DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 8, 10, 18 and 20 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19 are currently pending and have been considered by the examiner.
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 .
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection:
Applicant asserts that the newly amended claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the claims are directed towards a specific computer-implemented verification workflow that recites a technical mechanism that improves how a computer system stores and verifies records and documents across a distributed network. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner asserts that the additional elements recited such as the use of a content hash and a digital stamp as disclosed by the present claims are recited generically and broadly and while the inclusion of such additional elements could potentially provide the invention with some technical benefit, because the disclosed additional elements are recited at such a general level such that the functionality described does not exceed the capabilities of a generic computer, and thus any purported benefit cannot be considered to improve the functioning of a computer. Therefore, the examiner must maintain the previously issued 101 Rejection.
Applicant’s additional arguments have been considered and have been deemed unpersuasive based upon the following 101 rejection.
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 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In the instant case, claim 11-17, and 19 are directed towards a method and claims 1-7, and 9 are directed to a system/apparatus. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 11 recites the following:
A method for product certification management, the method comprises:
communicating, as a node of a supply chain distributed ledger and via a network interface, with a plurality of other nodes of the supply chain distributed ledger corresponding to a plurality of entities in a supply chain, wherein the supply chain distributed ledger comprises a plurality of transaction records and a plurality of certificate records;
identifying, with a control circuit executing a product certification management module, a transaction identifier in a transaction record in the supply chain distributed ledger;
retrieving, with the control circuit, transaction metadata associated with the transaction identifier from the supply chain distributed ledger;
verifying, with the control circuit and according to rules of a smart contract, one or more applicable certifications for the transaction identifier based on comparing the transaction metadata and the plurality of certificate records in the supply chain distributed ledger for applicability of the plurality of the plurality of certificate records to the transaction record, the plurality of certificate records being added the distributed ledger before the transaction record and each comprising certification metadata and a pointer to a certificate document stored in a certification documents database; and
upon fulfillment of the conditions in the smart contract, automatically:
generating, with the control circuit and as an update to the supply chain distributed ledger, a certificate verification record comprising a reference to the transaction record and a reference to one or more certificate records associated with the one or more applicable certifications, a content hash of one or more digital certificate documents associated with the one or more certificate records and a cryptographically verifiable signature of an entity associated with the product certification module; and.
execute a digital document stamping service to digitally stamp the transaction identifier on the certificate documents associated with the one or more applicable certifications stored in the certification documents database; and receive a product identifier from a user interface and provide certification compliance information based on verifying an associated transaction record in the supply chain distributed ledger and associated certificate documents in the certification documents database.
Regarding Step 2A Prong One, the claims recite the abstract idea of performing a mental process. Specifically, the claims recite the limitations underlined above which recite a process which can reasonably be performed by the human mind with a pen and paper which is grouped within the Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04) because the claims involve the process of mitigating risk in an economic transaction. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
Regarding Step 2A Prong Two, the recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.04(d)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as a “network interface”, “content hash”, “digitally stamp”, “certification documents database” and “control circuit” merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Specifically, the “network interface”, “content hash”, “digitally stamp”, “certification documents database”, and “control circuit” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims 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 exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP § 2106.05), the additional element(s) of a “network interface”, “content hash”, “digitally stamp”, “certification documents database”, and “control circuit” amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the “network interface”, “content hash”, “digitally stamp”, “certification documents database”, and “control circuit” perform(s) the steps or functions underlined above. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite risk mitigation. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 further describe the recited abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Claims 2, 9, 12, and 19 recites the additional element of a certification documents database. However, the additional element does not place the recited abstract idea into practical application nor amount to significantly more but rather merely applies a general computer to the recited abstract idea.
Claims 3, 5-6, 10, 13, 15-16, and 20 merely further describe additional steps which can reasonably be performed by the human mind with a pen and paper.
Claim 4 and 14 merely further describe information used to perform the recited mental process.
Claims 7 and 17 recites the additional element of a product information graphical user interface. However, the additional element does not place the recited abstract idea into practical application nor amount to significantly more but rather merely applies a general computer to the recited abstract idea.
Therefore, as the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea, the dependent claims are also not patent 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.
Ramachandran et al. (US 20210209546 A1) generally discloses systems and methods for providing records and certification for a food supply chain.
Scott et al. (US 10972281 B2) generally discloses systems and methods for storing and verifying the authenticity of document information using a distributed ledger system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS K PHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1 pm-9 pm EST.
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, Neha Patel can be reached on 571-270-1492. 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.
/NICHOLAS K PHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3699
Prosecution Insights