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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: in the phrase “a query to determine if the license is possible…”. It is not clear for what the license is possible.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “a tangible machine-readable medium” could include an electrical signal, which is non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carbone et al. U.S. PGPub 2019/0286102 (hereinafter “Carbone”).
Regarding claim 1, Carbone discloses a method, comprising: determining, using processing circuitry: a cryptographically-derived content for a marking based on a blockchain ledger, where the blockchain ledger comprises a record authorizing a manufacturing apparatus to create an object (e.g. ¶28 and 51); and object creation instructions to create a modified version of the object (via modified geometries) comprising the marking (e.g. ¶33-35, 56, 59-60 and 64); and causing the manufacturing apparatus to create the modified version of the object according to the determined object creation instructions (e.g. ¶33-35, 56, 59-60 and 64).
Regarding claim 2, Carbone discloses the method of claim 1, where the record authorizing the manufacturing apparatus comprises a cryptographic identity (e.g. printer/process identifier) of the manufacturing apparatus (e.g. ¶36 and 54).
Regarding claim 7, Carbone discloses the method of claim 1, where the record comprises an indication of: (a) a reference to a part identity of a product comprising the object; (b) a record identification of a transaction recorded in the blockchain ledger (e.g. ¶28, 36, 54 and 74-75); (c) an access key for providing access to the object creation instructions (e.g. ¶51-52); (d) a decryption key for unlocking encrypted content associated with the object (e.g. ¶51-52); (e) an object creation validity condition defining whether the manufacturing apparatus can create the object; and/or (f) a production authorization condition specifying information about an authorized production run (e.g. ¶51).
Regarding claim 8, Carbone discloses a tangible machine-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to: determine object manufacturing instructions for producing an object comprising a unique marking, where the unique marking comprises content that is cryptographically derived from a blockchain ledger, where the blockchain ledger comprises a record indicative of a manufacturing apparatus having permission to produce the object (e.g. ¶33-35, 56, 59-60 and 64); and instruct the manufacturing apparatus to produce the object according to the object manufacturing instructions (e.g. ¶33-35, 56, 59-60 and 64).
Regarding claim 9, Carbone discloses a method, comprising: receiving, by a blockchain node comprising processing circuitry, a transaction request produced by an authorized manufacturing apparatus manager (e.g. ¶28 and 51), where: the transaction request indicates a marking content produced by the authorized manufacturing apparatus manager (e.g. ¶33-35, 56, 59-60 and 64); the marking content is cryptographically derived from a record of a blockchain ledger held by the blockchain node; and the record authorizes manufacturing of an object by a manufacturing apparatus associated with the authorized manufacturing apparatus manager (e.g. ¶33-35, 56, 59-60 and 64); and in response to determining that the transaction request complies with a blockchain ledger policy, causing the transaction request to be written to the blockchain ledger (e.g. ¶33-35, 56, 59-60 and 64).
Regarding claim 10, Carbone discloses the method of claim 9, comprising: receiving a query comprising marking content read from a candidate object (e.g. ¶33-35, 56, 59-60 and 64); and providing an indication of a provenance of the candidate object based on whether or not the marking content read from the candidate object is cryptographically derived from the record of the blockchain ledger held by the blockchain node (e.g. ¶33-35, 56, 59-60 and 64).
Regarding claim 11, Carbone discloses the method of claim 10, comprising writing the query to the blockchain ledger in response to determining that the candidate object is cryptographically derived from the record of the blockchain ledger held by the blockchain node (e.g. ¶33-35, 56, 59-60 and 64).
Regarding claim 15, Carbone discloses the method of claim 9, comprising: prior to receiving the transaction request, receiving the record from an authorizing entity and writing the record to the blockchain ledger (e.g. ¶28 and 51).
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) 3-5 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbone as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Milazzo et al. U.S. PGPub 2017/0279783 (hereinafter “Milazzo”).
Regarding claims 3-5 and 12-14, Carbone does not explicitly disclose requesting a license to create the object.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Milazzo discloses a method comprising: in response to receiving an object creation request, communicating, by a manufacturing apparatus manager, with a blockchain node, to request a license to create the object; and in response to determining that the license request complies with the blockchain ledger policy, issuing the license (e.g. ¶33, 44-46, 49, 63-65 and 72). Regarding claims 4 and 13, Milazzo discloses the method comprising: receiving, from the authorized manufacturing apparatus manager, a query to determine if the license is possible prior to receiving the license request; and in response to determining that the license is possible, providing an indication that the license is possible (e.g. ¶33, 44-46, 49, 63-65 and 72). Regarding claims 5 and 14, Milazzo discloses A method, comprising: generating an additional record for reserving the license (e.g. ¶33, 44-46, 49, 63-65 and 72); communicating with the blockchain node to cause the additional record to be written to the blockchain ledger (e.g. ¶33, 44-46, 49, 63-65 and 72); and in response to receiving a confirmation that the additional record has been written to the blockchain ledger: determining the cryptographically-derived content for the marking; determining the object creation instructions; and/or causing the manufacturing apparatus to create the modified version of the object (e.g. ¶5, 56 and 78).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to request and issue a license to create an object. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to ensure the user has legal rights to the created object.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Carbone with Milazzo to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3-5 and 12-14.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carbone and Milazzo as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Cantrell et al. U.S. PGPub 2019/0101896 (hereinafter “Cantrell”).
Regarding claim 6, Carbone discloses storing transaction data of a created object (e.g. ¶28, 36, 54 and 74-75), but does not explicitly disclose to determining whether the object has been successfully created, generating a further additional record to indicate whether or not the object has been successfully created; and communicating with a blockchain node to request that the further additional record be written to the blockchain ledger.
Regarding claim 6, Cantrell discloses a method comprising: in response to determining whether the object has been successfully created, generating a further additional record to indicate whether or not the object has been successfully created (e.g. ¶58); and communicating with a blockchain node to request that the further additional record be written to the blockchain ledger (e.g. ¶58).
At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to record data relating to the completion of the created object. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this to monitor and store data related to the manufacturing process for further analysis if needed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Carbone and Milazzo with Cantrell to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Relevant Prior Art
Regarding claim 1, Hwang et al. U.S. PGPub 2019/0283333 discloses a method, comprising: determining, using processing circuitry: a cryptographically-derived content for a marking based on a blockchain ledger, where the blockchain ledger comprises a record authorizing a manufacturing apparatus to create an object (e.g. abstract; ¶36 and 53-54); and object creation instructions to create a modified version of the object (via adjusted build parameters/corrective action) comprising the marking (e.g. ¶30-31, 33, 36 and 51-54); and causing the manufacturing apparatus to create the modified version of the object according to the determined object creation instructions (e.g. ¶30-31, 33, 36 and 51-54).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES R KASENGE whose telephone number is (571)272-3743. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am to 4pm 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
CK
September 10, 2025
/CHARLES R KASENGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116