DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first Office Action Non-Final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-9 as originally filed are currently pending and considered below.
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 Non-Final Office action is in response to the application filed on November 24, 2025. Claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/868,995 was filed on 11/24/2025 and claims priority to PCT/CN2022/095780
filed 05/27/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/24/2025 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
he 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 in “a first storage module”, “a second storage module”, “a determination module” in Claim 6, “a module” in Claim 7-8, and “a creation module” and “verification module” in Claim 9. Additionally, the word “module” is considered to be a generic placeholder coupled with the above functions but without a structural recitation.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
For example, the specification pg.7 lines 22-31 discloses the corresponding structure of the claimed systems that are performing the claimed functions as being a processing unit that is implementing the functions recited by the claimed modules (implementing the algorithm that is part of the covered structure defined by a 112f limitation). Therefore, the covered structure that is defined by the invocation of 112f for the various “modules” that are executing the claimed functions is found to be a generic computer (a processing unit) that is implementing the algorithm that is being used to accomplish the claimed functions. The claims noted above use a generic placeholder term of “modules” that is coupled to a function(s) to be performed, and are not being modified by any structure in the claim itself; therefore, the claim language passes the 3 prong test for determining if 112f has been invoked.
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
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation of “comparing the difference value to a threshold using product manufacture information to verify the carbon emission value of each product of the batch of products” which is indefinite because the recited “threshold” lacks reasonably certain meaning. Specifically, the claim recites comparing a difference value to a threshold, while the specification describes the threshold as being established based on the difference value itself. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the threshold is an independently determined benchmark or a value derived from the same difference value being evaluated. Therefore, the scope of the claimed comparison cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the recited “threshold” as a benchmark value against which the determined difference value is compared to distinguish normal and abnormal carbon emission values. However, because the claim does not define the threshold or explain how it is determined, and the specification appears to describe the threshold as being derived from the same difference value being evaluated, the meaning and scope of the recited threshold remain unclear. Clarification/ Correction is needed.
Claim 6 is also rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1 because claim 6 recites the same “threshold” limitation. Clarification/ Correction is needed.
Claims 2-5 and 7-9 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency from indefinite claims 1 and 6.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1-5 are directed to a method (process) and Claims 6-9 are directed to an apparatus (machine/apparatus). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A method for information management of product manufacture, the method comprising: storing a public key for verifying average carbon emission value of a batch of products in a first blockchain; storing, a hash value of a carbon emission value of each product of the batch of products in a second blockchain; determining a difference value between the carbon emission value of a particular product and an average carbon emission value of the batch of products and comparing the difference value to a threshold using product manufacture information to verify the carbon emission value of each product of the batch of products.
Similarly, Claim 6, as exemplary example is recited below, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
An apparatus for information management of product manufacture, the apparatus comprising a first storage module for storing, in a first public key for verifying average carbon emission value of a batch of products in a first blockchain; a second storage module for storing a hash value of a carbon emission value of each product of the batch of products in a second blockchain; and a determination module for determining a difference value between a carbon emission value of the product and average carbon emission value of the batch of products and comparing the difference value to a threshold using product manufacture information to verify the carbon emission value of each product of the batch of products.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of collecting carbon emission information, comparing carbon emission values, and determining whether a difference satisfies a threshold for purposes of verifying product related information. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a process implemented by blockchains and modules, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed manually by person. For example, for the recited blockchain components, the claim encompasses collecting carbon emission information for products, determining a difference between an individual product carbon emission value and an average carbon emission value of a batch, comparing the difference to a threshold, and verifying the carbon emission using product manufacturing information. Such activities could be performed manually by reviewing carbon emission records, calculating averages and differences, comparing the results against predetermined criteria, and determining whether the carbon emission information is valid. Additionally, evaluating carbon emission data and using the results to verify product related environmental information constitutes a method of organizing human activity in the form of a commercial practice, as it involves managing and validating environmental impact information associated with manufactured products. As further supported by the specification, which describes verifying carbon emission values of products during manufacture, the claimed data analysis is ultimately used to facilitate decision regarding product carbon emission validation and supply-chain accountability, and therefore amounts to a commercial practice of managing environmental impact information associated with products. The mere nominal recitation of a “a public key”, “blockchain”, “a storage module”, “determination module” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Accordingly, Claims 1 and 6 recite an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites additional elements of “a public key” and “blockchain”. Claim 6 recites the additional element of a public key”, “blockchain”, “a storage module”, “determination module”. The additional elements, (use of blockchain and modules) are described at a high-level of generality such that they merely perform their ordinary functions of storing, securing, and verifying carbon emission information. These components are used to perform a comparison and verification of carbon emission values, without disclosing any specialized blockchain configuration or improvement to the operation of the blockchain technology itself. Thus, the computing components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing component performing generic data storage, processing, and communication functions) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1 and 6 are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements of a public key”, “blockchain”, “a storage module”, “determination module” when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claim 1 and 15 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Claims 2-3 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to further include storing a respective for verifying average carbon emission value of a batch of products and computing the threshold using a serial number or date of manufacture of the product. In addition, the claims recite the additional elements of “public key” and “first blockchain”, which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the dependent claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 4 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to further include creating a verifiable presentation of the batch of products associated with carbon emission value by wrapping a verifiable credential of the batch of products provided by the certifier to protect identity privacy of the batch of products; and verifying the verifiable presentation by the public key stored in the first blockchain.
Claim 5 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims. In addition, the claims recite the additional elements of “first blockchain”, “second blockchain”, “a decentralized identity (DID) blockchain”, and “standard blockchain” , which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the dependent claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 7-8 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to further include verifying average carbon emission value of a batch of products and computing the threshold based on a serial number or date of manufacture of the product. In addition, the claims recite the additional elements of “a module”, “public key”, and “blockchain”, which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the dependent claims are patent ineligible.
Claim 9 recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to further include creating a verifiable presentation of the batch of products associated with carbon emission value by wrapping a verifiable credential of the batch of products provided by the certifier to protect identity privacy of the batch of products; and verifying the verifiable presentation. In addition, the claims recite the additional elements of “creation module”, “verification module”, and “the public key stored in the first blockchain” which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the dependent claim is patent ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the subject matter which is present in independent claims 1 and 6. In regards to Claims 1 and 6 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be Gupta et al. (US20200111105)
Gupta et al. is directed to a method for rewarding carbon sequestration includes: receiving a carbon sequestration notification, wherein the carbon sequestration notification includes at least an amount of sequestered carbon dioxide and an entity identifier associated with an entity that sequestered the amount of sequestered carbon dioxide.
However, none of the cited prior art references listed above fully anticipate or render obvious the limitations of:
A method for information management of product manufacture, the method comprising: storing a public key for verifying average carbon emission value of a batch of products in a first blockchain; storing, a hash value of a carbon emission value of each product of the batch of products in a second blockchain; determining a difference value between the carbon emission value of a particular product and an average carbon emission value of the batch of products and comparing the difference value to a threshold using product manufacture information to verify the carbon emission value of each product of the batch of products.
which are found in the independent claims. Therefore, independent claim 1 and 6 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gupta et al. (US20200111105) is directed to a method for rewarding carbon sequestration includes: receiving a carbon sequestration notification, wherein the carbon sequestration notification includes at least an amount of sequestered carbon dioxide and an entity identifier associated with an entity that sequestered the amount of sequestered carbon dioxide.
Qi et al. (US 20250266996) is directed to generating component carbon footprint data of a component, wherein the data comprises data of a material for manufacturing the component and addon component carbon footprint data generated in the production and processing of the component.
Wollack et al. (US 20250104095) is directed to systems and methods are disclosed for tracking, via a blockchain registry, carbon credits in goods produced from materials with sequestered carbon. Materials with sequestered carbon may be produced by reacting greenhouse gases with air and other reagents and catalysts (including biological organisms).
Tian et al. (US-20210117981) is directed to methods, devices, block chain nodes, computer readable media and a system for carbon recording and trading based on a block chain.
All sources listed above are relevant to the disclosed and claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is 571-270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights