DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. 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examination under 37 CFR 1.114 and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the appeal has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 and prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on
03.09.2026 has been entered.
Prosecutorial Standing
3. This communication is in response to the RCE filed on 03.09.2026. Following a Final Rejection filed on 12.09.2025, Applicant has amended claims 1, 12, and 19. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1-20 will be subject to further examination and evaluation in due course, and will be presented for examination, as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0401526 in view of Chaves et al., Patent No.: US 8,811,620, and further in view of Cella et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0281618.
As per claim 1, Hu discloses: a memory that stores executable components [as illustrated in FIG. 1 (e.g., block 110), and shown below]; and
a processor, operatively coupled to the memory, that executes the executable components [as illustrated in FIG. 1 (e.g., block 108), and ¶0033 (e.g., the term control circuit 108 refers broadly to any microcontroller, computer, or processor-based device with processor, memory, and programmable input/output peripherals, which is generally designed to govern the operation of other components and devices), and shown below],
PNG
media_image1.png
475
384
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the executable components comprising:
a tagging component configured to tag items [see at least ¶0032 (e.g., the updates of the supply chain events may be automatically triggered at one or more computer systems by fulfillment of conditions in a smart contract and/or based on departure or arrival scans of products by a scanning device such as a camera, an optical code (e.g., barcode, QR code) reader, a radio frequency identification tag reader, etc.)] of industrial data collected from multiple supply chain entities and stored in a respective, logically isolated data silos with metadata to yield tagged data, wherein the metadata for a data item, of the items of the industrial data, collected from one of the multiple supply chain entities, and identifies a data type of the data item, and indicates whether the data item is sharable with one or more other entities of the supply chain entities [see at least ¶0031 (e.g., the supply chain distributed ledger 106 comprises a plurality of transaction records recording transfers of physical items and/or services between two or more entities of a supply chain (e.g., farm, supplier, manufacturer, transportation service provider, whole seller, retailer, etc.). In some embodiments, a transaction record may include an entities identifier (e.g., farm region, processor name and location, supplier name and location, distribution identifier, and store identifier), a transfer date, a transfer location, and characteristics of the transferred product or service (e.g., origin, ingredients)) …… ¶0047 (e.g., Referring to FIG. 3, there is shown a schematic diagram of an exemplary architecture and workflow of a system 300. FIG. 3 shows carrier network(s) 302 that may include one or more carriers, such as, for example Carrier 1 (304) and Carrier 2 (305). The carrier network(s) are in communication with the purchaser's network 306. The purchaser's network 306 includes a data ingestion module 308, which receives and/or stores data relating to, for example, transportation events 310, purchaser orders and receiving 312, quality control and Internet of Things data 314, and contracts 316 (including carrier contracts). Data from the data ingestion module 308 is received and transformed in the contract management platform 318 at a data transformation block 320), and as illustrated in FIGs. 2 and 3 presented below]:
PNG
media_image2.png
703
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
687
497
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hu discloses all elements per claimed invention as explained above. Hu, further discloses that the rules in a blockchain may comprise clauses of a smart contract that is enforced by the peer-to-peer network [see Hu: ¶0079]. Hu does not expressly disclose encodes machine-readable, machine-enforceable access-control and interoperability rules that are executable by the system to govern automated cross-silo distribution of the data item; and a brokering component configured to, only upon determining that the encoded access-control and interoperability rules for respective tagged data items are satisfied, and based on analysis of the tagged data, execute cross-silo matching operations on rule-compliant tagged data representations to identify a first entity, of the supply chain entities, having a shortage of a resource and a second entity, of the supply chain entities, having a surplus of the resource, and to send a notification to a client device associated with the first entity notifying of an availability of the resource from the second entity, wherein the notification is generated without exposing underlying non-sharable industrial data from the respective data silos.
However, Chaves discloses encodes machine-readable, machine-enforceable access-control and interoperability rules that are executable by the system to govern automated cross-silo distribution of the data item, and a brokering component configured to, only upon determining that the encoded access-control and interoperability rules for respective tagged data items are satisfied, and based on analysis of the tagged data, execute cross-silo matching operations on rule-compliant tagged data representations to identify a first entity [see at least Chaves: abstract and column 3: lines 35-39 (e.g., encoded in a machine-readable medium, such as radio frequency identification (RFID) data, in a 2-dimensional (2D) bar code, and/or in a QR code included with the item, and as illustrated in FIG. 2 below) ….. column 4: lines 20-45 (e.g., For example, the central repository may be cloud storage included in a cloud computing system hosted by a third party or service provider. The cloud storage service provider can manage and maintain a central repository where enterprises can store their item-level data for sharing with and access by other enterprises), and as shown in FIG. 3 below].
FIG. 2 is a diagram of example data that can be provided from a tag associated with an item.
PNG
media_image4.png
321
239
media_image4.png
Greyscale
FIG. 3 is a diagram depicting example steps for secure sharing of item-level data.
PNG
media_image5.png
556
537
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Chaves in order to provide a supply chain to transform and move a product or service from one or more suppliers (entities, partners or companies) to a customer in a manufacturing process [Chaves: background].
The combination of Hu and Chaves does not expressly disclose: the supply chain entities, having a shortage of a resource and a second entity, of the supply chain entities, having a surplus of the resource, and to send a notification to a client device associated with the first entity notifying of an availability of the resource from the second entity, wherein the notification is generated without exposing underlying non-sharable industrial data from the respective data silos. However, Cella discloses: the supply chain entities, having a shortage of a resource and a second entity, of the supply chain entities, having a surplus of the resource [see at least Cella: ¶0823 (e.g., excess or shortage states (e.g., supply-side, or output-side quantities), combinations thereof, and the like)], and to send a notification to a client device associated with the first entity notifying [see at least ¶0826 (e.g., issue an alert or notification, or trigger actions of subcomponents)] of an availability of the resource from the second entity [see at least ¶2236 (e.g., product availability, changes to selling and/or buying options)], wherein the notification is generated without exposing underlying non-sharable industrial data from the respective data silos [see at least ¶2626 (e.g., non-delivery of a product)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Cella in order to provide real-time visualizations to one or more parties to a smart contract running in a distributed ledger [Cella: ¶0003].
As per claim 2, Hu discloses wherein the supply chain entities comprise at least one of supplier entities, manufacturing entities, transportation entities, warehouse entities, retail entities, or distributor entities [see at least ¶0031 (e.g., chain distributed ledger 106 comprises a plurality of transaction records recording transfers of physical items and/or services between two or more entities of a supply chain (e.g., farm, supplier, manufacturer, transportation service provider, whole seller, retailer, etc.)), and ¶0032 (e.g., the blockchain may be updated and/or verified by retail stores, transporters, warehouses, distribution centers, suppliers, processors, manufacturers, farms, etc.)].
As per claim 3, Hu discloses wherein the resource is at least one of a product [see at least Hu: ¶0020 (e.g., a purchaser of products, the second entity is a carrier of the products, and third entity is a supplier of the products)]. Hu in view of Cella, further discloses a material used in production of a product and a part used in production of a product [see at least Cella: ¶0512 (e.g., in production and consumption of resources)], energy credits [see at least Cella: ¶0516 (e.g., a renewable energy credit)], or a labor resource [see at least ¶1273 (e.g., labor-intensive areas and processes)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Cella in order to provide real-time visualizations to one or more parties to a smart contract running in a distributed ledger [Cella: ¶0003].
As per claim 4, Hu discloses wherein the metadata further identifies the one or more other entities with which the data item is sharable [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Hu, Chaves and Cella, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 4 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 4. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 5, Hu in view of Cella discloses wherein the executable components further comprise an Al component configured to predict, based on the analysis of the tagged data, a future time at which the first entity will experience the shortage of the resource [see at least Cella: ¶0030 (e.g., artificial intelligence system is trained to produce a complete contract based on the automated contract element selection and assembly)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Cella in order to provide real-time visualizations to one or more parties to a smart contract running in a distributed ledger [Cella: ¶0003].
As per claims 6 and 7, Hu in view of Cella discloses wherein the Al component is configured to predict the future time based on a prediction of an effect, on the resource, of an event that occurs upstream or downstream relative to the first entity [see at least Cella: ¶0046 (e.g., predictive analysis that aids with contract development, execution, and machine learning)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Cella in order to provide real-time visualizations to one or more parties to a smart contract running in a distributed ledger [Cella: ¶0003].
As per claim 8, Hu discloses wherein at least a portion of the industrial data corresponding to the second entity resides in a first data silo, and the executable components further comprise a data sharing component configured to distribute a portion of the tagged data originating from the first data silo to one or more second data silos based on the metadata [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Hu, Chaves and Cella, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 8 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 8. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 9, Hu discloses wherein the industrial data comprises at least one of production data, human resource data, work schedule data, work order data, inventory data, or transportation scheduling data [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Hu, Chaves and Cella, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 9 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 9. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 10, Hu discloses wherein the brokering component is further configured to test the resource that is available from the second entity against one or more defined metrics of suitability defined by the first entity, and to include the results of the test in the notification [see at least the rejection of claim 1 above. Similar rationale is noticed for the combination of Hu, Chaves and Cella, as noted for claim 1 above. In light of the preceding examination, claim 10 is hereby rejected on grounds substantially similar to those articulated in the rejection of claim 1. As detailed in the prior rejection, the rationale and basis for rejecting claim 1 are applicable to claim 10. For a comprehensive understanding of the rejection grounds, reference is made to the detailed explanation provided in the rejection of claim 1, which is incorporated herein by reference].
As per claim 11, Hu in view of Cella discloses wherein the system is a multi-tenant Software-as-a- Service (SaaS) system that executes an industrial manufacturing execution system (MES) on a cloud platform [see Cella: ¶0147 (e.g., SaaS interfaces), ¶2291 (e.g., platform 20900 may be licensed or subscribed to using a software as a service (SaaS)), as illustrated in FIG. 209-A, and presented below].
PNG
media_image6.png
369
549
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to incorporate the teaching of Cella in order to provide real-time visualizations to one or more parties to a smart contract running in a distributed ledger [Cella: ¶0003].
7. Claims 12-18, which are parallel to claims 1-11 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-11. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-11].
8. Claims 19-20, which are parallel to claims 1-8 in terms of scope,
limitations, and share similar characteristics, as discussed and examined
above. Consequently, they are rejected based on the same logical and
underlying reasoning, and justification that apply to claims 1-11. The
similarity between these claims necessitates the same grounds for rejection, as explained in detail above [note the discussion of claims 1-11].
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The PTO-1449 forms have been reviewed and considered by the Examiner.
US 12,143,521, Subramaniam: discloses method includes receiving private user information, validating the private user information, generating a user block on a block chain, generating a private user key and an enterprise key, receiving a request from a user for a service, authenticating the private user key and enterprise key through consensus, hashing a block with service information, and linking the service block to the user block.
US 2023/0224304, DIMITROV: discloses method that involves receiving a request to access resources of a resource directory managed by a resource managing service.
US 2021/0132582, Biernat et al.: discloses a system configured to support the use of industrial blockchains in connection with product and machine tracking to provide industrial services.
US 2022/0239465, Woerner et al.: discloses a method of blockchain-based data management of distributed binary objects includes identifying a binary object to be stored in a first data store.
EP 3979166, Alastair et al.: discloses a method for automatically distributing asset pool shares among actors in a supply chain blockchain network by transferring asset amount directly between the contribution ratio and the obtainment ratio.
WO 2019/092544, Covaci et al.: disclose a system for recording verification keys on a blockchain.
US 2017/0277171, Asenjo: discloses cloud-based virtualization generation service collects industrial data from multiple industrial automation systems of multiple industrial customers for storage and analysis on a cloud platform.
US 2013/0211870, Lawson: discloses a cloud-based product tracking system.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Garcia Ade whose telephone number is (571)272-5586. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached on 517-272-6790. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
11. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Garcia Ade/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
GARCIA ADE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/GA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights