DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 22 June 2026 in regard to application no. 19/356,940. Claims 1-35 are pending, of which claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-10 and 21-35 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 .
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 and 21-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims lie within a statutory category of invention, as each is directed to a method (process). 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, are 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 amendment to the “verifying” step requires no more than knowledge of the location of a transaction, which can be done mentally. That data are accessible by a bank or service provider requires nothing more than sharing information on paper with such individuals or entities.
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 other independent claim is broader but no less abstract. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2-4, 6, 7, 9, 21, 23, 25-27 and 32 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 5, 10 and 21 simply specify output; claims 8 and 28 restrict who can see or use data but do not limit the claimed method. Claim 24 simply recites nondescript use of AI; claims 29, 30, 33 and 34 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data, and claim 31 does not in any way limit the claimed method.
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, revised October 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) 35 is 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 35:
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] wherein the distributed ledger is a permissioned or private distributed ledger accessible by authorized financial institutions or service providers.
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.
In this and the subsequent claims, that a “distributed ledger is a permissioned or private distributed ledger accessible by authorized financial institutions or service providers” consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, merely disclosing possible other uses of data storage but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-10, 21, 23, 24, 27, 29, 31 and 33 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 Haldenby et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0046652).
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] wherein the distributed ledger is a permissioned or private distributed ledger accessible by authorized financial institutions or service providers.
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] The use of a token may be recorded. [0079] 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.
Saric does not explicitly teach verifying the authenticity of the one or more tokens comprises confirming at least one of land location or carbon removal effectiveness utilizing data obtained from one or more of sensors, Internet-of-Things devices, geolocation information, or artificial intelligence (AI) analysis, but it is known in the art. Haldenby teaches a blockchain-based system [title] that uses an “integrated GPS sensor” to “capture a current position” of a vehicle, which is then stored in a blockchain ledger. [0206] “financial institutions” may “access one or more of” the items stored in the blockchain ledger. [0218] Data may be accessed using a “QR code”. [0216] The system provides for transfers of ownership of the various assets or indicia thereof. [0035] Haldenby and Saric are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means of storing transaction data using blockchain.
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 Haldenby with that of Saric in order to be able to effectively track information from disparate sources, as taught by Haldenby; [0007] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Haldenby’s data in place of, or in addition to, that of Saric; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
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.
With regard to Claim 21:
The method of claim 1, further comprising recording utilization of one of the carbon credits as a retired credit associated with a non-fungible token. [Sun, 0079 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
That a credit is “associated with a non-fungible token” consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 23:
The method of claim 1, wherein verifying the authenticity of the one or more tokens comprises utilizing a secure identifier associated with the one or more tokens, the secure identifier comprising at least one of an inaudible tone, a quick- response (QR) code, a serial number, a hash, or a verification code. [Haldenby, 0216 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 24:
The method of claim 1, further comprising utilizing artificial intelligence to review, authenticate, and validate the received information and the transactions corresponding to the carbon credits. [pg. 2, lines 25-27; AI may be used for the entire process]
With regard to Claim 27:
The method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more tokens comprises associating the one or more carbon credits with a specific geographic location identified by at least one of GPS coordinates, latitude and longitude, an interactive map, legal title, or acreage. [Haldenby, 0206 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 29:
The method of claim 1, wherein performing the transactions comprises settling a transaction by coordinating transfer of the one or more tokens and one or more corresponding payment tokens within the distributed ledger. [Haldenby, 0035 as cited above in regard to claim 1]
With regard to Claim 31:
The method of claim 1, wherein the blockchain network supports interoperability with one or more public or third-party blockchains through authorized verifications.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, which is directed to a method. The details claimed here about possible use of a network outside of the claimed process impart neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method and so are considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 33:
The method of claim 1, wherein storing the records of the transactions comprises providing, via the distributed ledger, immutable proof of at least one of ownership, transfer, or retirement of the one or more tokens. [Pg. 3, lines 4-7; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to output a known datum]
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saric et al. in view of Sun et al. further in view of Haldenby 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, Sun and Haldenby 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, Sun and Haldenby 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.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saric et al. in view of Sun et al. further in view of Haldenby et al. further in view of Bryant (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0061405).
With regard to Claim 22:
The method of claim 1, wherein verifying the authenticity of the one or more tokens comprises providing an inaudible tone that authenticates the one or more tokens and an item associated with the one or more tokens.
Saric, Sun and Haldenby teach the method of claim 1 including the use of authentication as cited above and providing an item associated with a token (e.g. Saric, a carbon credit is provided) but do not explicitly teach providing an inaudible tone, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Bryant teaches an authentication system [title] that may use “inaudible signals” as a token identifier. [0033] Bryant and Saric are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for providing tokens as indicia of value.
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 Bryant with that of Saric, Sun and Haldenby in order to pre-authenticate a user, as taught by Bryant; [0002] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply providing the output of Bryant in place of, or in addition to, that of Saric; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 25 and 26 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 Haldenby et al. further in view of Cooner (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0027096, filed 5 November 2018).
With regard to Claim 25:
The method of claim 1, wherein the carbon credits are generated based on carbon sequestration performed by one or more parties, and wherein the one or more parties are compensated by issuance of the one or more tokens associated with the carbon credits.
Saric, Sun and Haldenby teach the method of claim 1 including using tokens for compensation as cited above, but do not explicitly teach basing this on carbon sequestration, but it is known in the art. Cooner teaches a carbon credit monetization system. [title] Measurements may be based on “soil humus content”. [0031] A credit may be provided based on data regarding “sequestered carbon”, [1227] and the system may use a “Blockchain storage mechanism”, [1508] and may provide compensation in the form of “value tokens” on the blockchain. [1554] Cooner and Saric are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using tokens and blockchain storage for carbon credit management.
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 Cooner with that of Saric, Sun and Haldenby in order to facilitate transactions, as taught by Cooner; [abstract] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Cooner’s data as a basis for a determination rather than, or in addition to, that of Saric; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 26:
The method of claim 25, wherein the carbon sequestration comprises at least one of natural-sink sequestration in forests, grasslands, or soil, photosynthesis, artificial sequestration, geological sequestration, biological sequestration, or direct air capture. [Cooner, 0031 as cited above in regard to claim 25]
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saric et al. in view of Sun et al. further in view of Haldenby et al. further in view of Castagna et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0172059, filed 26 March 2018).
With regard to Claim 28:
The method of claim 1, further comprising enabling a holder of the one or more tokens to reserve carbon credits backing the one or more tokens, wherein the reserved carbon credits are removed from a pool of the carbon credits available for transaction to prevent a duplicate sale thereof.
Saric, Sun and Haldenby teach the method of claim 1 including the use of tokens representing carbon credits as cited above, but do not explicitly teach preventing reuse, but it is known in the art. Castagna teaches a distributed ledger system [title] which issues credits and stores transaction information in a blockchain. [0041] It uses a “consensus mechanism” to prevent duplicate transactions from being stored in a block. [0056] Castagna and Saric are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for using blockchain technology to manage payment indicia.
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 Castagna with that of Saric, Sun and Haldenby in order to prevent duplicate use of a payment, as taught by Castagna; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using a blockchain mechanism for the purpose of Castagna rather than, or in addition to, that of Saric; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 30 and 32 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 Haldenby et al. further in view of Madisetti et al. (U.S. Publication NO. 2019/0081789).
With regard to Claim 30:
The method of claim 29, wherein performing the transactions comprises managing the transactions in multiple currencies and automatically performing cross-currency conversions during the settling.
Saric, Sun and Haldenby teach the method of claim 29 but do not explicitly teach currency conversion, but it is known in the art. Madisetti teaches a blockchain based token system [title] which is “operable to exchange cryptocurrencies for fiat currency”. [0088] Multiple people could own portions of a security. [0101] Madisetti and Saric are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing tokens using blockchain technology.
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 Madisetti with that of Saric, Sun and Haldenby in order to provide security, as taught by Madisetti; [0013] further, it is simply a combination of known parts with predictable results, simply performing Madisetti’s conversion at the appropriate point in the process of Saric. 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 32:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more tokens are fractionalized such that a plurality of parties own transactable portions of a single token. [Madisetti, 0101 as cited above in regard to claim 30]
Claim(s) 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saric et al. in view of Sun et al. further in view of Haldenby et al. further in view of Youb et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0261882, filed 29 November 2021).
NOTE: this claim has priority only to 26 July 2022, the filing date of application no. 17/874,069. No earlier application listed on the Application Data Sheet supports the limitations of this claim.
With regard to Claim 34:
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a new non-fungible token upon exercise of one of the one or more tokens, the new non-fungible token uniquely identifying carbon credits from a pool of the carbon credits collateralizing said one of the one or more tokens and marking the identified carbon credits for retirement.
Saric, Sun and Haldenby teach the method of claim 29, including that tokens may represent carbon credits as cited above, but do not explicitly teach this use of NFTs, but it is known in the art. Youb teaches a system for using blockchain technology to manage data about commodity reserves. [title] A loan originator may hold an item as “collateral against [an] outstanding token”, [0602] which may be a “non-fungible token”. [0200] A new NFT may be created. [0208] A token may be retired and this may be noted as a record in the blockchain. [0717] A commodity may be associated with a pool. [0471] Youb and Saric are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing token data using blockchain technology.
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 Youb with that of Saric, Sun and Haldenby in order to secure a lender’s position, as taught by Youb; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply creating Youb’s block in place of, or in addition to, that of Saric; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 June 2026 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As explained above, a human can mentally, or by consulting paper records, determine a location, which is all that the quoted section of the claim requires. That a blockchain may be accessed by others is outside the scope of the claimed method; further, the hypothetical paper records could be made accessible to others.
Contrary to the applicant’s assertion, the claims do not require the use of IoT devices or “geolocation infrastructure”. Sensors of various types are nearly as old as computers. There is nothing in the present claims that positively recites a particular machine.
Carbon credit trading is a business, not a technology, and the fact that computers can be used to facilitate transactions does not make it so. The Examiner has considered the arguments in regard to the dependent claims and does not find them persuasive: claim 4 does not require anything more than geolocation information, which can be done by a person mentally observing a location. Fractional ownership is a fundamental business concept and not technical in nature; a timeshare is a common example of fractional ownership which long predates computers, as is ownership of stock in a corporation. The ledger limitations of claim 8 do not impact the scope of the claimed method, and so on.
The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 21-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. To the extent the arguments focus on language added by amendment, the Examiner has incorporated herein the teaching of Haldenby to meet the additional limitations. Claim 35 differs only from previously-examined claim 1 by the addition of nonfunctional, descriptive language.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights