DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amended claims filed on 5 November 2024.
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) type”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) type”.
Claim 12, line 1 recites “A method implementing the water treatment system”. This appears to be a typographical error of “A method implemented by the water treatment system”.
Claim 12, line 4 recites “between terminal A and terminal B”. This appears to be a typographical error of “between the terminal A and the terminal B”.
Claims 13-15 inherent the deficiencies of claim 12. Therefore, claims 13-15 are objected to for the same reasons as claim 12.
Claim 15, line 2 recites “the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) type”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a non-Fungible Token (NFT) type”.
Claim 15 recites “and initially allocated tokens”. This appears to be a typographical error of “and initially the allocated tokens”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 12-15 recites the steps of “sending…” “validating…”, “debiting…”, and “recording…”. As explained in the above claim objection, “A method implementing the water treatment system” appears to be a typographical error of “A method implemented by the water treatment system”. Therefore, the Examiner is interpreting the steps of “sending…” “validating…”, “debiting…”, and “recording…” as being performed by the water treatment system.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine) and claims 12-15 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process). As such, claims 1-15 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
- measuring an input flow at the water input and issuing an input information accordingly and measuring an output flow at the water output and issuing an output information accordingly;
- measuring a water quality parameter at the water output and issuing a quality information;
- a plurality of users, a ledger for registering a peer to peer transaction and enabling a peer to peer transactions by exchanging a token and recording the transaction in the ledger;
- wherein the input information issued, the output information issued and the quality information issued are transmitted and associates the token in a given number based on the information supplied.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention is directed to registering peer-to-peer transactions of a water treatment service. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is a business activity of facilitating a transaction, which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): a water treatment station having a water input and a water output and supplied with an energy source; an input sensor; an output sensor; a quality sensor; a connection through a network to a computer; a blockchain comprising a plurality of users as terminals, a plurality of tokens, and a program enabling a peer to peer transactions between terminals by exchanging a token through a consensus mechanism and recording the transaction in the ledger; the computer having access to the blockchain;. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., blockchain) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., blockchain) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2 and 6-10 further recite(s) the additional element(s): terminals owned by stakeholders (claim 2), a geolocation device (claim 6), a quality input sensor (claim 7-9), an energy consumption sensor (claim 10). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2 and 6-10 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 3 and 11-15 further recite(s) the additional element(s): non-fungible token (NFT) (claim 3 and 15), two or more terminals (claim 11), a smart contract (claims 11 and 12), terminal A (claim 12), terminal B (claim 12), tokens from terminal A (claim 12), allocated tokens (claims 13-15), a utility token (claim 15). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., blockchain) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 3 and 11-15 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 4-5 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 4-5 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carey (US 20230347000 A1) in view of Slack (US 20230139137 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Carey further teaches a water treatment system, comprising:
- a water treatment station having a water input and a water output and supplied with an energy source; (Paragraph [0028] “in FIG. 1A. The system 100 may be made up of […] fluid connections (shown here as inlet 104, […] and outlet 124), […] and an electronics control module 126”; Paragraph [0057] “The system 200 may have one or more power indicators 204 that may be used, among other things, indicating to a user/operator that the system 200 has sufficient power”; el. 104, 124, and 126 of Fig. 1A and 1B; Examiner notes paragraph [0017] specifies “a liquid diluent, such as water”)
- an input sensor measuring an input flow at the water input and issuing an input information accordingly and an output sensor measuring an output flow at the water output and issuing an output information accordingly; (Paragraph [0041] “FIG. 1B, inlet 104 and fluid connection 108 may contain one or more sensors to monitor […] the flow rate of the incoming liquid diluent”; Paragraph [0042] “fluid connection 120 may contain one or more sensors to monitor […] the flow rate of the outgoing diluted solution”; Paragraph [0053] “The electronics control module 126 may also […] log data associated with sensors 128, 130, and 132 (e.g., […] flow rate data, […])”; sensors 128 and 132 of Fig. 1B)
- a quality sensor measuring a water quality parameter at the water output and issuing a quality information; (Paragraph [0042] “fluid connection 120 may contain one or more sensors to monitor the quality of the diluted concentration to be dispensed”; sensor 132 of Fig. 1B)
- a connection through a network to a computer; (Paragraph [0048] “The electronics control module 126 may also include one or more network interfaces to pass this operational status information to the user, manufacturer, support entities, and/or other parties.”)
- a blockchain comprising a plurality of users as terminals, (Paragraph [0026] “blockchain […] could be used for […] tracking materials that have been treated with the diluted solution both inside and outside of a treatment facility, thereby creating electronic records of the antimicrobial treatment that follows the treated material from treatment to end use”; Paragraph [0051] “once this tracking mechanism and electronic record are created, these treated materials can be tracked both inside the facility (e.g., for inventory purposes) and outside of the facility (e.g., by linking the internal system tracking capabilities to outside systems to track treated lots of soft and/or viscous materials with […] blockchain”)
- the computer having access to the blockchain; (Paragraph [0051] “once this tracking mechanism and electronic record are created, these treated materials can be tracked both inside the facility (e.g., for inventory purposes) and outside of the facility (e.g., by linking the internal system tracking capabilities to outside systems to track treated lots of soft and/or viscous materials with […] blockchain”)
- wherein the input information issued by the input sensor, the output information issued by the output sensor and the quality information issued by the quality sensor are transmitted to the computer via the network (Paragraph [0053] “The electronics control module 126 may also […] log data associated with sensors 128, 130, and 132 (e.g., water quality data, flow rate data, […])”; Paragraph [0051] “once this tracking mechanism and electronic record are created, these treated materials can be tracked both inside the facility (e.g., for inventory purposes) and outside of the facility (e.g., by linking the internal system tracking capabilities to outside systems to track treated lots of soft and/or viscous materials with […] blockchain”)sensors 128 and 132 of Fig. 1B)
Carey does not teach:
a blockchain comprising a plurality of users as terminals, a plurality of tokens, a ledger for registering a peer to peer transaction between two terminals and a program enabling a peer to peer transactions between terminals by exchanging a token through a consensus mechanism and recording the transaction in the ledger;
wherein the input information issued by the input sensor, the output information issued by the output sensor and the quality information issued by the quality sensor are transmitted to the computer via the network and wherein the computer associates the token in a given number based on the information supplied by the sensors.
However Slack teaches:
a blockchain comprising a plurality of users as terminals, a plurality of tokens, a ledger for registering a peer to peer transaction between two terminals and a program enabling a peer to peer transactions between terminals by exchanging a token through a consensus mechanism and recording the transaction in the ledger; (Paragraph [0065] “When new data is added to the distributed ledger, it must be validated by a portion of the nodes (e.g., 51%) involved in maintaining the ledger in a process called consensus. […] a node that participates in consensus is rewarded, e.g., with a digital token,”; Paragraph [0073] “a cryptocurrency transaction between a first party and a second party involves the first party using a private key to sign a transaction wherein the transaction includes data on a first cryptocurrency wallet belonging to the first party, the amount of the transaction, and a second cryptocurrency wallet belonging to the second party. […] The transaction is then populated to a distributed network wherein a proportion (e.g., 51%) of the nodes of the distributed network verify the transaction. […] The nodes then record the transaction on the distributed ledger, e.g., by adding a block to a blockchain.”)
wherein the computer associates the token in a given number based on the information supplied by the sensors. (Paragraph [0042] “after calculating the total number of carbon credits, the platform mints an NFT representing each carbon credit”; Paragraph [0046] “the platform is operable to interface with one or more sensors, […] When the one or more sensors detect that 1 ton of CO2 less than a predetermined amount (i.e., a baseline amount) has been produced over a particular time period, then one carbon NFT is added to a wallet associated with the company profile.”)
This operation of Slack is applicable to the system of Carey as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using blockchain for tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the blockchain system of Carey to incorporate tokens, ledgers and programs as taught by Slack. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Carey in order to creating and trading tokens, and more for creating and trading non-fungible tokens (NFTs) (see paragraph [0002] of Slack).
Regarding claim 3, Carey in view of Slack teaches the water treatment system of claim 1. Carey does not teach:
wherein the token is of the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) type associated to the water treatment station as a warranty of origin.
However, Slack teaches:
wherein the token is of the Non-Fungible Token (NFT) type associated to the water treatment station as a warranty of origin. (Paragraph [0042] “Upon minting carbon credit NFTs, a tracked offset is created by the token contract”; Paragraph [0038] “carbon credits logged on a distributed ledger, helping to prevent fraud.” of Slack)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carey is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Carey in view of Slack teaches the water treatment system of claim 1. Carey further teaches:
wherein the water treatment station is of the mobile type. (Paragraph [0017] “the disclosure is directed to a portable, self-contained antimicrobial treatment system”)
Regarding claim 6, Carey in view of Slack teaches the water treatment system of claim 1. Carey does not teach:
a geolocation device and wherein the geolocation information is transmitted to the computer along with the information issued by the sensors.
However, Slack teaches:
a geolocation device and wherein the geolocation information is transmitted to the computer along with the information issued by the sensors. (Paragraph [0046] “the platform is operable to interface with one or more sensors […] In one embodiment, the one or more sensors are able to be associated with a company profile.”; Paragraph [0043] “a location (e.g., geospatial coordinates, which are determined via a Global Positioning System (GPS)”; Paragraph [0044] “the platform receives registration information from a company (e.g., […] at least one location, etc.) in order to generate a company profile.” of Slack)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carey is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Carey in view of Slack teaches the water treatment system of claim 1. Carey further teaches:
a quality input sensor measuring a water quality parameter at the water input and issuing an input quality information transmitted to the computer. (Paragraph [0041] “FIG. 1B, inlet 104 and fluid connection 108 may contain one or more sensors to monitor the quality of the received liquid diluent, […] For example, sensors 128 and/or 130 may be water quality sensors”; Paragraph [0053] “The electronics control module 126 may also […] log data associated with sensors 128, 130, and 132 (e.g., water quality data, […])”)
Regarding claim 11, Carey in view of Slack teaches the water treatment system of claim 1.
Carey does not teach:
a computer program known as a smart contract ruling the conditions of a transaction between two or more terminals connected to the blockchain as well as the conditions to trigger such a transaction.
However Slack teaches:
a computer program known as a smart contract ruling the conditions of a transaction between two or more terminals connected to the blockchain as well as the conditions to trigger such a transaction. (Paragraph [0069] “a smart contract includes a set of automatically executable steps and/or instructions that are dependent on agreed-upon terms. The smart contract includes information including, but not limited to, at least one contracting party, at least one contract address, contract data, and/or at least one contract term. In one embodiment, the at least one smart contract is deployed on a blockchain such that the at least one smart contract is also stored on a distributed node infrastructure. In one embodiment, the terms of the at least one smart contract are dependent on changes to the blockchain. For example, a provision of the at least one smart contract executes when a new block is added to the blockchain that meets the terms of the at least one smart contract.”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carey is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carey (US 20230347000 A1) in view of Slack (US 20230139137 A1) in further view of Moore (US 20200317536 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Carey in view of Slack teaches the water treatment system of claim 1. Carey further teaches:
the terminals connected to the blockchain between which transactions may occur (Paragraph [0051] “once this tracking mechanism and electronic record are created, these treated materials can be tracked both inside the facility (e.g., for inventory purposes) and outside of the facility (e.g., by linking the internal system tracking capabilities to outside systems to track treated lots of soft and/or viscous materials with […] blockchain”)
Carey in view of Slack does not teach:
wherein the terminals connected to the blockchain between which transactions may occur comprise terminals owned by stakeholders of a water treatment system.
However, Moore teaches:
terminals owned by stakeholders of a water treatment system. (Paragraph [0074] “It would possible to tie the SCADA information into a system provided to the chairperson of the owner's or renter's association to insure the building management has appropriate oversight by interested stakeholders.” of Moore)
This operation of Moore is applicable to the system of Carey as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to water treatment systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the terminals of Carey to incorporate terminals owned by stakeholders of a water system as taught by Moore. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Carey in order to meet local or site specific requirements for documentation and allow the appropriate oversight of stakeholders (see paragraph [0074] of Moore).
Regarding claim 12, Carey in view of Slack in further view of Moore teaches the water treatment system of claim 2. Carey does not teach:
a method implementing the water treatment system of claim 2:
wherein a terminal A and a terminal B, respectively held by Stakeholder A and stakeholder B, are connected to the blockchain and wherein a smart contract is defining the cost in tokens of a given transaction between terminal A and terminal B, the transaction being triggered by an event defined in the smart contract, the method comprising the steps of:
- sending a request via the terminal A triggering the event;
- upon receipt by the terminal B, validating the transaction through the consensus mechanism;
- debiting or crediting tokens from the terminal A to the terminal B according to the terms and conditions of the smart contracts; and
- recording the transaction in the ledger.
However, Slack teaches:
a method implementing the water treatment system of claim 2:
wherein a terminal A and a terminal B, (Paragraph [0043] “the platform also generates a non-fungible token (NFT) corresponding to each carbon credit via a smart contract.”; Paragraph [0045] “If the NFTs are available, the payment process is initiated via a smart contract, automatically transferring fiat currency and/or cryptocurrency from the buyer in exchange for the one or more carbon NFTs.”; Paragraph [0069] “The smart contract includes information including, but not limited to, at least one contracting party” of Slack) the method comprising the steps of:
- sending a request via the terminal A triggering the event; (Paragraph [0073] “a cryptocurrency transaction between a first party and a second party involves the first party using a private key to sign a transaction” of Slack)
- upon receipt by the terminal B, validating the transaction through the consensus mechanism; (Paragraph [0073] “The transaction is then populated to a distributed network wherein a proportion (e.g., 51%) of the nodes of the distributed network verify the transaction.”; Paragraph [0065] “When new data is added to the distributed ledger, it must be validated by a portion of the nodes (e.g., 51%) involved in maintaining the ledger in a process called consensus.” of Slack)
- debiting or crediting tokens from the terminal A to the terminal B according to the terms and conditions of the smart contracts; (Paragraph [0045] “If the NFTs are available, the payment process is initiated via a smart contract, automatically transferring fiat currency and/or cryptocurrency from the buyer in exchange for the one or more carbon NFTs.” of Slack) and
- recording the transaction in the ledger. (Paragraph [0045] “Because the NFTs are stored as hash values on a distributed ledger, transactions of the carbon NFTs are automatically recorded” of Slack)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carey is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Carey in view of Slack does not teach:
wherein a terminal A and a terminal B, respectively held by Stakeholder A and stakeholder B, are connected to the blockchain and wherein a smart contract is defining the cost in tokens of a given transaction between terminal A and terminal B, the transaction being triggered by an event defined in the smart contract;
However, Moore teaches:
a terminal A and a terminal B, respectively held by Stakeholder A and stakeholder B, (Paragraph [0074] “It would possible to tie the SCADA information into a system provided to the chairperson of the owner's or renter's association to insure the building management has appropriate oversight by interested stakeholders.” of Moore)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carey is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Carey in view of Slack in further view of Moore teaches the method of claim 12. Carey does not teach:
wherein a fixed quantity of tokens is allocated over a given time frame to stakeholders A and B.
However, Slack teaches:
wherein a fixed quantity of tokens is allocated over a given time frame (Paragraph [0042] “the minimum amount of carbon represented by each carbon credit NFT is 1 tonne. […] after calculating the total number of carbon credits, the platform mints an NFT representing each carbon credit” of Slack)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carey is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Carey in view of Slack does not teach:
wherein a fixed quantity of tokens is allocated over a given time frame to stakeholders A and B.
However, Moore teaches:
stakeholders A and B (Paragraph [0074] “It would possible to tie the SCADA information into a system provided to the chairperson of the owner's or renter's association to insure the building management has appropriate oversight by interested stakeholders.” of Moore)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carey is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, Carey in view of Slack in further view of Moore teaches the method of claim 13. Carey does not teach:
wherein the allocated tokens are automatically destroyed after a given time past their allocation.
However, Slack teaches:
wherein the allocated tokens are automatically destroyed after a given time past their allocation. (Paragraph [0060] “the platform assigns an expiration date for one or more of the carbon NFTs. After the expiration date, a carbon NFT is automatically transferred to at least one burn wallet. A burn wallet is a wallet without an associated access key, which is therefore unable to be accessed for using the contents of the wallet. Effectively, NFTs transferred to a burn wallet are taken out of the system.”; Fig. 2 of Slack)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carey is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Carey in view of Slack in further view of Moore teaches the method of claim 12.
Carey does not teach:
wherein the token is of a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) type associated to the water treatment station as a warranty of origin and initially allocated tokens are of the utility token type and wherein a transaction comprises the substitution of a utility token by an NFT.
However, Slack teaches:
wherein the token is of a Non-Fungible Token (NFT) type associated to the water treatment station as a warranty of origin and initially allocated tokens are of the utility token type and wherein a transaction comprises the substitution of a utility token by an NFT. (Paragraph [0042] “Upon minting carbon credit NFTs, a tracked offset is created by the token contract,”; Paragraph [0045] “If the NFTs are available, the payment process is initiated via a smart contract, automatically transferring fiat currency and/or cryptocurrency from the buyer in exchange for the one or more carbon NFTs.” of Slack)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carey is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carey (US 20230347000 A1) in view of Slack (US 20230139137 A1) in further view of Kahn (US 20050251367 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Carey in view of Slack teaches the water treatment system of claim 1. Carey in view of Slack does not teach:
wherein the water treatment station is of the fixed type.
However, Kahn teaches:
wherein the water treatment station is of the fixed type. (Paragraph [0035] “water distribution, currently commonly manifest themselves as […] treatment plants” of Kahn; Examiner notes paragraph [0032] of the instant specification recites “water treatment stations may be of the fixed type, e.g. a water treatment plant”)
This operation of Kahn is applicable to the system of Carey as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to monitoring the quality of water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the water treatment station of Carey to be of the fixed type as taught by Kahn. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Carey in order to identify contamination of the water at its source (see paragraph [0005] of Kahn).
Regarding claim 8, Carey in view of Slack teaches the water treatment system of claim 7. Carey in view of Slack does not teach:
wherein the quality input sensor and the quality output sensor are measuring at least one parameter among:
- temperature,
- Ph,
- Calcium content,
- Nitrates content,
- Chlorine content,
- heavy metal content,
- turbidity and Total Suspended Solids,
- Total Dissolve Solids,
- Biological Oxygen Demand,
- Chemical Oxygen Demand,
- Specific molecules such as arsenic or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and
- microplastic content.
However, Kahn teaches:
wherein the quality input sensor and the quality output sensor are measuring at least one parameter among:
- temperature, (Paragraph [0037] “sensors can be selected to include any form of fluid measuring sensors, such as water quality measuring sensing elements including sensing elements for determining water temperature” of Kahn)
- Ph,
- Calcium content,
- Nitrates content,
- Chlorine content,
- heavy metal content,
- turbidity and Total Suspended Solids,
- Total Dissolve Solids,
- Biological Oxygen Demand,
- Chemical Oxygen Demand,
- Specific molecules such as arsenic or polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and
- microplastic content.
This operation of Kahn is applicable to the system of Carey as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to monitoring the quality of water. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the water treatment station of Carey to be of the fixed type as taught by Kahn. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Carey in order to test if the water purification/treatment system is operating properly and providing water of a certain quality (see Paragraph [0009] of Kahn).
Regarding claim 9, Carey in view of Slack in further view of Kahn teaches the water system of claim 8. Carey further teaches:
wherein the information issued by the quality input sensor and by the quality output sensor is recorded (Paragraph [0053] “The electronics control module 126 may also […] log data associated with sensors 128, 130, and 132 (e.g., water quality data, flow rate data, […])”; Paragraph [0051] “once this tracking mechanism and electronic record are created, these treated materials can be tracked both inside the facility (e.g., for inventory purposes) and outside of the facility (e.g., by linking the internal system tracking capabilities to outside systems to track treated lots of soft and/or viscous materials with […] blockchain”)sensors 128 and 132 of Fig. 1B)
Carrey does not teach:
wherein the information issued by the quality input sensor and by the quality output sensor is recorded in association with the token.
However, Slack teaches:
wherein the information issued by the sensors are recorded in association with the token. (Paragraph [0046] “the platform is operable to interface with one or more sensors, […] When the one or more sensors detect that 1 ton of CO2 less than a predetermined amount (i.e., a baseline amount) has been produced over a particular time period, then one carbon NFT is added to a wallet associated with the company profile.”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Carey is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carey (US 20230347000 A1) in view of Slack (US 20230139137 A1) in further view of Hamilton (US 20100094476 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Carey in view of Slack teaches the water system of claim 1. Carey in view of Slack do not teach:
wherein the water treatment station also comprises an energy consumption sensor, the information issued by this sensor being transmitted to the computer along with the type of the energy source.
However, Hamilton teaches:
wherein the water treatment station also comprises an energy consumption sensor, the information issued by this sensor being transmitted to the computer along with the type of the energy source. (Paragraph [0035] “Meter device 8 records an amount and type of energy consumed from each power supplier.”)
This operation of Hamilton is applicable to the system of Carey as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing utilities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Carey to incorporate transmitting the energy consumption sensor and type of energy source as taught by Hamilton. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Carey in order to monitor energy usage (see paragraph [0001] of Hamilton).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628