DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to application no. 19/356,940, filed 13 October 2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and are considered below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to methods for using a smart contract to specify parameters for a transaction, classified in G06Q20/405.
II. Claims 11-19, drawn to systems for tokenizing carbon credits and verifying the authenticity of the tokens, classified in Y02P90/90.
III. Claim 20, drawn to a data platform for verifying compliance and providing proof of ownership, classified in G06Q20/389.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I, II and III are directed to related systems for managing information related to carbon credits. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the inventions as claimed have a materially different function and effect. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions claim different processes in which each include steps or details not included in the others; they are classified differently, and a search for one is unlikely to yield results relevant to the others.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Brian Owens on 11 February 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving information related to carbon credits, specifying parameters for performing transactions related to the credits, creating a token for performing the transactions, performing a transaction including verifying authenticity of the token, and storing data about the transaction.
This recites performing financial transactions, which is both a fundamental business practice and a commercial interaction, each of which is among the “certain methods of organizing human activity” deemed abstract. Further, in the absence of computers, these are steps that could be performed mentally and with paper records.
A broker can receive information about a financial instrument such as a carbon credit, can mentally set up rules for how she wants to perform transactions with some credits, can create a token e.g. by writing on a piece of paper, can easily validate its authenticity because she wrote it herself, and can use it in the process of performing a financial transaction related to the credit. None of this presents any practical difficulty and none requires any technology beyond a pen and paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer and nondescript use of blockchain technology, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of networked computers using distributed ledger storage. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manipulate data relating to carbon credits, they do not improve the “functioning of a computer” or of “any other technology or technical field”. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). They do not apply the abstract idea “with, or by use of a particular machine”, MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned.
They do not effect a “transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing”, MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, is not a particular article at all. Second, the claimed manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment”, MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of technical and algorithmic detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim.
The claim includes using a “data platform” and storing information in a “distributed ledger”. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating information and sharing information with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered as an ordered combination – a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps – do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2-4, 6, 7 and 9 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated; claims 5 and 10 simply specify additional output; claim 8 simply specifies who can access data but actually does not limit the claimed method in any way.
The claims are not patent eligible. For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saric et al. (Australia Patent Publication No. 2018/101013) in view of Sun et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0172159, filed 30 July 2018).
In-line citations are to Saric and refer to the details section unless otherwise indicated. Line numbers are approximate.
With regard to Claim 1:
Saric teaches: A method comprising:
receiving information corresponding to carbon credits associated with carbon emissions; [Pg. 3, line 25; that subscribers are “rewarded for carbon credits due to CO2e reduction” reads on such information having been received]
executing a smart contract on a data platform of a blockchain network based at least on the received information, [Summary, pg. 3, lines 23-24; “utilizing smart contracts” and a certain type of cybercurrency with a “blockchain”] the smart contract specifying one or more parameters for transactions corresponding to the carbon credits; [id., lines 25-26 specifying certain activities which the contract can perform such as moving a coin from user to user, user to smart contract, or smart contract to user, and opening payment channels; Details, pg. 3, line 6; the smart contract provides for “defined terms”; any of this reads on parameters]
generating one or more tokens utilizing the data platform for performing transactions corresponding to the carbon credits; [Summary, pg. 3, lines 10-12; “Carbon Credits are tokenized” and such assets “can be traded” or “used as payment”]
performing transactions for the one or more tokens in accordance with the smart contract… [Summary, pg. 1, lines 35, 37; they may be sold or traded] and
storing records of the transactions for the tokens in a distributed ledger associated with the blockchain network. [Summary, pg. 3, line 4, all the information is stored in a blockchain]
Saric does not explicitly teach transactions include at least verifying authenticity of the one or more tokens, but it is known in the art. Sun teaches a method of facilitating service matching in the power-generation space. [abstract] It includes performing “conversion for carbon credits” using “tokens”. [0079] It performs “verification” as to whether a token is being properly used. [0086] It includes measuring “power output” and “location” of a providing party. [0031] Credits may be made available on a “centralized exchange system”. [0020] Sun and Saric are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing data related to carbon credits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Sun with that of Saric in order to improve security, as taught by Sun; [0025] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing a verification step such as that of Sun before using a token as in either Saric or Sun. Each part works independently of the other, and each works in combination identically to how it works when not combined, with no new and unexpected result inherent or disclosed.
With regard to Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein executing the smart contract comprises:
generating a token data structure specifying the one or more parameters corresponding to the carbon credits, wherein the one or more parameters include at least one of: identifier of a token minting entity, identifiers of the carbon credits associated with the transactions, an indication of sequestration or an environmental area, or a token term. [Summary, pg. 3, line 6 as cited above in regard to claim 1; line 5; a record reads on a data structure]
With regard to Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein verifying the authenticity of the one or more tokens comprises confirming at least one of land location or carbon-removal effectiveness, and wherein the verifying the authenticity comprises at least one of utilizing data obtained from one or more of sensors, Internet-of-Things devices, geolocation information, or artificial intelligence (AI) analysis. [Sun, 0031 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the transactions comprises listing the one or more tokens on one or more exchanges. [Sun, 0020 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the transactions comprises processing payments for the transactions using at least one of blockchain payments or cryptocurrency. [Summary, pg. 3, line 17; a crypto “coin” following the “Ethereum” standard may be used]
With regard to Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more tokens are configured to be fractionalized to be partially usable or partially transactable. [Details, pg. 2, line 50; a “fractalization contract” allows for “crowdfunding” to be performed]
With regard to Claim 8:
The method of claim 1, wherein the distributed ledger is a permissioned or private distributed ledger accessible by authorized financial institutions or service providers.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, which is directed to a method. The details claimed here about the structure of the ledger impart neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method and so are considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 9:
The method of claim 1, wherein the smart contract limits the transactions based upon one or more of verification, payment, or regulatory approval criteria. [Sun as cited above in regard to claim 1; verification is required]
With regard to Claim 10:
The method of claim 1, wherein the distributed ledger provides regulator-accessible audit records confirming compliance with institutional or governmental carbon-credit registries.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1. First, it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data which is considered but given no patentable weight. Second, this claim depends from claim 1, which is directed to a method; the details claimed here about the structure of the ledger impart neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method and so are considered but given no patentable weight.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saric et al. in view of Sun et al. further in view of Flood (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0189412).
With regard to Claim 3:
The method of claim 1, wherein storing the records of the transactions comprises indexing one or more carbon credits that are utilized or retired, wherein the distributed ledger is configured to provide an immutable proof of retirement.
Saric and Sun teach the method of claim 1 including explicitly stating the well-known fact that information stored on a blockchain is immutable, [pg. 3, line 4] but do not explicitly teach that the information includes that the carbon credit has been used, but it is known in the art. Flood teaches a computerized monitoring system [abstract] which can be used “for obtaining carbon credits”. [0025] The credits may be “used to finance carbon reduction schemes between trading partners”. [0154] Flood and Saric are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing data related to carbon credits.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Flood with that of Saric and Sun as it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply maintaining information as in Flood rather than, or in addition to, that of Saric; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694