DETAILED ACTION
Introduction
This Office action is responsive to the communications filed December 16, 2025. Claims 2-4 and 10-12 were canceled. Claims 1, 5-9, 13-15 and 16 are pending.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant has amended the claims, thereby overcoming the following:
35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims;
35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 7 and 15; and
the objection to the claims.
2. As per the 35 USC 103 rejection, Applicant asserts that Bhattiprolu fails to disclose “storing, in real-time and using a distributed network of computer systems, flowmeter measurements within a block of a blockchain measurements within a block of a blockchain, let alone where the flowmeter measurements include flow rate data, temperature data, pressure data, and density data, as required by independent claim 1.”
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Bhattiprolu discloses the following:
uploading encrypted data to the distributed ledger, which may be done either in real time as the data is acquired or captured by the device (paragraph [0038]);
the data include data generated by equipment, sensors, people…automatically generated (abstract).
the hydrocarbon data is obtained automatically or manually using one or more of: a flow monitoring and control system, a field device manager (FDM), a metering skid, metering equipment, proving equipment, an edge node, calibration equipment, quality analysis equipment, and field personnel (paragraph [0013]); and
numerous sensors and instruments are used to measure and acquire data on certain parameters pertaining to the hydrocarbons brought to the surface, including flow rate, temperature, pressure, density, viscosity, and the like (paragraph [0003]).
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, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2022/0172221 to Bhattiprolu et al. (“Bhattiprolu”) in view US Publication No. 2025/0088376 to Ren et al. (“Ren”).
As per claim 1, Bhattiprolu discloses generating, using a distributed network of computer systems, a blockchain comprising a plurality of distributed transactions and using a distributed ledger technology (see abstract –hydrocarbon custody transfer uses blockchain… uploading the data to the blockchain);
recording, using a user interface in a computer system, the distributed network of computer systems (abstract – uploading the data to the blockchain), and a hash function (paragraph [0007] – obtain a hash value for the hydrocarbon data), a digitized sales agreement in a smart contract within a first block of the blockchain (paragraph [0012] – the distributed ledger stores one or more smart contracts thereon… abstract – smart contracts may be embedded int eh blockchain to carry out monetary settlements reconciling an invoice),
wherein the digitized sales agreement describes a hydrocarbon product sales agreement for a hydrocarbon product between a buyer and a seller (abstract – methods for conducting hydrocarbon custody transfer uses blockchain);
cryptographically linking a public key, a private key, and a digital signature to the buyer, the seller, and the smart contract on the blockchain (abstract – a blockchain application signs the data using public/public key encryption before uploading the data to the blockchain… smart contracts may be embedded in the blockchain to carry out monetary settlements);
obtaining, using a flow meter communicably coupled to a flow computer, a plurality of flowmeter measurements from the hydrocarbon product in the hydrocarbon product sales agreement (paragraph [0028] – data related to hydrocarbons in the custody transfer…flow meters and Fig. 1),
wherein the plurality of flowmeter measurements comprise flow rate data, temperature data, pressure data, and density data (paragraph [0003] and [0028]);
storing, in real-time and using the distributed network of computer systems, the plurality of flowmeter measurements within a second block of the blockchain (paragraph [0038] - uploading encrypted data to the distributed ledger and paragraph [0003]);
verifying, by the distributed network of computer systems in real-time, a transfer of the hydrocarbon product using the smart contract in the first block of the blockchain and the plurality of flowmeter measurements that are stored in the second block of the blockchain (paragraph [0053] – custody transfer actor access all the content on the ledger…after the content has been decrypted and verified).
Additionally, Ren also discloses measurement data are available on the blockchain in real time (abstract and paragraph [0289]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Ren to the system of Bhattiprolu. Hence, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 5, Bhattiprolu does not expressly disclose what is included digital sales agreement comprises one or more of the following list: buyer, details, sales agreement details, and sales order line item details. However, it is known in the art that smart contracts include at least buyer details. Additionally, this difference is only found in the non-functional descriptive material and is not functionally involved in the steps recited. The steps would be performed the same regardless of what data is included in the sales agreement Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
As per claim 6, Bhattiprolu does not expressly disclose wherein the sales order line item details comprises one or more of the flowing list: buyer reports, written documents, system printout logs, thirdUS party inspector evidence, supporting documents, buyer number, buyer name, sales agreement number, sales agreement tile, order quantity, order quality, meter opening time, meter closing time, idle time, order volume, heating value, flow rate, order temperature, order pressure, order density. This is also considered non-functional descriptive material (see claim 5 rejection above).
As per claim 8, Bhattiprolu discloses wherein the plurality of flowmeter measurements are available on the blockchain in real-time (see claim 1 above).
Claims 9-14 and 16 are rejected on the same rationale as claims 1-6 and 8 above.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattiprolu in view of Ren as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of CN-116842583-A to Ma (“Ma”).
As per claim 7, Bhattiprolu in view of Rend disclose the method of claim 1. The references do not expressly disclose a functional check is embedded in a sales agreement configuration template such that validation rules are added to the sales order line item details. Ma discloses a functional check is embedded in a sales agreement configuration template such that validation rules are added to the sales order line item details (page 2 of transaction – confirmation module).
Functional recitation(s) using the word "for" or “such that” have been considered but does not patentable distinguish the claims from the prior art they fail to add any steps are thereby regarded as intend use language. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in additional steps. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 246 F.3d 1368, 1375-76, 58 USPQ2d 1508, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (Where the language in a method claim states only a purpose and intended result, the expression does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the elements of Ma to the system of Bhattiprolu in combination with Ren. Hence, 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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15 is rejected on the same rationale as claim 7 above.
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).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALATEE WORJLOH whose telephone number is (571)272-6714. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:00am-2:00pm.
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, John Hayes can be reached at (571) 272-6708. 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.
/Jalatee Worjloh/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights