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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 03/26/2026.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 11-13, and 16-17 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19 are currently pending and have been examined.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 8, filed 03/26/2026, with respect to the claim interpretation of claims 1, 6, 7, 11, 16, and 17 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the Claim Interpretation section on pages 9-11 of the 01/12/2026 Final Rejection does not state that the claims are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) at all. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are moot/unpersuasive.
Examiner notes that Applicant appears to have been arguing against the interpretation that the limitations of “in a circumstance where the DCF determines that the EGP is not meeting the obligation based on a failing reason…” and “in a circumstance where the DCF determines that the EGP is not meeting the obligation based on the failing reason” as contingent limitations. The amended language of “when the DCF determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy from the EGP and that no delegate call of the smart contract has been used…” and “when the DCF determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy from the EGP and that the delegate call of the smart contract has been used to subcontract the obligation to another EGP different from the EGP for one or more timeslots specified in the smart contract…” in these claims still amounts to contingent limitations, as the circumstance recited in the limitation does not need to occur. In other words, when the DCF determined that the customer is receiving the contracted amount of energy, the EGP would not trigger either the lowering of its confidence score if its smart contract lacked a delegate call nor the subcontracting its obligation to another EGP if the smart contract has a delegate call. Furthermore, even when the DCF determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy, a delegate call of the smart contract either is or is not used to subcontract the obligation. Therefore, even in scenarios in which a customer is not receiving their contracted amount of energy, only one of the two limitations at issue can be followed as a smart contract cannot both execute and not execute a delegate call. Accordingly, the limitations are still contingent limitations. The claim interpretation has been maintained and is explained in more detail in the corresponding section below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 8-9, filed 03/26/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 7 and 17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended both claims to remove the indefinite term “an unexpected circumstance”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 7 and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 9-10, filed 03/26/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19 have been maintained.
After citing portions of independent claim 1, Applicant argues that “specific monitoring” of the first and second nodes used to determine whether the EGP and/or grid has a failure, and subsequently subcontracting with another EGP if an EGP has a failure is not an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First Examiner notes that the claims recite monitoring energy provided to/from the grid at first/second nodes, but the claims do not recite how this monitoring is being accomplished or even what components are performing the monitoring. Even turning to the portions of the specification cited by Applicant, particularly [0020] and [0041], the specification merely recites that the “monitoring” results in the obtaining of amount, timing, and type of energy provided by the DCF “monitoring” the nodes without providing detail regarding how the energy amounts, etc. are being monitored. Additionally, at the level claimed in light of the specification, “monitoring” covers comprises recognizing a customer a customer has experienced a blackout (specification [0036]), which falls into the abstract idea of recognizing that a party to contract has not fulfilled its obligations (a commercial or legal interaction, which Examiner notes explicitly considers “agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” (emphasis added) in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The recognition of a blackout leading to a subcontracting out of the power obligation to another provider to fulfill is also part of the abstract idea of either executing further clauses in the contract (if the contract provides for a secondary provider in the event of a failure by the primary provider) or in the switching a customer from one provider to another provider that can meet the required power amounts of the customer (if the contract does not explicitly recite backup or alternate EGPs). Accordingly, the monitoring, by the DCF, of energy provided and received and subcontracting to a different EGP if the determination is that the original EGP is not meeting its contracted obligations is an abstract idea being performed using generic computing components and generic computer implementation as tools to execute the abstract idea.
After further review, the amended claim 1, as a whole, still amount to instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components and generic computer implementation, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, amended claim 1 is still ineligible and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Amended claim 11 is ineligible for similar reasoning discussed above regarding amended claim 1. Applicant’s arguments on page 10 of Remarks that dependent claims 2-7, 9, 12-17, and 19 are patent eligible by virtue of their dependence on their respective independent claims are not persuasive, as amended independent claims 1 and 11 are still ineligible for the reasoning discussed above. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of 1-7, 9 , 11-17, and 19 have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-12, filed 03/26/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-7, 9 , 11-17, and 19 have been fully considered but are only partially persuasive. Because the method claim 1 still recites contingent limitations (that are not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of method claims as discussed in the claim interpretation arguments above and in the corresponding section below), method claims 1-7, and 9 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner notes that the method claims 1-7 and 9 stand rejected over Sathe, Cali, and Dechu as Applicant has amended features from claim 2, the monitoring energy at two different nodes, which are not contingent limitations, into amended claim 1. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument against this feature not being taught in the art is not persuasive.
Examiner also notes that Applicant’s argued “determination of the location of the failure between the EGP and the grid” on page 11 is not recited in the independent claims 1 and 11. Dependent claims 7 and 17 appear to be the closest claims to reciting this feature, as the determination is made that an EGP is providing energy but the customer is not receiving must mean that the grid is at fault for the customer’s problem. Independent claims 1 and 11 operate as if the EGP is presumed to be the culprit when the customer is not receiving energy, as the confidence score is lowered when the smart contract does not execute a delegate call and the energy obligation is subcontracted to another EGP when the smart contract has a delegate call. Applicant’s arguments regarding the “determination of the location of the failure” in claim 1 are therefore not persuasive. As the limitations of claim 7 are also contingent limitations as discussed below, this feature is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 7.
Regarding the “following processes” argued by Applicant on pages 11-12, Examiner notes that while Sathe, Cali, and Dechu combine to teach the scenario when a smart contract does not execute a delegate call, the remaining processes are not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Accordingly, these arguments are not persuasive regarding claim 1.
However, claim 11, as a manufacture claim, requires all of the “following processes” under its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed below, while Jiang and Jawaharlal teach using a delegate smart contract to switch service providers, and having subcontracted service providers adhere to SLA requirements, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine all five references together to teach claim 11 as a whole. See “Novel/Non-Obvious” Section below for more detail. Dependent claims 12-17 and 19 are distinguished over the prior art by virtue of their dependence on distinguished claim 11.
In sum, method claims 1-7 and 9 still stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (see “Claim Interpretation” section below for a possible amendment to remove contingencies), but the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of manufacture claims 11-17 and 19 have been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
Per MPEP 2111.04 II., “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met”. Examiner notes that method claim 1 recites the contingent limitations of: “when the DCF determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy from the EGP and that no delegate call of the smart contract has been used: lowering, by the DCF, a confidence score of the EGP to generate a reduced confidence score; and recording the reduced confidence score in an immutable ledger” and “when the DCF determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy from the EGP and that the delegate call of the smart contract has been used to subcontract the obligation to another EGP different from the EGP for one or more timeslots specified in the smart contract: causing the obligation to be subcontracted to the another EGP, wherein the another EGP provides energy according to the SLA made between the customer and the EGP and the confidence score is not lowered based on the subcontracting”. These limitations are contingent limitations (and therefore not required under broadest reasonable interpretation) because they are only triggered in a circumstance in which the DCF determines that the customer is not receiving a contracted amount of energy (i.e. the result/outcome of the previous limitation “determining, by the DCF and based on data obtained from the first node and the second node, whether a customer is receiving a contracted amount of energy from the EGP or from the grid” is that the customer is not receiving a contracted amount of energy). Furthermore, only one of the two sets of contingent limitations can be triggered at one time based on whether or not a delegate call has been used in the smart contract. If the DCF determines that the customer is receiving the contracted amount of energy, neither of these sets of limitations are performed in the method. If the DCF determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy, either one set of contingent limitations or the other will be triggered based on whether a delegate call has been used.
Examiner further notes that the limitations introduced in dependent claim 6 are contingent limitations for similar reasoning as that discussed above for claim 1. The BRI of claim 6 is therefore the same as the BRI of claim 1.
Examiner further notes that dependent claim 7 introduces an additional contingency, as the confidence score not being lowered can also be contingent on the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy and the EGP meeting its obligations. The BRI of claim 7 is therefore the same as the BRI of claim 1.
To avoid the interpretation of these limitations as contingent limitations, one possible option for Applicant is to amend the independent method claim to monitor multiple/a plurality of smart contracts and to determine that one or more contracts of the plurality fall into each of the claimed scenarios.
Per MPEP 2111.04 II., “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Accordingly, while claims 11 and 16-17 comprise the same contingent limitations as claims 1 and 6-7, the contingent limitations are required in claims 11 and 16-17 because 11 and 16-17 claims are product claims.
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 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite monitoring agreement compliance of providers and customers and updating provider confidence scores based on the provider’s adherence to the agreement.
As an initial matter, claims 1-7 and 9 fall into at least the process category of statutory subject matter. Claims 11-17 and 19 fall into at least the product/manufacture category of statutory subject matter. Therefore, all claims fall into at least one of the statutory categories. Eligibility analysis proceeds to Step 2A.
Claim 1 recites the concept of monitoring agreement compliance of providers and customers and updating provider confidence scores based on the provider’s adherence to the agreement which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial or legal interactions. A method, comprising: monitoring an energy generator/provider (EGP) in a grid to determine whether the EGP is meeting an obligation to provide energy, according to terms of a service level agreement (SLA), to a customer that has executed a contract with the EGP, wherein monitoring comprises: monitoring, at a first, energy provided by the EGP to the grid; monitoring, at a second, energy received by a customer from the grid; and collecting metadata indicating a source type and lineage of the energy provided by the EGP; determining, based on data obtained from the first and the second, whether a customer is receiving a contracted amount of energy from the EGP or from the grid; when determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy from the EGP and that no delegate has been used: lowering a confidence score of the EGP to generate a reduced confidence score; and recording the reduced confidence score; and when determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy from the EGP and that the delegate has been used to subcontract the obligation to another EGP different from the EGP for one or more timeslots specified: causing the obligation to be subcontracted to the another EGP, wherein the another EGP provides energy according to the SLA made between the customer and the EGP and the confidence score is not lowered based on the subcontracting all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial or legal interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a data confidence fabric, a smart contract, a first node, a second node, and an immutable ledger. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generic computer implementation. The additional element of a delegate call of the smart contract is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of smart contracts. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generic computer implementation and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of smart contracts. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 of a data confidence fabric, a smart contract, a first node, a second node, and an immutable ledger amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generic computer implementation. Also as discussed above, the additional element of a delegate call of the smart contract is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of smart contracts. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generic computer implementation and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of smart contracts. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generic computer implementation and generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5 further limit the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 while introducing the additional element of the customer switching to a new EGP “automatically”. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of the customer switching to a new EGP “automatically” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional element from claim 1 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above claim 7 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 1 above claim 9 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites the concept of monitoring agreement compliance of providers and customers and updating provider confidence scores based on the provider’s adherence to the agreement which is a certain method of organizing human activity including commercial or legal interactions. Instructions that are executable to perform operations comprising: monitoring an energy generator/provider (EGP) in a grid to determine whether the EGP is meeting an obligation to provide energy, according to terms of a service level agreement (SLA), to a customer that has executed a contract with the EGP, wherein monitoring comprises: monitoring, at a first, energy provided by the EGP to the grid; monitoring, at a second, energy received by a customer from the grid; and collecting metadata indicating a source type and lineage of the energy provided by the EGP; determining, based on data obtained from the first and the second, whether a customer is receiving a contracted amount of energy from the EGP or from the grid; when determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy from the EGP and that no delegate has been used: lowering a confidence score of the EGP to generate a reduced confidence score; and recording the reduced confidence score; and when determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy from the EGP and that the delegate has been used to subcontract the obligation to another EGP different from the EGP for one or more timeslots specified: causing the obligation to be subcontracted to the another EGP, wherein the another EGP provides energy according to the SLA made between the customer and the EGP and the confidence score is not lowered based on the subcontracting all, as a whole, fall under the category of commercial or legal interactions. The claim falls into the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Mere recitation of generic computer components does not remove the claim from this grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more hardware processors, a data confidence fabric, a smart contract, a first node, a second node, and an immutable ledger. The recited additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generic computer implementation. The additional element of a delegate call of the smart contract is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of smart contracts. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generic computer implementation and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of smart contracts. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does 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 of a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more hardware processors, a data confidence fabric, a smart contract, a first node, a second node, and an immutable ledger amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generic computer implementation. Also as discussed above, the additional element of a delegate call of the smart contract is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than generally linking the judicial exception to the field of smart contracts. The combination of these additional elements is also no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and generic computer implementation and generally linking the judicial exception to the field of smart contracts. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components and generic computer implementation and generally linking a judicial exception to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-15 further limit the abstract idea of claim 11 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 11 above these claims, individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 16 further limits the abstract idea of claim 11 while introducing the additional element of the customer switching to a new EGP “automatically”. The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the element of the customer switching to a new EGP “automatically” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Adding this new additional element into the additional element from claim 11 still amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The claim also does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 further limits the abstract idea of claim 11 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 11 above claim 17 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 further limits the abstract idea of claim 11 without adding any new additional elements. Therefore, by the analysis of claim 11 above claim 19 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathe et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2024/0062280, hereafter known as Sathe) in view of Cali et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,710,199; hereafter known as Cali) and Dechu et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0130130, hereafter known as Dechu)..
Regarding claim 1, Sathe teaches:
A method, comprising: monitoring, by a data confidence fabric (DCF), an energy generator/provider (EGP) in a grid to determine whether the EGP is meeting an obligation to provide energy, according to terms of a service level agreement (SLA), to a customer that has executed a smart contract with the EGP, wherein the monitoring comprises: (see [0127]-[0145] for overall method of determining a credibility score. See Fig. 3a Line 12 and [0099]-[0108] for the monitoring of operational data of a transaction during the transaction time period. Also see [0114]-[0116] for a metering agent verifying whether the obligations were met successfully and recording that success to the blockchain. See [0089] "Market clearance operations are performed via one or more smart contracts to automatically establish contracts between contract counterparties and their respective customers" for the DER (“distributed energy resource”) owner and the contract counterparty entering into a smart contract. See [0045]-[0047] and [0127] for the DER owners, the "customers" of the contract counterparty, being the energy providers selling energy back to the counterparty. Examiner is interpreting platform 102 as a data confidence fabric, as [0054] teaches it comprises computing devices to provide the marketplace and [0114] teaches that the metering data is subjected to fraud analysis. See [0042] for the energy exchange taking place over an electric grid)
monitoring, at a first node of the DCF, energy provided by the EGP to the grid (see [0050] and [0060] for metering agents measuring the amount of energy provided by the DER)
determining, by the DCF and based on data obtained from the first node (see [0113] “The metering agent component is enabled to: receive the customer-specific responses from the control agent response queue. Each response includes the data collected by the control agent for a given customer that is needed by the metering agent to validate participation according to the terms of the transaction” and [0114] “The metering agent component is enabled to gather additional data from internal and/or external data sources as needed to perform the validation activities. The metering agent component can receive data from metering agent device 112 for DER meters (e.g. Line 18) and other external sources… metering agent performs fraud and/or reporting accuracy analysis for example, evaluating details of metering data; location, time and/or environmental data; specifications of the DER device; etc. and determine whether the amount of energy purportedly supplied, under the contract is correct” and [0115] “The metering agent component is enabled to write a validation response to the blockchain to indicate that the obligations defined in the transaction (for a specific ICI or RU customer) were completed successfully. Validation is useful to perform settlement, etc.” and [0116] “The platform (e.g. platform operator component) is enabled to: receives a blockchain event that indicates that a transaction obligation for a specific customer was successfully completed (e.g. Line 20)” for validating based on metering agent data that a power transaction was completed successfully for a customer)
when the DCF determines that is not providing the contracted amount of energy and that no delegate call of the smart contract has been used: lowering, by the DCF, a confidence score of the EGP to generate a reduced confidence score (see [0134] and Table 1 showing impacts on a DER owner's credibility score based on outcomes of a quote. Examiner notes that Outcomes 4 and 5 in Table 1 are both detecting that the DER owner did not meet the obligation, but with Outcome 5 being due to a user cancelling participation instead of Outcome 4 in which the user participated but simply did not meet their obligations. See [0141] "Because the total available weighted score is (only) 15 and allocated to the most recent quotes first, as the user participates in more quotes older entries fall out of consideration. This has the effect that the user is not penalized in perpetuity for past unreliable behaviour" for a new outcome of not meeting a quote target lowering a credibility score as discussed in [0135], Table 2 and [0136], and [0236]. [0069] teaches various examples of smart contracts, but Sathe does not teach the smart contract possessing a delegate call. Additionally,[0127] teaches that failure to meet obligations to provide power can have “potential effects on the stability of the energy grid as a whole”. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Sathe teaches smart contracts without delegate calls to enlist other EGPs to provide energy in the event of an EGP failure to meet obligations)
and recording the reduced confidence score in an immutable ledger (see [0170] "the mobile application has respective interfaces (all not shown) to: 1) sign in to an account and/or create an account with platform 102; 2) set up (e.g. associate) the users particular DERs to the account and application, for example, via a gateway to the control agent employed by the user" for the interfaces 9A-9E showing the a DER owner (energy generator signing into their account, including 9D and [0145] in which the credibility score of the account is shown. See [0226] "the blockchain stores transaction history information and account information for all participants and transactions" for the credibility score as part of the account information being stored on the blockchain immutable ledger)
As discussed above, claim 1 is a method claim reciting contingent limitations. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, the limitations of “when the DCF determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy from the EGP and that no delegate call of the smart contract has been used: lowering, by the DCF, a confidence score of the EGP to generate a reduced confidence score; and recording the reduced confidence score in an immutable ledger” and “when the DCF determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy from the EGP and that the delegate call of the smart contract has been used to subcontract the obligation to another EGP different from the EGP for one or more timeslots specified in the smart contract: causing the obligation to be subcontracted to the another EGP, wherein the another EGP provides energy according to the SLA made between the customer and the EGP and the confidence score is not lowered based on the subcontracting” are not required to teach the claim as a whole, because the result of the limitation “determining, by the DCF and based on data obtained from the first node and the second node, whether a customer is receiving a contracted amount of energy from the EGP or from the grid” may be that a customer is receiving a contracted amount of energy. In such a circumstance the processes for responding to a customer not receiving a contracted amount of energy would not need to be performed in the method. However, Sathe does not explicitly teach the monitoring of energy provision by the DER owner including collection of metadata indicating the source type and lineage of the energy being provided, the monitoring at a second node the energy a customer is receiving from the grid, and the determining of whether a customer is receiving a contracted amount of energy is done based on the data from the first and second nodes. These limitations are not contingent limitations and are required under the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1. Cali teaches:
and collecting, by the DCF, metadata indicating a source type and lineage of the energy provided by the EGP (see Fig. 5 and Col. 28 lines 14-35 "the computing device 802 may identify a production process 820 and the delivery process 822 for the energy transaction 806. In particular, the production process 820 and the delivery process 822 may be identified based on information contained within the transaction data 804...the production process 820 and/or the delivery process 822 may be specified within metadata for the energy transaction 806 (e.g., stored in association with the agreement 810 and/or one or more additional data records within the distributed database 850)" and Col. 16 lines 20-32 "The production processes 820 may identify how the energy resource 816 delivered under the energy transaction 806 was produced. For example, where the energy resource 816 is natural gas, the production processes 820 may identify that the natural gas 816 was renewable natural gas produced by a sequestration process at a particular production facility. The delivery process 822 may specify how the energy resource 816 was delivered to the final consumer (e.g., the purchasing party 824). For example, where the energy resource 816 is natural gas, the delivery process 822 may specify that the natural gas was delivered via a particular pipeline and passed through compressors associated with a particular provider" for the monitoring including receiving metadata indicating an energy source type and lineage of the energy being exchanged)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the collection of energy source/lineage metadata as part of monitoring an energy transaction of Cali into the system of Sathe. As Cali states in Col. 6 lines 30-38 “It may be necessary to determine the environmental impact for one or more of the steps or processes performed in the production and fulfillment flow. For example, a particular producer may want or need to determine the environmental impact attributable to their portions of a production and fulfillment flow (e.g., to track certain environmental goals). As another example, an end user may want to know the environmental impact of the electricity or other energy resource they consume”. By recording the source type and lineage of the energy being furnished in the transaction, end users and producers of Sathe can determine the environmental impacts of the energy transaction using the metadata collection of Cali. Sathe also considers greenhouse gas reduction markets in at least [0058], so one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating the monitoring of energy sources and lineages of Cali would be helpful in verifying greenhouse gas reductions in the greenhouse gas reduction market of Sathe.
Sathe teaches in [0046] that DER owners are typically prosumers that both consume and produce energy. While Sathe teaches monitoring the energy provided by the DER at a node, the combination of Sathe and Cali does not explicitly teach monitoring the energy received by the contract counterparty at a second node and determining based on the first and second nodes whether the customer is receiving a contracted amount of energy. Dechu teaches:
monitoring, at a first node of the DCF, energy provided by the EGP to the grid; monitoring, at a second node of the DCF, energy received by a customer from the grid (see [0023] "The meters 111 and 113 may be agent modules stored in the nodes or may be separate smart meters which are relatively easy to install and setup for collecting energy usage metrics" and [0023] "The network may be an autonomous peer-to-peer energy monitoring network, which employs energy meter devices 111 and 113 as devices which perform one or more of monitor energy usage of nodes on the network" and [0024] "The devices may measure bi-directional energy flow from/to certain entities and create blockchain transactions as energy flow analysis logs based on the network to compute balance payments" and [0029] "Each beast device may be able to perform one or more of...measuring bi-directional energy flow from/to consumers and/or prosumers" for measuring both the power produced by the producer and the amount consumed by the consumer)
determining, by the DCF and based on data obtained from the first node and the second node, whether a customer is receiving a contracted amount of energy from the EGP or from the grid (see Fig. 5 and [0031], particularly Fig. 5 showing a contract imbalance in which an actual energy received was 10 kWh when a contracted amount was 13 kWh)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include monitoring energy consumption at a counterparty node as well as monitoring energy production at a DER node as taught by Dechu in the combination of Sathe and Cali, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Particularly, the addition of a bidirectional meter at a counterparty node measuring the amount of energy received from the DER owner would have predictable results as energy meters are already used to monitor energy production/usage at DER owner nodes in Sathe alone.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sathe, Cali, and Dechu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sathe further teaches:
wherein the first node of the DCF is positioned between the EGP and the grid (see [0050] for a metering agent being installed on customer premises to determine energy provided to/from the grid (i.e. between the EGP and the grid))
As discussed above, the combination of Sathe and Cali does not explicitly teach monitoring the energy received by the contract counterparty at a second node. Accordingly, the combination of Sathe and Cali does not explicitly teach the second node being positioned between the grid and the customer. Dechu further teaches:
and the second node of the DCF is positioned between the grid and the customer (see [0021] “The system may include a network of blockchain-enabled autonomous smart meter technology (beast), hereinafter ‘beast’ devices interconnected over electrical and communication networks, interfacing with energy consuming and generating devices. The beast devices use blockchain technology to perform one or more of place bids, create contracts, log energy measurements” for the smart meters logging energy measurements between the electrical network and the energy consuming device of a customer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include monitoring energy consumption at a counterparty node as well as monitoring energy production at a DER node as taught by Dechu in the combination of Sathe and Cali, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Particularly, the addition of a bidirectional meter at a counterparty node measuring the amount of energy received from the DER owner would have predictable results as energy meters are already used to monitor energy production/usage at DER owner nodes in Sathe alone.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Sathe, Cali, and Dechu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. While Sathe teaches the confidence score being readable by the DER owners in Fig. 9D and [0145] and [0175], and while Sathe teaches the contract counterparties using the confidence scores to select a DER owner to provide energy, the combination of Sathe and Cali does not explicitly teach that the confidence scores are readable by prospective and actual customers of the DER owner as required in claim 3. However, Dechu further teaches:
wherein the confidence score is readable by actual customers and prospective customers of the EGP (see [0023] "Reputation scores can be calculated by a designated energy optimizer 131, such as a pre-programmed software module, a designated device or any designated network resource capable of calculating such scores, energy needs and/or requirements. Both the bids and actual transacted energy are logged in the contract and energy-measurement blocks of the blockchain and any device operating on the network can calculate the reputation scores for any other network device" for the confidence score is readable by any device on the energy marketplace network, including both actual and prospective customers)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of making confidence scores readable by any prospective or actual device in a power marketplace of Dechu to the combination of Sathe and Cali would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Dechu to the teaching of the combination of Sathe and Cali would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such making confidence scores readable by any prospective or actual device in a power marketplace. Further, applying making confidence scores readable by any prospective or actual device in a power marketplace to the combination of Sathe and Cali would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for more transparency in the network. While Sathe teaches that the credibility scores can be used rank prospective DERs for a counterparty to contract with, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that by making the actual scores readable by prospective and actual customers the combined system would allow for more transparency. Specifically, instead of prospective DERs simply getting ranked by credibility score and the ranking being shown to counterparties, the counterparties seeing the actual confidence score values allows the counterparties to get a more accurate comparison of DERs and make a more informed choice of DER to contract with.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sathe, Cali, and Dechu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sathe further teaches:
wherein the SLA is held at the DCF (see [0069] "FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing a high level architecture 200 of platform 102...Blockchain 204 utilizes marketplace smart contracts 204B for respective participants, for example, to execute operations of the market based on activities on or off the blockchain. Examples of blockchain smart contracts include: bid submission; market clearing; recording of verification status; recording of payment; minting of performance-based tokens; and exchange of performance-based tokens" and [0060] "Metering agent and control agents record their monitoring/determining results to the blockchain of platform 102" for the smart contracts between DER owners and counterparties being held on the same platform that monitors obligations from claim 1)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Sathe, Cali, and Dechu teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sathe further teaches:
wherein the energy comprises electrical power (see [0042] "there is provided a marketplace platform using blockchain technology for various participants, to act, directly or indirectly in the distribution of electricity for an electric grid")
Regarding claims 6-7, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these method claims is the same as claim 1 because all of the limitations introduced in claims 6-7 are contingent limitations. See “Claim Interpretation” section above. Accordingly, claims 6-7 are obvious in view of the combination of Sathe, Cali, and Dechu for the reasoning discussed above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Sathe and Cali teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Sathe further teaches:
wherein the confidence score is accessible by a prospective customer, and usable by the prospective customer to select an energy provider (see [0234] "responsive to a quote for supplying energy, receiving a plurality of bids from quote bidders to supply respective amounts of energy; storing credibility scores for each of the quote bidders...selecting successful bids from the plurality of bids in response to the credibility scores" and [0144] for contract counterparties selecting quote tenders based on the confidence score)
Novel/Non-Obvious
Regarding claims 11-17 and 19, the claims are distinguished over the prior art of record. As discussed above, the combination of Sathe, Cali, and Dechu teaches the limitations from claim 1, mirrored in claim 11, that are not contingent limitations. The combination of Sathe, Cali, and Dechu further teaches the contingent limitations of: when the DCF determines that a customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy and that no delegate call has been used to subcontract the provider’s obligations, that a confidence score is lowered to generate a reduced confidence score and the recording of the reduced confidence score in an immutable ledger. However, the combination of Sathe, Calil, and Dechu does not explicitly teach the contingent limitations, required in the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 11, of “when the DCF determines that the customer is not receiving the contracted amount of energy from the EGP and that the delegate call of the smart contract has been used to subcontract the obligation to another EGP different from the EGP for one or more timeslots specified in the smart contract: causing the obligation to be subcontracted to the another EGP, wherein the another EGP provides energy according to the SLA made between the customer and the EGP and the confidence score is not lowered based on the subcontracting.” While Sathe considers periods of time in which a transaction is to occur, the combination does not explicitly teach delegate calls of a smart contract to subcontract the obligation to another energy provider, wherein the energy provider follows the SLA requirements and the confidence score is not lowered based on the subcontracting. As discussed in the 01/12/2026 Final Rejection, Jiang et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2022/0158818, hereafter known as Jiang) teaches the use of a delegate smart contract to subcontract service provision and Jawaharlal et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,894,578; hereafter known as Jawaharlal) teaches the delegated service provider conforming to the SLA. However, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Sathe, Cali, Dechu, Jiang, and Jawaharlal to teach the claimed invention of claim 11 in which an energy provider’s confidence score is not lowered when using a delegate call of a smart contract to subcontract to another energy provider an obligation to supply energy.
Other prior art of record fails to cure the deficiencies of Sathe, Cali, Dechu, Jiang, and Jawaharlal. Kudo et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2023/0117558) teaches penalizing parties for nonfulfillment of power transaction contracts, but Kudo does not teach the use of smart contracts or delegate calls when creating power transaction contracts. Crabtree et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2010/0332373) teaches smart meters being positioned between a power customer and the grid to determine the amount of energy received by a consumer, but Crabtree again does not teach the use of smart contracts and delegates calls to manage provider failure. Medved et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,924,508) teaches content providers entering into agreements with each other to fulfill SLAs to end users, but Medved does not teach this arrangement in the power/utility field.
Accordingly, claim 11 is distinguished over the prior art of record. Dependent claims 12-17 and 19 are distinguished by virtue of their dependence on distinguished claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MORONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4403. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/M.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights