage 110, details of a blockchain object such as owner, the participants allowed to interact, offer price, etc…. the storage service 143 may generate a hash of a new event that occurs on the first blockchain 120X or the second blockchain 102Y and store the event and the hash in the off-chain storage 110. Also, the system 101 may deploy a message blockchain object to the other blockchain with the new event addressed to the blockchain object on the other blockchain to synchronize the events on the two blockchains…”; therefore, participant identifiers, e.g. buyer and seller identifiers, are included in the blockchain, such as when the participants trade, e.g. buy and/or purchase such credits.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Barton which is applicable to a known base device/method of McConnell (already directed towards tracking and managing tradable credits relating to greenhouse gases, including carbon credits and using carbon credit exchange for trading/selling such credits) 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 Barton to the device/method of McConnell in order to implement the limitation as claimed because McConnell and Barton are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q20/389 - Keeping log of transactions for guaranteeing non-repudiation of a transaction) 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 7: (New)
McConnell/Barton teaches the above limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, McConnell in view of Barton teaches the following:
The method of management according to claim 1, further comprising: if the credit was traded, including an issuance date of the credit in the second data structure. (Barton, see at least [0004], teaching, e.g.: “…the present disclosure comprises a system for converting hydrocarbon bearing mineral deposits to carbon offset credits and allowing for the trading of such carbon offset credits…”; therefore, it is clear the credits are intended to be traded. Furthermore, Barton teaches, per at least [0040]: “…A preferred definition of a blockchain is a public ledger of all transactions of a blockchain-based currency. One or more computing devices may comprise a blockchain network, which may be configured to process and record transactions as part of a block in the blockchain. Once a block is completed, the block is added to the blockchain, and
the transaction record thereby updated. In many instances, the blockchain may be a ledger of transactions in chronological order…additional information may be captured, such as a source address, timestamp, etc.…”; therefore, “timestamps” [issuance date], of a block representing a traded carbon credit is included in the blockchain.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Barton which is applicable to a known base device/method of McConnell (already directed towards tracking and managing tradable credits relating to greenhouse gases, including carbon credits and using carbon credit exchange for trading/selling such credits) 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 Barton to the device/method of McConnell in order to implement the limitation as claimed because McConnell and Barton are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q20/389 - Keeping log of transactions for guaranteeing non-repudiation of a transaction) 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 8: (New)
McConnell/Barton teaches the above limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, McConnell in view of Barton teaches the following:
The method of management according to claim 1, further comprising: if the credit was purchased, linking the information to the amount of greenhouse gas emission. (Barton, see at least [0004], teaching, e.g.: “…the present disclosure comprises a system for converting hydrocarbon bearing mineral deposits to carbon offset credits and allowing for the trading of such carbon offset credits…”; therefore, it is clear the credits are intended to be purchased. Furthermore, Barton teaches, per at least [0028]-[0033]: “…Oil CO2 emissions credit values or carbon credits are distinctive to the type of oil. FIG. 1 shows an example of different total greenhouse gas emissions for different types of oil. Accordingly, different credit values attach to each type of deposit and the resulting conversion of barrels of oil to tonne of CO2 is variable based on the type of type or mix of oil types in the deposit. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) defined ISO 14044:2006 allows for allocation of upstream, mid-stream and downstream emissions of fossil fuels…”; therefore, carbon credits are linked to an amount of greenhouse gas emissions, such as CO2.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Barton which is applicable to a known base device/method of McConnell (already directed towards tracking and managing tradable credits relating to greenhouse gases, including carbon credits and using carbon credit exchange for trading/selling such credits) 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 Barton to the device/method of McConnell in order to implement the limitation as claimed because McConnell and Barton are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q20/389 - Keeping log of transactions for guaranteeing non-repudiation of a transaction) 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 9: (New)
McConnell/Barton teaches the above limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, McConnell in view of Barton teaches the following:
The method of management according to claim 8 wherein the amount of greenhouse gas emissions are CO2 emissions. (Barton, see at least [0004], teaching, e.g.: “…the present disclosure comprises a system for converting hydrocarbon bearing mineral deposits to carbon offset credits and allowing for the trading of such carbon offset credits…”; therefore, it is clear the credits are intended to be purchased. Furthermore, Barton teaches, per at least [0028]-[0033]: “…Oil CO2 emissions credit values or carbon credits are distinctive to the type of oil. FIG. 1 shows an example of different total greenhouse gas emissions for different types of oil. Accordingly, different credit values attach to each type of deposit and the resulting conversion of barrels of oil to tonne of CO2 is variable based on the type of type or mix of oil types in the deposit. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) defined ISO 14044:2006 allows for allocation of upstream, mid-stream and downstream emissions of fossil fuels…”; therefore, carbon credits are linked to an amount of greenhouse gas emissions, such as CO2 emissions.)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Barton which is applicable to a known base device/method of McConnell (already directed towards tracking and managing tradable credits relating to greenhouse gases, including carbon credits and using carbon credit exchange for trading/selling such credits) 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 Barton to the device/method of McConnell in order to implement the limitation as claimed because McConnell and Barton are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q20/389 - Keeping log of transactions for guaranteeing non-repudiation of a transaction) 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McConnel in view of Barton further in view of Haldenby (U.S. 2017/0046806 A1; hereinafter, "Haldenby").
Claim 4: (Original)
Although McConnell/Barton teach the limitations upon which this claim depends, including storing information regarding carbon credits in a block chain, they may not explicitly teach “side blockcahain”. However, regarding this nuance, McConnel/Barton in view of Haldenby teaches the following:
The method of management according to claim 1, wherein the information regarding the
credit is recorded in a side blockchain (Haldenby, see at least [0194]-[0195], teaching, e.g.: “…block-chain ledgers may be further augmented to include a "side" block-chain ledger that tracks any automated transactions initiated either by the rules residing on the hybrid block-chain ledger (e.g., event trigger list 322 and/or rules engine 324) or by a centralized authority having power to enact a transaction outside of normal transaction usage…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of Haldenby (directed towards techniques of recording transactions in a type of blockchain termed a “side” block chain) which is applicable to a known base device/method of McConnell (already directed towards tracking and managing tradable carbon credits relating to greenhouse gases, on a blockchain ledger) 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 Haldenby to the device/method of McConnell/Barton in order to implement the limitation as claimed because McConnell/Barton and Haldenby are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least G06Q20/389 - Keeping log of transactions for guaranteeing non-repudiation of a transaction) 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1 and 3 and added claims 6-9 on 07-09-2025. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 07-09-2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the updated 35 USC 101, 112(b), new 112(d), and new 35 USC 103 rejections with updated citations to McConnell in view of Barton teaching applicant’s argued new features.
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