DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application filed on 10/08/2025, and the preliminary amendment filed on 02/27/2026.
Claims 42-63 have been added.
Claims 1-41 have been canceled.
Claims 42-63 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 43 – minor informativity – The word to is repeated:
The blockchain mining system of claim 42 in which the generator is connected to to the source of combustible gas, which is isolated from a sales gas line and an external electrical power grid.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 42-63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-41 of U.S. Patent No. 11,574,372 B1, hereinafter the ‘372 patent. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Each of the ‘372 patent as well as this presently claimed invention are directed towards methods and systems for utilized flare gas from oil and natural drilling facilities to power generators to produce electricity to power blockchain mining processors. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The claims of this instant invention include:
a portable enclosure, which has the form of a box with walls, a top, and a base, with one or more access doors formed in the walls;
a blockchain mining device that is in the portable enclosure and is connected to or structured to be connected in use to the generator;
In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of the ‘372 patent with the technique of including a small building to house mining equipment because each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 42-63 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belady et al. (USPGP 2014/0096837 A1), hereinafter BELADY, in view of Gleichauf (USPGP 2018/0109541 A1), hereinafter GLEIFCHAUF, and further in view of Hyde et al. (US 8,692,537 B2), hereinafter HYDE.
Claims 42, 55:
BELADY as shown below discloses the following limitations:
a generator that is within the portable enclosure and is connectable to a source of combustible gas to receive a flow of combustible gas to power the generator; (see at least Figure 1 as well as associated and related text; paragraphs 0004, 0028)
BELADY does not specifically disclose the following limitations, but GLEIFCHAUF as shown does:
A blockchain mining system connectable to a network that stores or has access to a blockchain database with transactional information for a digital currency, the blockchain mining system comprising: (see at least paragraphs 0018 and 0051)
the blockchain mining device has a plurality of mining processors and is configured with a network interface; (see at least paragraphs 0018 and 0051)
the network interface is configured to, in use, be connected to receive and transmit data through the internet to the network; (see at least paragraphs 0018 and 0051)
the plurality of mining processors are connected to the network interface and adapted to mine transactions associated with the blockchain database and to communicate with the blockchain database. (see at least paragraphs 0018 and 0051)
In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of BELADY with the technique of GLEIFCHAUF because, “…data centers often consume large quantities of electrical power, especially by the computing devices themselves. Increasingly, the cost of obtaining such electrical power is becoming a primary determinant in the economic success of a data center. Consequently, data centers are being located in areas where the data centers can obtain electrical power in a cost-effective manner. In some instances, data centers are being located in areas that can provide inexpensive electrical power directly, such as areas in which electricity can be purchased from electrical utilities or governmental electrical facilities inexpensively. In other instances, however, data centers are being located in areas where natural resources, from which electrical power can be derived, are abundant and can be obtained inexpensively. For example, natural gas is a byproduct of oil drilling operations and is often considered a waste byproduct since it cannot be economically captured and brought to market. Consequently, in areas where oil drilling operations are being conducted, natural gas is often available for free, or at a minimal cost. As will be recognized by those skilled in the art, natural gas can be utilized to generate electrical power, such as, for example, through a fuel cell or by generating steam to drive a steam powered electrical generator. As another example, municipal landfills and other like waste treatment and processing centers can produce a gas commonly referred to as "biogas" which can, likewise, be utilized to generate electrical power that can, then, be consumed by the computing devices of a data center. Unfortunately, gas that is available at reduced cost cannot always be provided at a well-maintained pressure. Instead, the pressure at which such gases are provided can often vary substantially, including both positive and negative gas pressure spikes where the pressure of the provided gas increases, or decreases, respectively. Not only can such gas pressure spikes damage equipment that utilizes such gas, but they can also be disruptive to the entire gas supply network.” (BELADY: paragraph 0004). Moreover, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
The combination of BELADY/GLEIFCHAUF does not specifically disclose:
a portable enclosure, which has the form of a box with walls, a top, and a base, with one or more access doors formed in the walls;
a blockchain mining device that is in the portable enclosure and is connected to or structured to be connected in use to the generator;
HYDE, however, in at least column 9, line 62 discloses a remote building or facility. In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of BELADY/GLEIFCHAUF with the technique of HYDE because, “Unfortunately, gas that is available at reduced cost cannot always be provided at a well-maintained pressure. Instead, the pressure at which such gases are provided can often vary substantially, including both positive and negative gas pressure spikes where the pressure of the provided gas increases, or decreases, respectively. Not only can such gas pressure spikes damage equipment that utilizes such gas, but they can also be disruptive to the entire gas supply network.” (BELADY: paragraph 0004). Moreover, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
Claims 43-45:
The combination of BELADY/GLEIFCHAUF/HYDE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. BELADY further discloses the following limitations:
the generator is connected to to the source of combustible gas, which is isolated from a sales gas line and an external electrical power grid.
the generator is connected to the source of combustible gas, which comprises a hydrocarbon production, storage, or processing facility.
the generator is connected to the source of combustible gas, which comprises a remote oil or gas well.
See at least Figure 1 as well as associated and related text.
Claims 46, 63:
The combination of BELADY/GLEIFCHAUF/HYDE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. BELADY further discloses the following limitations:
the generator is connected to power one or more of:
a well pump, prime mover, or drivehead, for pumping a remote oil or gas well;
communications equipment;
control equipment;
well lease equipment; and
electrical equipment.
See at least Figure 1 as well as associated and related text.
Claims 47 :
The combination of BELADY/GLEIFCHAUF/HYDE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. BELADY further discloses the following limitations:
a combustion engine is connectable to the source of combustible gas and connected to drive the generator.
See at least Figure 1 as well as associated and related text.
Claims 48, 49:
The combination of BELADY/GLEIFCHAUF/HYDE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. GLEIFCHAUF further discloses the following limitations:
the blockchain mining device has one or more controllers connected to modulate a power load level exerted by the blockchain mining device on the generator.
the one or more controllers are connected to the network interface for remote access.
See at least paragraphs 0018 and 0051 and Figure 1 as well as associated and related text, which discloses using servers for blockchain mining and verification. In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of BELADY with the technique of GLEIFCHAUF because, “…data centers often consume large quantities of electrical power, especially by the computing devices themselves. Increasingly, the cost of obtaining such electrical power is becoming a primary determinant in the economic success of a data center. Consequently, data centers are being located in areas where the data centers can obtain electrical power in a cost-effective manner. In some instances, data centers are being located in areas that can provide inexpensive electrical power directly, such as areas in which electricity can be purchased from electrical utilities or governmental electrical facilities inexpensively. In other instances, however, data centers are being located in areas where natural resources, from which electrical power can be derived, are abundant and can be obtained inexpensively. For example, natural gas is a byproduct of oil drilling operations and is often considered a waste byproduct since it cannot be economically captured and brought to market. Consequently, in areas where oil drilling operations are being conducted, natural gas is often available for free, or at a minimal cost. As will be recognized by those skilled in the art, natural gas can be utilized to generate electrical power, such as, for example, through a fuel cell or by generating steam to drive a steam powered electrical generator. As another example, municipal landfills and other like waste treatment and processing centers can produce a gas commonly referred to as "biogas" which can, likewise, be utilized to generate electrical power that can, then, be consumed by the computing devices of a data center. Unfortunately, gas that is available at reduced cost cannot always be provided at a well-maintained pressure. Instead, the pressure at which such gases are provided can often vary substantially, including both positive and negative gas pressure spikes where the pressure of the provided gas increases, or decreases, respectively. Not only can such gas pressure spikes damage equipment that utilizes such gas, but they can also be disruptive to the entire gas supply network.” (BELADY: paragraph 0004). Moreover, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
Claims 50-52, 56-60:
The combination of BELADY/GLEIFCHAUF/HYDE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HYDE further discloses the following limitations:
the one or more controllers are configured to modulate the power load level exerted by the blockchain mining device on the generator, by increasing or decreasing one or more of:
the mining activity of the mining processors of the plurality of mining processors;
or a maximum number of mining processors of the plurality of mining processors that are engaged in mining transactions.
the one or more controllers are configured to modulate the power load level in response to variations in electrical power availability from the generator.
the one or more controllers are configured to modulate the power load level in response to:
a production rate of combustible gas from the source of combustible gas; or a gas production profile of the source of combustible gas.
using one or more controllers to operate one or both the generator and the blockchain mining device.
the one or more controllers are connected to the network interface for remote access.
modulating, with the one or more controllers, a power load level exerted by the blockchain mining devices on the generator, by increasing or decreasing one or more:
a mining activity of the plurality of mining processors; or a maximum number of mining processors of the plurality of mining processors that are engaged in mining transactions.
modulating comprises modulating the power load level in response to:
a production rate of combustible gas;
or a gas production profile of the combustible gas.
modulating, with the one or more controllers, the power load level by the blockchain mining device on the source of combustible gas in response to variations in a demand on the source of combustible gas by other components powered by the source of combustible gas.
See at least column 26, line 47 to column 27, line 8 discloses varying output power, varying load demands, step-down transformers, upstream power sources, and generators. In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of BELADY/GLEIFCHAUF with the technique of HYDE because, “Unfortunately, gas that is available at reduced cost cannot always be provided at a well-maintained pressure. Instead, the pressure at which such gases are provided can often vary substantially, including both positive and negative gas pressure spikes where the pressure of the provided gas increases, or decreases, respectively. Not only can such gas pressure spikes damage equipment that utilizes such gas, but they can also be disruptive to the entire gas supply network.” (BELADY: paragraph 0004). Moreover, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
Claims 53, 62:
The combination of BELADY/GLEIFCHAUF/HYDE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. BELADY further discloses:
the generator comprises a plurality of generators.
See at least Figure 1 a s well as associated and related text.
Claims 54, 61:
The combination of BELADY/GLEIFCHAUF/HYDE discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HYDE further discloses the following limitations:
the plurality of mining processors comprise application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) blockchain mining processors.
See at least column 30, line 59 discloses ASICs. In the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of BELADY/GLEIFCHAUF with the technique of HYDE because, “Unfortunately, gas that is available at reduced cost cannot always be provided at a well-maintained pressure. Instead, the pressure at which such gases are provided can often vary substantially, including both positive and negative gas pressure spikes where the pressure of the provided gas increases, or decreases, respectively. Not only can such gas pressure spikes damage equipment that utilizes such gas, but they can also be disruptive to the entire gas supply network.” (BELADY: paragraph 0004). Moreover, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Additionally, there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Consequently, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)).
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non Patent Literature:
YOUTUBE. “Using Natural Gas To Mine Bitcoin With Matthew Lohstroh.” (18 September 2019). Retrieved online 04/16/2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYpsZzlevow
WayBack Machine. “New Century Exploration.” (2022). Retrieved online 04/16/2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20220401000000*/https://www.newcenturyexp.com/
WayBack Machine. “New Century Exploration – What We Do.” (2022). Retrieved online 04/16/2022. https://web.archive.org/web/20220330234542/https://www.newcenturyexp.com/
YOUTUBE. “Why is natural gas flared? What is the solution?” (23 July 2015). Retrieved online 04/17/2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_vEUnlOAs8
Foreign Art:
HANKE TIMO TOBIAS et al. “BLOCK MINING METHODS AND APPARATUS.” (WO 2015/077378 A1)
TAYLOR NINA. “This New Monetary Innovation Method/process Using Crypto Currency Applies To And For Entities, Which Require An Income/revenue Producing Asset Using Any Form Of Named/renamed Crypto Currency, Using Any Form Of Blockchain/chain Process Using The Wallet Which Mints/Mines New Coin Assets.” ((AU 2014/101324 A4)
TERRY GARY MCALISTER. “New Stock/share/bond Innovation Using Principle Mined Cryptographic Currency/digital Mining Assets/commodities Which Secondary Mine For Stock/share/bond Holders On/using The Blockchain/any Chain/shared Ledger On A Cryptographic Currency/digital Mining Assets/commodities Exchange.” (AU 2016/100178 A4)
MCALISTER GARY. “Blockchain Digital Mining Asset/Commodity Innovation For Private Placement, High Yield Investment, Tier 1,2,3, MTN Buy/sell Structured Financial Trading Programs And Platforms.” (AU 2016/100394 A4)
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697 james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights