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
Claims 1-10 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated May 29, 2025. In Response, submitted September 9, 2025, claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 were amended; claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 were cancelled; and claims 11-14. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10-14 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 8 of the Response regarding the previous objection of the claims, have been fully considered and the objections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 9 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 9-10 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant argues “even if claims 1 and 6 are considered as being directed to a judicial exception, elements of the claims, and the claims as a whole, amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. To that end, claims 1 and 6, and claims depending therefrom, are patent eligible under 35 USC 101. By way of example, claim 1, when taken as a whole, does not simply describe tracking sequestered carbon and carbon credits and selling of carbon credits. Claim 1 is directed to a system including elements such as sensors and monitoring apparatus to electronically monitor the first quantity of sequestered carbon to provide the input indicative of sequestering the first quantity of carbon by the CSE. Claim 1 also recites one or more controllers executing processes for generating a first-COS corresponding to the first quantity of sequestered carbon with the one or more controllers, generating a first s-NFT by minting the first-COS by one or more controllers ensure, and publishing the first-sNFT on an exchange, which is a blockchain ensure that the trading is based on the measured, certified, sequestered carbon, and this can be verified or reviewed by the public.”
Examiner notes, as discussed further in the detailed rejection below, “monitor[ing] the first quantity of sequestered carbon to provide the input indicative of sequestering the first quantity of carbon by the CSE” “executing processes for generating a first-COS corresponding to the first quantity of sequestered carbon” , and “generating a first token associated with the first-COS … and publishing the first token … ensur[ing] that the trading is based on the measured, certified, sequestered carbon, [that] can be verified or reviewed by the public” are recitations of the abstract idea. The additional elements of sensors, a monitoring apparatus, electronically monitoring, and one or more controllers are recited at such high levels of generality that they serve only as tools to perform the abstract ideas such as monitoring and executing processes, therefore they amount to merely “apply it”. Further, the additional elements of a first s-NFT, minting an NFT, an exchange, and a blockchain are recited at such high levels of generality that they server to merely generally link the abstract ideas (such as, generating a first token associated with the first-COS, publishing the first token, and ensur[ing] that the trading is based on the measured, certified, sequestered carbon, [that] can be verified or reviewed by the public) are generally linked to the field of crypto/blockchain technology, but fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
On Pages 9-10 of the Response, Applicant argues “The additional elements such as generating a first-UCT from the first-sNFT with one or more controllers, where the first-UCT links only the first-TCCs with the first-sNFT, the UCT is associated with three specific three datasets, the first-UCT and the datasets are stored on a server associated with the exchanger in combination ensures that no other TCCs or NFTs will be linked together via the first-UCT, and regardless of downstream activities, the datasets of the first-UCT will always identify the current state of the first-TCCs, and each tonne of the measured, certified, sequestered carbon is traceable for its entire lifecycle. The additional elements such as transferring TCCs to the exchanger, which is a blockchain, to define the listed-TCCs by one or more controller provides flexibility to first- CSE, as the first CSE can choose to sell a portion of the published sNFT, or hold it on the balance sheet as a store of value and future offset.”
Examiner notes, as discussed above and discussed further in the detailed rejection below, the additional elements of the sNFTs and the one or more controllers, the exchanger (previously cited, and further claimed as the “exchange”), and the blockchain fail to integrate the abstract idea or amount significantly more. Similarly the tokenized carbon credits (TCCs) are recited at such a high level of detail that they serve to only generally link the abstract idea to the field of crypto/blockchain technology, and the server is generally recited as merely a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea or amount to significantly more.
Examiner also notes, the “first-UCT” is recited and generally described as a unique identifier, i.e. part of the abstract idea. Additionally, insofar as it is claimed, that “the first-UCT links only the first carbon credits with the first token, the UCT is associated with three specific three datasets, the first-UCT and the datasets are stored … in combination ensures that no other carbon credits or tokens will be linked together via the first-UCT, and regardless of downstream activities, the datasets of the first-UCT will always identify the current state of the first-TCCs, and each tonne of the measured, certified, sequestered carbon is traceable for its entire lifecycle” is a recitation of the abstract idea, with the additional elements (as discussed above) amounting to merely “apply it” or generally linking the abstract idea to a technical field.
Examiner additionally notes, “transferring carbon credits … to define the listed-carbon credits … provid[ing] flexibility to first-CSE, as the first CSE can choose to sell a portion of the published tokens, or hold it on the balance sheet as a store of value and future offset” is an abstract idea with the associated additional elements being used merely as tools to accomplish the abstract idea or to generally link the abstract idea to a technical field.
On Page 10 of the Response, Applicant argues “Claim 1 provides improved operation of controllers to effectively integrate measurability, traceability, and tradeability of sequestered carbon into the functioning of the one or more controllers using input indicative of sequestered carbon, and offers several operational functions to improve the system and controller operation for tokenization and status of tokens. The system configuration and operations of claim 1 offer a global solution to reach net zero CO2 emissions by 2050 … the biggest challenge to achieving targets set out by the Paris Climate Accords is the cost/benefit analysis, and for CCS capital expenditures to be justified today, generating sources need to have users able to pay a sufficient amount on top of any tax credit benefits to cover the costs. … In summary, claim 1 provides an improvement to systems that integrate provides measurability, transparency, traceability, flexibility, and tradeability into controllers, and the solution of claim 1 is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. Thus, claim 1 is patent eligible. Claim 6 is directed to a method and includes similar limitations as claim 1, and thus, is eligible for similar reasons. For at least the same reasons, all the pending claims are eligible. Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection are respectfully requested.
Examiner notes, “effectively integrat[ing] measurability, traceability, and tradeability of sequestered carbon” and “cost/benefit analysis, and for CCS capital expenditures to be justified today, generating sources need to have users able to pay a sufficient amount on top of any tax credit benefits to cover the costs” are business processes (i.e. abstract ideas). These alleged improvements are improvements to the abstract idea and not to the technology used to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). The use of one or more controllers (described generally as “single-processor or multi-processor system of any of a wide array of possible architectures”, See Para. 49, instant specification) to perform these allegedly improved abstract idea does not improve the controllers themselves, only the abstract idea which they perform. Therefore, after full and proper analysis, the claims remain rejected over 101.
Applicant’s remarks on Page 11 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “to the to a first-COE wallet” in limitation 22 of both claims, and should recite “to a first-COE wallet”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2, 5-7, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1, 2, 5, 11, and 12 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 6, 7, 10, 13, and 14 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10-14 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 6 substantially recite a first process of:
receiving input indicative of sequestering a first quantity of carbon by a first carbon sequestering entity (CSE);
generating a first certificate of sink (COS) corresponding to the first quantity of sequestered carbon;
generating a first token, that is an token related to sequester activities, related to the first-COS;
publishing the first token;
generating a first amount of available carbon credits by based on an amount of carbon represented by the first token;
storing the first carbon credits with a first-CSE;
generating a first unique carbon tag (UCT) from the first token, the first-UCT linking only the first carbon credits with the first token, the UCT being associated with datasets, including:
a first dataset that identifies the first token;
a second dataset that identifies the number of carbon credits associated with the first token, which corresponds with an amount of carbon identified under the first-COS and the status of each carbon credit;
a third dataset that identifies a storage or published location of each of the first carbon credits;
storing the first-UCT and the datasets; and
triggering the first-UCT for reviewing and updating the datasets with each transaction associated with the first carbon credits until the first carbon credits are retired following offsetting activities,
a second process of:
receiving a request from the first-CSE to list for sale the first carbon credits or
receiving a request from the first-CSE to list for sale the carbon credits stored with the first-CSE that are associated with different COSs, and applying a FIFO analysis to identify earlier generated ones of the carbon credits to list;
transferring carbon credits to define listed carbon credits; and
triggering the UCTs that are linked to the listed carbon credits by updating the third dataset to indicate the listed carbon credits are listed, and
a third process of:
receiving a request by a first carbon offsetting entity (COE) to acquire one or more of the listed carbon credits;
selling the one or more of the listed carbon credits to the COE, to define purchased carbon credits;
transferring the purchased carbon credits with a first-COE;
triggering the UCTs linked with the purchased carbon credits to indicate a decrease in available carbon credits for sale, by:
updating the second dataset to identify a sale to the first-COE of the purchased carbon credits; and
updating the third dataset to indicate the purchased carbon credits are located with a first-COE; and
transferring payment from the first-COE to sellers of the purchased carbon credits, and
further monitoring the first quantity of sequestered carbon to provide the input indicative of sequestering the first quantity of carbon by the CSE.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial interactions) of tracking sequestered carbon and carbon credits and selling of carbon credits. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 6 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a first s-NFT (claims 1, 6), (ii) an NFT (claims 1, 6), (iii) minting an NFT (claims 1, 6), (iv) an exchange (claims 1, 6), (v) tokenized carbon credits (first-TCCs) (claims 1, 6), (vi) tokenizing an amount of carbon (claims 1, 6), (vii) a wallet (claim 1, 6), (viii) a server (claims 1, 6), (ix) one or more controllers configured for executing processes (claim 1), (x) a blockchain (claims 1, 6), (xi) a storage unit (claims 1, 6), (xii) sensors (of a system) (claims 1, 6), (xiii) monitoring apparatus (of a system) (claims 1, 6), and (xiv) electronically monitoring (claims 1, 6).
The additional elements of (viii) a server, (ix) one or more controllers configured for executing processes, (xii) sensors (of a system) (claims 1, 6), (xiii) monitoring apparatus (of a system) (claims 1, 6), and (xiv) electronically monitoring are recited at a high level of generality (see [0032] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the server, [0047 & 0049] discussing the one or more controllers configured for executing processes, [0028] discussing the sensors (of a system), (xiii) monitoring apparatus (of a system), and (xiv) electronically monitoring) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (i) a first s-NFT, (ii) an NFT, (iii) minting an NFT, (iv) an exchange, (v) tokenized carbon credits (first-TCCs), (vi) tokenizing an amount of carbon, (vii) a wallet, (x) a blockchain, (xi) a storage unit are recited at a high level of generality (See [0021] of the Applicant’s PG Publication discussing the first s-NFT and the NFT, [0030] discussing the minting an NFT, the tokenized carbon credits (first-TCCs), and the tokenizing an amount of carbon, [0023] discussing the exchange and the blockchain, and [0022 and 0027] discussing the wallet, [0030] discussing the storage unit) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., blockchain token technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figure 1 showing all the additional (i) a first s-NFT, (ii) an NFT, (iii) minting an NFT, (iv) an exchange, (v) tokenized carbon credits (first-TCCs), (vi) tokenizing an amount of carbon, (vii) a wallet, (viii) a server, (ix) one or more controllers configured for executing processes, (x) a blockchain, (xi) a storage unit, (xii) sensors (of a system), (xiii) monitoring apparatus (of a system), and (xiv) electronically monitoring in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1 and 6 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2, 7, 11, and 13 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 6 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 2, 7, 11, and 13 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 5 and 10 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. The claims additionally substantially recite: offsetting carbon by the first-COE, wherein:
the purchased carbon credits that account for the offset carbon are each associated with the first-UCT and define offset carbon credits; or
the purchased carbon credits that account for the offset carbon are associated with different COSs, and applies a FIFO analysis to identify the purchased carbon credits that were generated first and thereby define the offset carbon credits;
retiring the offset carbon credits;
generating a first certificate of offset (COO) from the offset carbon credits;
generating a first offset token, that is an token related to offset activities, related to the first-COO;
publishing the first offset token;
triggering the UCTs linked with the offset carbon credits to update the datasets, by:
updating the second dataset in the UCTs to identify that the offset carbon credits are retired; and
updating the third dataset to remove reference to the retired carbon credits.
Claims 5 and 10 also recites the additional elements of a first oNFT, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0028] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the first oNFT) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., blockchain token technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of a first oNFT does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 5 and 10 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 12 and 14 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. The claims additionally substantially recite: wherein the first-COS is generated through generation.
Claims 12 and 14 also recites the additional elements of a first automated electronic generation, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0030] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the automated electronic generation) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: “apply it” (or an equivalent), and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of automated electronic generation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 12 and 14 are ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 10-14 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0139137 to Slack et al (hereafter Slack). Slack discloses a platform for receiving quantities of sequestered carbon from monitoring sensors, tokenizing data creating NFTs, as well as selling and buying the NFTs representing carbon credits.
The next closest prior art is Non-Patent Literature “CO2 Sequestering ESG NFTs” by CarbonLand Trust from September 5, 2021 (hereafter CarbonLand Trust). CarbonLand Trust discloses minting carbon sequestering certificates into NFTs for trading, buying, or selling.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0410070 to Sriom et al (hereafter Sriom). Sriom discloses NFT identifiers associated with datasets detailing storage location of NFTs.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0118213 to Quigley et al (hereafter Quigley). Quigley discloses NFT owners requesting sales listings for NFTs.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2023/0050782 to Pacifico et al (hereafter Pacifico). Pacifico discloses carbon offsetting entities transferring payment for NFTs in the form of USDCs.
While the closest prior art above teaches the various aspects of the claimed invention individually, the combination of these references are not obvious in such a way that they would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
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 DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628