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 § 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 1-6 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, claims 1-5 are directed to a method and claim 6 is directed to a non-transitory, computer readable, tangible storage medium. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 recites: An information management method, implemented by a computer, for managing concealed data in association with each of a plurality of traders that form a supply chain, the concealed data being managed using a blockchain to which the plurality of traders are able to refer, the method comprising, in a process executed by at least one processor of the computer, the steps of:
transmitting a providing request for pre-concealed data from a particular terminal device in association with a particular trader to a receipt terminal device in association with a direct trader that has a business relationship with the particular trader in the supply chain;
if the receipt terminal device that has received the providing request does not store the pre-concealed data, transferring the providing request to the receipt terminal device of another trader that has a business relationship with the direct trader in the supply chain; and
if the receipt terminal device that has received the providing request stores the pre-concealed data, returning the pre-concealed data to the particular terminal device through a reply route that is along a transmission route of the providing request in an opposite direction.
(Additional element(s) emphasized in bold)
The above claim describes a process for transmitting a request for data from a particular trader to a direct trader that has a business relationship with the particular trader in a supply chain; if the direct trader does not store the data, transferring the request to another trader that has a business relationship with the direct trader in the supply chain; and if the direct trader stores the data, returning the data to the particular trader. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of supply chain tracing and tracking which is grouped within the “methods of organizing human activity” grouping under the “commercial or legal interactions” sub-grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See MPEP 2106.04), the additional elements of the claim such as computer/processor, blockchain, and terminal devices merely uses computers as tools to perform an abstract idea. The use of blockchain does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g. supply chain databases) due to reciting such element(s) at no more than a high level of generality (e.g. the blockchain is merely a substitute for any generic database/recordkeeping, including physical records). Finally, the use of processors/computers (computer, terminal devices) as tools to implement the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than computers performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. 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 claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B (See MPEP 2106.05), the additional elements of computer/processor, blockchain, and terminal devices do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the use of blockchain does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g. supply chain databases) due to reciting such element(s) at no more than a high level of generality (e.g. the blockchain is merely a substitute for any generic database/recordkeeping, including physical records). Finally, the use of a computer and terminal devices does no more than use computers as tools to automate and/or implement the abstract idea (i.e. “apply it”). Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recites the concept of supply chain tracing and tracking using a computer. 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 2-5 further recite characteristics of data (e.g. types of concealed/pre-concealed data) and the additional elements of concealing/concealed data (e.g. hashing/hashed data) do no more than continue to generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (e.g. encryption). Accordingly, 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. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
The same analysis pertaining to the abstract idea of tracing and tracking supply chain product information in a supply chain holds true for claim 6 as well, with the additional elements of memory and processor merely using a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 is also not patent eligible.
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the claims are each directed to a method or program performed/executed by a computer (see preamble(s)). However, the claims further recite limitations in which it is unclear whether the computer or a separate and distinct device is performing the steps required. For example, “if the receipt terminal device that has received the providing request does not store the pre-concealed data, transferring the providing request...” and “if the receipt terminal device that has received the providing request stores the pre-concealed data, returning the pre-concealed data...” It is unclear whether the computer receives some indication from the receipt terminal device and performs the steps of transferring/returning or whether the receipt terminal device performs the steps of transferring/returning. Therefore, as the receipt terminal device is clearly not a part of the computer of the claims’ preambles, the scope of claims 1 and 6 is unclear (In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Claims 2-5 are also rejected due to their dependence on at least claim 1.
Similarly, claims 3 and 5 recite further limitations in which it is unclear whether the computer or a separate and distinct device is performing the steps required. For example, “generating verification data based on the pre-concealed data by applying the pre-concealed data that is returned to the particular terminal device...” and “when the providing request is received from the downstream side in the supply chain, transferring the providing request to the receipt terminal device...and when the providing request is received from the upstream side in the supply chain, transferring the providing request...” It remains unclear whether the computer performs the steps of generating/transferring (particularly when the claims do not recite that the computer receives the pre-concealed data that is returned nor that the providing request is received by the computer from the upstream/downstream side), or whether the particular terminal device or receipt terminal device performs the steps of generating and transferring respectively. Therefore, as the receipt terminal device and the particular terminal device are clearly not a part of the computer of the claims’ preambles, the scope of claims 3 and 5 is unclear (In re Zletz, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 20190180276) generally discloses methods and systems for using block chain technology to verify transaction data. In particular, Lee discloses an automated event processing computing platform retrieving supply chain information from a plurality of corporate entities having business relationships and storing said information in a blockchain (see Fig. 8a and 0150-0158).
Smith et al. (US 20200136799) generally discloses methods, apparatus, systems and articles of manufacture to determine provenance for data supply chains. In particular, Smith discloses generating and storing a data object comprising supply chain information and subsequently authenticating said data object using message hashing digest comparisons after transferring said data object (see Fig. 6 and 0078-0072).
Nguyen et al. (USP 10693662) generally discloses a method of securely serializing product units to provide a trusted basis for the recording of transaction events reflecting distribution actions within and between supply chain participant vendors. In particular, Nguyen discloses a vendor querying a platform server to track & trace products within a supply chain stored on a blockchain (see Fig. 1, Fig. 13, and Col 17 line 49-Col 18 line 39).
Chee et al. (US 20200202021) generally discloses a method and system for managing access rights to event data in an event-driven process chain (i.e. supply chain). In particular, Chee discloses a server or peer node determining access rights to event data for downstream and upstream nodes in a blockchain-implemented supply chain and transmitting said event data to nodes having access rights (see Figs. 4a-4c, Fig. 5, and 0059-0082).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAYLOR RAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:00 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, John W Hayes can be reached at (571)-272-6708. 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.
/T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/JOHN W HAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights