DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 24 February 2026 in regard to application no. 17/793,035. Claims 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 Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-18 and 20-22 are pending, of which claims 13-18 and 20-22 have been withdrawn from consideration.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.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 24 February 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The applicant has provided the Examiner with several non-patent literature references, but has not filed the appropriate information disclosure statement. (Or, at least, the Examiner is unable to locate it in the file.) Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are directed to statutory categories of invention, as each is directed to a method (process) or system (machine). The claim(s) recite(s) gathering and verifying a datum which includes product identification, gathering additional data and sending some of it somewhere else, parsing and verifying certain data elements including making an estimate, providing more data, creating a product identification in no particular way and linking it to other data, and sending and recording a result, followed by a description (of no patentable significance, as will be discussed below) of a person performing some of the steps.
As all of this is essentially a method of keeping track of products, it recites a fundamental business practice and thus one of the "certain methods of organizing human activity" deemed abstract. Further, these are mental steps that, in the absence of computers, can be accomplished in the human mind or with a pen and paper records. A clerk can write down identifications and retrieval instructions, can verify an identity, can send data to others, parse and verify data and make estimates mentally, write additional information, create a product identifier mentally and write it down twice, storing one copy and sending the other to someone else. Validating and ensuring consistency are also routine business steps that can be performed mentally. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology beyond a pen and pieces of paper.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of generic, networked computers and ordinary use of blockchain technology, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above. This does not go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to the technological environment of networked computers and blockchain storage. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
As the claims only manipulate product identification and related data, 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 particular articles 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 algorithmic and technical 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 elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate an otherwise-ineligible claim. Claim 10, which has the most, includes a computer and a blockchain which, like blockchains generally, uses cryptographic linking. 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 to carry out the invention.
It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data 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. Statements of intended use within a claim have no impact on this analysis.
Blockchain technology must have been well-understood, routine and conventional at the time the present invention was filed, because the applicant's own use of it — with only a cursory explanation (see Spec. ¶33) of its functionality, devoid of structural or implementation details - indicates that it was sufficiently well understood by that time as to not require elaboration; if this were not the case, the Examiner would be obliged to make a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) for want of written description and/or enablement.
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 while using a well-understood, routine and conventional data storage technique - does nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The other independent claim is simply a different embodiment but is likewise directed to, at most, a generic computer performing essentially the same process. The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 2 and 6 are simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated; claims 3, 4 and 7 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data. Claims 8 and 9 simply recite distributing nonfunctional printed matter, which is, itself, of no patentable significance and which, in any case, does nothing to make the invention less abstract.
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, 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 Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0265418, filed 19 February 2020) 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, or creating a new block in the blockchain ledger, but it is known in the art. Lee teaches a blockchain system [title] in which data corresponding to a blockchain are received. [abstract] A new block is created. [0044] Users are identified, [0089] and blocks within the blockchain are also identified. [0096] Lee 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 Lee with that of Guo, as market forces at the time were increasingly driving developers to make use of blockchain technology for all manner of secure or immutable storage needs; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Lee's storage in place of 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, cryptographically linked blocks, 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. In this and the subsequent claims, the "wherein" language at the end of the claims is considered but given no patentable weight. First, it limits a user purporting to perform the method or use the system and not the method or system itself. Second, as every person may be considered to be a consumer and therefore lie within a consumer sector, it does not actually limit a user at all. The “such that” language is merely a statement of intended use, is not limiting, and 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 Lee 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 /.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, or creating a new block in the blockchain ledger, but it is known in the art. Lee teaches a blockchain system [title] in which data corresponding to a blockchain are received. [abstract] A new block is created. [0044] Users are identified, [0089] and blocks within the blockchain are also identified. [0096] Lee 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 Lee with that of Guo, as market forces at the time were increasingly driving developers to make use of blockchain technology for all manner of secure or immutable storage needs; further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply using Lee's storage in place of 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, cryptographically linked blocks, 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 Lee et al. 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, Lee and Cooner teach the method of claim 1 but do not explicitly teach this classification, but 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, Lee 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, Lee 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 Lee et al. 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, Lee 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, Lee 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, Lee and Cooner for the same reasons given above in regard to claim 7]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 February 2026 in regard to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, the Examiner does not see any improvement in blockchain data architecture. It is inherent in the nature of blockchain that data, once written, is immutable and can’t be overwritten. Simply using an inherent feature of blockchain does not improve blockchain.
The Examiner must respectfully disagree with the applicant’s assertion that blockchain systems then in use “merely record raw transactions sequentially and do not natively support evolving entities”, etc. The applicant provides no support for this conclusory assertion, and quite to the contrary, like any kind of data storage, blockchain systems can and always could store any kind of data at all, which certainly includes data about evolving entitites.
While the applicant may have found documents in which individual authors have discussed limitations in their own implementations of distributed ledger technology, the Examiner does not see how this is supposed to support the apparent argument that all such limitations are inherent in all implementations of blockchain technology.
In fact, the claimed use of blockchain in the present claims is broad and represents quite ordinary use of the technology: extracting data from existing blocks, creating new blocks, linking blocks, and the use of cryptography in the process of storing the data. That the system can be used for tracking information about batteries has already been discussed, both by the Examiner and the Board, and need not be further discussed here.
Similarly, both the Examiner and Board have explained that “virtual folders” as described in the specification are not in any sense technical but merely relate to collections of data.
The Examiner has never said, and does not say, that the claims are “only directed to mental processes”, so arguments to the contrary traverse a statement never made.
The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
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 Russell are moot because Russell is not relied upon as a basis of any rejection herein, and in so far as the arguments discuss language added by amendment, to the extent such language has any patentable weight afforded to it, the Examiner has herein incorporated the teaching of Cooner to meet the additional 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