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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-7 and 11-19 in the reply filed on September 30, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
MPEP 2106 Step 1:
Claims 1 and 11 are directed to a "system," but the bodies of the claims (including the dependent claims) only recite elements for which the broadest reasonable interpretation reads on software-only embodiments ("platforms," "hub," "digital twins," "data stores," "data warehouse," "modules," "engines," "elements," "portals"). The claimed "systems" are not embodied or executed on any physical hardware (e.g., memory, processor, etc.). Functional descriptive material such as a computer program must be structurally and functionally interrelated with a medium to allow its intended uses to be realized. Accordingly, claims directed to software per se are not within any of the four statutory categories and are not patentable subject matter. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP § 2106.03 for further guidance and discussion on computer-related nonstatutory subject matter.
Claims 1-7 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-7 and 11-19, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims recite an abstract idea reflected in the representative functions of the independent claims—including with respect to most comprehensive claim 1:
enable and connect digital measurement, reporting, and verification (dMRV) and emissions credit securitization to produce high-integrity environmental emissions mitigation credits;
monitor at least one physical asset for emissions mitigation verification;
simulate at least one emissions mitigation project;
store raw data from at least one source; and
convert the raw data into a logical schema having at least a portion of operating performance data;
detect at least one anomaly;
determine a confidence level of the operating performance data and producing a surety rating;
append a ledger table with georedundancy and automated digest management; and
trigger an automated process;
produce a non-fungible token.
These limitations taken together qualify as a certain method of organizing human activities because they recite collecting, storing, analyzing, and outputting information for creating secured tradable assets in the form of emissions mitigation credits and NFTs, as well as data analysis for verifying the activities that support their creation (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic practices (including mitigating risk); commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception ("data platform," "data hub," "digital twins," "data stores," "data warehouse," as well as "modules," "engines," and "elements" only characterized by their abstract functions and all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, "engines," etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it."
Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements ("data platform," "data hub," "digital twins," "data stores," "data warehouse," as well as "modules," "engines," and "elements" only characterized by their abstract functions and all recited at a high level of generality —see published Specification ¶¶ 0059, 113-125, 135 describing these without any appreciable technical detail and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these basic computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely narrow the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims. The additional elements added by the dependent claims only consist of more generic "portals," "engines," and "elements," which do not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for the same reasons as in the independent claims.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (i.e., more generic "portals," "engines," and "elements"), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (i.e., they are generic computer elements only characterized by their abstract functionality). Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known components for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see ¶¶ 0109, 116-117, 123, 131-132 describing these at a high level of generality and without significant technical detail). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 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.
Claims 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooner, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0027096 (Reference A of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 11, Cooner teaches a system, comprising:
a digital measurement, reporting, and verification (dMRV) and emissions credit securitization data platform having a connect module comprising ("loT-based energy management systems (EMS) ... fully conform to ... ISO 14064-3 and ISO 14065 in order to be able to act as a carbon credit validator and verifier", ¶¶ [1497-1498]; see also ¶ 0572—systems implemented on a computer system, also for all limitations below):
a data hub to monitor at least one physical asset for emissions mitigation verification ("Electrical flow and/or water use, once measured, can be stored
locally and then transmitted to an loT Platform either through wired and/or wireless network connection", ¶ [1498]);
digital twins ("Digital Twins may also be implemented to produce updates on the status and health of an asset, based upon sensor readings integrated with a computational model of the asset", ¶ [0101]);
a raw data store to store raw data from at least one source ("Electrical flow and/or water use, once measured, can be stored locally and then transmitted to an loT Platform either through wired and/or wireless network connection", ¶ [1498]); and
wherein the data platform having a certification module ("ISO 14064-3 ... certification", ¶ [0375]) comprising:
a cognitive data warehouse to convert the raw data into a logical schema ("loT based energy management systems (EMS) ... fully conform to ... ISO 14064-3 and ISO 14065 in order to be able to act as a carbon credit validator and verifier", ¶ [1497]);
a risk engine to detect at least one anomaly ("Projects deemed to be out of compliance with regulatory requirements are not eligible to earn ERTs during the period of non-compliance", ¶ [1162]);
an immutable datastore to append a ledger table with georedundancy ("For the loT Platform storage, a Blockchain storage mechanism (discussed in detail later in this document) can be implemented on one cloud implementation, or implemented across two or more cloud networks in real-time so that each cloud installation mirrors the other cloud installation(s) in real-time", ¶ [1508]; see also ¶ 1510); and
a verification analytics engine to trigger an automated process ("The entire mechanism including the monetization of the carbon credits through pre-market, voluntary, regulated/regional markets, and/or cap-and-trade markets, recording of the entire transaction, and payment to individual parties involved can be fully automated, or just parts may be automated for specific purposes", ¶ [1499]);
wherein the data platform having an exchange module comprising: an exchange connectivity element ("once the carbon credits are generated, validated, verified, and monetized on a trading market or through pre-market contracts, the parties involved can be compensated in a number of overall structures", ¶ [1499]); and
a digital asset minting element ("The ACR unit of exchange is a verified emissions reduction (VER), serialized and registered as an Emission Reduction Ton (ERT), denominated in metric tonnes of CO2e", ¶ [1095]).
As per claim 13, Cooner teaches claim 11 as above. Cooner further teaches the immutable datastore to append a ledger table with automated digest management (¶¶ 1510, 1552-1553).
As per claim 14, Cooner teaches claim 11 as above. Cooner further teaches the logical schema having at least a portion of operating performance data (¶¶ 0403, 1160).
As per claim 15, Cooner teaches claim 11 as above. Cooner further teaches a project validation engine (¶¶ 1030-1031, 1503).
As per claim 16, Cooner teaches claim 11 as above. Cooner further teaches a policy and methods portal (¶¶ 0572, 1100).
As per claim 17, Cooner teaches claim 11 as above. Cooner further teaches an enterprise resource planning (ERP) data interchange element (¶¶ 0128-129).
As per claim 18, Cooner teaches claim 11 as above. Cooner further teaches a third-party financial systems data interchange element (¶¶ 0566, 1227, 1571).
As per claim 19, Cooner teaches claim 11 as above. Cooner further teaches a third-party reporting element (¶¶ 1173-1174).
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooner in view of Asgari, A green performance bond framework for managing greenhouse gas emissions during construction: proof of concept using agent-based modeling, 2020 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC), IEEE, 2020 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 12, Cooner teaches claim 11 as above. Cooner further teaches a rating engine to determine a confidence level from operating performance data (¶¶ 1118, 1251). Cooner does not explicitly teach to produce a surety rating; which is taught by Asgari (§ 3). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Asgari—namely, so that the owner is protected against any environmental damage costs due to the contractor’s failure to meet the promised level of emissions. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of monitoring emissions projects. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooner in view of Asgari and Slack, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0139137 (Reference B of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Cooner teaches a system, comprising:
a data platform configured to enable and connect digital measurement, reporting, and verification (dMRV) and emissions credit securitization to produce high-integrity environmental emssions mitigations credits; wherein the data platform having a connect module comprising ("loT-based energy management systems (EMS) ... fully conform to ... ISO 14064-3 and ISO 14065 in order to be able to act as a carbon credit validator and verifier", ¶¶ [1497-1498]; see also ¶ 0572—systems implemented on a computer system, also for all limitations below):
a data hub, the data hub is configured to monitor at least one physical asset for emissions mitigation verification ("Electrical flow and/or water use, once measured, can be stored locally and then transmitted to an loT Platform either through wired and/or wireless network connection", ¶ [1498]);
digital twins, the digital twins are configured to simulate at least one emissions mitigation project ("Network simulators like OPNET, NetSim and NS2 can be used to simulate IoT networks. Digital Twins may also be implemented to produce updates on the status and health of an asset, based upon sensor readings integrated with a computational model of the asset", ¶ [0101]);
a raw data store, the raw data store is configured to store raw data from at least one source ("Electrical flow and/or water use, once measured, can be stored locally and then transmitted to an loT Platform either through wired and/or wireless network connection", ¶ [1498]); and
wherein the data platform having a certification module ("ISO 14064-3 ... certification", ¶ [0375]) comprising:
a cognitive data warehouse configured to convert the raw data into a logical schema having at least a portion of operating performance data ("loT based energy management systems (EMS) ... fully conform to ... ISO 14064-3 and ISO 14065 in order to be able to act as a carbon credit validator and verifier", ¶ [1497]; ¶¶ 0403, 1160);
a risk engine configured to detect at least one anomaly ("Projects deemed to be out of compliance with regulatory requirements are not eligible to earn ERTs during the period of non-compliance", ¶ [1162]);
a rating engine, the rating engine configured to determine a confidence level from operating performance data (¶¶ 1118, 1251);
an immutable datastore, the immutable data store is configured to append a ledger table with georedundancy and automated digest management ("For the loT Platform storage, a Blockchain storage mechanism (discussed in detail later in this document) can be implemented on one cloud implementation, or implemented across two or more cloud networks in real-time so that each cloud installation mirrors the other cloud installation(s) in real-time", ¶ [1508]; see also ¶¶ 1510, 1552-1553); and
a verification analytics engine, the verification analytics engine is configured to trigger an automated process ("The entire mechanism including the monetization of the carbon credits through pre-market, voluntary, regulated/regional markets, and/or cap-and-trade markets, recording of the entire transaction, and payment to individual parties involved can be fully automated, or just parts may be automated for specific purposes", ¶ [1499]);
wherein the data platform having an exchange module comprising: an exchange connectivity element ("once the carbon credits are generated, validated, verified, and monetized on a trading market or through pre-market contracts, the parties involved can be compensated in a number of overall structures", ¶ [1499]); and
a digital asset minting element ("The ACR unit of exchange is a verified emissions reduction (VER), serialized and registered as an Emission Reduction Ton (ERT), denominated in metric tonnes of CO2e", ¶ [1095]).
Cooner does not explicitly teach to producing a surety rating; which is taught by Asgari (§ 3) and would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 12 above. Cooner does not explicitly teach the digital asset minting element is configured to produce a non-fungible token; which is taught by Slack (¶¶ 0041-42). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Slack—namely, to facilitate trading of unique carbon credits. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of monitoring emissions projects. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 2, Cooner in view of Asgari and Slack teaches claim 1 as above. Cooner further teaches a project registration and management portal (¶¶ 044, 572).
As per claim 3, Cooner in view of Asgari and Slack teaches claim 1 as above. Cooner further teaches a project validation engine (¶¶ 1030-1031, 1503).
As per claim 4, Cooner in view of Asgari and Slack teaches claim 1 as above. Cooner further teaches a policy and methods portal (¶¶ 0572, 1100).
As per claim 5, Cooner in view of Asgari and Slack teaches claim 1 as above. Cooner further teaches an enterprise resource planning ERP data interchange element (¶¶ 0128-129).
As per claim 6, Cooner in view of Asgari and Slack teaches claim 1 as above. Cooner further teaches a third-party financial systems data interchange element (¶¶ 0566, 1227, 1571).
As per claim 7, Cooner in view of Asgari and Slack teaches claim 1 as above. Cooner further teaches a third-party reporting element (¶¶ 1173-1174).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bai, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0193684 (Reference C of the attached PTO-892) relates to digital measurement, reporting, and verification linked to credit securitization.
Quigley, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0274244 (Reference D of the attached PTO-892) relates to digital measurement, reporting, and verification linked to credit securitization.
Regmi, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0410590 (Reference E of the attached PTO-892) relates to digital measurement, reporting, and verification linked to credit securitization.
Gogerty, et al., Intl. Pat. Pub. No. WO 2023/049232 (Reference N of the attached PTO-892) relates to digital measurement, reporting, and verification linked to credit securitization.
Woo, et al., Applying blockchain technology for building energy performance measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) and the carbon credit market: A review of the literature, Building and Environment, Vol. 205, 2021, 108199 (Reference V of the attached PTO-892) relates to digital measurement, reporting, and verification linked to credit securitization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628