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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with regard to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Burning a token can simply be viewed as a form of archiving as it merely requires placing a token (data) out of circulation and human beings have marked documents as archived copies to be retained for historical purposes for generations. Similarly “arranging” execution of a smart contract is not the same thing as executing a smart contract and the language indicates that the claim is directed towards precursor activities. However it should also be pointed out that while smart contracts can be set up with use of artificial intelligence they also can be set up by human beings as they are merely compilations of Boolean logic, state machines and other constructs that have been utilized by human beings for decades. Therefore Applicant’s argument that these constructs cannot be accomplished mentally or manually must be held as nothing more than a conclusory argument without support. With regard to claim 10 the same response applies as human beings have used the constructs present in smart contracts for decades and this argument is also not persuasive. Burning a token (which is nothing more than a data record) is simply a coined term that can be viewed as a form of archiving and minting is also a coined term that amounts to nothing more than the creation of a data record. Applicant is conflating the technical nature of coined terms in order to assert eligibility. Therefore the argument that the claims are rooted in computer technology must be viewed as inaccurate as smart contracts and NFTs merely automate processes that have been performed for centuries. Therefore there is no concrete technological solution present in the claims as the claims merely take operations that have been performed in some fashion through manual means and “apply it” on a programmed computer. As such the present rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will be 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites as follows:
1. (Currently Amended) A method for tracking and reporting a company's emissions information to a value chain platform, comprising:
(a) verifying a supplier's admission to the value chain platform;
(b) arranging execution of a first smart contract with the supplier, corresponding to a purchase of a supplied good or service from the supplier;
(c) receiving and storing data indicative of a first token of the value chain platform, the first token representing aggregated emissions information corresponding to provision of the supplied good or supply service from the supplier to the company;
(d) burning the first token to avoid double counting aggregated emissions information;
(e) storing company emission data, the company emission data having been generated by tracking emissions caused by the company in generating a sale good or sale service according to requirements of the value chain platform;
(f) allocating at least a portion of the aggregated emissions information contained in the first token to generation of the sale good or sale service; and
(g) arranging execution of a second smart contract with a customer, corresponding to a sale of the sale good or sale service to combine the company emission data and the portion of the aggregated emissions information contained in the first token;
(h) forming a second token, the second token representing emissions from the sale of the sale good or sale service; and
(i) storing the second chain in the value chain platform
Claim 1 recites a method and therefore meets Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines (MPEP § 2106.03)). The analysis then proceeds to Step 2A. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.04 (II)). The verifying of a supplier’s admission to the value chain platform can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as the limitation only suggests that some form of check will be performed on the supplier in accordance with a set of rules and would only require observation and evaluation. The “arranging” of execution of a first smart contract with the supplier, corresponding to a purchase of a supplied good or service from the supplier and can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as “arranging” or “initiating” an activity as part of a set of rules upon the occurrence of an event is an activity that merely requires observation and the ability to follow instructions. The burning of the first token to avoid double counting aggregated emissions information can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as the burning simply constitutes a form of archiving data that can no longer be used but must be maintained for historical recordkeeping purposes which only requires evaluation and judgment and the following of instructions as part of a rule based procedure. Tracking emissions caused by the company in generating a sale good or sale service according to requirements of the value chain platform as recited would apparently require nothing more than recording pre-computed values as there is nothing in the claim as the claim does not suggest anything more than repetitive application of the same emissions value for any particular good or service and therefore can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as a human being can evaluate that the sale of a particular good has been made and evaluate what value to assign to the sale using a reference and the activity appears to be part of a set of rules as part of a procedure. Allocating at least a portion of the aggregated emissions information contained in the first token to generation of the sale good or sale service also can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as a human being can evaluate what value to place into the allocation based on a reference table and the activity only requires following a set of rules as part of a procedure. The “arranging” of execution of a second smart contract with a customer, corresponding to a to a sale of the sale good or sale service to combine the company emission data and the portion of the aggregated emissions information contained in the first token can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as “arranging” or “initiating” an activity as part of a set of rules upon the occurrence of an event is an activity that merely requires observation and the ability to follow instructions and the activity only requires following a set of rules based on a procedure. The forming of a second token can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as the forming simply constitutes a form of recording data which only requires evaluation and judgment and the following of instructions as part of a rule based procedure. Therefore as claim 1 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter under Prong One of Step 2A.
The analysis than proceeds to Prong Two of Step 2A in which the claim is evaluated in order to determine whether there are elements that are present that are sufficient to perform a practical application of the abstract idea. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Per MPEP § 2106.04(d) additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h). The steps of verifying a supplier's admission to the value chain platform, arranging execution of a first smart contract with the supplier, corresponding to a purchase of a supplied good or service from the supplier, burning the first token to avoid double counting aggregated emissions information, tracking emissions caused by the company in generating a sale good or sale service according to requirements of the value chain platform, allocating at least a portion of the aggregated emissions information contained in the first token to generation of the sale good or sale service, arranging execution of a second smart contract with a customer, corresponding to a sale of the sale good or sale service to combine the company emission data and the portion of the aggregated emissions information contained in the first token and forming a second token, the second token representing emissions from the sale of the sale good or sale service can all be viewed as mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) as the verifying, arranging, tracking, allocating, combining and forming steps only recite the idea of a solution or outcome as the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)) and the burning step merely uses an unnamed entity to perform the burning as the claim does not actually recite any machine as performing the method steps (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)) as the claim is drafted in a manner that makes the value chain platform extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) as the value chain platform as recited simply supplies data for use in the method steps and acts as the storage facility for data outputted as a result of the execution of the method steps. Furthermore the value chain platform as recited is not described as composing any particular known structure however even if such were not the case at most the recitation of the value chain platform would merely tie the claim to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The operations of receiving and storing data indicative of a first token of the value chain platform, storing company emission data and storing the second chain can be viewed as nothing more than necessary data gathering and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) as all uses of the abstract idea require data gathering and data output. The claim does not actually claim the execution of a smart contract as both operations are claiming “arranging execution” which is being interpreted as encompassing the operations leading up to a smart contract executing without actually encompassing smart contract execution however even if the smart contract were claimed given the generally high level at which it is recited would only tie the claim to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A claim 1 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
The analysis then proceeds to Step 2B where the claim is evaluated in order to determine whether additional elements are present that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (which is also described as being an inventive concept). As explained in (MPEP § 2106.05(II)) although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The steps of verifying a supplier's admission to the value chain platform, arranging execution of a first smart contract with the supplier, corresponding to a purchase of a supplied good or service from the supplier, burning the first token to avoid double counting aggregated emissions information, tracking emissions caused by the company in generating a sale good or sale service according to requirements of the value chain platform, allocating at least a portion of the aggregated emissions information contained in the first token to generation of the sale good or sale service, arranging execution of a second smart contract with a customer, corresponding to a sale of the sale good or sale service to combine the company emission data and the portion of the aggregated emissions information contained in the first token and forming a second token, the second token representing emissions from the sale of the sale good or sale service can all be viewed as mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) as the verifying, arranging, tracking, allocating, combining and forming steps only recite the idea of a solution or outcome as the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)) and the burning step merely uses an unnamed entity to perform the burning as the claim does not actually recite any machine as performing the method steps (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2)) as the claim is drafted in a manner that makes the value chain platform extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) as the value chain platform as recited simply supplies data for use in the method steps and acts as the storage facility for data outputted as a result of the execution of the method steps. Furthermore the value chain platform as recited is not described as composing any particular known structure however even if such were not the case at most the recitation of the value chain platform would merely tie the claim to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The operations of receiving and storing data indicative of a first token of the value chain platform, storing company emission data and storing the second chain can be viewed as nothing more than necessary data gathering and outputting (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) as all uses of the abstract idea require data gathering and data output. The claim does not actually claim the execution of a smart contract as both operations are claiming “arranging execution” which is being interpreted as encompassing the operations leading up to a smart contract executing without actually encompassing smart contract execution however even if the smart contract were claimed given the generally high level at which it is recited would only tie the claim to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). As recited the value chain platform and the operations of receiving and storing data do not impose meaningful limitations on the claim as the these recitations are only nominally or tangentially related to the invention (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and are being claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Therefore under Step 2B claim 1 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claim 2 merely describes the nature of the value chain platform and the composition of the data source in the form of a permissioned blockchain ledger and is described in a generic manner and is only nominally related to the invention. Therefore this limitation does not confer eligibility under Steps 2A and 2B.
Dependent claim 3 describes that the value chain platform is managed by a managing firm downstream of the company and is descriptive in nature without adding additional elements. Therefore this limitation does not confer eligibility under Steps 2A and 2B.
Dependent claim 4 recites that the first token and the second token are non-fungible tokens and is descriptive in nature without adding additional elements. Therefore this limitation does not confer eligibility under Steps 2A and 2B.
Dependent claim 5 recites that the first token represents data comprising an aggregation of emissions data of at least one prior token from an upstream supplier plus emissions data of the supplier and is descriptive in nature without adding additional elements. Therefore this limitation does not confer eligibility under Steps 2A and 2B.
Dependent claim 6 recites that the value chain platform obscures an identity of an originating firm of the prior token from being visible to the company to preserve confidentiality of the supplier’s respective supply network and is descriptive in nature without adding additional elements. Therefore this limitation does not confer eligibility under Steps 2A and 2B.
Dependent claim 7 recites wherein the first token includes a plurality of tokens, and wherein allocating at least a portion of the aggregated emissions information contained in the first token comprises allocating the plurality of tokens into multiple sub-divided tokens and allocating at least one sub-divided token as an input to the second smart contract and is descriptive in nature without adding additional elements. Therefore this limitation does not confer eligibility under Steps 2A and 2B.
Dependent claim 8 recites wherein execution of the second smart contract burns the at least one sub-token and is descriptive in nature without adding additional elements. Therefore this limitation does not confer eligibility under Steps 2A and 2B.
Dependent claim 9 recites wherein the value chain platform is managed by a consortium of firms involved in a value chain corresponding to the value chain platform and is descriptive in nature without adding additional elements. Therefore this limitation does not confer eligibility under Steps 2A and 2B.
Claim 10 recites as follows:
A management system for a value chain platform comprising:
a processor;
a network interface;
a manager interface comprising a display and input device for a manager of the value chain platform; and
a memory having stored thereon a set of software instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
verify a plurality of digital certificates stored on a permissioned blockchain to confirm compliance of a plurality of value chain suppliers of a product value chain, with emissions tracking criteria of the value chain platform;
transmit at least one smart contract on the permissioned blockchain of the value chain platform, the smart contract configured to process one or more existing emissions tokens of upstream suppliers and emissions data of a current supplier, to automatically mint a new emissions token representing a combination of the one or more existing emissions tokens and the emissions data of the current supplier; and
generate a report of cumulative emissions relating to at least a portion of the product value chain, based on the new emissions token from a first tier supplier of the manager.
Claim 10 recites a system which is a form of apparatus and therefore meets Step 1 of the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines (MPEP § 2106.03)). The analysis then proceeds to Step 2A. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Together, these prongs represent the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, which determines whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception (MPEP § 2106.04 (II)). The verifying of a plurality of digital certificates to confirm compliance of a plurality of value chain suppliers of a product value chain, with emissions tracking criteria of the value chain platform can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as the limitation only suggests that some form of check will be performed on the supplier certificates in accordance with a set of rules and would only require observation and evaluation. The limitation of process one or more existing emissions tokens of upstream suppliers and emissions data of a current supplier, to automatically mint a new emissions token representing a combination of the one or more existing emissions tokens and the emissions data of the current supplier can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as minting a token in this context merely represents adding information at each step of a process which is an activity that can be viewed as part of a set of rules where upon the occurrence of an event new compliance information is added which is an activity that merely requires observation and the ability to follow instructions. The generating of a report of cumulative emissions relating to at least a portion of the product value chain, based on the new emissions token from a first tier supplier of the manager can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as the generation only requires adding new information onto existing information according to a rule set as part of performing a procedure. Therefore as claim 10 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter under Prong One of Step 2A.
The analysis than proceeds to Prong Two of Step 2A in which the claim is evaluated in order to determine whether there are elements that are present that are sufficient to perform a practical application of the abstract idea. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Per MPEP § 2106.04(d) additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h). The steps of verifying a plurality of digital certificates stored on a permissioned blockchain to confirming compliance of a plurality of value chain suppliers of a product value chain, with emissions tracking criteria of the value chain platform, process one or more existing emissions tokens of upstream suppliers and emissions data of a current supplier, to automatically mint a new emissions token representing a combination of the one or more existing emissions tokens and the emissions data of the current supplier and generate a report of cumulative emissions relating to at least a portion of the product value chain, based on the new emissions token from a first tier supplier of the manager can all be viewed as mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) as the verifying, processing, and generating steps only recite the idea of a solution or outcome as the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)). The transmitting of at least one smart contract on the permissioned blockchain of the value chain platform would merely tie the claim to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites elements of a processor, a network interface, a manager interface and a memory storing software instructions which are recited at a generally high level and also merely tie the claim to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Therefore under Prong Two of Step 2A claim 10 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
The analysis then proceeds to Step 2B where the claim is evaluated in order to determine whether additional elements are present that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (which is also described as being an inventive concept). As explained in (MPEP § 2106.05(II)) although the conclusion of whether a claim is eligible at Step 2B requires that all relevant considerations be evaluated, most of these considerations were already evaluated in Step 2A Prong Two. Thus, in Step 2B, examiners should:
Carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
Carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
Re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and
Evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d).
The operations of verifying a plurality of digital certificates stored on a permissioned blockchain to confirming compliance of a plurality of value chain suppliers of a product value chain, with emissions tracking criteria of the value chain platform, process one or more existing emissions tokens of upstream suppliers and emissions data of a current supplier, to automatically mint a new emissions token representing a combination of the one or more existing emissions tokens and the emissions data of the current supplier and generate a report of cumulative emissions relating to at least a portion of the product value chain, based on the new emissions token from a first tier supplier of the manager can all be viewed as mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) as the verifying, processing, and generating steps only recite the idea of a solution or outcome as the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1)). The transmitting of at least one smart contract on the permissioned blockchain of the value chain platform would merely tie the claim to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The claim also recites elements of a processor, a network interface, a manager interface and a memory storing software instructions which are recited at a generally high level and also merely tie the claim to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The operation of storing as recited does not impose meaningful limitations on the claim as the this recitations is only nominally or tangentially related to the invention (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is being claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Therefore under Step 2B claim 10 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claim 11 recites “…wherein the software instructions further cause the processor to determine an allocation of permissions for each of the plurality of value chain suppliers' access to information within the value chain platform, including permission to access at least one of: upstream transactions within the value chain platform, downstream transactions within the value chain platform, and identity information of upstream and downstream suppliers within the value chain platform.” This limitation merely adds another layer of abstraction to the abstract idea of claim 10 by describing the controlling of access to information within the value chain. However as no particular mechanism for performing this access control is recited in the claim the recitation is nothing more than the claiming of an outcome without any description of how the outcome is achieved and under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore claim 11 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claim 12 recites “…wherein the at least one smart contract is configured to automatically mint a new emissions token representing emissions data of at least one upstream emissions token from a supplier of a component of a product; and emissions data of a seller of the product. As recited the claim requires the smart contract to do nothing more than form a new data record in the form of a token that represents an addition of newly obtained information to old information from an previously existing token and output the new data record. This can be viewed as another layer of abstraction to the abstract idea of claim 10 and as no particular mechanism for operating the smart contract is recited in the claim the recitation is nothing more than the claiming of an outcome without any description of how the outcome is achieved and under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore claim 12 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claim 13 recites “…wherein the at least one smart contract automatically mints a new emissions token on the value chain platform, corresponding to the product being sold upon transfer of the product to a purchaser”. As recited the claim requires the smart contract to do nothing more than form a new data record in the form of a token that represents an addition of newly obtained information to a data record that is part of the sale of a product and can be viewed as both a mental operation and organizing human activity. This can be viewed as another layer of abstraction to the abstract idea of claim 10 and as no particular mechanism for operating the smart contract is recited in the claim the recitation is nothing more than the claiming of an outcome without any description of how the outcome is achieved and under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore claim 13 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claim 14 recites “…wherein the software instructions further cause the processor to provide a dashboard allowing a user to generate on-demand reports of real-time cumulative emissions by product line, batch, or unit of a product”. The claim does nothing more than amount to the claiming of an outcome without any description of how the outcome is achieved and under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B amounts to merely tying the claim to a particular technological environment (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Therefore claim 14 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claim 15 recites “…wherein all emissions data of the cumulative emissions is derived from tokens minted by smart contracts deployed on the permissioned blockchain”. The claim merely extends the abstract idea of claims 10 and 14 without adding any additional elements under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore claim 15 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Dependent claim 16 recites “…wherein the software instructions further cause the processor to compare emissions information utilized in smart contracts of same-tier suppliers to detect discrepancies indicative of emissions inefficiency or emissions underreporting.” The operation of comparing emissions information to detect discrepancies indicative of emissions inefficiency or emissions underreporting can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as a human being can compare information and decide whether discrepancies exist and the operation is merely performing a step as part of an overall procedure. As no particular manner of determining discrepancies is claimed the recitation amounts to merely describing an outcome without describing any details of how the outcome is achieved and under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore claim 16 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Claim 17 recites “…wherein the at least one smart contract is configured to burn at least one existing emissions tokens of an upstream supplier upon execution.” Burning a token in this context amounts to a form of archiving as the information is retained but marked as being unsuitable for future use. Therefore this operation can be viewed as both a mental process (MPEP § 2106.04(III)) and part of organizing human activity (MPEP § 2106.04 (B) and (C)) as a human being can evaluate information and decide whether the information should be archived and the operation is merely performing a step as part of an overall procedure. As no particular manner of archiving the information is claimed the recitation amounts to merely describing an outcome without describing any details of how the outcome is achieved and under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore claim 17 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Claim 18 recites “…wherein the software instructions further cause the processor to assign permissions to each of the plurality of value chain suppliers, including which smart contracts a given value chain supplier can utilize.” This limitation merely adds another layer of abstraction to the abstract idea of claim 10 by describing the controlling of access to information within the value chain. However as no particular mechanism for performing this access control is recited in the claim the recitation is nothing more than the claiming of an outcome without any description of how the outcome is achieved and under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore claim 18 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Claim 19 recites “…wherein the permissions further include whether the given value chain supplier can allocate only a portion of the emissions data of such a token to execution of a given smart contract.” This limitation merely adds another layer of abstraction to the abstract idea of claim 18 by describing the controlling of access to information and the placing of limitations of the amount of information exchanged within the value chain. However as no particular mechanism for performing this access control is recited in the claim the recitation is nothing more than the claiming of an outcome without any description of how the outcome is achieved and under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore claim 19 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Claim 20 recites “…wherein the at least one smart contract is configured to process at least one token generated outside of the permissioned blockchain”. The implication is that the token is obtained from outside of the claimed system as opposed to a token generated within the system. As no elements are added this limitation does not affect the analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A and Step 2B. Therefore claim 20 is deemed as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “…storing the second chain in the value chain platform”. The term “second chain” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “…transmit at least one smart contract on the permissioned blockchain of the value chain platform”. The permissioned blockchain is not described as being part of the structure of the claimed management system making it unclear as to how the management system can transmit a smart contract that is part of a separate component that can be viewed as analogous to remote storage. It would appear that the management system would need to import the smart contract in order for it to be capable of transmit the smart contract. For purposes of claim interpretation the claim will be interpreted as “…transmit at least one smart contract [[on]] to the permissioned blockchain of the value chain platform”.
Claims 11-20 are also rejected as being dependent upon claim 10.
Statement Regarding the Prior Art
The closest prior art revealed in Examiner’s search includes two non-patent literature references from the World Resources Institute, the first being Bhatia et al. (hereinafter Bhatia) “Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard: Supplement to the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, World Resources Institute, April 16, 2013, 152 pages (hereinafter referred to as Bhatia)and the companion document Barrow et al. “Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 emissions (version 1.0): Supplement to the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, April 25, 2013, 182 pages (hereinafter referred to as Barrow). Bhatia discloses what the Greenhouse Gas Protocol is (1.1), defines what constitutes Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions (1.3, Figure 1.1), lists calculation tools that were available at the time the document was written and includes a list of data sources for calculating Scope 3 (indirect) emissions (1.8). Bhatia discloses the nature of scope 3 categories (5.5) including tracking all upstream (cradle-to-gate) emissions that are not included in Scope 1 or Scope 2. For intermediate products Scope 3 emissions include downstream emissions (5.6) whereas a final product would only include the upstream emissions made by the intermediate products and those emissions made by producing the final product. Barrow goes further in describing Scope 3 categories (Introduction at Figure I on page 06 and Table I on pages 07-10) and at Figure 1.2 on page 23 shows a decision tree for determining how to report emissions data based on factors such as data availability and data quality (Chapter 1 on pages 20-35 is explicitly directed towards purchased goods and services). Appendix D beginning at page 162 provides a table listing the necessary activity and emissions data needed in order to implement the various collection methods shown in Chapter 1 of Barrow (other portions of appendix D list the calculations methods used and data required for other chapters within the document). Clearly the data in the first token of claim 1 is anticipated by the “sum across purchased goods and services” in the category 1 table of Appendix D of Barrow and the company’s own data would be the data listed in the emission factor needed column of the table:
PNG
media_image1.png
542
1050
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it is clear that the calculation of adding the aggregated emission data from upstream suppliers to the emission data of the customer making the final sale is already taught by the prior art combination of Bhatia and Barrow. What is not taught by Bhatia and Barrow is a particular implementation mechanism as Bhatia and Barrow are only directed towards a standard for defining what is collected along with establishing an audit trail (pages 23 and 24) where the “how” of how the audit trail is formed is outside the scope of Bhatia and Barrow. The two most relevant prior art references in this regard include Nishiwada et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0144295, hereinafter referred to as Nishiwada) which discloses the aggregation of emissions from Scopes 1, 2 and 3 (0005), the use of smart contracts (0046) and tokens in the form of NFTs that are recorded on the blockchain network (0048). Nishiwada discloses the calculation of greenhouse gas emissions based on billing information extracted from image data including Scopes 1, 2 and 3 (0068) and a total is formed (0069). However Nishiwada does not explicitly disclose the receiving of a first token with aggregated upstream information and forming a new token that is a combination of upstream aggregated information and the emissions information of the company making a sale of the good as required by independent claims 1 and 10. Yang (WIPO Publication WO 2023085725 A2) also discloses the management of carbon emission using a blockchain network (Abstract), the use of smart contracts and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) but suffers the same deficiencies of Nishiwada. Also of interest is non-patent literature reference Wintergreen et al. “ISO 14064, International Standard for GHG Emissions Inventories and Verification”, May 24, 2007, 4 pages which is an international standard for greenhouse gasses based on the Greenhouse Gas Protocol which also does not correct the deficiencies of Bhatia and Barrow. Therefore no prior art reference alone or in combination fairly teaches each and every element of independent claims 1 and 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D NIGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5486. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 to 9:45 and 10:30 to 2:45.
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, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. 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.
/JAMES D NIGH/Senior Examiner, Art Unit 3699