DETAILED ACTION
This is an office action on the merits in response to the communication filed on 10/31/2025.
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 1-6 and 9-25 are amended. Claims 1-25 are pending for consideration in this office action.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments do not recite an improvement to technology or a computer's functions, rather they discuss a process/business improvement of verifying energy production units related to a producer’s energy production at a production site. Minting a DEATs alongside with a private blockchain network is merely automating the abstract ideas described in the claim. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. organizing human activity, including managing personal behavior ore relationships or interactions) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Inti v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, and 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.” MPEP 2106.05(a) (Il).
103
Argument’s argument is moot in light of a new art and new grounds of rejections due to amended claims.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. The claimed matter is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application) without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03
Per Step 1, claim 1 is a method claim; claim 20 is a system claim. Thus, independent claims 1 and 20 are directed to statutory subject matter.
However, independent claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 recites (claim 20 similar in scope):
Claim 1:
setting up a differentiated energy producer profile account, a producer private blockchain multi-signature wallet for a producer, a qualified DEATs buyer profile account, and a qualified DEATs buyer private blockchain multi-signature wallet;
assigning a unique blockchain-based digital signature private key to each user of the qualified producer account and each user of the DEATs buyer profile account
inputting by one or more of a producer's production accounting system or the producer at a first predetermined interval, energy production units related to a producer's energy production at a production site;
providing to a third-party verification entity, information associated with the energy production units related to the producer’s energy production at the production site;
Receiving from the third-party verification entity a verification verifying whether the production site meets predetermined emission standards set by the third-party verification entity and if the predetermined emission standards are met, classifying 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;
outputting a report of the differentiated energy production units and the verification for approval by the producer and the third-party verification entity; and
using a predetermined formula, minting one or more DEATs to the producer's private multi-signature wallet at a second predetermined interval, wherein the minting step is governed by terms and conditions of a DEAT minting smart contract and executed by the producer and the third-party verification entity;
publishing the one or more DEATs to the private blockchain network.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon MPEP 2106.04.
The limitations, as drafted, constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing, 1) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea in claim 1, recited above, includes: providing an application platform configured to run on a plurality of computer nodes participating in a network for minting, managing, transacting DEATs, and communicating with one or more of the private blockchain network, a differentiated energy producer's production accounting system, or a third-party verification entity; setting up one or more of a differentiated energy producer profile account, a producer private blockchain multi-signature wallet, a qualified DEATs buyer profile account, or a qualified DEATs buyer private blockchain multi-signature wallet, using the application platform; inputting by one or more of the producer's production accounting system or the producer at a first predetermined interval, energy production units related to the producer's energy production at a production site; outputting a report of differentiated energy production units and DEA verification for the producer's approval and the third-party verification entity's approval; and using a predetermined formula, minting one or more DEATs to the producer's multi-signature wallet at a second predetermined interval. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, it falls within the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – 1) Managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people; grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP 2106.04.
The recited computing elements (claim 1: a private blockchain network; claim 20: a cloud-based cryptographically authenticated data repository; a cloud object storage system; a relational database service) are recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. as generic computing element performing generic computer functions such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more, since it amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, as set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional positive elements in claim 1 are: assigning a unique blockchain-based digital signature private key to each user of the qualified producer account and each user of the DEATs buyer profile account; verifying using the third-party verification entity whether the production site meets predetermined emission standards set by the third-party verification entity, and if emission standards are met, classifying the energy produced from the producer's production site as differentiated energy defined by differentiated energy attributes (DEA) associated with the emission standard; using a predetermined formula, minting one or more DEATs to the producer's multi-signature wallet at a second predetermined interval, wherein the minting step is governed by the terms and conditions of a DEAT minting smart contract published by the application platform and executed by the producer and the third-party verification entity.”, which amounts to linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, these additional claim elements, alone and in combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, because (1) they do not effect improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); (2) they do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition (see the Vanda memo); (3) they do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); (4) they do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); (5) they do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designated to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda memo). Therefore, per Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim is directed to an abstract idea not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP 2106.05.
Step 2B of the eligibility analysis concludes that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner carries over the analysis from Step 2A related to the generic computing elements being no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional claim elements that are just “applying it” or “generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, are carried over for further analysis in Step 2B.
When the independent claims are considered as a whole, as a combination, the claim elements noted above do not amount to any more than they amount to individually. The operations appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense, i.e. a blockchain. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. Therefore, it is concluded that the elements of the independent claims are directed to one or more abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05)
Further, Step 2B of the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well, both individually and as a whole, as a combination:
Claims 2-19 and 21-25 are further directed to additional abstract ideas because the steps performed are simply narrowing the scope of the abstract idea of claim 1 or 20 since their individual and combined significance is still not significantly more than the abstract concept at the core of the claimed invention. For example, claim 2 further describes collecting environmental attributes and the emissions data; claim 3 to including outputting a DEATS retirement report related to retiring….; claim 4 describes one unit of differentiated energy; ….etc. which all of the limitation are narrowing the steps performed in claim 1 and 20.
Moreover, the claims in the instant application do not constitute significantly more also because the claims or claim elements only serve to implement the abstract idea using computer components to perform computing functions (Enfish, see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Specifically, the computing system encompasses general purpose hardware and software modules.
The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified in the independent claims as an abstract idea. The fact that the associated computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility. In sum, the additional elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention. Therefore, it is concluded that the dependent claims of the instant application do not amount to significantly more either. (see MPEP 2106.05)
In sum, claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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
Miller teaches the limitation:
setting up 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.);
inputting by one or more of a producer's production accounting system or the producer at a first predetermined interval, 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.);
outputting a report of the differentiated energy production units and the verification for approval by the producer and the third-party verification entity (see [0045].); and
using a predetermined formula, minting one or more DEATs to the producer's private (see [0060].)
wherein the minting step is governed by terms and conditions of a DEAT minting smart contract and executed by the producer and the third-party verification entity ([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:
providing to a third-party verification entity, information associated with the energy production units related to the producer’s energy production at the production site ([0019], The system of the present invention further includes a token creation unit for creating one or more tokens from the environmental data or the enriched environmental data collected from a plurality of measuring devices or the enriched environmental data or data provided by a third party to form one or more financial derivatives, wherein the financial derivatives can include one or more of a carbon credit, a renewable energy credit, an emissions reduction credit, and a carbon offset; an attestation unit for verifying the environmental data forming the one or more tokens or the one or more tokens and for generating attestation data associated therewith, wherein the attestation data provides for a verification of the validity of the environmental data;.);
Receiving from the third-party verification entity a verification verifying whether the production site meets 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.) and if the predetermined emission standards are met, classifying 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 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 information provided 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 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 producer's production accounting system, the third-party verification entity, and the private blockchain network, wherein communicating includes using one or more of an application program interface API or a preconfigured data upload protocol (see [0053-0054].)
With respect to claim 11
The combination of Miller, Kumar, and Basu teaches the limitation of claim 1. Miller further teaches: further comprising cryptographically recording to the private blockchain network one or more energy production units of differentiated energy, or third-party DEA verification data (see [0022-0026 and 0051-0052].)
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 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 an application program interface (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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 21 contains allowable subject matter: “a cloud-based cryptographically authenticated data repository (CADR) configured to mint, manage and transact the DEATs, 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.” Claims 21-25 each is also allowable because of its dependency on independent claim 20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL, necessitated by amendment. 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 12/15/2025
/NEHA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights