DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 3/17/2026.
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 .
Claims’ Status
Claims 1-2, 9, 10, 17, and 19-21 are amended. Claim 11 is canceled. Claims 1-10 and 12-25 are pending for consideration in this office action.
Response to Arguments
103
Previously, Examiner indicated that claim 20 contains “allowable subject matter” and applicant has since then incorporated the “allowable subject matter” into independent claim 1. However, upon further revisiting the allowable subject matter, Examiner is able to find a new art that reads on the “allowable subject matter.” Please see the new rejection below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “cloud-based cryptographically authenticated data repository”; “relational database service (RDS)”; and “third-party verification entity” in claim 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structures are described in para [0034-0038], that the software (or modules) can be implemented on various computers.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 limitations: 1) “a cloud-based cryptographically authenticated data repository (CADR) configured to mint, manage, and transact the DEATs…”; 2) “a relational database service (RDS), configured to bidirectionally communicate with the cloud object storage system….”; and 3) “third-party verification entity configured to evaluate the production site….. “ invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of minting/managing/transacting/bidirectionally communicating/evaluating. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the abovesaid functions. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, theses functions can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. (FP 7.34.23)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of minting/managing/transacting/bidirectionally communicating/evaluating. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Miller et al. (US20210141761A1) in view of Kumar et al. (US20220327538A1), and further in view of Basu et al. (US20200313856A1).
With respect to claim 1 and 20
Miller teaches the limitation:
setting up, by a cloud-based cryptographically authenticated data repository (CADR), a differentiated energy producer profile account, a producer private blockchain ([0051], The digital energy data assets 352 may, by way of example and not limitation, be stored in blockchain wallets, such as wallets for digital renewable energy data 355, digital RECs 360, digital CO2e assets or liabilities 365, digital CO2e allowances 375, and digital energy efficiency credits 370. Each block in blockchain layer 340 may be a blockchain-verifiable record that may, for example, advantageously be used to securely track energy generation, transmission, and usage (e.g., of renewable/sustainable energy) for a wide variety of energy generation, transmission, and consumption sites and facilities.), wherein the CADR is configured to mint, manage and transact the DEATs ([0023-0024], Data in the Merkle trie and blockchain is used to generate, process, and validate one or more digital energy asset tokens. The tokens may, for example, be generated, processed, and validated according to predetermined sets of rules corresponding, by way of example and not limitation, to digital energy data assets (32), digital renewable energy credits (34), and digital CO2e assets 36 or liabilities….. FIG. 2 depicts a block diagram of an exemplary energy tracking and processing infrastructure system. A sustainable ETPI system 22 is a technological solution to maintain secure, traceable, and immutable records of renewable energy generation and energy consumption, at one or more energy facilities using a Merkle trie and blockchain-based architecture.), wherein the CADR includes an application program interface (API) for communication with the private blockchain network, a differentiated energy producer's production accounting system and a third-party verification entity ([0054], API engine 380 provides multiple functions including, but not limited to, user authorization (Auth API 385), core data retrieval services (Core API 390), and administrative functions (Admin API 395). Chain API (140) is an API endpoint to get blockchain transactions generated from different digital assets and other smart contracts; see also [0038], In various embodiments, one or more Merkle tries are specifically configured and operably coupled to various engine(s) and service(s) to store hashes of energy data records (e.g., energy generation data record(s), also referred to as EGDRs). Such Merkle tries may, for example, not store information relating to state, including blockchain record states, but instead store at least a hash of the information itself; see also [0052], Various embodiments may, for example, use a privately-implemented blockchain network for tracking, tracing, and attributing sustainable energy generation, transmission, and consumption that may be configured, by way of example and not limitation, with a (low-latency) proof of authority or proof of work (consensus) algorithm/node structure. Various data in the network may originate from a proprietary source; see also [0051], In the depicted example, blockchain layer 341 includes nodes 345 and validator nodes 350. Nodes 345 are original layers of blockchain processing. Validator nodes 350 may, for example, be third-party hosted-nodes configured to run in parallel with nodes 345 as an independent check of the nodes 345.)
Transmitting, by the CADR, the differentiated energy production data to the third-party verification entity configured to evaluate the production site against predetermined emission standards (see [0061-0063]);
receiving, via the API, at a first predetermined interval, differentiated energy production data from the differentiated energy producer’s production accounting system, the differentiated energy production data comprising energy production units related to a producer's energy production at a production site ([0033], In various embodiments, each metering device 105 may be pre-configured to transmit energy data to the Transport Protocols 140 and IOT/Meter Connect 160 at regular (or semi-regular) intervals; see [0036], The transaction store service 200 is configured to receive an energy data record (representing a specific unit of energy) transmitted from the broker 190, identify the source of the energy data record (e.g., whether it originated from a specific energy generation facility 101A, a specific consumption facility 101B), and perform validation operations on the energy data record; see [0058], Consumption-related tokens may, for example, be associated with correlated energy generation block(s) by an identifying hash or other identifier with the energy block.);
cryptographically recording, by the CADR, the differentiated energy production data and the verification data on the private blockchain network as cryptographically authenticated and immutable blockchain records (see [0045] and [0052] describes implementing on a private blockchain);
using a predetermined formula, and under terms and conditions of a DEAT minting smart contract published by the API and executed by the producer and the third-party verification entity, minting one or more DEATs to the producer's private (see [0026 and 0060].)
wherein a quantity of the one or more DEATs corresponds to a quantity of differentiated energy production units represented by the cryptographically recorded blockchain records ([0023], Data in the Merkle trie and blockchain is used to generate, process, and validate one or more digital energy asset tokens. The tokens may, for example, be generated, processed, and validated according to predetermined sets of rules corresponding, by way of example and not limitation, to digital energy data assets (32), digital renewable energy credits (34), and digital CO2e assets 36 or liabilities; see also [0060=0063].)
publishing the one or more DEATs to the private blockchain network (see [0069-0070].)
Miller does not explicitly disclose, but Kumar teaches:
Receiving, from the third-party verification entity, verification data verifying whether the production site meets the predetermined emission standards set by the third-party verification entity ([0066], The third party data sources 38A can also include an optional financial verification unit 70 for verifying data, tokens or related information associated with the third party sources 38A. The verification unit 70 can include an optional attestation unit 72 for providing attestation data associated with selected environmental data or tokens and which can be provided by any selected financial institution or attestation body, such as for example an accountant, accounting firm, attorney, law firm, business, and the like. The attestation data is a documented verification of the validity of the underlying data. The verification unit 70 can also include an optional predictive analytics unit 74 for analyzing selected data and for providing predictions based on the data. All of the information received from the third party source 38A can be transferred to the digital trust infrastructure unit 20 for storing therein; see also [0069], FIG. 4 is a schematic block diagram showing the post-processing unit 24 configured to optionally include or employ one or more selected units for generating one or more reports directed to a selected system capability or functionality of the enterprise. For example, regarding the emission accounting capability, the post-processing unit 24 can be configured to include an optional emissions accounting unit 80 that can include one or more software applications and associated hardware for processing the enriched environmental data to aggregate data related to the energy consumed or used by the enterprise, such as a structure or collection of structures (e.g., buildings), equipment, facility, business, company, operation, organization, country or entity, to compute various emissions-related metrics using standard emissions factors available from third-party sources, for example, the emissions factors provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA); to track emissions relative to established emissions goals for a specific building, equipment, enterprise, or country; and to determine the overall emissions related liabilities of the enterprise. Specifically, the emissions accounting unit 80 can determine or calculate the emissions of an enterprise or building, determine and track energy consumption of the enterprise, and/or determine or track the overall emissions goals for the enterprise based on the environmental data and/or third party data following applicable climate-related accounting standards and frameworks.) responsive to verifying that production site meets the predetermined emission standards, classifying, by the CADR, the energy production units related to the producer's energy production at the production site as differentiated energy defined by DEA associated with the predetermined emission standards (see at least [0112].);
Miller in view of Kumar do not explicitly disclose, but Basu teaches:
multi-signature wallet ([0035], The client may use a multiple signatures or group-based smart-contract or smart-wallet on the blockchain platform. The client may use passwordless authentication using split keys that are associated with two or more client devices.);
assigning, by the CADR, a unique blockchain-based digital signature private key to each user of the qualified producer account and each user of the (see Abstract, Split-key authentication by splitting the private key into two or more parts; and assigning the split private key part to two or more client devices.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Miller/Kumar with the teaching of Basu as they relate to a system/method of managing data on a blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Miller/Kumar, for example tracking and processing of energy generation, transmission, and consumption of physical energy in Miller, to include the system of using private keys and multi-signature wallet as taught in Basu for the predicated result of improved secured system of implementing blockchain technologies.
With respect to claim 2
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 1. Miller further teaches: wherein the differentiated energy production data transmitted to the third-party verification entity comprises environmental attributes and (DEA) related to the producer's energy production at the production site (see [0022 and 0032].)
With respect to claim 3
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 1. Miller further teaches: outputting a DEATs retirement report related to retiring one or more DEATs after differentiated energy corresponding to the one or more DEATs is consumed by an end user, wherein one DEAT corresponds to one energy production unit of differentiated energy produced or transported from the production site (see [0045].)
With respect to claim 4
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 3. Miller further teaches: wherein the one energy production unit includes one or more of 1 mcf, 1 MMBtu, 1 dekatherm, 1 gallon, 1 pipeline mile, 1 shipping mile, 1 metric ton, or 1 megawatt hour of differentiated energy (see [0074-0077.])
With respect to claim 5
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 1. Miller further teaches: wherein the predetermined formula correlates the number of DEATs to be minted to the energy production units produced or transported from the production site (see [0053-0054].)
With respect to claim 6
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 1. Kumar further teaches: wherein the predetermined formula includes minting one DEAT for one energy production unit produced or transported from the production site (see [0066].)
With respect to claim 7
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 1. Miller further teaches: wherein the first predetermined interval includes one or more of daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or semi-annually (see [0033].)
With respect to claim 8
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 1. Miller further teaches: wherein the second predetermined interval is once a day (see [0033].)
With respect to claim 9
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 1. Miller further teaches: further comprising embedding unique data related to the verification data in each DEAT ([0048], Each digital energy asset token referred to herein may contain various data parameters including, by way of example and not limitation, the block type, validation data, input data, energy used (e.g., in MWh), and carbon footprint (e.g., in lbs.), as well as the raw data used to derive these values.)
With respect to claim 10
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 1. Miller further teaches: further comprising communicating between the differentiated energy producer's production accounting system, the third-party verification entity, and the private blockchain network, wherein communicating includes using one or more of the API or a preconfigured data upload protocol (see [0053-0054].)
With respect to claim 21
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 20. Miller further teaches: wherein the CADR is further configured to communicate with the third-party verification entity via an API, wherein the third-party verification entity collects information associated with the differentiated energy production units (see [0022 and 0032].)
Claims 12-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Miller et al. (US20210141761A1) in view of Kumar et al. (US20220327538A1) in view of Basu et al. (US20200313856A1), and further in view of Cali et al. (US11710199B1).
With respect to claim 12
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 1. The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Cali teaches: further comprising automatically publishing the DEAT minting smart contract to the private blockchain network (see col. In certain instances, the business logic created by the business logic/rules engine 428 may be implemented as an interactive smart contract executing on the distributed ledger 450. For example, the interactive, smart contract may be implemented using a protocol (e.g., the Ethereum protocol and the like) to be executed on a blockchain (e.g., the Ethereum blockchain, a private blockchain, and the like).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Miller/ Kumar /Basu with the teaching of Tilley as they relate to a system/method of managing data on a blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Miller/ Kumar /Basu, for example tracking and processing of energy generation, transmission, and consumption of physical energy in Miller, to include the method of publishing smart contract to the blockchain taught in Cali for the predicated result of improved secured system of implementing blockchain technologies.
With respect to claim 13
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 1. Miller further teaches: publishing to the private blockchain network a bilateral transaction for DEATs between a DEATs buyer and a DEATs seller under a DEATs transaction smart contract (see [0042].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Miller/ Kumar /Basu with the teaching of Tilley as they relate to a system/method of managing data on a blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Miller/ Kumar /Basu, for example tracking and processing of energy generation, transmission, and consumption of physical energy in Miller, to include the method of providing payment instruction as taught in Cali for the predicated result of improved secured system of implementing blockchain technologies.
The combination does not explicitly disclose, but Cali teaches:
automatically providing payment instructions to the DEATs buyer to transfer funds to the DEATs seller (see col.25 ln28-47, For example, the updated cost information 844 may indicate that a selling party of the energy transaction 806 purchase carbon offsets (e.g., or transfer funds to the purchasing party 824 to purchase carbon offsets) for the exceeded environmental impact constraint 814 reflected by the environmental impact measures 826, 828, 830. As another example, the updated cost information 844 may indicate that the purchasing party 824 must pay a certain specified fine to a regulator. After generating the correction 808, the computing device 802 may automatically add the correction 808 to the agreement 810. In particular, the computing device 802 may store the correction 808 within a distributed database 850. Additionally or alternatively, the computing device 802 may update a corresponding smart contract executing on a distributed ledger based on the correction 808 (e.g., to include the updated environmental impact constraint 842 and/or the updated cost information 844). In certain implementations, the computing device 802 may cause funds to transfer automatically based on the updated cost information 844.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Miller/ Kumar /Basu with the teaching of Tilley as they relate to a system/method of managing data on a blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Miller/ Kumar /Basu, for example tracking and processing of energy generation, transmission, and consumption of physical energy in Miller, to include the method of providing payment instruction as taught in Cali for the predicated result of improved secured system of implementing blockchain technologies.
With respect to claim 14
The combination of Miller, Kumar, Basu, and Cali teaches the limitation of claim 13. Cali further teaches: wherein the DEATs seller includes a producer of differentiated energy (see col.6 ln51-ln54, A supplier and shipper transaction is depicted where the supplier is the seller of the energy resource (e.g., an energy commodity) and the shipper is the buyer.)
With respect to claim 16
The combination of Miller, Kumar, Basu, and Cali teaches the limitation of claim 13. Cali further teaches: wherein publishing includes automatically publishing the DEATs transaction smart contract to the private blockchain network after the DEATs buyer and the DEATs seller have executed the DEATs transaction smart contract via digital signatures (see col.11 ln51-67, The certificate authority SDK 436 may provision and verify certificates to individual parties to energy transactions (e.g., parties negotiating a contract, third parties, attorneys or other representatives) and/or to computing services interacting with the distributed ledger 450. When adding transactions to the distributed ledger 450, the transactions may be required to be signed by a valid certificate. Accordingly, a certificate may be received from one or more parties to an energy transaction (e.g., a seller, a buyer, a transporter) and included within a transaction to be stored on the distributed ledger 450. Prior to providing the transaction to the DLT client SDK 434 for storage on the distributed ledger 450, the certificate authority SDK 436 may be used to verify that the certificate(s) included within the transaction are valid (e.g., were issued to the one or more parties by the certificate authority SDK 436 and/or another certificate issuing authority).
With respect to claim 17
The combination of Miller, Kumar, Basu, and Cali teaches the limitation of claim 13. Cali further teaches: wherein the DEATs buyer and the DEATs seller are qualified using one or more due diligence processes (see col.7 ln6-ln20, FIG. 3 depicts a system 300 according to an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure. The system 300 may be configured to receive and process information regarding energy transactions (e.g., negotiation information, status information, fulfillment information, security information, and the like) to execute actions via smart contracts and to integrate with a distributed ledger to store the information or determine whether the information indicates compliance with a previously negotiated energy transaction. The system 300 may also be used to access and analyze data stored on a distributed ledger to determine and attribute environmental impact measures based on energy transactions. The system 300 includes a business application layer 302, a middleware layer 308, and a distributed ledger and machine learning layer 314.)
With respect to claim 18
The combination of Miller, Kumar, Basu, and Cali teaches the limitation of claim 17. Cali further teaches: wherein documents required for the one or more due diligence processes are electronically completed and electronically submitted (see col.7 ln21-ln28, The application layer includes horizontal applications (“apps”), which may be software services or processes executing on computing devices to provide front-end services, integration services, and the like. In particular, the applications may enable the system 300 to integrate with the information technology (IT) systems of users or entities negotiating, contracting, or monitoring compliance for an energy transaction, and/or other users.)
With respect to claim 19
The combination of Miller, Kumar, Basu, and Cali teaches the limitation of claim 17. Cali further teaches: wherein the one or more due diligence processes include bidirectionally communicating with at least one third party service provider database via the API (see col.10 ln42-62, The middleware layer API 412 may be configured to provide multiple services used in creating, negotiating, validating, executing, storing, and monitoring compliance of energy transactions and corresponding smart contracts in an interactive manner. In particular, the middleware layer API 412 includes a contract template verification service 426, a business logic/rules engine 428, a contract image generation service 430, a dynamic form generation service 432, a DLT client standard development kit (SDK) 434, a certificate authority SDK 436, a transaction management service 438, and a DLT node management service 440. The contract template verification service 426 may be used to verify one or more aspects of negotiated contracts prior to execution of the contract. For example, the contract template verification 426 may be configured to ensure that a proper contract template is used to negotiate an energy transaction. As a specific example, the contract template verification service 426 may be configured to ensure that the proper contract template is used for a particular energy resource or service (e.g., oil, natural gas or buy/sell, transportation) of the energy transaction.)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being obvious over Miller et al. (US20210141761A1) in view of Kumar et al. (US20220327538A1) in view of Basu et al. (US20200313856A1), and further in view of Nichani (US20220222657A1).
With respect to claim 15
The combination of Miller, Kumar, Basu, and Cali teaches the limitation of claim 13. The combination doesn’t explicitly disclose, but Nichani teaches: wherein the DEATs buyer includes a DEATs buyer pre-approved by the DEATs seller ([0097-0099], Various code functions employed in the Blockchain-based ecosystem 100 are as follows.
transferFrom( ): This function is used instead of a standard transfer( ) function. Each asset token has a unique smart contract that functions like a whitelist. A whitelist type of function is required to ensure that only verified people can hold and transfer the respective asset tokens.
deposit( ): Ethereum's ERC-223 deposit( ) function may also be deployed to ensure that a recipient of asset tokens has approved the transaction communicated prior to the sending of tokens. transfer( ) tokens must be pre-approved by only whitelisted addresses controlled on the RACE platform instead of utilizing the Blockchain. This helps to prevent accidental transfer of tokens to people who are whitelisted but are not the rightful owner of the token(s)/have not initiated a request to receive the token(s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Miller/ Kumar /Basu/Cali with the teaching of Nichani as they relate to a system/method of managing data on a blockchain. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made would have modified the combined systems of Miller/ Kumar /Basu, for example tracking and processing of energy generation, transmission, and consumption of physical energy in Miller, to include the method of including a pre-approved list of buyer/seller as taught in Nichani for the predicated result of improved secured system of implementing blockchain technologies.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE Non-FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-1094 or yin.choi@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30 - 5:30pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YIN Y CHOI/Examiner, Art Unit 3699 9/22/2026
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
