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 .
Notice of Applicant
In the amendment filed on December 11, 2025, claims 1-4, 7, 10, 15, 24, and 26 have been amended. Now, claims 1-29 remain pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/29/2025 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.
4. Claims 1-29 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
5. The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as an apparatus, (claims 1-9), a machine (claims 10-25), and a process (claims 26-29). Accordingly, claims 1-29 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
6. Independent claims 1, 10, and 26 recite, in part a device, a system and a method comprising the following steps:
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, wherein the plurality of element fields includes: a custody field with a second value that is associated with of the plurality; a consumption field with a third value that is associated with of the plurality; and a conversion field with a fourth value that is associated with the plurality;
identify that includes a statement about the product, wherein the statement about custody, consumption, or conversion of the product;
identify a plurality corresponding, the plurality to support the statement with a corresponding plurality of evidence levels;
select a first from the plurality associated with a highest evidence level of the corresponding plurality of evidence levels;
incorporate into a chain by including, a cryptographic hash of one or more previous of the chain, and including, a link; and
incorporate into a chain by including, within the, a cryptographic hash of one or more previous of the chain, and including, within a, a link wherein 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.
These steps amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information (i.e. receiving data, processing data, and transmitting data) 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).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-25, and 27-29 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 2-9, 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.
7. Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Independent claims 1, 10, and 26 recite, in part, 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, and/or one or more processors, and/or one or more non-transitory, computer readable storage media, and/or a network interface, and/or remote devices, and/or a communication network, and/or processing circuitry, and a link. The specification defines an object story data structure as a data structure that includes or incorporates elemental aspects of an object story, the data structure or elemental aspects may be distributed across set of networked, distributed nodes, (Specification in § 0057), an entity data structure as a GUID that identifies the entity that manufactures the product, and other fields corresponding to the entity (for example, a name field, an address field, a contact field, a certification field, etc.), (Specification in § 0090), a custody data structure as may contain information about the chain of custody of those ingredients - who had control over them for what period of time and under what conditions were they stored, (Specification in § 0072), element data structures as portion of the object story that contains information about the processes and components that make up the product, (Specification in § 0058), consumption data structure as portion of the object story that contains information about the consumer(s) interaction with the item, (Specification in § 0050), a conversion data structure as portion of the object story that contains information about the ultimate end-of-life disposal of the item, (Specification in § 0051), a claim element as fundamental information object containing a statement that an entity makes about an item, (Specification in § 0047), and evidence elements as fundamental information object containing evidence of the veracity of a corresponding claim element, (Specification in § 0053), and/or one or more processors, and/or one or more non-transitory, computer readable storage media, and/or a network interface, and/or remote devices, and/or a communication network, and/or processing circuitry as the device 3800 may include processors 3801, memory/storage circuitry 3802, a user interface 3803, a network interface 3804, and sensors (Specification in § 0292-0298), and a link as The remote story access module 204 may be responsible for maintaining links to those portions of the object story that are not stored locally. If the actor wishes to modify a portion of the object story that is not local, the remote story access module contacts a remote data management system, authenticates its actor and retrieves the portion of the object story that they are authorized to use (Specification in § 0067). The use of 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, and/or one or more processors, and/or one or more non-transitory, computer readable storage media, and/or a network interface, and/or remote devices, and/or a communication network, and/or processing circuitry, and a link are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Claim 2 recites the additional limitation of a claim element, claim 6 recites an object story data structure, element data structure and blockchain or distributed ledger, claim 8 recites the additional limitation of a component object story data structure, claim 9 recites the additional limitations of a component object story data structure and an object story data structure, claim 11 recites the additional limitation of a security token and an object story data structure, claim 12 recites the additional limitations of a security token and an object story data structure, claim 13 recites the additional limitation of an object story data structure, claim 14 recites the additional limitation of an object story data structure, claim 15 recites the additional limitations of an evidence element, claim element and an object story data structure, claim 16 recites the additional limitations of a component object story data structure and an object story data structure, claim 17 recites the additional limitations of the custody data structure, the consumption data structure, or the conversion data structure, and an object story data structure, and processing circuitry, claims 18 and 19 recites the additional limitations of a component object story data structure, a remote substory access module, and an object story data structure and/or a first device, claim 20 recites the additional limitations of a component object story data structure, and an object story data structure, claim 23 recites the additional limitations of a an object story data structure and a legacy system, claim 24 recites the additional limitations of a claim element and an object story data structure, claim 25 recites the additional limitations of a processing circuitry and natural language processing, claim 26 recites the additional limitations of a security token and an object story data structure, claim 27 recites the additional limitations of a security token, an object story data structure, a claim element and an evidence element, claim 28 recites the additional limitations of a component object story data structure and an object story data structure, claim 29 recites the additional limitations of a computing device, a security token, a user device, and an object story data structure. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
8. Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 26 recite, in part, 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, and/or one or more processors, and/or one or more non-transitory, computer readable storage media, and/or a network interface, and/or remote devices, and/or a communication network, and/or processing circuitry, and a link. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as use of 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, and/or one or more processors, and/or one or more non-transitory, computer readable storage media, and/or a network interface, and/or remote devices, and/or a communication network, and/or processing circuitry to process and output data, and a link to store data. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception’).
Claim 2 recites the additional limitation of a claim element, claim 6 recites an object story data structure, element data structure and blockchain or distributed ledger, claim 8 recites the additional limitation of a component object story data structure, claim 9 recites the additional limitations of a component object story data structure and an object story data structure, claim 11 recites the additional limitation of a security token and an object story data structure, claim 12 recites the additional limitations of a security token and an object story data structure, claim 13 recites the additional limitation of an object story data structure, claim 14 recites the additional limitation of an object story data structure, claim 15 recites the additional limitations of an evidence element, claim element and an object story data structure, claim 16 recites the additional limitations of a component object story data structure and an object story data structure, claim 17 recites the additional limitations of the custody data structure, the consumption data structure, or the conversion data structure, and an object story data structure, and processing circuitry, claims 18 and 19 recites the additional limitations of a component object story data structure, a remote substory access module, and an object story data structure and/or a first device, claim 20 recites the additional limitations of a component object story data structure, and an object story data structure, claim 23 recites the additional limitations of a an object story data structure and a legacy system, claim 24 recites the additional limitations of a claim element and an object story data structure, claim 25 recites the additional limitations of a processing circuitry and natural language processing, claim 26 recites the additional limitations of a security token and an object story data structure, claim 27 recites the additional limitations of a security token, an object story data structure, a claim element and an evidence element, claim 28 recites the additional limitations of a component object story data structure and an object story data structure, claim 29 recites the additional limitations of a computing device, a security token, a user device, and an object story data structure. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception’).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-29 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed on December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea and recites additional elements that are sufficient to satisfy the inventive concept element of Step 2B. Applicant further argues that the claims amount to significantly more than any recited judicial exception and that similar to the claim of Ex parte Desjardins, the claim at issue in the present application includes recitations directed to improving computer functionality.
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” because generating an object story data structure, identifying a claim element, identifying a plurality of evidence elements, selecting a first evidence element, and incorporating the claim element and evidence element into the data structure, and incorporate the first evidence element into a chain of evidence elements can be performed in the human mind, which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The previously added limitations, including, “a cryptographic hash of one or more previous evidence elements of the chain of evidence elements”, are merely storing the elements in a blockchain. A cryptographic hash is just a value or number obtained by performing a mathematical computation on some data, and the claim only involves storing the result of this calculation (not necessarily even performing the calculation). 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. Additionally, Ex Parte Desjardins does not nullify Alice which supersedes Desjardins.
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). Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
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.
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 11270318 B1) 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 5712705096. 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