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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5, and 12 are amended. Claims 4 and 15 are canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended limitations disclosing the features of using dedicated storage areas and shared storage area (e.g., physically separate storage areas either dedicated to one company or shared by two or more companies) and copying of information from the dedicated storage areas into the shared storage area, are clearly not a commercial activity nor a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument. The storage spaces are considered “additional elements” that are analyzed in Step 2A Prong Two to determine whether these additional elements integrate the judicial exception (in this case, certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) into a practical application. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: an information processing device comprising a processor, storage and shared storage areas, and a computer (claim 12). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the limitations that directly correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claim limitations directly involve the observation and evaluation of data (traceability information) and making a judgement and/or opinion based on the observed and evaluated data. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, 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. Further, MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III) provides that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. As indicated above, the storage and storage areas are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the limitations that correspond to mental processes. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant also argues that the limitations add "significantly more" under Step 2B, and that to conclude otherwise, the Patent Office has a burden to show that the additional limitations merely define a well-known, routine and conventional activity under Berkheimer. This argument is invalid and Examiner disagrees. The claims 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 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. Well-understood, routine, and conventional activity is not the only consideration under Step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer. Thus, to show that the additional elements or limitations do not amount to significantly more under Step 2B does not necessarily require that the Patent Office show that the additional limitations merely define a well-known, routine and conventional activity under Berkheimer; there are four (4) listed considerations to consider, and simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry is only one. Further, applicant’s reference to Berkheimer is irrelevant in this case. There was no assertion that the additional elements/limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B, thus no requirement of evidence of well-understood, routine, and conventional activity according to Berkheimer is necessary.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 11, filed 09/24/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of has been withdrawn.
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 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 recite a device (i.e. machine), and claims 12-14 and 16-20 recite a method (i.e. process). Therefore claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 12 recite the limitations acquire traceability-related information included in product information of a target product that is a product of a target company; receive product information of one or more reference products that are products of one or more companies included in the supply chain; store the received product information of the one or more reference products in one or more dedicated [storage areas], wherein each dedicated [storage area] is dedicated to and only accessible by a respective one of the one or more companies; upon receiving permission information, copy a part of the product information stored in the one or more dedicated [storage areas] to [a shared storage] area which is accessible by two or more of the companies; set a reference value according to traceability-related information included in the product information of the one or more reference products and being stored in the one or more dedicated [storage areas]; and output appropriateness of the traceability-related information of the target product using the reference value, wherein the one or more reference products do not include a product of a company anonymously participating in the platform. The invention is drawn towards traceability records for a product in a supply chain corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions or relationships, commercial interactions, business relations), as evidenced by limitations detailing acquiring traceability-related information and receiving product information of one or more reference products in the supply chain, storing the product information, copying a part of the product information to a [storage area] accessible by the companies, setting reference values according to the traceability-related information, outputting appropriateness of the traceability related information, and that the one or more reference products does not include a product of a company anonymously participating. The limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) since the limitations directly involve the observation and evaluation of data (traceability information) and making a judgement and/or opinion based on the observed and evaluated data.
Note: The features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” in Step 2A Prong two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: an information processing device comprising a processor, storage and shared storage areas, and a computer (claim 12). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, 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 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2, 3, 6-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2, 3, 6-11, 13, 14, and 16-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Silverstein (2021/0224819). Silverstein discloses an approach to carbon footprint tracking that includes responsive to determining that a transaction to purchase an item for a user is detected by a computer, a total carbon emissions for the original item is calculated. One or more alternatives to the original item are located. The total carbon emissions for each alternative to the original item is calculated. The user is notified of the total carbon emissions for the original item and the total carbon emissions for each alternative to the original item where the carbon emissions are lower for the alternative item than for the original item. An indication of a final item chosen by the user is received, where the final item is either the original item or one of the alternative items. The prior art reference does not explicitly disclose upon receiving permission information, copy a part of the product information stored in the one or more dedicated storage areas to a shared storage area which is accessible by two or more of the companies and the one or more reference products do not include a product of a company anonymously participating in the platform. The claims overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the article “Blockchain-Based Carbon Footprint Tracking for Chips” (Hao, 2022) which discusses efforts that are being made to reduce carbon emissions to mitigate this impact and how calculating the carbon footprint of a chip requires the cooperation of all stakeholders in the chip supply chain. Since a record-keeping system is needed to track the carbon footprint while protecting the privacy of all parties involved, the publication discloses a blockchain-based carbon footprint traceability model for the chip. The publication discloses that the traceability system can not only ensure the degree of decentralization but also enhance the reliability of data, ensure data security, reduce communication overhead and improve the efficiency of traceability. The prior art reference does not explicitly disclose upon receiving permission information, copy a part of the product information stored in the one or more dedicated storage areas to a shared storage area which is accessible by two or more of the companies and the one or more reference products do not include a product of a company anonymously participating in the platform. The claims overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628