DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 10 June 2026 in regard to application no. 17/793,035. Claim 5, 11, 12 and 19 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-18 and 20-22 are pending, of which claims 13-18 and 20-22 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are considered below. This Office action is non-final.
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 .
Reopening of Prosecution
In view of the appeal brief filed on 10 June 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
{ 4 }
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 1-4 and 6-10 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. Each claim now requires that a “computer enforces cross-sector validation and state consistency such that concurrent life cycle updates from different sectors result in coherent, non- conflicting derived lifecycle states recorded on the blockchain ledger”.
This discloses an intended result, but the originally-filed application provides no support for any means, that is, process or steps, by which this result is achieved. See MPEP § 2161.01: “claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.” [Emphasis in the original]
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, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0189736) in view of Gleichauf (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0109541) further in view of Cooner (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0027096).
In-line citations are to Guo.
With regard to Claim 1:
Guo teaches: A method for managing a power supplying device on a blockchain-based system, the method comprising:
(a) inputting a user identification, an existing product identification and a data retrieval instruction to a middleware computer; [0034; a username is supplied; 0045; content identifiers are entered; 0033; the system can be instructed to retrieve particular data]
(b) verifying the user identification via the middleware computer; [0043; user credentials are validated]
(c) retrieving... one or more virtual folders that are associated with the product identification; [0011; a project folder has been selected and its contents are presented]
(d) transmitting the one or more virtual folders to the middleware computer; [0050; data are transmitted to a content management system]
(e) extracting recorded characteristic data from the one or more virtual folders using the middleware computer; [0050; data can be extracted from the project folder]
(f) verifying the recorded characteristic data... [id.; it is determined that various attributes are present]
(g) inputting new characteristic data into the middleware computer; [abstract; the user can make updates]
(h) generating, via the middleware computer, a new product identification that is... connected to the existing product identification... [Sheet 15, Fig. 15; a new task, which includes a title i.e. identifier, is added to the existing project in its folder]
(i) linking, via the middleware computer, the new product identification and the new characteristic data... to form a new virtual folder; [id.; the folder is "new" in that it now includes the new information]
(j) transmitting the new virtual folder from the middleware computer... [0097; "CMS client 242 can then send the updated task information to project module 202 for storage in task database 208"] and
(k) ...to record the new virtual folder... [id.]
Guo does not explicitly teach that data are retrieved from existing blocks in a blockchain ledger, that a ledger is a blockchain ledger, creating a new block in the blockchain ledger, or that a system enforces cross-sector validation and state consistency such that concurrent life cycle updates from different sectors result in coherent, non-conflicting derived lifecycle states recorded on the blockchain ledger, but it is known in the art. Gleichauf teaches a blockchain mining system using trusted nodes. [title] It may write a “new block of transactions””, [0028] and retrieve blocks for further processing. [Sheet 3, Fig. 3] It may “enforce consensus rules”, [0018] which would ensure coherent, non-conflicting data, as would have been known to those then of ordinary skill in the art, including data from various “sectors” such as “banking” or “financial” sectors. [0019]. A device may be “identified and/or authenticated”. [0014] Cryptographic hashes link blocks in the blockchain. [0002-03] Gleichauf and Guo are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing identification information.
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 Gleichauf with that of Guo in order to improve security, as taught by Gleichauf; [0002] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Gleichauf’s data storage means rather than that of Guo; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Guo does not explicitly teach that someone in a consumer sector belongs to a sector which represents a stage in the life cycle of the power supplying device, computationally estimating... one or more battery health or status parameters based on battery operation parameters generated by a monitoring module of the power supplying device, data that represents a life cycle state of the power supplying device, or linking the battery health or status parameters to other data, and though much of it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Cooner teaches an energy management system which manages, among other things, data pertaining to carbon credits. [title] It uses sensors to detect the condition of a battery, [0171] uses cryptographic linking to link blocks of data together, [1543] performs validation [0052] and consistency checks, [0375] and makes estimations of data. [0227] Objects are uniquely identified. [0080] Cooner and Guo are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing identification data.
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 Guo in order to improve efficiency and accuracy, as taught by Cooner; [0002] further, it is simply a substitution of known parts for others with predictable results, simply linking the data of Cooner in the manner of Cooner instead of, or in addition to, that of Guo, and interpreting data as in Cooner rather than Guo; the substitutions produce no new and unexpected result.
The following analysis applies to this and the subsequent claims. The preamble language "for managing a power supplying device on a blockchain-based system" does not positively limit the claimed method but is, at most, a statement of the manner of or intended use of the method, and so is considered but given no patentable weight. What data represents consists of nonfunctional, descriptive language, of use only to the human mind but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method and so is considered but given no patentable weight. References are provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein step (f) is performed by the middleware computer, and the new virtual folder of step (i) is formed by further linking the new product identification and the new characteristic data with the user identification; and wherein the new product identification of step (h) is further connected to one or both of the user identification and the new characteristic data. [Guo and Gleichauf as cited above in regard to claim 1; the disclosed portions of the references meet these limitations]
With regard to Claim 10:
Guo teaches: A... tracking system for managing a power supplying device, comprising one or more middleware computers [0141; a "computer" is used] that are capable of:
receiving one or more virtual folders [0011; a project folder has been selected and its contents are presented]
extracting recorded characteristic data from the one or more virtual folders; [0050; data can be extracted from the project folder]
verifying a user identification and the recorded characteristic data... [0034; a user identifies herself by a username and is given access; 0050; it is determined that various attributes are present]
generating a new product identification that is... to an existing product identification. [Sheet 15, Fig. 15; a new task, which includes a title i.e. identifier, is added to the existing project in its folder]
linking the new product identification and new characteristic data... to form a new virtual folder that preserves the prior lifecycle state without overwriting previously recorded data; [id.; the folder is "new" in that it now includes the new information; adding new data does not overwrite existing data]
transmitting the new virtual folder... [0097; "CMS client 242 can then send the updated task information to project module 202 for storage in task database 208"] and…
record the new virtual folder... [id.]
Guo does not explicitly teach that data are retrieved from existing blocks in a blockchain ledger, that a ledger is a blockchain ledger, creating a new block in the blockchain ledger, or that a system enforces cross-sector validation and state consistency such that concurrent life cycle updates from different sectors result in coherent, non-conflicting derived lifecycle states recorded on the blockchain ledger, but it is known in the art. Gleichauf teaches a blockchain mining system using trusted nodes. [title] It may write a “new block of transactions””, [0028] and retrieve blocks for further processing. [Sheet 3, Fig. 3] It may “enforce consensus rules”, [0018] which would ensure coherent, non-conflicting data, as would have been known to those then of ordinary skill in the art, including data from various “sectors” such as “banking” or “financial” sectors. [0019]. A device may be “identified and/or authenticated”. [0014] Cryptographic hashes link blocks in the blockchain. [0002-03] Gleichauf and Guo are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing identification information.
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 Gleichauf with that of Guo in order to improve security, as taught by Gleichauf; [0002] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Gleichauf’s data storage means rather than that of Guo; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Guo does not explicitly teach that someone in a consumer sector belongs to a sector which represents a stage in the life cycle of the power supplying device, computationally estimating... one or more battery health or status parameters based on battery operation parameters generated by a monitoring module of the power supplying device, data that represents a life cycle state of the power supplying device, or linking the battery health or status parameters to other data, and though much of it is of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Cooner teaches an energy management system which manages, among other things, data pertaining to carbon credits. [title] It uses sensors to detect the condition of a battery, [0171] uses cryptographic linking to link blocks of data together, [1543] performs validation [0052] and consistency checks, [0375] and makes estimations of data. [0227] Objects are uniquely identified. [0080] Cooner and Guo are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing identification data.
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 Guo in order to improve efficiency and accuracy, as taught by Cooner; [0002] further, it is simply a substitution of known parts for others with predictable results, simply linking the data of Cooner in the manner of Cooner instead of, or in addition to, that of Guo, and interpreting data as in Cooner rather than Guo; the substitutions produce no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 2, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. in view of Gleichauf further in view of Cooner further in view of Judd et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0246479).
With regard to Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the user identification comprises a user classification and the one or more virtual folders retrieved in step (c) are further associated with the user classification.
Guo, Gleichauf and Cooner teach the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach this classification, but in addition to being of no patentable significance as explained below, it is known in the art. Judd teaches a secure, online system. [abstract] Users are assigned "user level access rights", [0122] which reads on user classification. Access to a folder may or may not be provided, based on the specific user's level access rights. [0122] User identification is provided. [0015] Judd and Guo are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing identification information.
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 Judd with that of Guo, Gleichauf and Cooner in order to improve data file structures to provide enhanced security, as taught by Judd; [0096] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Judd's datum in place of, or in addition to, any of Guo's data; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1, as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most coincidences among data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 3:
The method of claim 2, wherein step (b) further comprises determining access restrictions of the user classification, and the one or more virtual folders of step (c) are associated with the user classification by virtue of the one or more virtual folders being accessible under the access restrictions of the user classification. [Judd, as cited above in regard to claim 2]
With regard to Claim 6:
The method of claim 1, wherein each of the recorded characteristic data and the new characteristic data independently comprise a product source, a product brand, a product type, a product size or combinations thereof. [Judd, 0035; types of products are disclosed; it would have been obvious to one then of ordinary skill in the art to combine this feature of Judd with the teaching of Guo, Gleichauf and Cooner as it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional, descriptive language, disclosing at most human interpretation of data but which imparts neither structure nor functionality to the claimed method. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. in view of Gleichauf further in view of Cooner further in view of Lucidarme et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0143338, filed 5 November 2019).
With regard to Claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein step (f) further comprises producing a verification result, transmitting the verification result from the middleware computer to the blockchain ledger and recording the verification result in the blockchain ledger.
Guo, Gleichauf and Cooner teach the method of claim 1, including recording data in a blockchain ledger as cited above, but do not explicitly teach producing and sending a verification result, but it is known in the art. Lucidarme teaches a data- block based transaction processing system in which data are verified, transmitted and added to a block of a blockchain. [abstract] A user must provide "login credentials" in order to use the system. [0065] A user who is able to solve a particular problem "is rewarded with an amount of cryptocurrency". [0005] Lucidarme and Guo are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing identification information.
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 Lucidarme with that of Guo, Gleichauf and Cooner in order to reward a user who has performed a desired task, as taught by Lucidarme; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply storing Lucidarme's data in place of, or in addition to, that of Guo; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 8:
The method of claim 7, wherein step (f) further comprises issuing a reward once the verification result is recorded in the blockchain ledger. [Lucidarme, as cited above in regard to claim 7]
With regard to Claim 9:
The method of claim 1, wherein step (k) further comprises issuing a reward once the new virtual folder is recorded in the blockchain ledger. [Lucidarme, as cited above in regard to claim 7; it would have been obvious to one then of ordinary skill in the art to combine that feature of Lucidarme with the teaching of Guo, Gleichauf and Cooner for the same reasons given above in regard to claim 7]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-25, filed 10 June 2026, with respect to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of all claims on this basis has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-10 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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. Arguments in regard to the teaching of Lee are moot, as Lee is not relied upon as a basis of any rejection herein. In so far as the arguments pertain to language which had formerly been given no patentable weight by the Examiner, the teaching of Gleichauf has been incorporated to meet those limitations.
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
/BENNETT M SIGMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3694
Prosecution Insights