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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Analysis
Claim 11: Ineligible.
The claim recites a series of acts. The claim is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is analyzed to determine whether it is directed to a judicial exception. The claim recites the steps of receiving identification information of a first product and information on a second platform from a terminal of a first company, the first company having not registered information on the first product on a first platform and having already registered the information on the first product on the second platform different from the first platform; transmitting a disclosure request for the information on the first product to the second platform, the disclosure request including the identification information of the first product; receiving the information on the first product and information on a second company from the second platform in response to the disclosure request, the second company being a company of a second product positioned upstream of the first product; automatically, based on receiving the information on the first product and the information on the second company from the second platform in response to the disclosure request, registering the information on the first product on the first platform in association with the first company; and performing, for the second company, at least one of generating a temporary account on the first platform, and storing, by a proxy input unit of the first platform, restrictions on use of functions of the first platform by the temporary account for the second company, the restriction comprising blocking access of the second platform to at least one function of the first platform, the at least one function of the first platform representing an access to at least one digital storage area of the first platform, the at least one digital storage area of the first platform comprising information on a third product of a third company,
and registering the information on the second company on the first platform in association with the first company and based on the second platform being determined to not participate in managing the information on the second company registered on the first platform, wherein the first platform is a first server and second platform is a second server separated from the first server by a digital network.
These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performances of the limitations via manual human activity, but for the recitations of generic computer components such as the platforms/terminals. The limitations all under the commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal relationship/interactions between people of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” group (Step 2A1-Yes).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if it is integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional elements of using computer system and devices (terminal, servers including associated digital storages) in a digital network. The processors in the steps are recited at high level of generality, i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions. These generic processor limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The digital network limitation is simply a field of use that is an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea (Step 2A2-No).
Next, the claim is analyzed to determine if there are additional claim limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract ideas (whether claim provides inventive concept). As discussed with respect to Step 2A2 above, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea (Step 2B: NO). The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 1 recites corresponding apparatus equivalent of claim 11 This claim is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 recite wherein the information on the first product includes traceability-related information of the first product; wherein the traceability- related information includes information on an amount of greenhouse gas emission.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 11 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 recite executing, by the computer: acquiring information on location of the first platform and information on location of the second platform, and converting the information on the amount of greenhouse gas emission based on a relationship between the location of the first platform and the location of the second platform; and the registering the information on the first product includes registering the converted information on the amount of greenhouse gas emission in association with the first company; executing, by the computer, at least one of the transmitting and the receiving via a predetermined connector.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 11 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 recite wherein: the information on the second company includes information on the second product; and the registering the information on the second company includes registering the information on the second product in association with the first company as a proxy applicant of the information on the second product; wherein the information on the first product that is received from the second platform by the one or more processors includes information indicating designation of a disclosure range by the terminal of the first company.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 11 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 11 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 recite executing, by the computer, when the computer has executed the generating the temporary account on the first platform, assign the temporary account generated on the first platform to the second company as a regular account in response to a message that is received from the terminal of the first company or a terminal of the second company and that indicates that the second company has accepted to participate in the first platform; wherein: the information on the second company includes information on the second product; a storage area that stores the information on the second product is associated with the first company until the regular account is assigned to the second company; and association of the storage area is transferred from the first company to the second company after the regular account is assigned to the second company.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 11 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Claims 10 and 20 recite wherein the first product and the second product are products related to a battery.
These limitations further narrow the abstract idea, but are nonetheless part of the abstract idea identified in claim 11. The additional elements are similarly as discussed in the claim 11 analysis, above. Finally, when viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 11, supra.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that paragraphs [0145]-[0148] of the originally-field specification describes that claims that reflect a technical solution. The identified technical solutions are not technical solutions in the context of subject matter eligibility. They are abstract concepts. The setting of the other platform as the manager of the unmanaged information further narrows the abstract idea, but it is nonetheless an abstract idea. Blocking access to certain information is similar to providing restricted information on the platform. This is similar to CAFC decision in Prism Techs. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (non-precedential) (see attached, particularly pages 5-7). Claims are ineligible.
Note, Examiner has taken time to consult the specification and has not found any elements that could be added to make the claim eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao et al. (WO2022083378A1) teaches data processing method and device (abstract).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLABODE AKINTOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3629. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30a-6:00p.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/OLABODE AKINTOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691