DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on XXXXXXXXXXXXXX has been entered.
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
Claims X are canceled.
Claims X are new.
Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined.
This action is in reply to the papers filed on 09/24/2025 (effective filing date 09/18/2024).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted: 09/24/2025, has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on xxx as modified by the amendment filed on xxx.
Reasons For Allowance
Prior-Art Rejection withdrawn
Claims xxx are allowed. Independent claims X, Y, and Z all contain the same inventive scope. The closest prior art (See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited) does not teach the claimed:
The closest prior-art (xxx) teach the features as disclosed in Non-final Rejection (xxxx), however, these cited references do not teach and the prior-art does not teach at least the following combination of features and/or elements:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101 - Withdrawn
Per Applicant’s amendments and arguments and considering new guidance in the MPEP, the rejections are withdrawn. Specifically, in Applicant’s Remarks (dated 03/14/2017, pgs. 8-11), Applicant traverses the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing that the amended claims recite new limitations that are not abstract, amount to significantly more, are directed to a practical application, etc… For example, Applicant argues….
In support of their arguments, Applicant cites to the following recent Fed. Cir. court cases (i.e., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, Berkheimer, Core Wireless, McRO, Enfish, Bascom, DDR, etc…).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims recite a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing.
Claim 1 recites [a] method for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing, the method comprising through operation of at least one processor in a system: automatically calculating carbon dioxide reduction (carbon offset) of a manufactured product, storing the calculated carbon dioxide reduction, automatically transmitting the calculated carbon dioxide reduction to a certification body, and receiving carbon offset credit issued by the certification body.
The claims are being rejected according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 5, p. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Step 1: Does the Claim Fall within a Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 1-6 recite a method and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of a process. Claim 7 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium/computer product and, therefore, are directed to the statutory class of a manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong One: Is a Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The following tables identify the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea. The column that identifies the additional elements will be relevant to the analysis in step 2A, prong two, and step 2B.
Claim 1: Identification of Abstract Idea and Additional Elements, using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
Claim Limitation
Abstract Idea
Additional Element
1. A method for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing, the method comprising through operation of at least one processor in a system:
The recital in the preamble of a “processor in a system” is given little patentable weight.
automatically calculating carbon dioxide reduction (carbon offset) of a manufactured product,
This limitation includes the step(s) of: automatically calculating carbon dioxide reduction (carbon offset) of a manufactured product.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)
and/or
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
“calculating carbon dioxide reduction (carbon offset)” is NOT considered an Additional Element.
This feature is interpreted as purely software or code for making a calculation.
storing the calculated carbon dioxide reduction,
This limitation includes the step(s) of: storing the calculated carbon dioxide reduction.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to storing known information to facilitate a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)
and/or
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
automatically transmitting the calculated carbon dioxide reduction to a certification body, and
This limitation includes the step(s) of: automatically transmitting the calculated carbon dioxide reduction to a certification body.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)
and/or
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
receiving carbon offset credit issued by the certification body.
This limitation includes the step(s) of: receiving carbon offset credit issued by the certification body.
No additional elements are positively claimed.
This limitation is directed to processing and/or communicating known information to facilitate a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing which may be categorized as any of the following:
mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations)
and/or
mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
and/or
certain method of organizing human activity –
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), and/or
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).
No additional elements are positively claimed.
As shown above, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea). The claims are directed to the abstract idea of implementing a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing, which, pursuant to MPEP 2106.04, is aptly categorized as a mathematical concept, mental process, and/or a method of organizing human activity. Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception.
The method claims do NOT recite any additional elements. Consequently, at least the method claims must be construed as abstract and capable of being performed mentally and/or manually with just pen and paper. The Office encourages Applicant to positively claim the structural features necessary to perform each individual method step and feature.
Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional functional elements that are associated with the judicial exception, including: a processor and storage medium for implementing the computer readable medium (claim 7). Examiner understands these limitations to be insignificant extrasolution activity. (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Cf. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-192 (1981) ("[I]nsignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle in to a patentable process.”).
The aforementioned claims also recite additional technical elements including: a processor and storage medium for implementing the computer readable medium (claim 7). These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic computer components. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is the Abstract Idea Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements listed above that relate to computing components are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions such as communicating, receiving, processing, analyzing, and outputting/displaying data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. There is no technological problem that the claimed invention solves. Rather, the computer system is invoked merely as a tool. Accordingly, the 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. Therefore, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, looking at the elements individually and in combination, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field, apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease, apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s), and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Provide an Inventive Concept?
Next, under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Simply put, as noted above, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer (or any other technology), and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements relating to computing components amount to no more than applying the exception using a generic computing components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer components (i.e., additional elements) includes any generic computing components that are capable of being programmed to communicate, receive, send, process, analyze, output, or display data.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer, the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements, identified as extra-solution activity, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Capturing an image (code) with an RFID reader. Ritter, US Patent No. 7734507 (Col. 3, Lines 56-67); “RFID: Riding on the Chip” by Pat Russo. Frozen Food Age. New York: Dec. 2003, vol. 52, Issue 5; page S22.
Receiving or transmitting data over a network. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Storing and retrieving information in memory. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Outputting/Presenting data to a user. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015); MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Using a machine learning model to determine user segment characteristics for an ad campaign. https://whites.agency/blog/how-to-use-machine-learning-for-customer-segmentation/.
Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea), and are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 2-7 further describe the abstract idea. The additional elements of the dependent claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
As such, the claims are not patent eligible.
Invention Could be Performed Manually
It is conceivable that the invention could be performed manually without the aid of machine and/or computer. For example, Applicant claims calculating a carbon offset, storing the calculation, transmitting the calculation and receiving a credit. Each of these features could be performed manually and/or with the aid of a simple generic computer to facilitate the transmission of data.
See also Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., and In re Venner, which stand for the concept that automating manual activity and/or applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices to accomplish the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Here, applicant is merely claiming computers to facilitate and/or automate functions which used to be commonly performed by a human.
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 82 USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir. 2007) "[a]pplying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace in recent years…"). The combination is thus the adaptation of an old idea or invention using newer technology that is commonly available and understood in the art.
In In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP 2144.04, III Automating a Manual Activity.
MPEP 2144.04 III - Automating a Manual Activity and In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) further stand for and provide motivation for using technology, hardware, computer, or server to automate a manual activity.
Therefore, the Office finds no improvements to another technology or field, no improvements to the function of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no limitations in any of the claims that transform the exception (i.e., the abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Claim Rejections - Not an Ordered Combination
None of the limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility, because taken as a whole, the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with routine, conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - Preemption
Allowing the claims, as presently claimed, would preempt others from implementing a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing. Furthermore, the claim language only recites the abstract idea of performing this method, there are no concrete steps articulating a particular way in which this idea is being implemented or describing how it is being performed.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597; in view of Uyeki 2024/0133590.
19/338,345 – Claim 1. Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 teaches A method for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing, the method comprising through operation of at least one processor in a system (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0032 - processing device 22 may be any custom made or commercially available processor, a Central Processing Unit (CPU), an auxiliary processor among several processors associated with the certification system]): automatically calculating carbon dioxide reduction (carbon offset) of a manufactured product (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0041 - The carbon balance computation module 42 is configured to take both the positive and negative details obtained by the environmental detection module 40. From this information, the carbon balance computation module 42 may use various calculations, algorithms, techniques, etc. to compute a value][Fig. 4; 0043 - the environment monitoring systems 18 may be configured to keep score, as it were, to determine an environment account that considers both the negative aspects (e.g., amounts of carbon emissions) and the positive aspects (e.g., improvements in manufacturing processes to reduce emissions, reforestation programs, etc.). This information can be provided to the environmental detection module 40 to create the environmental account balance 50. Based on various calculations, each organization 14 may be carbon neutral (i.e., having an equal balance of carbon emissions and countermeasures to offset those carbon emissions) or may be positive or negative in their balances. A positive balance equates to a “carbon offset credit” (i.e., providing more carbon offsets than carbon emissions). A negative balance equates to environmental liabilities or deficits (i.e., producing more harmful emissions than carbon offsets)]), storing the calculated carbon dioxide reduction (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0017 - according to an accounting type of scenario, one carbon offset credit is intended to represent a reduction, avoidance, or removal of one metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) or carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)][0021 - the digital certificates may store a unique identifier that may be used for verification and may refer to a public record (e.g., on a blockchain) that the public can use to confirm the carbon offset information, which therefore allows for independent verification][0022 - generation of applicable digital certificates in this regard (i.e., storing carbon offset credits, carbon emission information, sustainability initiatives, etc.) enables the integration of this information with various digital platforms]), automatically transmitting the calculated carbon dioxide reduction to a certification body (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0009, FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a communications system in which digital certificates associated with carbon offset credits are issued to a number of organizations, according to various embodiments of the present disclosure.][0026 – communications systems][0055 - data is transmitted across the network]), and receiving carbon offset credit issued by the certification body (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0030 – certification system may receive information regarding the status of each organization 14 with respect to carbon emissions, carbon offset initiatives, carbon offset credits, etc. The certification system 20 can then use this information to generate appropriate certificates that have the actual carbon offset credit information embedded therein and other information indicating the status of an organization 14 with respect to their environmental responsibleness, environment account balance]).
Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 may not expressly disclose the “transmitting the calculated carbon dioxide reduction to a certification body” features, however, Uyeki 2024/0133590 teaches these features as follows (Uyeki 2024/0133590 [0062 - based on the determined carbon offset, the processor 102A may transmit a part of the collected carbon credits to the carbon regulatory authority…] At 418, a carbon offset may be determined. In an embodiment, the processor 102A may determine the carbon offset. Based on the comparison between the amount of carbon spent (based on the usage of the first heater 106), with the amount of carbon saved (based on the usage of the second heater 108), the processor 102A may determine the carbon offset of the carbon footprint. The carbon offset may indicate the effective amount of carbon saved, which may be determined based on the difference between the amount of carbon saved via the second heater 108 and the amount of carbon spent via the first heater 106. In an embodiment, based on the determined carbon offset, the processor 102A may transmit a part of the collected carbon credits to the carbon regulatory authority to nullify the carbon emissions that may be generated based on the usage of the first heater 106.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 to include the features as taught by Uyeki 2024/0133590. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
19/338,345 – Claim 2. Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 further teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the calculated carbon dioxide reduction is transmitted via an electronic communication (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0002 - policy for regulating these “carbon emissions” includes a trading mechanism called “carbon offsetting” that allows entities such as governments, individuals, or businesses to compensate for or offset their emissions by supporting projects that reduce, avoid, or remove emissions elsewhere. A “carbon offset credit” (sometimes referred to as a “carbon credit” or “offset credit”) is a transferable financial instrument, which is a derivative of an underlying commodity having a certain market value that can be bought or sold in a cap-and-trade type of system][0009, FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a communications system in which digital certificates associated with carbon offset credits are issued to a number of organizations, according to various embodiments of the present disclosure.][0015 - organizations that reduce carbon emissions][0017 - For instance, according to an accounting type of scenario, one carbon offset credit is intended to represent a reduction, avoidance, or removal of one metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO.sub.2) or carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)][Figs. 1 and 2; 0026 – communications system][0029 - email][0055 - analysis of the certification system 20 itself, every time a certificate is fetched, validated, or checked against a Certificate Revocation List (CRL), data is transmitted across the network …]).
19/338,345 – Claim 6. Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 further teaches The method of claim 1, generating and forwarding a certificate including carbon dioxide reduction information to a buyer or consumer of the product (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0001 - The present disclosure generally pertains to the field of digital certificates, namely X.509 certificates. More particularly, the present disclosure pertains to systems and methods for embedding environmental carbon offset credits within X.509 digital certificates.][0025 - The digital certificates described in the present disclosure may be stored in any suitable form for secure digital transport to the certificate recipient. For example, digital certificates may be stored or verified in a decentralized digital ledger, such as blockchain. That, the digital certificate can be securely encrypted and stored in an unalterable way. Also, the carbon offset credits, which can have specific market value that can be traded in a cap-and-trade system, can be securely recorded in the ledger or blockchain file. In this carbon offset credit ecosystem, records of buying and selling of this digital asset can be safely stored.]).
19/338,345 – Claim 7. Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 further teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with processor executable instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out a method for reducing carbon dioxide emission using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing as claimed in claim 1 (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0007, 0032; 0036; 0046; 0062]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597; in view of Uyeki 2024/0133590; in further view of Bai et al. 2024/0193684.
19/338,345 – Claim 3. Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 further teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the calculated carbon dioxide reduction in a blockchain ledger (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0021 - the digital certificates may store a unique identifier that may be used for verification and may refer to a public record (e.g., on a blockchain) that the public can use to confirm the carbon offset information, which therefore allows for independent verification][0025 - digital certificates may be stored or verified in a decentralized digital ledger, such as blockchain. That, the digital certificate can be securely encrypted and stored in an unalterable way. Also, the carbon offset credits, which can have specific market value that can be traded in a cap-and-trade system, can be securely recorded in the ledger or blockchain file. In this carbon offset credit ecosystem, records of buying and selling of this digital asset can be safely stored.]), and transmitting the calculated carbon dioxide reduction via a smart contract on the blockchain ledger to the certification body (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0021; 0025]).
Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 may not expressly disclose the “transmitting the calculated carbon dioxide reduction to a certification body” features, however, Uyeki 2024/0133590 teaches these features as follows (Uyeki 2024/0133590 [0062 - based on the determined carbon offset, the processor 102A may transmit a part of the collected carbon credits to the carbon regulatory authority…] At 418, a carbon offset may be determined. In an embodiment, the processor 102A may determine the carbon offset. Based on the comparison between the amount of carbon spent (based on the usage of the first heater 106), with the amount of carbon saved (based on the usage of the second heater 108), the processor 102A may determine the carbon offset of the carbon footprint. The carbon offset may indicate the effective amount of carbon saved, which may be determined based on the difference between the amount of carbon saved via the second heater 108 and the amount of carbon spent via the first heater 106. In an embodiment, based on the determined carbon offset, the processor 102A may transmit a part of the collected carbon credits to the carbon regulatory authority to nullify the carbon emissions that may be generated based on the usage of the first heater 106.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 to include the features as taught by Uyeki 2024/0133590. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 may not expressly disclose the “smart contract on the blockchain ledger” features, however, Bai et al. 2024/0193684 teaches these features as follows (Bai et al. 2024/0193684 [0063 - using the asset smart contract to obtain a plurality of carbon neutrality tokens (CNTs) by executing a CNT smart contract on the blockchain and issuing the plurality of CNTs to an issuer and recording on the ledger] In one form, if the carbon footprint attribute value is positive, using the asset smart contract to obtain a plurality of carbon neutrality tokens (CNTs) by executing a CNT smart contract on the blockchain and issuing the plurality of CNTs to an issuer and recording on the ledger, wherein the amount of carbon neutrality tokens issued is determined from the carbon footprint attribute value, and the plurality of CNTs are offered for trading, and if the carbon footprint attribute value is negative, using the asset smart contract to obtain a plurality of asset backed tokens by executing an asset backed token smart contract on the blockchain and issuing the ABTs to an issuer and recording on the ledger, wherein the amount of asset backed tokens issued is determined from the financial and/or operating information of the asset.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 to include the features as taught by Bai et al. 2024/0193684. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597; in view of Uyeki 2024/0133590; in further view of Bai et al. 2024/0193684; in view of Batcher et al. 2024/0104520.
19/338,345 – Claim 4. Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 further teaches The method of claim 3, further comprising: storing production records and shipping information of the product in the blockchain ledger, wherein the production records comprise ingredients, materials, machine settings, quality results, tolerances of the product, and/or qualification information of manufacturing personnel (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0021; 0025]).
Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 may not expressly disclose the “storing production records and shipping information of the product in the blockchain ledger” features, however, Batcher et al. 2024/0104520 teaches these features as follows (Batcher et al. 2024/0104520 [0077 - blockchains that record transactions associated with production of the components at the supplier sites and/or mint NFTs that capture events associated with a unique instance of a product 244. One or more blockchain-enabled industrial devices herein at the manufacturing facility can link these NFTs via an industrial blockchain herein, thus yielding a plurality of related NFTs generated during the production cycle of a unique product as the components of the product are assembled and/or processed]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 to include the features as taught by Batcher et al. 2024/0104520. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597; in view of Uyeki 2024/0133590; in further view of Bai et al. 2024/0193684; in view of Batcher et al. 2024/0104520; in view of Oliver Gomila 2022/0114562.
19/338,345 – Claim 5. Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 further teaches The method of claim 4, wherein the calculating of the carbon dioxide reduction is based on the production records and shipping information of the product, and on a traditional carbon footprint of the product (Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 [0015 - purchase carbon offset credits to compensate for their own carbon emissions (carbon footprint)][0027 - In particular, each organization 14, whether they are involved with manufacturing, personal service, online service, and/or other types of operations, will inherently have some type of “carbon footprint.”][0054 - the carbon balance computation module 42 may be configured to determine energy consumption that contributes to the carbon footprint of the organization as well as ways to reduce energy consumption][0056 - Different energy sources have different carbon footprints.]).
Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 may not expressly disclose the “shipping” features, however, Oliver Gomila 2022/0114562 teaches these features as follows (Oliver Gomila 2022/0114562 [0041; Fig. 1] FIG. 1 provides a schematic overview of a carbon offset system 104 according to one embodiment of the invention. Carbon offset system 104 is a system capable of producing environmental benefits such as the aggregation and quantification of verifiable GHG emission reductions generated by one or more activities involved during complete product life cycle, including raw materials, production, supply-chain transport, warehouse and retail handling, customer delivery, use, disposal and recycling (end of life) of items purchased online, or by the emissions reductions produced through the substitution of a low-GHG emission item for a high-GHG emission item during the purchasing process. In some embodiments, there are two types of substitution that are considered: i) Product substitution within the same product category (i.e. laptop A for laptop B); and (ii) Product substitution within different categories (i.e. laptop A for iPad A). In either of these two cases, if the selected product has a lower carbon footprint, then carbon reductions are recognized. The quantification and production of carbon offsets from e-commerce activities is achieved by deducting the baseline emissions from the project emissions for each item added to the shopping cart. Order emission reductions (the aggregate of all items included in the shopping cart) are recognized at the time of purchase, and once verification is complete they are converted to carbon units (carbon offsets, credits, etc.) These e-commerce activities are carried out using the app or a web browser installed on a user device 102 that is in communication with the carbon offset system 104. User device 102 may comprise any electronic device, including a computer, tablet, cellular phone or smartwatch, that is capable of accessing an online store through the app or web browser. As the user browses the online store on a user device 102, the system displays GHG emissions for each item and the GHG emissions generated by a baseline item. To encourage users to purchase items with a low-carbon footprint, the system may categorize items based on environmental criteria, such as low-carbon items, locally-sourced items, low-carbon delivery options, and substitution of high-carbon product for a low-carbon product (e.g. meat-based diet to vegan diet) or use of a product with low operational carbon (e.g. battery electric vehicles (BEVs) instead of gasoline-powered vehicles, etc). Once the user confirms the shipping details the carbon offset system 104 may calculate the GHG emissions generated during the final delivery from the nearest distribution centre or retail location to the user (Delivery Project Emissions, or PEs) as well as the equivalent emissions generated by a business-as-usual delivery option in that region (Delivery Baseline Emissions, or BEs). In some embodiments, the system may require the user to input information to determine the use, disposal and/or recycling of the product to determine the appropriate GHG emissions (i.e. annual projected mileage of an electric vehicle during the purchase/lease process). Finally, after the user confirms the purchase, the system may calculate the GHG emission reductions generated by the Order (Order Emission Reductions, or ERo) and GHG emission reductions are recognized and recorded in the server. The resulting GHG emission reductions across all user purchases may be aggregated by the carbon offset system 104 and converted to verifiable emission reductions, which can be validated and verified for the purpose of having them being recognized as carbon units, depicted as VCUs 106 in FIG. 1. The conversion of the e-commerce purchases of users to GHG emissions reductions data and carbon offsets is performed in accordance with one or more methodologies and project plan as described in more detail herein.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Naidoo et al. 2025/0265597 to include the features as taught by Oliver Gomila 2022/0114562. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to utilize well known tools and features useful for implementing a method and computer readable medium for reducing carbon dioxide emissions using trusted on-demand distributed manufacturing which should prove to improve user experience, maximize profits, and optimize revenue.
Examiner’s Response to Arguments
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping 35 USC 101 rejection including Applicant’s amendments, arguments, lack of abstract idea, and practical integration.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claims 1-15, on page(s) 6-12 of Applicant’s Remarks (dated 12/27/2016), Applicants traverse the 35 USC §101 rejections arguing the following:
Examiner’s Response: Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 / § 103
Per Applicants’ amendments/arguments, the rejections are withdrawn. See notes above for additional reasoning and rationale for dropping prior-art rejection including Applicant’s amendments and arguments and unique combination of features and elements not taught by the prior-art without hindsight reasoning.
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection noted above.
Regarding Claim X, on page(s) 8-9 of Applicant’s Remarks / After Final Amendments (dated 07/15/2011), Applicant(s) argues that the cited reference(s) (Ellis and Vandermolen) fails to teach, describe, or suggest the amended features. Specifically, Applicant(s) argues that cited reference(s) do not teach, describe, or suggest the following: . With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
With respect, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive and the amended feature(s) remain rejected as follows.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Patent Literature
The prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mezey et al. 2025/0270450 [0045 - Carbon offset credit issuance for a carbon reduction system can be achieved based on the measured flow versus the current carbon offset calculation estimates. Credits can include geographic certification based on a measured carbon offset credit algorithm]
Song et al. 2024/0185262 [0033 - carbon footprint is offset with the verified carbon sink and/or carbon credits]
Slack 2023/0139137 [0042 - trading of fractions of tonnes through carbon credit NFTs representing carbon offsets]
Fritsch et al. 2026/0148302 [0134] Automated rules that determine carbon credit certification are built into Smart Contract algorithms. These rules encompass the four carbon offset project categories listed above and include all project types.
PERTINENT PRIOR ART – Non-Patent Literature (NPL)
The NPL prior-art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
X. Li, C. Liu, S. Li, C. Fu, R. Wang and X. Zhang, "Analysis and Suggestions on the Current Situation of Carbon Emission Verification and Monitoring in Electric Power Enterprises," 2023 5th International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Control Technologies (CEECT), Chengdu, China, 2023, pp. 666-673, doi: 10.1109/CEECT59667.2023.10420750.
J. Kakarott and V. Skwarek, "An enhanced DLT-based CO2 Emission Trading System," 2020 Fourth World Conference on Smart Trends in Systems, Security and Sustainability (WorldS4), London, UK, 2020, pp. 435-442, doi: 10.1109/WorldS450073.2020.9210260.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
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 extension fee 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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection and FINAL Rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW T. SITTNER whose telephone number is (571) 270-7137 and email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm (Mountain Time Zone). Please schedule interview requests via email: matthew.sittner@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M. Monfeldt can be reached on (571) 270-1833.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW T SITTNER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629b
Prosecution Insights