DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a non-final office action in response to the amendment filed 7/8/2026.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 2 has been received and is acknowledged. Claims 9-18 were previously withdrawn by Applicant.
Examiner further notes that Applicant has submitted an abstract without marking of the changes as required (See MPEP 714). As such the amendment has not been entered and the objection remains.
The applicant's claim for benefit of provisional application US 63/602222, filed 11/22/2023 has been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and Claims 1-8 have been examined.
Specification
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is over 150 words long. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). (See also MPEP 714).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the objection to the Abstract, Applicant has submitted an abstract without marking of the changes as required (See MPEP 714). As such the amendment has not been entered and the objection remains.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues: (1) The instant claims are not directed to ‘software per se’ as characterized by the previous office action because this does not consider Claim 1 as a whole. Applicant asserts that the Claim 1 “…is not merely a set of software instructions or an abstract software module untethered from any technological environment; it requires operative coupling to measurement devices arranged among emitters and uses measured carbon-generation data from those devices to generate ledger transactions….” As such, Applicant asserts that the (Applicant’s response 10-11) (2) Applicant further argues that Claim 1 “.. is a practical application of the alleged abstract idea… recites measurement module/device limitations which integrate the exception into a practical application. Specifically, claim 1 recites inter alia "a measurement module ... communicatively coupled to a plurality of measurement devices arranged amongst the plurality of emitters, and wherein the plurality of measurement devices are configured to automatically report carbon generation, such that the measurement module generates a measurement transaction corresponding to an amount of carbon measured by the plurality of measurement devices to be stored on the cryptographically verifiable ledger based upon a level of emissions output by the plurality of emitters."…. they integrate any such abstract concepts into a practical application. Thus, the measurement device limitations use the alleged judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment…. represents a technological improvement in carbon credit trading systems through its integration of measurement devices which enable automated and transparent reporting of emissions..” (Applicant’s response, 11-13) Applicant further analogizes the instant recited claims to Example 41 asserting that : … the claims at issue here recite transmission of data through new mechanisms to prevent tampering. Just as in Example 41, however, the pending claims tie the computer aspects of the claims to a practical application in a way that results in patent eligibility…” (Applicant’s response, 13). (3) Applicant additionally argues that the instant claims are “…significantly more that the abstract idea … by providing an inventive concept through the coordination with measurement devices located at the plurality of emitters in communication with a blockchain-based carbon credit trading system. The system uses these measurement devices enabled to communicate with a blockchain-based carbon credit trading system to determine the emissions of the plurality of emitters. … goes beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field. The claimed invention represents a technological improvement in carbon credit trading systems through its integration of data from measurement devices with a carbon credit trading system…” (Applicant’s response, 13-14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted previously and below. Using broadest reasonable interpretation, as stated in the previous office action citing the Specification, “ measurement devices” are interpreted as either hardware or software or a combination of both (See [9], [24], [73-74], [85], [100-102], [117-119]; [125]; Fig. 1 and 5 ). No specific definition of the term is supported and provided or recited in the claims. Further, “emitters” is also disclosed in the specification as (see [76]: “…are carbon-emitting entities participating in the platform… are carbon-emitting entities participating in the platform..”); using broadest reason interpretation this is also not technology; it is an the abstract concept of party to a legal or commercial interaction. As such, the claims are directed to ‘software per se.’ ( Applicant’s argument 1). Applicant’s own arguments describe “ automatically reporting carbon generation” and “amount of carbon measure .. to be stored on a cryptographically verifiable ledger….” This is literally “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. ( See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)) This is distinguishable from the patent eligible claims of Example 41. ( Applicant’s argument 2). Further the use of “these measurement devices enabled to communicate with a blockchain-based carbon credit trading system to determine the emissions...” for their well known, routine and conventional functions is not an improvement to technology. At most the recited claims are an improvement to the abstract idea. (Applicant’s argument 3). As such Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues: (1) That the sensor of Conner does not teach the “measurement device … configured to automatically report carbon generation… Conner fails to mention sensors even once…” Applicant further argues that the prior art of “Conner fails to remedy the deficiencies of CTE Rules and fails to render obvious independent claim 1.. Jette … does not disclose or render obvious the claimed measurement module…” (Applicant’s response, 15-16) (2) Applicant further argues that the Conner does not cure the deficiency of CTE Rules with regard to Claim 4. (Applicant’s response 17). (3) Applicant further argues that there is no motivation “to combine the cited references in the proposed manner”. Applicant additionally asserts “The references are directed to materially different systems and solve different problems… The Office Action does not identify a teaching in CTE Rules, Conner, or Jette that would have motivated a skilled artisan to modify a voluntary carbon market rulebook using Conner's encryption-focused sensor architecture and Jette's real-estate loan oracle/web3 architecture to produce Applicant's claimed platform.. the Office has not met its burden to show a sufficient motivation to combine CTE Rules, Conner, and Jette..” (Applicant’s response, 17-19).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted in the rejection previously and below. The full citation for “a measurement module…” reads: (See at least Conner, [16] device comprises a sensor that generates a stream measurement data and computing processor… register blockchain ledger…[54-55] sensors…[68]…measures for carbon-based allowances or offsets can be calculated and stored in a blockchain based architecture…). Conner [54-55] [68] states:
(0054] Sensors: IoT sensors are basically a monitoring or
measuring device embedded into machine, system or device
with an API enabling it to connect and share data with other
systems. However, sensors can create copious amounts of
data which may have no practical value so analytics or
exception based models are applied to reduce it to more of
a meaningful dataset before transmission. Data is typically
transmitted via an IEEE 802.1 network using an Internet
Protocol (IP) to a gateway, router, receiver or aggregation
point. The transmission frequency can be real-time streaming,
exception-based, time intervals or when polled by
another system.
(0055] The IoT sensor market is divided into two broad
categories. Original Device Manufacturers (ODMs) and
Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). ODMs design
manufacture the core sensor technology (pressure, temperature,
accelerometers, light, chemical, etc.) with over 100,000
types of sensors currently available for IoT solutions. These
sensors typically do not include any of the communication
or intelligence capabilities needed for IoT solutions so
OEMs embed ODM sensors into their IoT devices while
adding the communications, analytics and other potential
capabilities needed for their specified markets. For example,
an OEM who builds a Building Automation IoT application
may include various sensor types such as light (IR or visual),
temperature, chemical (CO2), Accelerometer and contact.
[0068] Measurements for carbon-based allowances or off-sets can be calculated and stored in a blockchain based architecture. In the case that the carbon-based measurements (renewable, efficiency, water, etc.) are stored in a block-chain, then that same or an additional blockchain implemen-tation can provide what is referred to as a "cryptocurrency" based on the carbon values provided. In other words, in this mechanism, a "cryptocurrency" can be "backed by" carbon based certificates, credits, or any other form of carbon instrument.
which clearly teaches ‘various sensor types such as… chemical (CO2) ..” which is a carbon sensor and the calculations of carbon-based allowances or off-sets. Examiner has also clarified the rejections with additional citation to Conner [17} (Applicant’s arguments 1-2)
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as noted in the rejection previously and below the combination of the references merely apply a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. As stated below, in the instant case, CTE Rules discloses the platform and method upon which the carbon trade exchange is based including the rules governing the agreement and trading on the exchange. Conner teaches a method and system of recording carbon credit transaction in a distributed ledger/blockchain including sensor/measurement device data. Jette teaches a method and system of blockchain-based transactions including known techniques/components such as an oracle and web3. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a carbon trade exchange which uses a distributed ledger/blockchain and includes sensor/measurement device data including known techniques/components such as an oracle and web3.) As such the claimed invention is obvious over CTE Rules/Conner.
Additionally, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Based on the review of the specification:
The term ‘platform’/ platforms is interpreted as software (See at least, [6-7], [10], [35], [69-71] [88]) ;
The term ‘administrator’ is : (see [75] : is “referred to … as a creator… is an entity or organization …could be the (UNFCCC), the EU, a government … or any organization operating a CCT system…” );
The term ‘emitters’ is: (see [76]: “…are carbon-emitting entities participating in the platform… are carbon-emitting entities participating in the platform..”);
The term ‘modules’ is interpreted as software (See at least, [6-7], [70], [78], [`114-115], [127-129])
The term ‘measurement device’ is interpreted as either hardware or software or a combination of both (See [9], [24], [73-74], [85], [100-102], [117-119]; [125]; Fig. 1 and 5 )
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a platform for automation of carbon credits. In the instant case, Claims 1-8 are directed to software (i.e. various modules).
As written using broadest reasonable interpretation, invention is claiming software per se which is non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Though the subject matter eligibility analysis under the interpretation of the claimed platform as software could end at Step 1, in the interest of compact prosecution, the analysis continues:
(2a) Prong 1: The automation/analysis of carbon credits is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity) [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
Claim 1. A platform for automation of carbon credits using smart contracts, the platform comprising:
an agreements module configured to … a plurality of parameters from an administrator to assign a plurality of credits to a corresponding plurality of emitters using an assignment transaction to be included in a transaction block in a cryptographically verifiable ledger;
a suspension module configured to selectively suspend any of the plurality of emitters by generating a suspension transaction to be included in a transaction block in the cryptographically verifiable ledger;
a registration module configured to register the plurality of emitters using a plurality of registration transactions to be included in a transaction block in the cryptographically verifiable ledger;
a trading module configured to generate a plurality of trading transactions to be included in a transaction block on the cryptographically verifiable ledger, each of the plurality of trading transactions corresponding to a purchase or sale of carbon credits as between the plurality of emitters;
a measurement module, wherein the measurement module is private and exclusive to the administrator and to an emitter of the plurality of emitters that generated emissions measured by the measurement module, wherein the measurement module is communicatively coupled to a plurality of measurement devices arranged amongst the plurality of emitters, and wherein the plurality of measurement devices are configured to automatically report carbon generation, such that the measurement module generates a measurement transaction corresponding to an amount of carbon measured by the plurality of measurement devices to be stored on the cryptographically verifiable ledger based upon a level of emissions output by the plurality of emitters.
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: methods of organizing human activity.
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the modules recite.. the steps of …selectively suspend… ; register.. emitters…; ..generate…; … generates.. do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. receive…) do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use ( See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1-8 are directed to software.
.Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (modules ) merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) ( Specification, [6-7], [70], [78], [`114-115], [127-129] modules)
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claims (2-8) introduces the additional elements of (various wherein clauses further defining the modules..(Claims 2, 6, 7, 8), the…administrator… and modules (Claim 3); … measurement devices.. (Claim 4) and further comprising a blockchain oracle … (Claim 5). These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)). Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because these elements amount “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use or merely uses generic computing elements/technology to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. ( See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g) Specification, platform/platforms [6-7], [10], [35], [69-71] [88]; modules [6-7], [70], [78], [`114-115], [127-129]; measurement device [9], [24], [73-74], [85], [100-102], [117-119]; [125]; Fig. 1 and 5).
Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over non-patent literature, CARBON TRADE EXCHANGE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE VOLUNTARY CARBON MARKET 22 May 2018. (https://ctxglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/CarbonTradeExchangeRules_20180522.pdf) hereinafter referred to as CTE Rules further in view of US 20210314143 A1, Conner hereinafter referred to as Conner.
Claim 1
CTE Rules discloses A platform for automation of carbon credits using smart contracts, the platform comprising:
an agreements module configured to receive a plurality of parameters from an administrator to assign a plurality of credits to a corresponding plurality of emitters using an assignment transaction …; (See at least CTE Rules, 2.1 Carbon Trade Exchange… acts as a clearing house and third party record keeper of transactions…32…Limitation of Liability… hardware or software… )
a suspension module configured to selectively suspend any of the plurality of emitters by generating a suspension transaction …; (See at least CTE Rules, 3.6 Member’s access to the CTX Trading Platform will be cancelled in the event that the CTX Trading Agreement is terminated for any breach of the terms and conditions…. 30.2 Carbon Trade Exchange or the Member may terminate the CTX Trading Agreement in the event that either party fails to comply with any of its obligations…11. Changes to Membership Status and Suspension…32…Limitation of Liability… hardware or software… )
a registration module configured to register the plurality of emitters using a plurality of registration transactions ….; (See at least CTE Rules, 3. Becoming a Member… 3.1-3.7 In order to become a Member and a participant on the CTX Trading Platform, an applicant must complete and online Application….verify the participant’s application and supporting documents… 5. Registry Allowance Account… Approved Registry account holder… Registry Allowance Account… 32…Limitation of Liability… hardware or software… )
a trading module configured to generate a plurality of trading transactions …, each of the plurality of trading transactions corresponding to a purchase or sale of carbon credits as between the plurality of emitters; (See at least CTE Rules, 6. Cash Settlement and Trading Account… 9. Commencement of Trading on the CTX Trading Platform… 9.1 internet based interface… Section 2 Trading on the CTX Trading Platform… 12-24, 26…32…Limitation of Liability… hardware or software… )
CTE Rules does not directly disclose the following; Conner teaches:
…to be included in a transaction block in a cryptographically verifiable ledger…(See at least Conner, [16] device comprises a sensor that generates a stream measurement data and computing processor… register blockchain ledger…)
a measurement module, wherein the measurement module is private and exclusive to the administrator and to an emitter of the plurality of emitters that generated emissions measured by the measurement module, wherein the measurement module is communicatively coupled to a plurality of measurement devices arranged amongst the plurality of emitters, and wherein the plurality of measurement devices are configured to automatically report carbon generation, such that the measurement module generates a measurement transaction corresponding to an amount of carbon measured by the plurality of measurement devices to be stored on the cryptographically verifiable ledger based upon a level of emissions output by the plurality of emitters. (See at least Conner, [16-17] device comprises a sensor that generates a stream measurement data and computing processor… register blockchain ledger…plurality of user data ..[54-55] sensors…[68]…measures for carbon-based allowances or offsets can be calculated and stored in a blockchain based architecture…).
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, CTE Rules discloses the platform and method upon which the carbon trade exchange is based including the rules governing the agreement and trading on the exchange. Conner teaches a method and system of recording carbon credit transaction in a distributed ledger/blockchain including sensor/measurement device data. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a carbon trade exchange which uses a distributed ledger/blockchain and includes sensor/measurement device data.). As such the claimed invention is obvious over CTE Rules/Conner.
Claim 2
CTE Rules and Conner disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
CTE Rules does not directly disclose the following; Conner teaches:
wherein each of the agreements module, the suspension module, the registration module, the trading module, and the carbon measurement module are configured to create smart contracts that generate transaction blocks on the cryptographically verifiable ledger. (See at least Conner, [86] blockchain may implement through a smart contract…)
Claim 3
CTE Rules and Conner disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
CTE Rules further discloses:
wherein the administrator is further configured to assign a plurality of credits to one or more green projects, and:
the suspension module is further configured to selectively suspend any of the one or more green projects by generating a suspension transaction to be included …; (See at least CTE Rules, 3.6 Member’s access to the CTX Trading Platform will be cancelled in the event that the CTX Trading Agreement is terminated for any breach of the terms and conditions…. 30.2 Carbon Trade Exchange or the Member may terminate the CTX Trading Agreement in the event that either party fails to comply with any of its obligations…11. Changes to Membership Status and Suspension…32…Limitation of Liability… hardware or software… )
the registration module is further configured to register the one or more green projects using a plurality of registration transactions …(See at least CTE Rules, 3. Becoming a Member… 3.1-3.7 In order to become a Member and a participant on the CTX Trading Platform, an applicant must complete and online Application….verify the participant’s application and supporting documents… 5. Registry Allowance Account… Approved Registry account holder… Registry Allowance Account…32…Limitation of Liability… hardware or software… )
the plurality of trading transactions … correspond to a purchase or sale of carbon credits including the one or more green projects. (See at least CTE Rules, 6. Cash Settlement and Trading Account… 9. Commencement of Trading on the CTX Trading Platform… 9.1 internet based interface… Section 2 Trading on the CTX Trading Platform… 12-24, 26…32…Limitation of Liability… hardware or software… )
CTE Rules does not directly disclose the following; Conner teaches:
…to be included in a transaction block in a cryptographically verifiable ledger…(See at least Conner, [16] device comprises a sensor that generates a stream measurement data and computing processor… register blockchain ledger…)
Claim 4
CTE Rules and Conner disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
CTE Rules does not directly disclose the following; Conner teaches:
further comprising the plurality of measurement devices arranged at the plurality of emitters to provide carbon emission measurement data to the measurement module. (See at least Conner, [16-17] device comprises a sensor that generates a stream measurement data and computing processor… register blockchain ledger…plurality of user data …[54-55] sensors…[68]…measures for carbon-based allowances or offsets can be calculated and stored in a blockchain based architecture…).
Claim 7
CTE Rules and Conner disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
CTE Rules does not directly disclose the following; Conner teaches:
wherein the trading module is configured to implement smart contracts that trade carbon credits with the plurality of emitters. (See at least Conner, [16] device comprises a sensor that generates a stream measurement data and computing processor… register blockchain ledger…[54-55] sensors…[68]…measures for carbon-based allowances or offsets can be calculated and stored in a blockchain based architecture…).
Claim 8
CTE Rules and Conner disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
CTE Rules further discloses:
wherein the registration module is configured to register the plurality of emitters. (See at least CTE Rules, 3. Becoming a Member… 3.1-3.7 In order to become a Member and a participant on the CTX Trading Platform, an applicant must complete and online Application….verify the participant’s application and supporting documents… 5. Registry Allowance Account… Approved Registry account holder… Registry Allowance Account…32…Limitation of Liability… hardware or software… )
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CTE Rules in view of Conner further in view US 11288736 B1, Jette et al. hereinafter referred to as Jette.
Claim 5
CTE Rules and Conner disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 4.
CTE Rules does not directly disclose the following; Conner teaches:
further comprising a ….. to the plurality of measurement devices and the measurement module. (See at least Conner, [16] device comprises a sensor that generates a stream measurement data and computing processor… register blockchain ledger…[54-55] sensors…[68]…measures for carbon-based allowances or offsets can be calculated and stored in a blockchain based architecture…).
CTE Rules does not directly disclose the following; Jette teaches:
…blockchain oracle communicatively coupled… (See at least Jette, Fig. 8 Oracle Contract… C10L21-33 smart contracts… oracles… C15L8-26, oracles…to provide authorization on the block chain…)
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, CTE Rules discloses the platform and method upon which the carbon trade exchange is based including the rules governing the agreement and trading on the exchange. Conner teaches a method and system of recording carbon credit transaction in a distributed ledger/blockchain including sensor/measurement device data. Jette teaches a method and system of blockchain-based transactions including known techniques/components such as an oracle and web3. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a carbon trade exchange which uses a distributed ledger/blockchain and includes sensor/measurement device data including known techniques/components such as an oracle and web3.) As such the claimed invention is obvious over CTE Rules/Conner/Jette.
Claim 6
CTE Rules and Conner disclose the invention as claimed above in Claim 1.
CTE Rules does not directly disclose the following; Jette teaches:
wherein the agreements module is communicatively coupled to web3 storage to receive an agreements hash therefrom. (See at least Jette, Fig. 3, hash ….C16L44-67 hash of block…C26L55-C27L3 web3 bridge component… transaction interface C30L55-C31L50 Market marketer may provide input, approve a transaction or otherwise interact with core contract… through a blockchain network or web3 bridge component… )
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, CTE Rules discloses the platform and method upon which the carbon trade exchange is based including the rules governing the agreement and trading on the exchange. Conner teaches a method and system of recording carbon credit transaction in a distributed ledger/blockchain including sensor/measurement device data. Jette teaches a method and system of blockchain-based transactions including known techniques/components such as an oracle and web3. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a carbon trade exchange which uses a distributed ledger/blockchain and includes sensor/measurement device data including known techniques/components such as an oracle and web3.) As such the claimed invention is obvious over CTE Rules/Conner/Jette
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Project Genesis 2.0: Smart Contract-based Carbon Credits attached to Green Bonds, Oct 2022. BIS Innovation Hub. Hong Kong Monetary Authority. (https://www.bis.org/publications/genesis-20-smart-contract-based-carbon-credits-attached-green-bonds.pdf)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached on 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
