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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 15 recites “receiving additional data representing a protected digital ledger”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments with respect to rejections made under § 101 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because the claims provide “a technological improvement to commodity transaction systems by implementing specific technological features that provide security, traceability, and verification across a supply chain, and thereby reducing fraud”( Remarks page 15-16).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the additional elements in the claims have been analyzed as explained in the OA. below. These elements do not provide a technological improvement such as improve cryptography or computer functionality. Additionally, fraud in commercial transaction is a business problem and using generic computer security or verification techniques to solve the business or fraud problem does not convert an abstract idea into a technological improvement.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more because the electronic device configured with specialized operations “are not generic computer operations but are purpose-built to enhance the secure and tamper-resistant processing of transactions”, and the protected digital ledger and SSI verification “improve the technological field of secure transaction processing” ( Remarks page 17).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the electronic device “including a dynamically-generated, real- time user interface, secure server communication, and automated transactions” are merely invoke generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it”. See e.g. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, finding "Nearly every computer will include a 'communications controller' and 'data storage unit' capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims." Additionally, the digital ledger links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and the SSI is merely an abstract idea for data verification.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite significantly more because the claims recite specific features which collectively ensure accurate pricing and fraud reduction in global supply chains and because the claims recite “non-conventional data processing steps that materially enhance data integrity and transparency in supply chain systems” ( Remarks page 18).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that automating an abstract business practice ( i.e., pricing) on generic computers does not amount to significantly more. Additionally, fraud detection is abstract. Improving the performance of the abstract idea by using a computer as a tool is not considered significantly more under part two of the Alice/Mayo framework. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[Sjimply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted)). “improving a user's experience while using a computer application is not, without more, sufficient to render the claims directed to an improvement in computer functionality." Customedia Technologies v. Dish Network, 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020). See also Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (the purported improvement in user experience in processing loads did not "improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem."). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 recite “using a bidirectional, cross-validating in real-time” , “ tamper resistant communication”, “a dynamic database network configured to update real-time values based on verified global commodity indices”, “cryptographically verifiable SSI”, “cryptographic hashing”, “multi-node validation within the bidirectional remote server system”.
Claim 6 recites “a dynamic database network that updates values based on real-time economic data and authenticated user interactions” and “executing an automatic payment to the farmer via a secure digital transaction method, linked to real-time identity verification through the SSI-based ledger”.
The specification only mentions general “ authentication/validation” and “database”. See specification: Fig. 6, [0043] [0094-85] and [0115]. However, the specification ( including paragraphs [0001], [0018], [0020], [0022], [0028], [0030], [0075], [0080], and [0122] as mentioned in the remarks) does not describe using a bidirectional cross-validating in real-time, distributed- node architecture, a dynamic database network configured to update real-time values based on verified global commodity indices, cryptographically verifiable SSI, cryptographic hashing and multi-node validation within the bidirectional remote server system, a dynamic database network that updates values based on real-time economic data and authenticated user interactions and executing an automatic payment to the farmer via a secure digital transaction method, linked to real-time identity verification through the SSI-based ledger, as were recited in claims 1, 6, and 16. As such, the written description fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art, that the applicant had possession of the invention at the time the application was filed.
The dependent claims 2-5, 7-15, 17-20 inherit the rejection of their respective base claims 1, 6 and 16 and, as such are rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-5, 16-20 are directed to an electronic device (i.e., a machine), and claims 6-15 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 1-20 fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 substantially recites: receiving a first input indicating a gross weight associated with a delivery of a commodity; present an indication of the gross weight; receiving a second input indicating a conversion factor associated with the delivery of the commodity; present an indication of the conversion factor; determining a dynamic authenticated green weight associated with the delivery of the commodity based at least in part on the gross weight and the conversion factor; using a bidirectional cross-validating the authenticated green weight before finalizing the transaction, thereby ensuring verification across distributed nodes; present an indication of the virtual authenticated green weight; determining a price per unit weight for a farmer associated with the delivery of the commodity, wherein the price per unit weight is determined based at least in part on: changing pricing information specific to the geographic location of the user at the time inputs are received, ii a varietal of the commodity, iii. local currency, iv) quality of commodity, and v. an identifier of an acquirer; processing pricing data to update values based on verified global commodity indices, thereby ensuring secure and traceable market-based price adjustments; determining a total price for the farmer based at least in part on the authenticated green weight and the price per unit weight, the total price based on a comparison of information estimated prior to delivery by the acquirer and actual weight and quality of the delivery; present the total price; determining that the farmer is associated with a first unique self-sovereign identity indicator, the first unique, self-sovereign identity (SSI), the SSI being stored and indicator associated with the user, ensuring tamper resistant and configured for secure communication within a supply chain of the delivery of the commodity and data associated with the delivery of the commodity; determining verifying the farmer is an authorized user based at least in part on the stored SSI first unique self-sovereign identity indicator; identifying the acquirer involved with the supply chain based at least in part on a second verifiable SSI unique self-sovereign identity associated with the acquirer; display an indication that the farmer and the acquirer are authorized users; in response to receiving an indication that the acquirer has acquired the delivery of the commodity, generating code specific to the delivery of the commodity and providing information associated with the delivery of the commodity, geographic location, the acquirer, and the farmer ; recording the transaction ensuring immutable data integrity; display the code in association with the delivery; and paying the farmer based on the determined total price.
Independent Claim 6 substantially recites: determining a secure geolocation-specific context associated with a delivery of a commodity; determining the local currency exchange rate; determining a first weight associated with the delivery; determining a conversion factor associated with the delivery; determining, based at least in part on the first weight and the conversion factor, a authenticated second weight associated with the delivery; determining a price per unit weight for a producer associated with the delivery, wherein the price per unit weight is determined based at least in part on (1) changing pricing information specific to the geographic location of the user at the time inputs are received, (2) a varietal of a commodity associated with the delivery, (3) the local currency exchange rate, (4) quality, and (5) an identifier of an acquirer; processing all pricing data that updates values based on economic data and authenticated user interactions, ensuring an immutable record of pricing calculations determining a total price for the producer based at least in part on the authenticated second weight and the price per unit weight; generating data representing at least the price per unit weight and the total price; determining that a farmer is associated with a first verifiable SSI stored, unique self-sovereign identity indicator, the first unique self-sovereign identity indicator associated with a user and configured for secure communication within a supply chain of the delivery; determining verifying the farmer is an authorized user based at least in part on the protected stored SSI based at least in part on the first unique self-sovereign identity indicator; identifying the acquirer involved with the supply chain based at least in part on a second SSI unique self-sovereign identity associated with the acquirer; display an indication that the farmer and the acquirer are authorized users; in response to receiving an indication that the acquirer has acquired the delivery of the commodity, generating a code specific to the delivery and, providing tamper-proof information associated with the delivery, the acquirer, and the farmer; logging the transaction thereby ensuring fraud detection and supply chain transparency; display the code in association with the delivery; and executing a payment to the farmer, linked to identity verification.
Independent Claim 16 substantially recites: receiving a first input indicating a first weight associated with a delivery of a commodity; causing the display to present an indication of the first weight; receiving a second input indicating a dynamic conversion factor associated with the delivery of the commodity; display to present an indication of the dynamic conversion factor; determining a authenticated second weight associated with the delivery of the commodity based at least in part on the first weight and the dynamic conversion factor; using a bidirectional cross-validating the authenticated second weight before finalizing the transaction, thereby ensuring verification across distributed nodes determining a price per unit weight for a producer associated with the delivery of the commodity, wherein the price per unit weight is determined based at least in part on (1) changing pricing information specific to the geographic location of the user at the time inputs are received,(2) a varietal of a commodity associated with the delivery,(3) local exchange rate,(4) quality and (5) an identifier of an acquirer; processing pricing data to update values based on verified global commodity indices, thereby ensuring secure and traceable market-based price adjustments determining a total price for the producer based at least in part on the authenticated second weight and the price per unit weight; determining that a farmer is associated with a first unique verifiable, self- sovereign identity (SSI), the first SSI being stored associated with the user, ensuring tamper-resistant communication within a supply chain delivery of the commodity; verifying the farmer is an authorized user based at least in part on the secure stored first SSI identifying the acquirer involved with the supply chain based at least in part on a second verifiable SSI associated with the acquirer; display an indication that the farmer and the acquirer are authorized users; in response to receiving an indication that the acquirer has received the delivery, generating a code specific to the delivery of the commodity and providing information associated with the delivery of the commodity, geographic location, the acquirer, and the farmer; display the code in association with the delivery of the commodity; recording the transaction ensuring immutable data integrity through multi-node validation; and initiating payment to the farmer based on the determined total price through a authenticated transaction.
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation to covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions and following rules or instructions). Moreover, the claims recite concepts related to mathematical relationships ( i.e. determine a price per unit weight , total price). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and (iii) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites the additional elements :
An electronic device comprising: a display; one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to perform operations, real-time, customized user interface, electronic device, a first interface element of the user interface, second interface element of the user interface, digitally, remote server system, database network, platform, automated transaction system.
Secure ledger, cryptographically verifiable, cryptographic hashing, generating encrypted Quick Response (QR) code.
Scanned.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements:
(i) customized user interfaces for display on networked devices, electronic device, digitally, real-time, database network, automatically, bidirectional remote server system, automatic,
protected digital ledger, cryptographically, generating encrypted and blockchain-signed Quick Response (QR) code.
Scanned.
Claim 16 recites the additional elements:
(i) An electronic device comprising: a display; one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to perform operations, first interface element, automatically, dynamic database network, digitally, dynamically-generated and customized user interface specific to a user of the electronic device, second interface element of the user interface, remote server system, platform.
(ii) secure ledger, protected digital ledger, cryptographically, generating encrypted Quick Response (QR) code.
(iii)scanned.
The elements identified above (i), are recited at a high-level of generality (See specification: [0117] FIG. 15 shows an example computer architecture for a computer 1500 capable of executing program components for implementing the functionality described above. The computer architecture shown in FIG. 15 illustrates a server computer, workstation, desktop computer, laptop, tablet, network appliance, e-reader, smartphone, or other computing device, and may be utilized to execute any of the software components presented herein. In some examples, the computer 1500 may correspond to one or more computing devices that implements the components and/or services described herein (e.g., the electronic device 108, the electronic device 134, the computing system(s) 128, the electronic device 902, and/or the electronic device 1002.).[0118-130], [0131] additionally, those having ordinary skill in the art readily recognize that the techniques described above can be utilized in a variety of devices, environments, and situations. [0036] As further described herein, a device and/or electronic device may include, but is not limited to, a mobile phone, a laptop, a computer, a tablet, and/or any other type of device. Additionally, while the examples herein describe a given electronic device as performing specific processes, in other examples, one or more other devices may perform the processes. [0064] As shown, the electronic device 108 may include processor(s) 602, network interface(s) 604, a display 606, input device(s) 608, and memory 610. The memory 610 may store various components of the electronic device 108, such as a user interface component 612, a weight component 614, and a price component 616 [0128] transform the computer from a general-purpose computing system into a special-purpose computer capable of implementing the embodiments described herein. [0072] [0086]), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (as shown in Fig.1), they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements cryptographically verifiable and cryptographic hashing in (ii) are not described in the specification, which indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, therefore these generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The additional elements such as secure ledger, protected digital ledger, generating encrypted Quick Response (QR) code, are recited at a high-level of generality ( see specification: [0074] The ledger component 646 may be configured to generate ledgers for shipments, where the ledgers may be represented by ledger data 652. In some instances, the ledgers may include blockchain [0072] The code component 644 may be configured to generate codes, such as QR codes, that are used to track shipments, where the codes are represented by code data 626) when viewed as whole/ordered combination, these generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
The elements identified above in (iii) the scanning QR codes, is recited at a high-level of generality ( see specification: [0072-73] the remote system(s) 128 may use the codes to determine which shipment data 650 to send to devices that are requesting data associated with a shipment) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (as shown in Fig.1), adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception such as mere data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and are not a practical application of the abstract idea (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and (iii) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) ( ii ) linking to a particular technological environment or field of use and (iii) insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: (i) An electronic device comprising: a display; one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to perform operations, real-time, customized user interface, electronic device, a first interface element of the user interface, second interface element of the user interface, digitally, remote server system, database network, platform, automated transaction system. customized user interfaces for display on networked devices (ii) secure ledger, cryptographically verifiable, cryptographic hashing, generating encrypted Quick Response (QR) code, generating encrypted and blockchain-signed Quick Response (QR) code and (iii) scanned, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
The specification describes these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea (e.g., using computers to communicate data).
Claims 2-4, 10, 14 and 19 add the elements “one or more devices”, and “one or more computing devices”, however they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims 2-4, 10, 14 and 19 add the elements “one or more devices”, and “one or more computing devices”, See Specification: [0117] FIG. 15 shows an example computer architecture for a computer 1500 capable of executing program components for implementing the functionality described above. The computer architecture shown in FIG. 15 illustrates a server computer, workstation, desktop computer, laptop, tablet, network appliance, e-reader, smartphone, or other computing device, and may be utilized to execute any of the software components presented herein. [0036] as further described herein, a device and/or electronic device may include, but is not limited to, a mobile phone, a laptop, a computer, a tablet, and/or any other type of device, [00131])- they do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons as presented in the dependent claims Step 2A. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kingston et al. (US 20180075406 A1) related to a system and method for commodities analysis, collection, resource allocation, and tracking associated with the sale of commodities.
Toth (US 2019/0097812) related to a system and method for Self-Sovereign Digital identity.
Gandhi (US 2014/0052633 A1) related to a methods and systems for facilitating payments in a chat session and converting price currency based on the location.
Sankaran et al (US 2020/0311670) related to a methods and systems for securing private information during shipping using a blockchain.
Yanling Chang, Eleftherios Iakovou & Weidong Shi (2020) Blockchain in global supply chains and cross border trade: a critical synthesis of the state-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities, International Journal of Production Research, 58:7, 2082-2099, DOI: 10.1080/00207543.2019.1651946.
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 MANAL A. ALSAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-5598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571)272-5587. 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.
/M.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628