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 .
Election/Restrictions
NO restrictions warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Priority
Applicant claims domestic priority under 35 USC 119e to provisional application # 63/606563, filed on 12/05/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/07/2025, 12/03/2025, the submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Applicant’s drawings filed on 11/27/2024 has been inspected and is in compliance with MPEP 608.02.
Specification
Applicant’s specification filed on 11/27/2024 has been considered, and is in compliance with MPEP 608.01.
Claim Objections
NO claim objections warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC 112th f
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
As per claim 8. A system for managing carbon data using a blockchain network, wherein the system comprises a processing device configured “to:
categorize each of one or more carbon data received from at least one user of the blockchain network into respective privacy levels, wherein each of the respective privacy levels represents a privacy requirement corresponding to each of the one or more carbon data;
encrypt each of the one or more categorized carbon data using one of a plurality of encryption schemes, wherein the one of the plurality of encryption schemes is determined based on the privacy level of the carbon data;
generate one or more blockchain transactions corresponding to each of the one or more encrypted carbon data; and
transmit the one or more blockchain transactions into the blockchain network.”
As per claim 10. The system of claim 9, wherein the processing device is further configured “to:
map each of the one or more carbon data to a corresponding privacy level based on the predetermined privacy requirement.”
As per claim 14. The system of claim 13, wherein the processing device is further configured “to implement a blockchain-based model, and wherein the blockchain-based model comprises an architecture having:
a data access layer, wherein the categorize each of one or more carbon data received from at least one user of the blockchain network into respective privacy levels is performed in the data access layer;
a data privacy layer, wherein the encrypt each of the one or more categorized carbon data using one of a plurality of encryption schemes is performed in the data privacy layer; and
a smart contract layer, wherein the generate one or more blockchain transactions corresponding to each of the one or more encrypted carbon data is performed in the smart contract layer.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
Appropriate action required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim[s] 2, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The claim language recites the multiple phrases of “…and/or…,” which makes the claim indefinite as which elements further limit the claim, as opposed to which elements do not further limit the claim.
Appropriate action required.
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.
Claim[s] 8 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) 8 - 14 does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim language intends to recite software per se. While the claims do recite: a user, blockchain network, and transmit blockchain transactions; however, these claim limitations do not further limit the claim language. Such claim limitations are viewed as intended use or field of use claim limitations.
Appropriate action required.
***The examiner notes that applicant can overcome the rejection by positively reciting such claim limitations in a manner that further limits the claim.
Claim[s] 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of: Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles or practices [including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk] without significantly more or practical application.
Of base claim[s] 1, 8, in for example, claim # 1, the claim(s) recite(s)
“categorizing, by a processing device, each of one or more carbon data received from at least one user of the blockchain network into respective privacy levels, wherein each of the respective privacy levels represents a privacy requirement corresponding to each of the one or more carbon data;” [i.e. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk]
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining claim limitations amount to either the same identified abstract idea, another unidentified abstracts idea, “adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)," or "generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of field of use - see MEP 2106.05(h)," in the following manner:
“encrypting, by the processing device, each of the one or more categorized carbon data using one of a plurality of encryption schemes, wherein the one of the plurality of encryption schemes is determined based on the privacy level of the carbon data;” [i.e. another unidentified abstract idea: mathematical relationships]
“generating, by the processing device, one or more blockchain transactions corresponding to each of the one or more encrypted carbon data;” and [i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of field of use - see MEP 2106.05(h)]
“transmitting, by the processing device, the one or more blockchain transactions into the blockchain network.” [i.e. adding insignificant extra - solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)]
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are drawn to either the same identified abstract idea, another unidentified abstracts idea,
"adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP
2106.05(g)," or "generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment of field of use - see MEP 2106.05(h)," in the following
manner:
As per claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more carbon data comprises basic product information and/or manufacturing information of at least one construction material or product, and wherein the privacy requirement of each of the one or more carbon data is predetermined based on the basic product information and/or the manufacturing information. [i.e. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk]
As per claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the method further comprises: mapping, by the processing device, each of the one or more carbon data to a corresponding privacy level based on the predetermined privacy requirement. [i.e. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk]
As per claim 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the respective privacy levels comprise first, second and third privacy levels, and wherein the first privacy level carbon data is accessible to all users in the blockchain network, the second privacy level carbon data is accessible to users authorized by the owner of the carbon data, and the third privacy level carbon data is accessible only by the owner of the carbon data. [i.e. Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity: fundamental economic principles or practices - mitigating risk]
As per claim 5. The method of claim 4, wherein the plurality of encryption schemes comprise an asymmetric encryption scheme and a homomorphic encryption scheme, wherein the and second level privacy carbon data are encrypted using the asymmetric encryption scheme, and wherein the third level privacy level carbon data is encrypted using the homomorphic encryption scheme. [i.e. another unidentified abstract idea: mathematical relationships]
As per claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more blockchain transactions is generated using one or more smart contracts, and wherein at least one of the one or more smart contracts is configured to only allow at least one user authorized by an owner of the at least one of the one or more smart contracts to invoke at least one function of the at least one of the one or more smart contracts. [i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of field of use - see MEP 2106.05(h)]
As per claim 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the method is implemented based on a blockchain- based model, and wherein the blockchain-based model comprises an architecture having:
a data access layer, wherein the categorizing step is performed in the data access layer;
a data privacy layer, wherein the encrypting step is performed in the data privacy layer; and
a smart contract layer, wherein the generating step is performed in the smart contract layer. [i.e. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment of field of use - see MEP 2106.05(h)]
Appropriate action required.
Double Patenting
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
NO rejections warranted at applicant’s initial time of filing for patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim[s] 1 – 14 contain allowable subject matter, but as allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
the following prior art was yielded at time of search for the claimed invention, the prior art does not teach the claimed invention – but is in the general realm of technology to which patent protection is sought by applicant:
Klett et al. [US PGPUB # 2018/0365610], who does teach performing intelligence on supply chains used by organizations. A system performs a risk assessment of a labor supply chain of a particular organization by accessing, from a database, a first set of coded confidential labor supply chain data for the particular organization and a second set of coded confidential labor supply chain data for other organizations that are different from the particular organization. The system analyzes a combination of the first set of data and the second set of data to assess whether risks exist within the labor supply chain of the particular organization. Based on the analysis, the system generates a risk report for the labor supply chain data of the particular organization by desensitizing at least a portion of the second set of data for inclusion in the risk report and integrating the desensitized portion of the second set of data with confidential labor supply chain data of the particular organization. The system uses the risk report to present a graphical user interface that identifies whether risks exist within the labor supply chain of the particular organization.
Specifically, at paragraph: 0015, Further, the operations may include determining, from among multiple levels, a level of sharing to which the particular organization has agreed for sharing its labor supply chain data with other organizations and coding confidential labor supply chain data of the particular organization based on the determined level of sharing to which the particular organization has agreed. The operations also may include tailoring access of the second set of coded confidential labor supply chain data for the other organizations based on the determined level of sharing to which the particular organization has agreed.
While Klett, does teach the operation of coding of an organization’s supply chain data, and based on the level of sharing agreed to by the organization – will the supply chain data be shared with other organizations. However, Klett does not teach at least the claim limitations of claim # 1:
“categorizing, by a processing device, each of one or more carbon data received from at least one user of the blockchain network into respective privacy levels, wherein each of the respective privacy levels represents a privacy requirement corresponding to each of the one or more carbon data;
encrypting, by the processing device, each of the one or more categorized carbon data using one of a plurality of encryption schemes, wherein the one of the plurality of encryption schemes is determined based on the privacy level of the carbon data;
generating, by the processing device, one or more blockchain transactions corresponding to each of the one or more encrypted carbon data;…..etc.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANT SHAIFER - HARRIMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7910. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9am to 5pm.
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, Kambiz Zand can be reached at 571- 272- 3811. 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.
/DANT B SHAIFER HARRIMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2434