DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the RCE, Remarks, and Amendments filed 12/29/2025.
Claims 1, 12, 18 have been amended.
Claims 4, 6, and 15 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16-20 have been examined and are pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025, has been entered.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
Independent claims 1, 12, 18 recite in part the following: “…emissions of the environmentally harmful gases …”. However, this limitation lacks proper antecedent basis. The term “the” is a definite article. As such, this term must refer to a definite previous recitation of the noun which it modifies. However, no previous recitation of “environmentally harmful gases” has been provided. It is not clear what gases are being referenced. Examiner notes that the claims have previously referenced “emissions of greenhouse gases” e.g. CO2, etc…. However, it is not clear that these aforementioned gases, e.g. CO2, are the now referenced “environmentally harmful gases”. For example, most trees and vegetation require CO2 to live and therefore, CO2 is not harmful to this aspect of our environment. At least, this feature lacks proper antecedent basis for the claimed step. Because this limitation lacks an antecedent basis, the claim limitation is indefinite.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7-11, 13-14, 16-17, 19-20 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or (for pre-AIA ) 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, a joint inventor, or (for pre-AIA ) the applicant regards as the invention.
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 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed towards a process, machine, or manufacture.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Per Independent claims 1, 12, 18:
computing an environmental account balance for an organization the environmental account balance defined as a difference between offset credits and environmental deficits,
embed the environmental account balance into a digital certificate in compliance with X.509 certificate standards.
Collaborate with one or more environment monitoring systems… including… embedding policy compliance status as a digitally signed attribute in the certificate extension for verifiable enforcement.
…wherein, during X.509 certification path validation by a relying party, the extension field is processed to determine compliance with one or more emissions policies and the digital certificate is rejected when the extension field indicates non-compliance such that authentication of the organization using the digital certificate fails, […] including updating or revoking the digital certificate based on non-compliance, including publishing revocation information via an X.509 certification revocation list (CRL) for network-based status checking by relying parties, or embedding policy compliance status as a digitally signed attribute in the certificate extension for verifiable enforcement.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within the group Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, these steps, as drafted, are a business decision to record [embed] account information [a calculated environmental account balance] in a digital ledger according to accepted business practices [i.e. into a digital certificate in compliance with X.509 certificate standards including policy compliance status as a digitally signed attribute in the certificate extension] thus falling into Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The feature regarding: “…wherein, during X.509 certification path validation by a relying party, the extension field is processed to determine compliance with one or more emissions policies and the digital certificate is rejected when the extension field indicates non-compliance such that authentication of the organization using the digital certificate fails, […] including updating or revoking the digital certificate based on non-compliance, including publishing revocation information via an X.509 certification revocation list (CRL) for network-based status checking by relying parties, or embedding policy compliance status as a digitally signed attribute in the certificate extension for verifiable enforcement” is likewise nothing more than a business decision and it is not technical in nature. For example, it is a business decision whether to include and/or check for compliance information within a record such as an “extension” of a known X.509 certificate. Populating and checking for data in an extension field is not technical in nature and is not inventive nor applicant’s invention.
There is no technical solution here and no technical problem being solved. Applicant’s invention is not a digital certificate nor the X.509 standard but instead these are business policies and standards for accounting within a digital framework. Furthermore, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components (e.g. a processing device and memory, etc…) used to apply the abstract idea within a digital framework does not take the claim limitation out of the enumerated grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts and link them to a field of use (i.e. in this accounting and maintaining a ledger) or serve as insignificant extra-solution activity. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
The additional elements also do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. they amount to nothing more than descriptions of data being stored for the purpose of accounting. The additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally describe the data which is being stored (however descriptions of data are not significantly more than the abstract idea) or the additional elements merely describe generic computer components needed to gather and transmit and store said described data (where such data-gathering and transmittal is insignificant pre-solution or insignificant extra-solution activity to the already identified abstract idea) or the additional elements describe aspects of the known X.509 certificate standard which is not applicant’s invention and therefore cannot serve to confer eligibility nor integrate the abstract idea into a practical application thereof.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claims were considered as merely serving to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts via generically described computer components or “link” them to a field of use (i.e. accounting), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. data-gathering, storage according to known standards, or data transmittal, etc…). For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component and conventional data gathering cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. a server) and/or gather and transmit data which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claims 3 and 14 recite the following: “…add an identifier in the digital certificate that includes or references a cryptographic value stored in one or more decentralized digital ledgers verifying the environmental account balance.” However, this feature at this high-level of generality appears to be nothing more than storing information normally necessary to identify the ledger (e.g. a hashed identifier) where original information has been stored. This is either part of the abstract idea or insignificant extra-solution activity when stated at this high-level of generality but nothing more and certainly not significantly more than the already recited abstract idea. No new technology is described nor claimed here especially at this very high-level of generality.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Giroti et al. (U.S. 2023/0394507 A1; hereinafter, "Giroti") in view of Non-Patent-Literature of X.509 Certificate Creation Public Info (hereinafter, “X.509”) and Pala (U.S. 2022/0353061 A1; hereinafter, "Pala")
Claims 1, 12, 18 (Currently amended)
Pertaining to claims 1, 12, 18 exemplified in the limitations of claim 1, Giroti as shown teaches the following:
A certification system comprising: a processing device; and memory configured to store computer logic having instructions that enable the processing device to perform steps of[:]
computing an environmental account balance for an organization, the environmental account balance defined as a difference between offset credits and environmental deficits, the offset credits representing countermeasures verified by one or more environmental monitoring system to offset emissions of greenhouse gases selected from the group consisting of carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), chloroflurocarbons, hydrocarbons, and perfluorocarbons, and the environmental deficits representing emissions of the greenhouse gases for which the organization is liable, measured in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) units (Giroti, see at least [0029]-[0030] and [0049], teaching, e.g.: “…the method further comprises calculating [computing] a total value of carbon footprint [an environmental account balance] based on the purchased product [offset credits] and services for the user and maintaining a record of the total carbon footprint value consumed [environmental deficits] by the user at a server…”; And note per at least [0003]: “…Greenhouse gases may include water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and other fluorinated gases. The main sources of greenhouse gas emissions are fossil fuels…”; and note at least [0006]-[0007], teaching, e.g.: “…Individuals and organizations interested in reducing their carbon and GHG emissions [environmental deficits] have a choice of buying different types of emission reduction instruments such as carbon credits, carbon offsets [offset credits], emission reduction credits (ERCs), mobile emission reduction credits (MERC), international renewable energy credits (I-RECs or RECs), solar renewable energy credits (SRECs) and energy attribute certificates (EACs) [amongst] others...”; Giroti’s “instruments”, e.g. his “purchased product(s)” also represent countermeasures verified by one or more environmental monitoring system to offset emissions of greenhouse gases), and
embedding the environmental account balance into a digital certificate (Giroti, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0029]-[0030], e.g.: “…the processing unit is configured to generate a digital certificate [creating a digital certificate] based on the confirmed order, wherein the digital certificate comprises [embeds] the carbon credit value associated with the purchased at least one carbon offset/credit product…” and per [0100], noting: “…A track [embedded record] of total carbon footprint [an environmental account balance] or carbon consumption [environmental deficits] may be maintained by the blockchain server in the blockchain ledger 203…”;
In view of these teachings, the Examiner finds there is motivation to record [embed] Giroti’s “total carbon footprint” [an environmental account balance] into his “generated digital certificate” [created digital certificate] which he teaches is “based on the confirmed order, wherein the digital certificate comprises [embeds] the carbon credit value associated with the purchased at least one carbon offset/credit product…” to enable or facilitate his teaching at [0100]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have recorded [embedded] Giroti’s “total carbon footprint” [an environmental account balance] into his “generated digital certificate” [created digital certificate] because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.)
[…]
collaborate with one or more environment monitoring systems for receiving authenticated emissions data and monitoring and/or enforcing policies regarding emissions of the environmentally harmful gases (Giroti, see citations noted supra, e.g. per at least [0044]: “…businesses can choose to publish [collaborate with one or more environment monitoring systems] their EcoStance page to report their goals, targets and pathways to becoming NetZero. Each snapshot of the EcoStance page is registered in the CAP blockchain to ensure that the content has provenance, and the data is untampered [for verifiable enforcement]. The pathways and progress can be securely registered and shared with third party organizations such as Science Based Target Initiatives (SBTi)...” and “…the dynamic HTML sustainability page or the EcoStance page can be formatted with a few options to support regional or global disclosure standards such as International Accounting Standards Board, SEC for Climate disclosures, GHG Protocol focus on Scope 1 and 2, Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), Science Based Targets Initiatives (SBTi), REJ00, ISSB/IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards (SDS) and others…”; applicant’s original disclosure fails to define any particular manner of “enabling” collaboration and therefore any mechanism which may aid this intended use meets applicant’s limitation.),
Although Giroti teaches the above limitations and Giroti, as shown per the citations noted supra, teaches certificate creation which embeds “total carbon footprint” [an environmental account balance], he may not explicitly teach his certificates follow the well-known X509 standard. However, Giroti in view of NPL X.509, teaches the following:
[digital certificate] in compliance with X.509 certificate standards, the environmental account balance being encoded as an extension field of the certificate and cryptographically bound to a public key of the organization, the digital certificate digitally signed by a trusted certification authority to enable verifiable proof of the environmental account balance (
PNG
media_image1.png
841
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
etc…
Examiner notes, all of the teachings of this X.509 standard are in compliance with itself [i.e. compliance with X.509 certificate standards…] including the claimed encoding of data as an extension field of the certificate and cryptographically bound to a public key of the organization, the digital certificate digitally signed by a trusted certification authority to enable verifiable proof of such data (e.g. Groti’s the environmental).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of NPL X.509 Certificate creation (directed towards well-known publicly available and published policies regarding standardized creation of digital certificates embedding various data) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Giroti (already directed towards device/method of creation of digital certificates which store [embed] specific data such as Giroti’s “total carbon footprint” [an environmental account balance]) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of NPL X.509 Certificate creation to the device/method of Giroti in order to implement the limitation in question, e.g. with motivation to standardize Giroti’s certificates which are intended to be publicly traded, because NPL x.509 is applicable to the objective of Giroti and is a mechanism by which to instill public confidence in the authenticity of Giroti’s “digital certificates” which store [embed] Giroti’s “total carbon footprint” [an environmental account balance], and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Furthermore, although Giroti/X.509 teaches the above limitations, including digital certificates which convey information regarding emissions “carbon traceability with carbon chain of custody certificate (C3 Certificate) and a guarantee of authenticity certificate (CGAC) that proves the authenticity of the SC and C3 Certificate” as well as, e.g. per [0060]: “status [of] sustainability pathways and goals”, they may not explicitly teach processing of an extension field of such certificates to determine compliance with Girot’s noted various emissions policies, etc… as recited below. However, regarding these features, Giroti/X.509 in view of Pala (directed towards a new set of extension definitions for X.509 certificates including a new "ValidationControl" extension) teaches the following:
Wherein, during X.509 certification path validation by a relying party, the extension field is processed to determine compliance with one or more emissions policies and the digital certificate is rejected when the extension field indicates non-compliance such that authentication of the organization using the digital certificate fails, […] including automatically updating or revoking the digital certificate based on non-compliance, including publishing revocation information via an X.509 certification revocation list (CRL) for network-based status checking by relying parties, or embedding policy compliance status as a digitally signed attribute in the certificate extension for verifiable enforcement (Pala, see at least Figs. 1-3, and at least [0003], [0025]-[0026], and [0075]-[0083] regarding x.509 certificates extensions, disclosing: “…a new extension is defined, the (“ValidationControl”) extension, that provides an optional identifier for the specific certificate profile or policy followed by a sequence of tuples that specify what values are expected for different fields of the certificate….”; where an “…identified revocation mechanism for key configurations can be extended to other fields in the certificates. By identifying the specific field and value (if any) that is deprecated, all certificates that satisfy that requirement [may be revoked] without having to specify individual serial numbers. For example, validity period can be considered, such as …do not trust any certificate issued before 2010. In another example, extensions value can be used to not trust any certificate that carries the policy extension with a value of 1.2.3.4.5.6.7. etc… Specifically, the mechanism described above allows to identify specific key configurations, to identify certificates by other characteristics like …the validity period (e.g., “do not trust any certificate issued from X to Y” or “do not trust certificates issued before Z”), … a specific value of the subject (or a sub-field of the subject like an OU value) (e.g., “do not trust any certificate with O=Evil Org One”), the presence of a specific extension (e.g., “do not trust any certificate that carried the ‘R’ extension”) or, again, a specific value of an extension (e.g., “do not trust any certificate that carries the ‘W’ extension with value ‘K’”—“do not trust any certificate that carry the ‘policy’ extension with value ‘1.3.4.5.6.7.8.9’)….”; see also at least [0137], re: “…determine if the first cryptographic algorithm is valid based on at least one of an Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) and a Certificate Revocation List (CRL)…”)
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitations in question are merely applying known techniques of Pala (directed towards specific new X.509 extensions used for validation control to revoke certificates which do not comply with specified policies including also publishing and checking revocation information via an X.509 certification revocation list (CRL)) which are applicable to a known base device/method of Giroti (already directed towards use of digital certificates to convey emissions credits and status regarding emissions policies such as “status [of] sustainability pathways and goals”) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of Pala to the device/method of Giroti in order to implement the limitations in question because Giroti and Pala are analogous art in the same field of endeavor (at least H04L 9/3268 - using certificate validation, registration, distribution or revocation, e.g. certificate revocation list [CRL]) and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claims 2, 13 (previously presented)
Giroti/X.509/Pala teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Giroti teaches the following:
…wherein the information pertaining to the environmental account balance includes a carbon offset surplus configured as a digital asset recorded in a decentralized ledger having market or trade value (Giroti, see citations noted supra, including again at least [0029]-[0030] e.g.: “…Each of the plurality of carbon offset/credit products being stored along with a respective metadata in a blockchain ledger [decentralized ledger], and each metadata being encrypted using at least one hash function and mapped to the corresponding carbon offset product…”; in view of [0101] e.g.: “…the environment 100 allows carbon offsets to be traded in the voluntary markets, based upon supply chain traceability, and elimination of double counting. In one embodiment, the environment 100 allows RECs and SRECs to be on boarded, generated, verified, and then traded with chain of custody, traceability, and elimination of double counting. In one embodiment, the environment 100 allows ERCs and MERCs to be on boarded, generated, verified, and then traded with chain of custody, traceability, and elimination of double counting…”).
Claims 3, 14 (previously presented)
Giroti/X.509/Pala teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Giroti teaches the following:
…wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to add an identifier in the digital certificate that includes or references a cryptographic value stored in one or more decentralized digital ledgers verifying the environmental account balance (Giroti, see citations noted supra, e.g. again per [0029]-[0030]: “…To confirm the order, the processing unit is configured to generate a unique identifier tag based on the user credentials and hash algorithm, encrypt the unique identifier tag [cryptographic value] using the at least one hash function to generate a blockchain block, and update the blockchain ledger by adding the blockchain block to the selected at least one carbon offset/credit product…”).
Claims 5, 16 (previously presented)
Giroti/X.509/Pala teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Giroti teaches the following:
…wherein the environmental deficits are defined by a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) metric based on standardized greenhouse gas conversion factors (Giroti, see citations noted supra, e.g. again at least [0007]: “…The unit of measurement for a carbon offset and a carbon credit is metric or kilo tons of carbon or equivalent (MtCo2e or KtCo2e)….”).
Claim 7 (previously presented)
Giroti/X.509/Pala teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Giroti teaches the following:
The certification system of claim 1, wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to perform a step of issuing the digital certificate to an admin device associated with the organization after authentication of the admin device (Giroti, see at least citations noted supra, including [0137] teaching user device [admin device] has an “authentication unit 511” and therefore there is motivation to authenticate the user device, e.g. as a proxy for authenticating the user. Also, not Giroti at [0143]-[0158] in view of at least [0040]-[0041], teaching e.g.: “…the method comprises transmitting the generated digital certificate to the user after the transaction associated with the purchase of the selected at least one carbon offset product is completed…”; and per [0143]: “…the processing unit 503 may authenticate the purchase by comparing the user identifier and the password with the plurality of users' details present in the database and processing the order of purchase if the user identifier and the password match with at least one user of the plurality of users…” Therefore, in view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed Giroti’s issuance of his digital certificate to the user device [admin device] after authenticating this device, e.g. as a proxy for user authentication because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649).
Claims 8, 19: (previously presented)
Giroti/X.509/Pala teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Giroti teaches the following:
…wherein the digital certificate is accompanied by one or more seals, emblems, tokens, badges, crests, symbols, insignia, icons, or QR codes allowing the organization to showcase third-party verification of their commitment to environmental responsibility and green initiatives configured to allow third-party verification of the environmental account balance or carbon offset credits (Giroti, see citations noted supra, e.g. [0044], organizations can share their EcoStance page report and goals with third parties. And per at least [0094], the certificate is stored in a public ledger [token, seals, etc…] allowing third-party verification: “…A blockchain may be used as a distributed public ledger to store information such as digital assets and the like. A blockchain is typically distributed across multiple points of entry (i.e., nodes or peers) and is a consensus of replicated, shared, and synchronized transactions. Cryptography, via hash codes, is used with a blockchain to secure an authentication of a transaction source and removes the need for a central intermediary…”).
Claims 9, 20 (previously presented)
Giroti/X.509/Pala teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown, Giroti teaches the following:
… [claim 9] wherein the digital certificate is further configured for authenticating identity and/or security of the organization (Giroti, see citations noted supra including at least [0111]: “…The instrument's lifecycle is made available in real time with emission traceability certificate to guarantee lifecycle transparency. For additional security, any third party can procure a copy of the node to verify the data and transaction authenticity…”), and [claims 9, 20] wherein the instructions further enable the processing device to embed the information pertaining to the environmental account balance into the digital certificate thereby extending a utility of the digital certificate for both identity and environmental verification (Giroti, see citations noted supra, and also at least [0058], e.g.: “…The user is instantly provided a Sustainability certificate (SC) that includes an embedded Carbon Chain of Custody Certificate (C3 Certificate), along with a Carbon Guarantee of Authenticity Certificate (CGAC), and a new or updated EcoStance or Sustainability Page or report or dashboard that is accessible as a dynamic HTML page…”).
Claim 10 (previously presented)
Giroti/X.509/Pala teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Giroti teaches the following:
The certification system of claim 1, wherein the digital certificate is a carbon offset credit certificate issued in accordance with public key infrastructure policies (Giroti, see citations noted supra, including at least [0097] in view of at least [0106] and [0207] including claims 1-3, e.g.: “…the product and services may be sold as a carbon offset and each product and services may have an associated carbon credit value. The carbon offsets are sold to individuals and organizations over the blockchain network 103 for mitigating the impact of their own carbon footprint…” and “…Emission Sustainability Certificate (SC) that includes/Carbon Chain of Custody Certificate (C3 Certificate): A provenance and chain of custody certificate can be created on demand from the ledger that provides the chain of custody for the credit or offset lifecycle. The Emission Chain of Custody Certificate provides traceability from birth-to-disposition of each instrument purchased by the buyer…” and “…The system of claim 1, wherein the user credentials
comprise a user identifier, a password, bank account details for executing a transaction and for API transaction, additional credentials comprise of a public private keys [public key infrastructure policies]…”).
Claim 11 (Previously presented)
Although Giroti/X.509/Pala teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends and Giroti, as shown per the citations noted supra, teaches certificate creation, he may not explicitly teach his certificates follow the well-known X509 standard. However, Giroti in view of NPL of X.509 Certificate Creation Public Info, teaches the following:
The certification system of claim 1, wherein the digital certificate is created in accordance with X.509 policies including an extension field for environmental account balance data (X.509, see citations already noted supra. Examiner again notes, all of the teachings of this X.509 standard are in compliance with itself [i.e. compliance with X.509 certificate standards…] including extension field for data; e.g. Groti’s data).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of NPL X.509 Certificate creation (directed towards well-known publicly available and published policies regarding standardized creation of digital certificates embedding various data) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Giroti (already directed towards device/method of creation of digital certificates which store [embed] specific data such as Giroti’s “total carbon footprint” [an environmental account balance]) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of NPL X.509 Certificate creation to the device/method of Giroti in order to implement the limitation in question, e.g. with motivation to standardize Giroti’s certificates which are intended to be publicly traded, because NPL x.509 is applicable to the objective of Giroti and is a mechanism by which to instill public confidence in the authenticity of Giroti’s “digital certificates” which store [embed] Giroti’s “total carbon footprint” [an environmental account balance], and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Claim 17 (previously presented)
Giroti/X.509/Pala teaches the limitations upon which this claim depends. Furthermore, as shown, Giroti teaches the following:
The method of claim 12, further comprising a step of issuing the digital
certificate to an admin device associated with the organization (Giroti, see at least citations noted supra, including [0143]-[0158] in view of at least [0040]-[0041], e.g.: “…the method comprises transmitting the generated digital certificate to the user after the transaction associated with the purchase of the selected at least one carbon offset product is completed…”; and per [0143]: “…the processing unit 503 may authenticate the purchase by comparing the user identifier and the password with the plurality of users' details present in the database and processing the order of purchase if the user identifier and the password match with at least one user of the plurality of users…”)
Although Giroti teaches the above limitations and Giroti, as shown per the citations noted supra, teaches certificate creation, he may not explicitly teach his certificates follow the well-known X509 standard. However, Giroti in view of NPL of X.509 Certificate Creation Public Info, teaches the following:
wherein the digital certificate is a carbon offset credit certificate created in accordance with X.509 policies including an extension field for environmental account balance data (X.509, see citations already noted supra. Examiner again notes, all of the teachings of this X.509 standard are in compliance with itself [i.e. compliance with X.509 certificate standards…] including extension field for data; e.g. Groti’s data).
Therefore, the Examiner understands that the limitation in question is merely applying a known technique of NPL X.509 Certificate creation (directed towards well-known publicly available and published policies regarding standardized creation of digital certificates embedding various data) which is applicable to a known base device/method of Giroti (already directed towards device/method of creation of digital certificates which store [embed] specific data such as Giroti’s “total carbon footprint” [an environmental account balance]) to yield predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the techniques of NPL X.509 Certificate creation to the device/method of Giroti in order to implement the limitation in question, e.g. with motivation to standardize Giroti’s certificates which are intended to be publicly traded, because NPL x.509 is applicable to the objective of Giroti and is a mechanism by which to instill public confidence in the authenticity of Giroti’s “digital certificates” which store [embed] Giroti’s “total carbon footprint” [an environmental account balance], and because according to MPEP 2143(I) (C) and/or (D), the use of known technique to improve a known device, methods, or products in the same way (or which is ready for improvement) is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant canceled claims 4, 6, and 15 and amended claim 1, 12, 18 on 12/29/2025. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 12/29/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 35 USC 112(b), 101 and 103 rejections with updated citations to Groti in view of NPL X.509 and also Pala.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621