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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-13 and 20 are amended. No claims are cancelled. No claims are added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the objections to the drawings, the title, and claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings, the title, and claim 12 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the Section 112 interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Section 112 interpretation has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments with respect to the Section 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Section 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and arguments with respect to the Section 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended the independent claims recite more additional elements. The rejections have been updated to address the amended claims.
Applicant argues that the claims are patent-eligible for reasons described in Example 2 of the USPTO's Abstract Idea Examples. However, while the claims in Example 2 were directed to creating a hybrid webpage, the claims in the instant application are directed to data gathering from manufacturing processes. While the Court in DDR Holdings explained that "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology”, the instant claims are not. Rather, the instant claims are more analogous to those in Example 46, claim 1, where the claims represent mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and the obtained information is used in the abstract mental process of comparing and analyzing. The instant claims do not impose any meaningful limits on how the specific information is obtained, and thus this step covers any and all possible ways in which this can be done, for instance by a user typing the information into the system, or by the system obtaining the information from third party sources. The claim also does not impose any limits on how the comparison or analysis is accomplished, and thus it can be performed in any way known to those of ordinary skill in the art, including mental or pen and paper analysis performed by humans in the ordinary course of business. The storage of data in multiple areas is recited so broadly as to include handwritten notes of the managers of different factory managers, not any particular technological improvement or technological solution. That is, while the arguments assert that the claims address a data integration challenge that is particular to distributed computerized systems, the claims recite no such computerized systems. Instead claim 1 recites a single processor, claim 13 recites a single computer, and claim 20 recites instructions to execute functions by a single processor. Such data acquisition could be easily accomplished over a phone call between humans are directed to calculations that can be hand written. The recited conversion processing does not rely on any particular technology nor is it limited to a particular process. For example, the converting between units may amount to metric to standard conversions used in everyday human processes ranging from baking, to chemistry classes in a high school, to pharmaceutical processing. As noted above, the rejections have been updated to address the amended claims, including newly recited additional elements. In view of the foregoing, the arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Section 102 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Insofar as the previously cited art is continued to be relied upon, the newly recited features are addressed for the first time in the new Section 103 rejection presented below.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 13 recites “first processing of acquiring from a transaction information correspondence table … a first association between identification information of a first lot of a first product manufactured by a first section of a plurality of sections involved in manufacturing a predetermined product, each of which ships products in lot units, and identification information of a second lot of a second product manufactured by a second section of the plurality of sections using the first product of the first lot; second processing of acquiring from a traceability-related information correspondence table …. a second association between the identification information of the second lot of the second product and identification information of first traceability-related information measured in a manufacturing process of the second product of the second lot; and third processing of acquiring second traceability information obtained by tracing a process from raw materials or parts to the second product of the second lot by integrating first traceability information and the first traceability-related information based on the first association and the second association, wherein the integrating includes converting between different units when the first section and second section use different units for traceability information, the first traceability information being obtained by tracing a process …, when there are multiple calculation results for the second traceability information, the method includes calculating statistics including maximum value, minimum value, average value, variance, standard deviation, and median value from the multiple calculation results, and output the calculated statistics, when multiple first lots contribute to the second lot, the method includes calculating the second traceability information using at least one of: average values, weighted average values based on usage ratios, or pattern management for each first lot”. Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “Product Processing Tracing”, which is an abstract idea because it is method of organizing human activity, including commercial interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), and mental process, including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). “Product Processing Tracing” is considered to be is a method of organizing human activity because the claims are directed to human processes often required in business processes, safety processes, and marketing activities including source tracing and product modification tracing. Such processes may be required in determining the location and source of contaminated goods, such as foods that may be tied to a particular farm and then later incorporated into downstream food product made of multiple foods. Such processes may also be performed by humans when calculating the ecological impact of product processing for certifications of goods with environmental informational labels, some of which may be required by law. For example, "Tracking Label Requirement for Children's Products" by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission discusses labeling requirements including the location and date of production of the product; detailed information on the manufacturing process, such as a batch or run number, or other identifying characteristics; and any other information to facilitate ascertaining the specific source of the product.
“Product Processing Tracing” is considered to be is a mental process because the claim limitations are directed to the mere acquisition of information. That is, nothing is required from the claims other than observing various processes and maintaining knowledge of the observed information in ones head or after being written down with pen and paper. As such, claim 13 is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 20 recite substantially similar features to those recited in representative claim 13 and are ineligible based on substantially the same reasons.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 13, and 20 recite the following additional element(s): claim 1 recites a processor and claim 13 recites a computer, and claims 1, 13, and 20 recite storing data in a first storage area, storing data in a second storage area, product information is stored in a distributed database using blockchain infrastructure, access authority to the distributed database is granted using an electronic key, and executing the processing using a smart contract. These additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. That is, the recitations of additional elements amount merely reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). That is, the claims at most recite a general purpose computer, or mere elements thereof, and are not being used to address a technological problem or provide any technological solution. Such highly generic recitations do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). 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. Claims 1, 13, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are merely being used to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment. As noted above, the claims at most recite a general purpose computer, or mere elements thereof, and are not being used to address a technological problem or provide any technological solution. Accordingly, claims 1, 13, and 20 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 merely further limit the abstract idea and are thereby considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claims 2 and 14 further limit the abstract idea of “Product Processing Tracing” by introducing the element of when a first value indicating the first traceability information and a second value indicating the first traceability-related information have different units, converts the first value into a value expressed in the unit of the second value using a predetermined conversion factor, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 2 and 14 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 3 and 15 further limit the abstract idea of “Product Processing Tracing” by introducing the element of when there is a plurality of first lots of the first product used to manufacture the second product of the second lot, acquire the second traceability information by integrating the first traceability information and the first traceability-related information using an average value of first values indicating the first traceability information about each of the first products of the first lots, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 3 and 15 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 4 and 16 further limit the abstract idea of “Product Processing Tracing” by introducing the element of when there is a plurality of first lots of the first product used to manufacture the second product of the second lot, acquire the second traceability information by integrating the first traceability information and the first traceability-related information using a weighted average value of first values indicating the first traceability information for each of the first products of the first lots, weighted according to a usage ratio of the first product for each of the first products of the first lots, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 4 and 16 also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 5 and 17 further limit the abstract idea of “Product Processing Tracing” by introducing the element of when there is a plurality of first lots of the first product used to manufacture the second product of the second lot, acquire the second traceability information for each of the first products of the first lots, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 5 and 17 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 6 and 18 further limit the abstract idea of “Product Processing Tracing” by introducing the element of receive the first association from an account in the second section, store the first association in a storage unit, and acquire the first association from the storage unit, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 6 and 18 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 7 and 19 further limit the abstract idea of “Product Processing Tracing” by introducing the element of acquire, when the second lot of the second product is specified, the identification information of the first lot of the first product that is associated with the identification information of the second lot of the second product in the first association from the storage unit; and acquire the first traceability information on the first product of the first lot corresponding to the acquired identification information, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claims 7 and 19 are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 8 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Processing Tracing” by introducing the element of receive the second association from an account in the second section, store the second association in a storage unit, and acquire the second association from the storage unit, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 8 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 9 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Processing Tracing” by introducing the element of acquire third traceability information obtained by tracing a process from the raw materials or the parts to the predetermined product of a predetermined lot by executing the first processing, the second processing, and the third processing, in order, from a most upstream section to a most downstream section for each of a plurality of sets of two sections in a relationship between the first section and the second section among the plurality of sections, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 9 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 10 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Processing Tracing” by introducing the element of at least some of the plurality of sections are associated with companies, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 10 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 11 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Processing Tracing” by introducing the element of at least some of the plurality of sections are associated with departments in one company, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 11 is also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claim 12 further limits the abstract idea of “Product Processing Tracing” by introducing the element of traceability information is at least one of a Carbon Footprint of Products (CFP) value, a recycling rate, and a score indicating a degree of fulfilling due diligence (DD) information, which does not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, dependent claim 12 is also non-statutory subject matter. In the event that claim 12 is not intended to be a dependent claim, claim 12 is still directed to an abstract idea. As an independent claim, claim 12 is definition of a word, which may be a mental process. As noted below, claim 12 includes no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 also do not integrated into a practical application. The dependent claims recite a storage unit in claims 6 and 18, and claims 14-19 incorporating the computer recited in the preamble of claim 13. These additional elements merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. The claims provide no practical limits or improvements to any technology. Accordingly, dependent claims 2-12 and 14-19 are also ineligible.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120109842 to Bhatt et al in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200184416 to Javaheri.
With regards to claims 1, 13, and 20, Bhatt et al. teaches:
a processor configured to execute/the computer (paragraph [0172], “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.”):
first processing of acquiring from a transaction information correspondence table …. a first association between identification information of a first lot of a first product manufactured by a first section of a plurality of sections involved in manufacturing a predetermined product (paragraph [0052], “To identify actual sources from which contaminated food product items were derived, the present disclosure, in another aspect, discloses pinpointing or detecting sources of food by using bill of material (BOM). BOM includes a list of raw materials and the quantities of each needed to manufacture a final product.”; paragraph [0085], “In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the food hazard/risk analysis may be based on three categories of models: 1) Traceability model or information to record the trace of a product or product lot from primary producers to end consumers; 2) Daisy chain model to setup the relationship between risk factor, risk event, material (product), business process, mitigation approach and organization; 3) Hazard dynamics about the growth/mitigation over time under different conditions (e.g., temperature, moisture). The models may be implemented as a computer data structure or the like.”), each of which ships products in lot units, and identification information of a second lot of a second product manufactured by a second section of the plurality of sections using the first product of the first lot (paragraph [0031], “An aggregation event represents an event that happened to one or more entities denoted by EPCs that are physically aggregated together, for example, physically constrained to be in the same place at the same time, as when cases are aggregated to a pallet.”; paragraph [0052], “In one embodiment of the present disclosure, food sources are linked with a food product by BOM, the sequence number of selected food product is recorded, the sequence number (as opposed to time stamp) range of food source units is generated based on the bill of material, and the food sources having sequence number within the estimated sequence range are identified.”);
second processing of acquiring from a traceability-related information …. a second association between the identification information of the second lot of the second product and identification information of first traceability-related information measured in a manufacturing process of the second product of the second lot (paragraph [0052], “BOM also may include a list of sub-assemblies, intermediate assemblies, sub-components, components, and/or parts, that were generated from the raw material and that make up the final product”); and,
third processing of acquiring second traceability information obtained by tracing a process from raw materials or parts to the second product of the second lot by integrating first traceability information and the first traceability-related information based on the first association and the second association(paragraph [0052], “BOM also may include a list of sub-assemblies, intermediate assemblies, sub-components, components, and/or parts, that were generated from the raw material and that make up the final product.”),
wherein the integrating includes converting between different units when the first section and second section use different units for traceability information (paragraph [0054], “A conversion component 402 calculates the range of sequence number of source units at 412. A conversion component 402 maps end products with sources. Thus, source units are determined according to their sequence numbers at 414.”; paragraph [0055], “The BOM (Bill Of Material) is a data model that explains relationship between source units and products, including what is produced with what and how many source units are required to produce a product (production rate), for example, as illustrated and explained with reference to FIG. 3. Using such data model, material and production rate distributions associated with a product may be retrieved.”; paragraph [0056], “At 504, a conversion algorithm is created. The conversion algorithm is for identifying source units associated with an end product of interest. A conversion algorithm contains several parameters (e.g., acceptable confidence level). The parameters may be set when such an algorithm is created.”),
the first traceability information being obtained by tracing a process from the raw materials or the parts to the first product of the first lot (paragraph [0052], “BOM also may include a list of sub-assemblies, intermediate assemblies, sub-components, components, and/or parts, that were generated from the raw material and that make up the final product.”),
when there are multiple calculation results for the second traceability information, the processor is configured to calculate statistics including maximum value, minimum value, average value, variance, standard deviation, and median value from the multiple calculation results, and output the calculated statistics (paragraph [0062], “The distribution function may be modified as the production rate and/or BOM model change. For example, the parameters of the normal distribution are the mean and the variance as the graph of the associated probability density function is bell-shaped with peak at the mean and tail shape determined by the variance. As the production rate and the BOM model change, the mean and the variance of the distribution function also may change. The exact function and mapping between the mean/variance and the production rate/BOM model is determined by the training data, for instance, as part of the mapping between source unit sequence numbers and end product sequence number.”),
when multiple first lots contribute to the second lot, the method includes calculating the second traceability information using at least one of: average values, weighted average values based on usage ratios, or pattern management for each first lot (paragraph [0057], “At 506, each source unit's sequence number is recorded. A source unit is one type of an input (there could be multiple input types) of the food conversion process which is shown at 412 in FIG. 4A. For example, in manufacturing, each source unit is assigned a sequence number. For instance, a device may be attached to a product manufacturing line entry which can count the number of input source units, increase the sequence number by one once a source unit is detected as input, and record the sequence number (the count) and associate the sequence number with the source unit identifier into an information system”; paragraph [0061], “The conversion algorithm automatically calculates the sequence range with a given input, which is the end product's sequence number. Recall that at steps 506 and 508, the sequence numbers were assigned to the source units and end product units. At 512, by using an algorithm, correlation or linking of an end product to a source unit is performed.”, where a sequence is pattern management for each first lot). Bhatt et al. also teaches storing information about products at different times across the processes being performed (paragraph [0045], “Once the transition events (e.g., 140, 142) are generated, e.g., as in 120, ITS or the like may query the events and trace a product across different domains (e.g., 134, 136, 138). A transition event may include the properties of the source and target of a transition process, with other information such as generation time, location, etc., as properties. The information could be used as query condition. The transition events may be stored in a relational database tables, and the queries can be defined as structured query language (SQL) query.”), but fails to explicitly teach acquiring information from different storage areas and using a blockchain or a smart contract. However, Javaheri teaches
first processing of acquiring from a transaction information correspondence table stored in a first storage area a first association between identification information of a first lot of a first product manufactured (paragraph [0028], “The system 100 may further collect the product related information 302 on the product 1 while it is at the facility 200. The facility 200 may process the product 1. For example, processing of the product 1 may be defined as including one or more of modifying the product, accumulating a plurality of products, disseminating the product, consuming the product, selling the product, disposing of the product, and/or the like. The system 100 may further collect the product related information 302 on the product 1 while it is processed at the facility 200. Finally, the system 100 may collect the product related information 302 on the product 1 as it departs the facility 200 including consumption information if appropriate. In one aspect, the tracking device 300 may obtain the product related information 302 on the product 1 during one or more steps through the facility 200, at every step through the facility 200, periodically as the product 1 moves through the facility 200, at predefined time periods and/or process steps while in the facility 200, while in transit (transportation processes & logistic processes) and the like.”; paragraph [0029], “The facility 200 may be any type of facility receiving the product 1, processing the product 1, consuming the product 1, delivering the product 1, transferring the product 1, and/or the like. As further shown in FIG. 1, the facility 200 may include a plurality of facilities 200 (facility 200-1, facility 200-2, facility 200-3, . . . facility 200-N; where N is any whole number). … The facility 200 may involve the transformation and/or delivery of resources, raw materials, components, and the like into a finished and/or intermediate product that is delivered to a next facility 200 or delivered to an end customer.”; where data from facility 200-1 may be considered transaction information correspondence table stored in a first storage area )
second processing of acquiring from a traceability-related information correspondence table stored in a second storage area a second association between the identification information of the second lot of the second product (paragraph [0028], “The system 100 may further collect the product related information 302 on the product 1 while it is at the facility 200. The facility 200 may process the product 1. For example, processing of the product 1 may be defined as including one or more of modifying the product, accumulating a plurality of products, disseminating the product, consuming the product, selling the product, disposing of the product, and/or the like. The system 100 may further collect the product related information 302 on the product 1 while it is processed at the facility 200. Finally, the system 100 may collect the product related information 302 on the product 1 as it departs the facility 200 including consumption information if appropriate. In one aspect, the tracking device 300 may obtain the product related information 302 on the product 1 during one or more steps through the facility 200, at every step through the facility 200, periodically as the product 1 moves through the facility 200, at predefined time periods and/or process steps while in the facility 200, while in transit (transportation processes & logistic processes) and the like.”; paragraph [0029], “The facility 200 may be any type of facility receiving the product 1, processing the product 1, consuming the product 1, delivering the product 1, transferring the product 1, and/or the like. As further shown in FIG. 1, the facility 200 may include a plurality of facilities 200 (facility 200-1, facility 200-2, facility 200-3, . . . facility 200-N; where N is any whole number). … The facility 200 may involve the transformation and/or delivery of resources, raw materials, components, and the like into a finished and/or intermediate product that is delivered to a next facility 200 or delivered to an end customer.” where data from facility 200-2 may be considered traceability-related information correspondence table stored in a second storage area);
product information including the first association and the second association are stored in a distributed database using blockchain infrastructure (paragraph [0010], “The process may include obtaining information from a plurality of interface (API) calls and chaining the data through associations, references, or other data not explicitly placed on the tracking device such as a tag. In one aspect, the process may include aspects to ingest data from silo legacy systems and associate it in the blockchain to establish a genealogy and provenance of the product throughout its life cycle. The process also includes storing the product related information in a database from the plurality of tracking devices located at the plurality of facilities.”),
access authority to the distributed database is granted using an electronic key (paragraph [0102], “In one aspect, the data collection system 500 may include a transformation service. The transformation service may be a system interface used to communicate between IoT devices and the blockchain. The transformation service may incorporate business logic, perform blockchain queries, and identify key RFID data attributes necessary for creating blockchain transactions. Using these functionalities, the transformation service may be responsible for parsing RFID messages and transforming them into XMLs that may include GS1 formatted data.”),
the method includes executing the first processing, the second processing, and the third processing using a smart contract (paragraph [0104], “Any time an event is transmitted to the blockchain, the transformation services query the blockchain for the previous timestamp of a previous event. Using the timestamps from a current and the previous event, the service may query the IoT device(s) at the event's location and they create a temperature payload that is sent to the blockchain. This temperature information may be the basis for temperature monitoring and the input that triggers a smart contract to run. In this regard, the system may contain, implement, and utilize smart contracts to manage product temperature rules and inventory discrepancies.”; paragraph [0157], “wherein the inventory information comprises at least one of the following: an inventory determination, a replacement determination, a supply chain determination, consumption metrics, inventory counts, a gross inventory, a shelf life determination, inventory determinations based on smart contracts, and a forecasted inventory.”),
This part of Javaheri is applicable to the system of Bhatt et al. as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking product information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Bhatt et al. to include the blockchain and smart contract data management as taught by Javaheri. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bhatt et al. in order to obtain detailed information on a product from its source to a final destination having a greater speed of access to the information and permissioned based dashboard to provide insights through a persona-based management system (see paragraphs [0005] of Javaheri).
With regards to claims 2 and 14, Bhatt et al. teaches: the processor, in the third processing, when a first value indicating the first traceability information and a second value indicating the first traceability-related information have different units, converts the first value into a value expressed in the unit of the second value using a predetermined conversion factor (paragraph [0056], “At 504, a conversion algorithm is created. The conversion algorithm is for identifying source units associated with an end product of interest. A conversion algorithm contains several parameters (e.g., acceptable confidence level). The parameters may be set when such an algorithm is created. Examples of conversion algorithm are described further below.”).
With regards to claims 3 and 15, Bhatt et al. teaches: the processor is configured to, in the third processing, when there is a plurality of first lots of the first product used to manufacture the second product of the second lot, acquire the second traceability information by integrating the first traceability information and the first traceability-related information using an average value of first values indicating the first traceability information about each of the first products of the first lots (paragraph [0068], “A is source product A. B is target product B. Then the objects quantity Z of B that a unit weight of product A object can produce is following the normal distribution Z=[N(μ,δ)], in which μ is the average number of product B objects that A (unit weight) can produce and δ is the variance.”).
With regards to claims 4 and 16, Bhatt et al. teaches: the processor is configured to, in the third processing, when there is a plurality of first lots of the first product used to manufacture the second product of the second lot, acquire the second traceability information by integrating the first traceability information and the first traceability-related information using a weighted average value of first values indicating the first traceability information for each of the first products of the first lots, weighted according to a usage ratio of the first product for each of the first products of the first lots (paragraph [0122], “4) The traceability model may be further built up or enhanced using the identified organizations.”; paragraph [0123], “5) For each identified organization starting from the lowest-level (e.g., raw material) to upper levels (end product) one level at a time, hazard impact quantity is computed. The computed hazard impact quantities of all identified organizations at a level are combined to form an aggregated hazard impact quantity of an organization at the next level in the traceability model in FIG. 6C. A function that combines the hazard impact quantity may be a linear function, e.g., a weighted average function or others or combinations thereof.”).
With regards to claims 5 and 17, Bhatt et al. teaches: the processor is configured to, in the third processing, when there is a plurality of first lots of the first product used to manufacture the second product of the second lot (paragraph [0050], “Extended EPCIS events column 210 shows the transition events generated by the actions in response to the triggers in the trigger/action column. The transition event includes fields such as the source EPC and the target EPC. This way it is possible to trace from an output product all the way back to a source product by following the transition event links across boundary borders. Links may be followed by matching the source and target EPCs.”; paragraph [0052], “To identify actual sources from which contaminated food product items were derived, the present disclosure, in another aspect, discloses pinpointing or detecting sources of food by using bill of material (BOM). BOM includes a list of raw materials and the quantities of each needed to manufacture a final product. BOM also may include a list of sub-assemblies, intermediate assemblies, sub-components, components, and/or parts, that were generated from the raw material and that make up the final product.”), acquire the second traceability information for each of the first products of the first lots (paragraph [0127], “For example, if food product A is found contaminated, the food traceability network provides information including basic supply chain information such as source ingredients, manufacturing process, delivery process, etc. Contexts, events and timestamp information is provided such as shipping container temperature, manufacture plant bacterial count, when the manufacturing and delivery happened, what other products were there in the same context close to that time.”).
With regards to claims 6 and 18, Bhatt et al. teaches: the processor is configured to, in the first processing, receive the first association from an account in the second section (paragraph [0031], “An aggregation event represents an event that happened to one or more entities denoted by EPCs that are physically aggregated together, for example, physically constrained to be in the same place at the same time, as when cases are aggregated to a pallet.”), store the first association in a storage unit, and acquire the first association from the storage unit (paragraph [0029], “ITS follows a global standard called the Electronic Product Code (EPC) Information Services (EPCIS) specification to implement an information system, for example, dependent of the database system used to store and retrieve data. ITS collects and stores product related trace data on every relevant event as check points. Types of events include an object event, aggregation event, quantity event, transaction event and a transition event.”).
With regards to claims 7 and 19, Bhatt et al. teaches: in the third processing, the processor is configured to: acquire, when the second lot of the second product is specified (paragraph [0038], “Each product transformation or transportation is involved with two domains, i.e., source and destination (or target) domains. For example, when a canned product is transported from a cannery to a store, the cannery is the source domain and the store is the destination domain. For product traceability, each domain may have an ITS system which collects and records every relevant event in the domain.”), the identification information of the first lot of the first product that is associated with the identification information of the second lot of the second product in the first association from the storage unit (paragraph [0029], “Bhatt et al.”); and
acquire the first traceability information on the first product of the first lot corresponding to the acquired identification information (paragraph [0038], “A transition event of the present disclosure provides mapping between events in the source domain and those in the destination domain, so that product trace information can be stitched (or linked) together across multiple ITS systems deployed among multiple domains where a product goes through its life time.”).
With regards to claim 8, Bhatt et al. teaches: the processor is configured to, in the second processing, receive the second association from an account in the second section (paragraph [0031], “An aggregation event represents an event that happened to one or more entities denoted by EPCs that are physically aggregated together, for example, physically constrained to be in the same place at the same time, as when cases are aggregated to a pallet.”), store the second association in a storage unit, and acquire the second association from the storage unit (paragraph [0029], “ITS follows a global standard called the Electronic Product Code (EPC) Information Services (EPCIS) specification to implement an information system, for example, dependent of the database system used to store and retrieve data. ITS collects and stores product related trace data on every relevant event as check points. Types of events include an object event, aggregation event, quantity event, transaction event and a transition event.”).
With regards to claim 9, Bhatt et al. teaches: the processor is configured to
acquire third traceability information obtained by tracing a process from the raw materials or the parts to the predetermined product of a predetermined lot by executing the first processing, the second processing, and the third processing (paragraph [0052], “To identify actual sources from which contaminated food product items were derived, the present disclosure, in another aspect, discloses pinpointing or detecting sources of food by using bill of material (BOM). BOM includes a list of raw materials and the quantities of each needed to manufacture a final product. BOM also may include a list of sub-assemblies, intermediate assemblies, sub-components, components, and/or parts, that were generated from the raw material and that make up the final product. In one embodiment of the present disclosure, food sources are linked with a food product by BOM, the sequence number of selected food product is recorded, the sequence number (as opposed to time stamp) range of food source units is generated based on the bill of material, and the food sources having sequence number within the estimated sequence range are identified.”), in order, from a most upstream section to a most downstream section for each of a plurality of sets of two sections in a relationship between the first section and the second section among the plurality of sections (paragraph [0093], “Generally, as the daisy chain model covers more organizations (company A) and/or more food product (Food B), instances for those organizations and/or food products are added to the model. In addition, the instances of other entities (e.g., processes, risk factors, etc.) related to the added instances (e.g., company A and/or food B) may be added to the model for the analysis.”).
With regards to claim 10, Bhatt et al. teaches: at least one of the plurality of sections are associated with companies (paragraph [0093], “Generally, as the daisy chain model covers more organizations (company A) and/or more food product (Food B), instances for those organizations and/or food products are added to the model. In addition, the instances of other entities (e.g., processes, risk factors, etc.) related to the added instances (e.g., company A and/or food B) may be added to the model for the analysis.”; paragraph [0129], “The context could be a farm process, logistic process, a processing process or a finer granularity level like a processing equipment in a processing flow. … The output entity of a context could be linked to input entity (the same type and product code, but could be different quantity) of another context to represent the send/receive relationship.”).
With regards to claim 11, Bhatt et al. teaches: at least one of the plurality of sections are associated with departments in one company (paragraph [0093], “While the instances in the model can be added, modified and deleted, the model itself remains the same. For a particular traceability and hazard impact analysis, the portion of the instance set of the model relevant to the analysis may be extracted (e.g., for a particular company, food product, or risk).”; paragraph [0129], “The context could be a farm process, logistic process, a processing process or a finer granularity level like a processing equipment in a processing flow. … The output entity of a context could be linked to input entity (the same type and product code, but could be different quantity) of another context to represent the send/receive relationship.”).
With regards to claim 12, Bhatt et al. teaches: each of the first traceability information and the second traceability information comprises is at least one of a Carbon Footprint of Products (CFP) value, a recycling rate, and a score indicating a degree of fulfilling due diligence (DD) information (paragraph [0087], “In one aspect, risk factors may be considered as causes (e.g., as shown in hierarchical model example in FIG. 6E); risk events may be considered as effects (e.g., Salmonella outbreak, food poisoning in specific locale). The material model 624 includes the products or material associated with an organization and/or its processes.”; paragraph [0094], “A hazard dynamics model shows hazard dynamics, i.e., the growth and/or mitigation over time under different conditions (e.g., temperature, moisture). A sample hazard dynamics model is shown in FIG. 6F, which illustrates the percentage of infected eggs under different stock conditions (e.g., stock temperature, packing, etc.) after an egg has been infected by Salmonella.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210264550 to Coast discusses chain-of-custody based enforcement, including: reading physical indicia of a bailment to retrieve a set of records from a distributed ledger associated with the bailment; verifying a custody record of the set of records for the bailment; measuring a physical characteristic of the bailment; validating that the physical characteristic matches a previously recorded measurement record of the set of records for the bailment; and adding a new record to the distributed ledger.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210004739 to Gill et al. discusses a blockchain based supply chain network. The network provides a supply chain monitoring system and marketplace including (a) raw materials, textile, and apparel sourcing marketplace, including services and capabilities, and textile, trim, components, accessories; (b) tracking system for engagement, environmental and social labor performance; (c) marketplace and transactional layer with an embedded blockchain platform that helps create trust between participants of the supply chain. The supply chain monitoring system and marketplace can provide a level of transparency and traceability fin the apparel market that has not been seen before in conventional supply chain systems.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220058578 to Javaheri discusses a system to track, trace and monitor product. The system is configured to track product and capture product related information and includes a network interface configured to receive product related information over a network from a plurality of tracking devices located at a plurality of facilities. The system also includes a database configured to store the product related information from the plurality of tracking devices located at the plurality of facilities. The system also includes a processor configured to be responsive to and control at least the database and the network interface. The system also includes the processor and the database being further configured to implement blockchain technology with respect to the product related information to generate a blockchain ledger of the product related information.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua D Schneider whose telephone number is (571)270-7120. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on (571)270-3445. 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.
/J.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626