DETAILED ACTION
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, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 13, 2026 has been entered.
Notice of Applicant
In the amendment filed on April 13, 2025, claims 1, 10, and 26 have been amended. Claim 6 has been cancelled. Now, claims 1-5 and 7-29 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 13, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
1. Claims 1-5 and 7-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-5 and 7-29 are directed to maintaining information about the source and production of a manufactured or agricultural object, which amounts to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Additionally the claims, 1-5 and 7-29, are directed to tracking aspects of the product lifecycle, which is a commercial interaction which falls within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-5 and 7-9 recite a non-transitory, computer-readable storage media. Claims 10-25 recite a system comprising a network interface and processing circuitry. Claims 26-29 recite a method and at least one step. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (apparatus, manufacture, process).
Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth the following limitations:
generate, based on a user request, to include an identifier field with a unique identifier to identify an object story; a type field with a value of product type to indicate that the object story is associated with a product; an owner field with a first value that is associated with information associated with a manufacturer of the product; and a plurality of element fields with values associated with a corresponding plurality of element data structures, wherein the plurality of element fields includes: a custody field with a second value; a consumption field with a third value; and a conversion field with a fourth value;
identify that includes a statement about the product, wherein the statement is about custody, consumption, or conversion of the product;
identify corresponding to support the statement with a corresponding plurality of evidence levels;
select associated with a highest evidence level of the corresponding plurality of evidence levels;
incorporate by including; and
incorporate to support the statement about the product with a first level of evidence and is to support the statement about the product with a second level of evidence,
wherein each of the chain of claim elements and the chain of evidence elements is stored.
The above-recited limitations are directed to maintaining information about the source and production of a manufactured or agricultural object, which amounts to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Additionally, the above-recited limitations are directed to tracking aspects of the product lifecycle, which is a commercial interaction which falls within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
an object story data structure,
an entity data structure,
a custody data structure,
element data structures,
consumption data structure,
a conversion data structure,
a claim element, and
evidence elements,
one or more processors,
one or more non-transitory, computer readable storage media,
a cryptographic hash of one or more previous claim elements, wherein the first claim element further includes a link,
in a distributed ledger or blockchain.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“an object story data structure”, “an entity data structure”, “a custody data structure”, “element data structures”, “consumption data structure”, “a conversion data structure”, “a claim element”, and “evidence elements”, “one or more processors”, “one or more non-transitory, computer readable storage media”, “a cryptographic hash of one or more previous claim elements, wherein the first claim element further includes a link”, and “in a distributed ledger or blockchain”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (generating, identifying, identifying, selecting, incorporating, and storing). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 47, 50-51, 53, 57-58, 67, 72, 90, and 292-298 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 10 and 26 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent claims
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-25 and 27-29 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 10, and 26 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Regarding Claim 3
Claim 3 sets forth:
wherein the statement about the product is about a type of product that includes the product, a batch of products that includes the product, or is unique to the product.
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of maintaining information about the source and production of a manufactured or agricultural object, which amounts to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment) and tracking aspects of the product lifecycle, which is a commercial interaction which falls within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claim does not set forth any additional limitations. As such, the does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed on April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims recite additional elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field and directed to patent eligible subject matter.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. The structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience and the recited claim elements constitute methods related to a “mental process” and certain methods of organizing human activity. Claims 1-5 and 7-29 are directed to maintaining information about the source and production of a manufactured or agricultural object, which amounts to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). Additionally the claims, 1-5 and 7-29, are directed to tracking aspects of the product lifecycle, which is a commercial interaction which falls within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment.
With regard to Ex Parte Desjardins, the present claims are not analogous. The present claims are merely storing data/information about a product within a variety of databases, systems and structures. The Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps issued on December 4, 2025 (hereinafter "First Memo" as referred to in Applicant’s remarks dated April 13, 2025) is not intended to announce any new USPTO practice or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing guidance.
Further, in order for an alleged application of an abstract idea to be considered eligible, it must amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e., pass step 2B of the Mayo test). As shown in the rejection above, the application of the abstract idea recited merely applies the idea in a generic computer environment (networked client-server environment) using generic computer functions (generating a data structure, identifying an element, selecting an element and incorporating the elements into the data structure and incorporating the first evidence element into a chain of evidence elements and storing the elements). Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed April 13, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-29 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in the last Office action because: It includes statements which amount to an affirmation that the claimed subject matter functions as it was intended to function. This is not relevant to the issue of evaluating the claims based upon Mayo/Alice analysis under USC 101 two-step framework and provided the results of the analysis in the Final action dated January 12, 2026.
Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
System and method for identifying virtual goods (US 20220150071 A1) teaches a system and method to permit brand owners to maintain control over their valuable brands in a virtual economy.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER A. MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571) 270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on (571) 270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights