DETAILED ACTION
Response received on October 15, 2025 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 3, 10-11, 17, 19, and 21 have been amended, Claims 6-8 are canceled. Therefore, Claims 1-5 and 9-21 are pending.
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 Claims
This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on 5/19/2023 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 10/15/2025. Claims 1-5 and 9-21 are pending.
Priority
Application 18/037,859 was filed on 5/19/2023 and claims the priority of the Chinese patent application filed on January 16, 2021.
Applicant’s Reply
Applicant's response of October 15, 2025 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant’s remarks at the end of this office action.
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
Claims 1-5 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1‐7 and 11-21 are directed to a method (process), and claim 9 are directed to a computer device (manufacture/machine), and Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (machine). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
For step 2A, the Examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A method for authenticating a transparent supply chain for a server based on a blockchain, comprising: storing a transparent-supply-chain certificate and original asset information, assigned to the server when the server is produced in a blockchain storage system, to obtain a feature value of the blockchain, and storing the feature value of the blockchain in a preset nonvolatile storage space of the server, wherein the preset nonvolatile storage space is an Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM) electronic tag in a field replaceable unit (FRU) provided in the server; in response to that the server is started, reading, by the server, current asset information of the server, and reading, by the server, the feature value of the blockchain in the preset nonvolatile storage space of the server, wherein the current asset information comprises model categories and serial numbers of every part in the server; querying, by a control center, in the blockchain storage system by using the feature value of the blockchain, to obtain a target transparent-supply-chain certificate and target original asset information, and comparing, by the control center, the current asset information with the target original asset information; and in response to that the current asset information is consistent with the target original asset information, assigning, by the control center, the target transparent-supply-chain certificate to the server, to make the server obtain a work authority based on the target transparent-supply- chain certificate.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of authenticating a transparent supply chain and monitoring traceability of the procurement of individual parts, to enable end users to trace original part manufacturers of these parts. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial interactions include agreements in the form of contracts, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations.). That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. The claimed method is directed to commercial or legal interactions because it covers the creation, storage, verification, and authorization of supply-chain certificates and asset information which can be done manually as part of a manual review process that determines a list of approved entities. Additionally, this process can be completed manually through traditional document review, signature verification, and paper-based audits. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers legal and commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “blockchain”, “a server”, “blockchain storage system”, “a preset nonvolatile storage space of the server”, “an Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM) electronic tag in a field replaceable unit (FRU) provided in the server”, and “control center” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites blockchain”, “a server”, “blockchain storage system”, “a preset nonvolatile storage space of the server”, “an Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM) electronic tag in a field replaceable unit (FRU) provided in the server”, and “control center”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 2 and 4 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include obtaining maintenance record data and determining an asset-information- change record according to the maintenance record data, in response to that the current asset information is inconsistent with the target original asset information. The dependent claims 2 ad 7 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 3 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include obtain the target transparent-supply-chain certificate and the target original asset information and comparing the current asset information with the target original asset information. In addition, the claim recites new additional elements of “a target block”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claim is patent ineligible.
Claim 5 and 20 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include storing a local certificate, comparing the target transparent-supply-chain certificate with the local certificate stored, and wherein a local certificate corresponding to the transparent-supply-chain certificate is saved, and that the local certificate is verified to be matched with the transparent-supply-chain certificate. In addition, the claims recite new additional elements of “trusted platform module (TPM) of the server”, which is considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claim is patent ineligible.
Claims 9-10 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include implements the method according to claim 1. In addition, the claims recite new additional elements of “computer device”, “processor”, “computer program”, and “computer-readable storage medium” which is considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 11-17 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include feature value of the blockchain is assigned to the server at the ex-factory time of the server, wherein the comparing the current asset information with the target original asset information is conducted together with the asset- information-change record, wherein the feature value of the blockchain of the server is used to synchronously obtain equipment asset information, wherein the asset-information-change record is saved in a maintenance-change-record database, and wherein the model category and SN number comprise a model category and a SN number. The dependent claims 11-17 do not include any additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claim 18 and 21 recite elements that further limit the abstract idea of the independent claims to include being accessed and read and reads the current asset information and the feature value. In addition, the claims recite new additional elements of “an inter-integrated circuit channel of a baseboard management controller of the server” and “control center” which is considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 112 (b) rejection are noted. On page 7 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that in view of the amendment, Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to withdraw the rejection. Examiner acknowledges the amendments and therefore withdraws the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for claims 6, 7, and 17.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 7 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that the steps recited in the amended Claim 1 are performed by machines, not human activities, so the claimed invention is not a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant is referred to the 101-rejection section above as to why the claims are still directed to an abstract idea. Examiner notes that the claim is still directed to an abstract idea because it essentially describes a method for managing and verifying data, such as assets information and blockchain certificates, using known technology without specific technological innovation or improvement. Additionally, the steps outlines, such as storing and comparing data, generic processes commonly used in information verification, which do not introduce a novel or non-obvious technological solution to a technical problem. Applicant further argues that it can be seen that the judicial exception of amended claim 1 is integrated into a practice application of "authenticating a transparent supply chain for a server based on a blockchain". Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the claim merely applies the abstract idea of data verification within the context of a blockchain-based supply-chain process without adding any meaningful technological improvement. The claim uses generic computer components such as storing data, reading data, querying a database, and comparing information, which do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible technological solution.
Applicant further argues that "storing a transparent-supply-chain certificate and original asset information, assigned to the server when the server is produced", "the preset nonvolatile storage space is an Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM) electronic tag in a field replaceable unit (FRU) provided in the server" and "the current asset information comprises model categories and serial numbers of every part in the server" are concrete measures to be used to solve the problem in the practice application, and they are not mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the recited elements such as storing certificates in EEPROM, recording model categories, and reading serial numbers, are merely considered known data gathering and storage operations performed by standard server hardware and do not amount to a technological improvement. These steps simply implement the abstract idea of tracking and verifying asset information using generic computer components, rather than providing concrete, inventive measures that meaningfully limit the judicial exception. Applicant further argues amended claim 1 include elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the additional elements in claim 1, are generic computer function that do not add an inventive concept beyond the underlying abstract idea. These long-standing operations, even when combined do not transform the claim into something “significantly more” than the judicial exception, as they merely apply the exception using technology. Therefore, the amendment does not meaningfully transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. For the reasons mentioned above, the argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1-5 and 9-21 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection are noted. On page 9 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that the parts of amended claim 1 are identified as distinguishing features of amended claim 1. Examiner finds the arguments persuasive. Examiner notes that based on the new claim amendments, the prior art of record Ishiguro et al. (US 20170041150) in view of Majko-Ruben (US 20210157954), further in view of Fallah (US 20020047781) teaches majority of the recited limitations of the independent claim 1. However, the prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the limitations of “querying, by a control center, in the blockchain storage system by using the feature value of the blockchain, to obtain a target transparent-supply-chain certificate and target original asset information” found in the independent claim 1. Examiner notes the prior art of record teaches querying, by a control center, in the …storage system… to obtain … certificate and target original asset information but does not disclose using the feature value of the blockchain to obtain a target transparent-supply-chain certificate and target original asset information. The prior art of record teachings as recited in the previous office action fail to set forth any sufficient rationale for combining or otherwise modifying any of the relevant prior art to arrive at the claimed invention, as a whole. Furthermore, the prior art of record does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination of limitations for the dependent claims due to their respective dependencies to the independent claim 1 as recited above. Thus, the rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. §103 has been withdrawn.
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
extension fee 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 date of this final
action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights