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 .
This communication is in response to Applicant’s Arguments filed 4/23/2026 regarding application 18/541,283 filed 12/15/2023. Claim 23 is amended and hereby entered. No claims are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/23/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) are fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 23 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/23/2026 with respect to 35 USC 101, 102, and 103 are fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101:
The applicant submits the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the applicant submits the claims do not recite a mental process because the operations cannot be performed practically in the human mind. MPEP section 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) describes, “a claim to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and display certain results of collection and analysis’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind”, recites a mental process. In the instant application, the analysis (i.e. verifying compliance) is recited at a high level of generality such that a human could perform the evaluation of received data. Further, the presence of the additional element “a processing server” hosting data does not negate the presence of the abstract idea. The server is simply being used as a tool to host the data (i.e. the additional element is being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Further, the applicant submits that the claims are directed to specific technical process not the abstract ideas of mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity. Again, the presence of an additional element performing the abstract ideas does not negate the presence of the abstract ideas. The additional elements are considered in step 2A Prong Two and step 2B to determine if the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into practical application or amount to significantly more, see MPEP 2106.04. Regarding Prong 1, the claims as a whole are directed to judicial exceptions. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Further, the applicant submits the claims integrate the abstract idea into practical application by reflecting an improvement in technology. Specifically, the applicant cites the Desjardin Memo clarifying the specification must be evaluated to recognize a technological improvement, and the claims must reflect the disclosed improvement. However, in the instant application there is no technological improvement to the underlying technology. With Desjardin, the improvement was directed to solving the problem of “catastrophic forgetting” in machine learning technology. In the instant application, the applicant’s alleged improvements are not directed to the underlying technology. Rather, the alleged improvements are directed to a commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer, not improving the underlying computer technology itself. Additionally, the same analysis applies for dependent claims 3-5, 13-15, and 22, wherein a machine learning model is introduced. There is no improvement to the underlying machine learning technology itself, rather the model is used to perform an abstract idea, and the applicant’s alleged improvements are directed to the abstract ideas not the underlying machine learning technology. This is further supported by the dependent claims reciting functionally identical machine learning algorithms that output different results dependent on the common place business method being addressed. The functionally equivalent machine learning algorithms in the dependent claims are being used to perform various commonplace business methods formulating the abstract ideas, not improving on machine learning technology itself. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Further, the applicant submits the characterization of the claims is incorrect because the examiner over simplifies the claims, improperly dismisses additional elements as generic computer components, and classifies blockchain as field of use rather than technological improvement. The claims are not simplified nor are the additional elements dismissed. The claims are read under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, and the claims only require three functional steps performed by a processing server. Further, any applicant alleged “technical improvements” are again directed to the abstract idea not the underlying technical elements (i.e. there is no improvement disclosed in the underlying blockchain technology). Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 102:
The applicant submits the examiner failed to give patentable weight to all claim limitations. Specifically, the applicant cites the examiner mapped prior art to some of the nonfunctional elements without indicating the limitations were being denied patentable weight. However, additionally aligning claim mappings to nonfunctional features are for the purposes of compact prosecution. The examiner shows relevant art that meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Overlap of nonfunctional features in the prior art does not implicate procedural deficiency. The applicant fails to provide reasoning as to why the claims are novel or nonobvious to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 103. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
The applicant submits the examiner did not meet the requirement of the two-step analysis for printed matter. However, the claims are not directed to printed matter with a physical substrate. The claims are directed to machine readable media, see MPEP 2111.05(III) (Machine-readable media) stating, “where the claim as a whole is directed to conveying a message or meaning to a human reader independent of the intended computer system, and/or the computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists”. In the instant application, the nature of the data being hosted, received, and verified (i.e. the data being contractual rights, statutory limitations, legal obligations, etc.) does not functionally impact computer performing the recited functional steps. Similarly, the nature of the data in the dependent claims does not functionally impact the how the machine algorithm executes its steps. The algorithm can ingest multiple types of data (see claims 3-5) and still perform the same functions. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Additionally, the applicant submits prior art Taylor does not anticipate the claims because the claims require specific types of data to be hosted and received. However, as aforementioned, the nature of the data does not impact the server executing a function of hosting data or retrieving data. The functional steps in the method can be performed by the server regardless of the data type used. Taylor teaches a specific implementation of the functional steps required by the claims with its computer implemented platform that hosts and receives information. Further, the verification step under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is taught by Taylor’s specific blockchain implementation to verify carbon footprints of the land with traceable inputs. Although the specification is not read into the claims, the applicant’s specification supports this interpretation, see applicant specification Paragraph 25 stating, “In addition, verification of the greenhouse gases and environmental rights credit over the life of GEARS, for example, could use a blockchain 112 recording methodology unique to greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits”. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 103:
The applicant submits the combination of Taylor and Sachinkumar does not render the dependent claims obvious. Specifically, the applicant cites Sachinkumar being a fundamentally different type of platform relating to energy trading. Keeping the aforementioned arguments regarding nonfunctional descriptive data in mind:
The limitations of claims 8 and 18 broadly recite: registering market participants and granting them access to the platform’s data regarding sale, purchase, or third-party activity. The functional features of the claims are taught by Sachinkumar’s marketplace in which users can join and register for an account that allows them to buy and sell energy.
The limitations of claim 9 and 19 broadly recite: presenting data on a graphical user interface enabling participation of a sale, purchase, or third-party activity. The functional features of the claims are again taught by Sachinkumar’s front end user interface.
The limitations of 10 and 20 broadly recite: receiving requests to list the data, and in response to verifying compliance, executing via smart contract a transfer of credits to the seller. The functional features of the claims are taught by Sachinkumar’s distributed ledger and deployment of smart contracts for settlement.
Sachinkumar still teaches the functional limitations in the claims regardless of if the marketplace is associated with energy, equities, or “parcels of land with contractual rights to develop greenhouse gasses and environmental rights credits”. Furthermore, the fact that Sachinkumar’s marketplace is directed to energy yet still performs the same functional limitations as the instant application, in itself supports the argument that the data in the claims do not functionally impact the computer executing the method. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the nonfinal rejection dated 2/20/2026 states, “One of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefits of executing trade of environmental credits using smart contracts for more secure and verifiable transactions. Therefore, the analysis provides proper motivation to combine. The applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) with no practical application and without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). The independent claims (1, 11, and 21) recite a method and systems to verify contractual rights of land. These claim elements are being interpreted commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations). Verification of contractual obligation for carbon credits and rights falls under commercial and legal interactions. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Further the claimed invention is also directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is directed to a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The independent claims (1, 11, and 21) recite a method and systems to receive data and verify data regarding contractual rights of land. These claim elements are being interpreted as concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Using land metrics to verify compliance and rights of carbon credits can equivalently be achieved by human observation and evaluation of data. The claims recite an abstract idea consistent with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the instant application merely recites an “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The instant application is directed towards a method and systems to implement the identified abstract ideas of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes (i.e. receiving and analyzing data to perform verification of compliance of contractual rights of carbon credits) in a general computer environment. The independent claims recite the additional elements “a processing server”, “a computer”, and “a non-transitory computer readable medium”. These claim elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a general computer environment. The machines merely act as a modality to implement the abstract idea and are not indicative of integration into a practical application (i.e., the additional elements are simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept.
In regards to the dependent claims
Claims 2 and 12 receiving by processing server data from an imaging system. However, the imaging system is not positively recited. The claims recite a processing server performing a step of receiving data. The source of the data is descriptive and does not functionally differentiate the method step of receiving data by processing server. Therefore, the imaging system is not positively recited and is not considered an additional element for analysis under 35 USC 101.
Claims 3-5, 13-15, and 22 recite the new additional element “a machine learning algorithm”. However, a machine learning algorithm discussed at a high level of generality is not indicative of practical application or significantly more. The machine learning merely acts as a modality to implement the abstract idea (i.e. the additional element is simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 7, 17, 10, and 20 recite the new additional elements “a blockchain” and “smart contracts”. These additional elements merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h), and do not implement the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 9 and 19 recite the new additional element “graphical user interface (GUI)”. However, a graphical user interface merely acts as a modality to implement the abstract idea (i.e. the additional element is simply used as a tool to perform the abstract idea), see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 6, 16, 8, 18, 10, 20 and 23 do not introduce any new abstract ideas or new additional elements and do not impact analysis under 35 USC 101
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taylor (US 20220124963 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 21, (substantially similar in scope and language), Taylor teaches:
A computer-implemented method for creation, management and transaction of greenhouse gases and environmental rights, the method comprising: hosting, on a processing server, a listing of one or more parcels of land with contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits; [see at least Taylor: (Para 0046) “According to yet other embodiments, farmer-supplied data 107 may be provisioned onto a blockchain 701 to contribute payload data via a producer app. The producer app may serve as an interface for multiple inputs into a single asset on the blockchain 701. The producer app is a lightweight interface that allows farmers, ranchers, landowners to contribute information 107 directly to the smart farm fabric. According to other embodiments, a piece of farm equipment, using APIs, can contribute information 107 to the fabric directly. Similarly, a flux tower or other local imaging device can contribute information directly 106 to the platform on behalf of the farmer or landowner”, (Para 0132) “Such analysis may thus be utilized, for example, in the proper quantification and allocation of carbon credits or debits.” ]
receiving, by the processing server, metrics on the one or more parcels of land with the contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits; and [see at least Taylor: (Para 0044-0045) “According to certain embodiments, farmer-supplied data 107 may include direct data from farmers, ranchers, landowners, and their equipment. According to certain embodiments, sensors on farm equipment can upload farmer supplied data 107 as part of flux tower data 106…”]
verifying, on the processing server, that the one or more parcels of land with the contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits comply with one or more conditions for development and potential entitlement to greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits based on at least the received metrics. [see at least Taylor: (Para 0186) “Data can not only be contributed directly via the producer app, but data may be tracked and traced to provide an audit trail of contribution and usage transparency.” (Para 0188) “Blockchain 701 allows for track and trace of inputs such as inputs 103 and combining them with soil sample baselines 105 as appropriate to create a carbon/greenhouse gas footprint for a given square meter or parcel of land”]
Regarding Claims 2 and 12, Taylor further teaches:
further comprising: receiving, by the processing server, the metrics of the one or more parcels of land with the contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits from an imaging system, the imaging system receiving images from one or more of a photo sensor, a satellite, an airplane, a drone, a balloon, a boat, a submarine, and/or a land vehicle. [see at least Taylor: (Para 0100) “Data from farmers, ranchers, landowners, and their equipment 107 which is transmitted as, for example, flux tower data 106 may be integrated spatially with satellite data 104 including satellite imagery providing detailed and granular views of a region of interest”]
Regarding Claims 3-5, 13-15, and 22, Taylor further teaches:
further comprising: training, by the processing server, a machine learning algorithm and/or a neural network for determining an amount of one or more greenhouse gases being taken out of the atmosphere by a piece of land, the training of the machine learning algorithm and/or a neural network including: [see at least Taylor: (Para 0196) “training an AI algorithm using the integrated data measurements to determine most accurate local soil quality estimates…”, (Para 0110) “For instance, according to such an embodiment, so as to estimate sub-soil sequestered carbon, satellite and other above-ground imagery is utilized in conjunction with Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) to obtain an estimate of above-ground biomass levels”, (Para 0118) “The first NRCS soil quality indicator 401 is soil organic carbon 404 which may be outputted 404 using standard operating procedure”, (Para 0132) “Such analysis may thus be utilized, for example, in the proper quantification and allocation of carbon credits or debits”]
inputting, by the processing server, one or more datasets into the machine learning algorithm and/or a neural network, the one or more datasets including a known amount of one or more greenhouse gases taken out of the atmosphere by one or more pieces of land; [The data set is nonfunctional descriptive material that does not carry patentable weight. The machine learning model in claims 3-5, 13-15, and 22 are identically claimed models, and they simply use different data to output different results. However, the process itself remains the same (i.e. training an algorithm by using known data, then inputting data to output results); see at least Taylor: (Para 0201) “At block 920, processing logic trains an AI algorithm using the integrated data measurements to determine most accurate local soil quality estimates”, (Para 0110) “For instance, according to such an embodiment, so as to estimate sub-soil sequestered carbon, satellite and other above-ground imagery is utilized in conjunction with Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) to obtain an estimate of above-ground biomass levels”, (Para 0196) “in which the plurality of local soil quality estimate data models are based on pre-determined soil quality indicators”]
generating, by the processing server, a trained machine learning algorithm and/or a neural network for determining an amount of one or more greenhouse gases being taken out of the atmosphere by a piece of land; [The limitations recite generating an algorithm and the intended use or intended results of the generated machine learning algorithm. The machine learning model in claims 3-5, 13-15, and 22 are identically claimed models, and they simply use different data to output different results. However, the process itself remains the same (i.e. training an algorithm by using known data, then inputting data to output results); see at least Taylor: (Para 0153) “With such data having been captured and appropriately stored, it is thus possible for the Smart Farm Fabric implementation 151 to not only create and maintain network-wide data models, but also to apply analytics and algorithms against those data models in order to iteratively and continuously optimize and improve the interactions and efficiency of an entire network of companies and their related interactions”]
inputting, by the processing server, the metrics of the one or more parcels of land into the trained machine learning algorithm and/or a neural network; [The limitations recite inputting data. The machine learning model in claims 3-5, 13-15, and 22 are identically claimed models, and they simply use different data to output different results. However, the process itself remains the same (i.e. training an algorithm by using known data, then inputting data to output results); see at least: (Para 0055) “Soil Health Data Fabric 102 receives inputs including localized inherent soil and climate data such as soil sample baselines 105, and farmer-produced data 107. According to certain embodiments, this data is collected and aggregated by an artificial intelligence or machine learning platform. The tool will then output estimated values for each soil health indicator 401”]
receiving, by the processing server, an output from the trained machine learning algorithm and/or a neural network, the output including an amount of one or more greenhouse gases being taken out of the atmosphere by the one or more parcels of land; and [The limitations recite receiving an output from an algorithm. The machine learning model in claims 3-5, 13-15, and 22 are identically claimed models, and they simply use different data to output different results. However, the process itself remains the same (i.e. training an algorithm by using known data, then inputting data to output results); see at least: (Para 0196 ) “to output a plurality of soil quality estimate data models based on the data measurements, in which the plurality of local soil quality estimate data models are based on pre-determined soil quality indicators”, (Para 0118) “The first NRCS soil quality indicator 401 is soil organic carbon 404 which may be outputted 404 using standard operating procedure.”]
generating, by the processing server, a report of the one or more parcels of land, the report including the amount of one or more greenhouse gases being taken out of the atmosphere by the one or more parcels of land. [see at least Taylor: (Para 0142) “Further provided are various automation, reporting, and analytics capabilities provided across functions, devices, sensors, and systems”, (Para 0196) “to output a plurality of soil quality estimate data models based on the data measurements”]
Regarding Claims 6 and 16, Taylor further teaches:
wherein the valuation of the contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights associated with each of the one or more parcels of land is one of a monetary value of the contractual rights for each of the one or more parcels of land, or an estimated total of greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits likely to be developed for each of the one or more parcels of land. [see at least Taylor: (Para 0032) “For accurate soil quality assessment, soil health indicators need to be measured to reach the goals of improving soil health and provide accurate determinations of carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions for generating carbon credits for farmers”]
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Taylor further teaches:
further comprising: recording, on a blockchain associated with the processing server, the metrics of the one or more parcels of land with the contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits. [see at least Taylor: (Para0024) “compiling data measurements from disparate soil health data sources at a plurality of training data sites into a blockchain repository”]
Regarding Claim 23, Taylor further teaches:
wherein the environmental outcome is a contractually agreed upon environmental outcome of the one or more parcels of land. [The claim recites intended use or intended results that do not carry patentable weight, (i.e. the output of the machine model (environmental outcome) being contractually agreed upon recites intended use or intended results). For example, if the machine model determines the environmental outcome is reduction of 1 ton of carbon, contractual agreement on the validity of the model determination recites intended results.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 20220124963 A1) in view of Sachinkumar (NPL: Blockchain and Smart Contract based Decentralized Energy Trading Platform)
Regarding claims 8 and 18, (substantially similar in scope and language) Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Taylor teaches the verification of development of rights credits for land, but it does not explicitly teach a marketplace where users register to access data for trading.
However, Sachinkumar teaches:
further comprising: registering, on the processing server, a plurality of market participants, the plurality of market participants participating in one or more of a sale, a purchase, or a third-party activity in a development of greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits of the one or more parcels of land with the contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits being hosted by the processing server; and [see at least Sachinkumar: (Page 3, Column 1) “New members can join the network as a prosumer or consumer by registering for a blockchain account”, (Page 4, Column 1) “Registered users can use the “Sell” and “Purchase” buttons shown in Fig. 5 to add a request for selling and purchasing power, respectively.”]
granting, by the processing server, one or more of the plurality of market participants access to data on a portal for the sale, the purchase, or the third-party activity in the development of the greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits for the one or more parcels of land with the contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits. [see at least Sachinkumar: (Figure 5), (Page 4, Column 1) “Registered users can use the “Sell” and “Purchase” buttons shown in Fig. 5 to add a request for selling and purchasing power, respectively.”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of verifying environmental credits (Taylor) with a market place facilitating trade (Sachinkumar). The invention is merely a combination of old elements, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized allowing users to trading the verified environmental rights credits in a marketplace would yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Taylor teaches the verification of development of rights credits for land, but it does not explicitly teach a marketplace GUI.
However, Sachinkumar teaches:
further comprises: presenting, by the processing server, the listing of the one or more parcels of land with contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits via graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI enabling one or more market participants to participate in one or more of a sale, a purchase, or a third-party activity in a development of the greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits of the one or more parcels of land with the contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits being hosted by the processing server. [see at least Sachinkumar: (Figure 5), (Page 4, Column 1-2) “Fig. 5 shows a screenshot of the front end user interface from the web browser…”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of verifying environmental credits (Taylor) with a GUI to access a market place for facilitating trade (Sachinkumar). The invention is merely a combination of old elements, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized including a GUI would allow users to access trading of the verified environmental rights credits, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Taylor teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Taylor teaches the verification of development of rights credits for land, but it does not explicitly teach executing transactions via smart contract.
However, Sachinkumar teaches:
wherein the hosting a listing of the one or more parcels of land with contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits includes: receiving, by the processing server, a request to list a parcel of land of the one or more parcels of land with contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits; [see at least Sachinkumar: (Page 3, Column 1) “The community members willing to trade surplus power initiate a selling request by executing the power selling function of the contract. They need to provide the source, amount, and price of power wanted to sell along with the timeframe of power delivery. All the requests are stored on the blockchain and can be accessed using the smart contract.”]
and the computer-implemented method further comprises: in response to the verifying that the parcel of land of the one or more parcels of land complies with the one or more conditions for development and potential entitlement to greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits based on at least the received metrics, executing, by the processing server using a smart contract, a transfer of the contractual rights to develop greenhouse gases and environmental rights credits for the parcel of land of the one or more parcels of land from a seller to an intermediary entity. [see at least Sachinkumar: (Figure 4), (Page 2, Column 2) “The participants can verify and agree upon a valid state of the distributed ledger. Proof of work [11], proof of stake [16], proof of authority, and practical byzantine fault tolerance [17] are the examples of consensus algorithms”, (Page 3, Column 1-2) “Decentralized energy trading, as shown in Fig. 4, starts with the deployment of smart contract and ends with the money settlement. However, there are multiple steps involved in-between which are explained in this subsection… All the requests are stored on the blockchain and can be accessed using the smart contract…”]
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of verifying environmental credits (Taylor) with executing trades via smart contract (Sachinkumar). One of ordinary skill would have recognized the benefits of executing the trade of environmental credits using smart contracts for more secure and verifiable transactions. The invention is merely a combination of old elements yielding predictable results.
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 Examiner Benjamin Truong, whose telephone number is 703-756-5883. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nathan Uber SPE can be reached on 571-270-3923. 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.
/B.L.T. /Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights