DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office action is in response to Amendment filed for 18438968 on September 22, 2025.
Acknowledgements
Claim 5 has been canceled.
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Claims 1-4 have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after December 13, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that after reciting "calculating an evaluation of the first article from the first sensor data using a trained evaluation model ... the trained evaluation mode acquired, by machine learning, an ability to calculate an evaluation of an article from sensor data", the features of amended independent claim 1 are integrated into a practical application and that the that the trained evaluation model comprises an additional element that integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 101, Examiner respectfully disagrees as the features of amended independent claim 1 are directed to the abstract idea of analyzing the articles and managing the issuance of assets associated with articles/beverages/materials. The limitations of Claim 1 have been taken into account reciting “the plurality of second articles are obtained from the first article by changing a manner of storage of the first article, the first article is monitored, each of the plurality of second articles is monitored; managing a first [asset] associated with the first article, the first [asset] being issued; and managing a plurality of second [assets] respectively associated with the plurality of second articles, the plurality of second [assets] being issued to each correspond to the first [asset]; calculating an evaluation of the first article from the first data…; calculating a price of the [asset] in accordance with the calculated evaluation and transferring the [asset]; wherein the managing of the first [asset] includes recording first data obtained, in association with the first [asset], and the managing of the plurality of second [assets] includes recording second data, in association with the plurality of second [assets]” which falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a transaction because the claims recite a series of steps for issuing assets after analyzing, monitoring and improving traceability of articles such as food product/materials/beverages that change its form during a production process and associating the monitored data of the articles with those issued and recorded assets. Examiner believes that the limitation “calculating an evaluation of the first article from the first sensor data using a trained evaluation model ... the trained evaluation mode acquired, by machine learning, an ability to calculate an evaluation of an article from sensor data” is simply implying analyzing the first article using first data. Also, the judicial exception is not considered integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a non-fungible token (NFT), first sensor, second sensor, distributed ledger technology and trained evaluation model merely involve using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of a non-fungible token (NFT), first sensor, second sensor, distributed ledger technology and trained evaluation model to implement the abstract idea does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The limitation “calculating an evaluation of the first article from the first sensor data using a trained evaluation model ... the trained evaluation model acquired, by machine learning, an ability to calculate an evaluation of an article from sensor data” is simply using tools such as first sensor, trained evaluation model and machine learning to simply execute an ability to calculate an evaluation of an article from data which is not considered an improvement to the technology nor a practical application.
In response to Applicant’s arguments under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that that Panzavolta in view of Brown fails to teach or suggest the features of amended independent claim 1 such as "managing a first non-fungible token (NFT) associated with the first article, the first NFT being issued using distributed ledger technology" and "managing a plurality of second non-fungible tokens (NFTs) respectively associated with the plurality of second articles, the plurality of second NFTs being issued to each correspond to the first NFT using the distributed ledger technology". After careful consideration of the prior art reference Panzavolta, Examiner respectfully disagrees as primarily in paragraph 0068, Panzavolta begins disclosing a system for tracking a finite amount of liquid volume which is individualized in volume units and each volume unit comprises a defined subset of volume from the finite amount of the liquid volume. Panzavolta discloses a distributed ledger in paragraph 0072 in which the system also comprises a number of blocks in a network, whereby each block is reflective of a particular stage in a chain of stages the volume unit moves through and is stored. Paragraph 0087 discloses a container for containing a volume unit individualized
from a finite amount of liquid volume and this finite amount of liquid volume is subdivided into a series of volume units, each containing a defined subset of that volume. Paragraph 0134 discloses how every single block corresponds to a separate step on the hierarchical network and is mirrored in the distributed ledger, thereby creating a chain of register entries. Panzavolta further discloses once a buyer purchases a product, the second part is broken apart or separated from the first part and hence the buyer registers the ownership in the form of a digital token such as a non-fungible token (NFT) using the second identifier information that the wireless communication chip provides after the release or removal of the second part. Paragraph 0186 further discloses in the context of a product tag in which the wireless communication chip provides or switches to second identifier information ID2 for registration of a digital token when the second part is released from the first part by bending, folding, pulling, twisting, separating, removing, or manipulating the second
part in any way.
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 1-4 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 1-4 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
The claims recite analyzing the articles and managing the issuance of assets associated with articles/beverages/materials which is an abstract idea. Specifically, the claim recites “the plurality of second articles are obtained from the first article by changing a manner of storage of the first article, the first article is monitored, each of the plurality of second articles is monitored; managing a first [asset] associated with the first article, the first [asset] being issued; and managing a plurality of second [assets] respectively associated with the plurality of second articles, the plurality of second [assets] being issued to each correspond to the first [asset]; calculating an evaluation of the first article from the first data…; calculating a price of the [asset] in accordance with the calculated evaluation and transferring the [asset]; wherein the managing of the first [asset] includes recording first data obtained, in association with the first [asset], and the managing of the plurality of second [assets] includes recording second data, in association with the plurality of second [assets]” which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, classified under “fundamental economic principles or practices”, specifically “mitigating risk” as part of a transaction (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)) because – for example, in this case, the claims involve a series of steps for issuing assets after monitoring and improving traceability of articles such as food product/materials/beverages that change its form during a production process and associating the monitored data of the articles with those issued and recorded assets. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106.04(d)), the additional elements of the claims such as the use of a non-fungible token (NFT), first sensor, second sensor, distributed ledger technology and trained evaluation model merely involves using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of a non-fungible token (NFT), first sensor, second sensor, distributed ledger technology and trained evaluation model to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment] does not render the claim patent eligible because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, a non-fungible token (NFT), first sensor, second sensor, distributed ledger technology and trained evaluation model perform the steps or functions of the “the plurality of second articles are obtained from the first article by changing a manner of storage of the first article, the first article is monitored, each of the plurality of second articles is monitored; managing a first [asset] associated with the first article, the first [asset] being issued; and managing a plurality of second [assets] respectively associated with the plurality of second articles, the plurality of second [assets] being issued to each correspond to the first [asset]; calculating an evaluation of the first article from the first data…; calculating a price of the [asset] in accordance with the calculated evaluation and transferring the [asset]; wherein the managing of the first [asset] includes recording first data obtained, in association with the first [asset], and the managing of the plurality of second [assets] includes recording second data, in association with the plurality of second [assets]”. The additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. 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 of the Alice/Mayo test (See MPEP 2106, specifically 2106.05), the additional elements of the non-fungible token (NFT), first sensor, second sensor, distributed ledger technology and trained evaluation model, to perform the steps amounts to no more than using the non-fungible token (NFT), first sensor, second sensor, distributed ledger technology and trained evaluation model to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of analyzing the articles and managing the issuance of assets associated with articles/beverages/materials. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately the non-fungible token (NFT), first sensor, second sensor, distributed ledger technology and trained evaluation model perform the steps of Claim 1. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of analyzing the articles and managing the issuance of assets associated with articles/beverages/materials. 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 the non-fungible token (NFT), first sensor, second sensor, distributed ledger technology and trained evaluation model 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 further describe the factors/conditions associated with issuing assets such as monitoring the changing of the manner of storage from the first article to the second article and managing an asset by discarding the assets further elaborating on the abstract idea of facilitating the issuance of assets associated with articles/beverages/materials. The dependent claims recite additional elements such as “trained evaluation model”, however, they do not 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Panzavolta et al. (US 2022/0391884 A1) in view of Brown et al. (US 2018/0284093 A1) and in further view of Cai et al. (US 2021/0073699 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Panzavolta discloses a method of managing an non-fungible token for an article (¶0181), wherein the article includes a first article and a plurality of second articles (¶0068, ¶0087, ¶0139), the plurality of second articles are obtained from the first article (¶0087) by [changing a manner of storage of the first article] (¶0134, ¶0164), the first article is monitored by a first sensor (¶0141, ¶0146), each of the plurality of second articles is monitored by a second sensor (¶0149, ¶0150), the method comprising:
managing a first non-fungible token (NFT) associated with the first article, the first NFT being issued using distributed ledger technology; and (¶0211, ¶0213, ¶0220)
managing a plurality of second non-fungible tokens (NFTs) respectively associated with the plurality of second articles, the plurality of second NFTs being issued to each correspond to the first NFT using the distributed ledger technology, wherein (¶0083-¶0085, ¶0186)
calculating a price of the first NFT in accordance with the calculated evaluation, and transferring the NFT (¶0181, ¶0211)
the managing of the first NFT includes recording first sensor data obtained by the first sensor, in association with the first NFT, and (¶0083-¶0085)
the managing of the plurality of second NFTs includes recording second sensor data obtained by the second sensor, in association with the plurality of second NFTs (¶0083- ¶0085)
Panzavolta does not specifically disclose: changing a manner of storage of the first article.
Brown however discloses changing a manner of storage of the first article (¶0014, ¶0015, ¶0016, ¶0040, ¶0042, ¶0046)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Brown to include “changing a manner of storage of the first article”, as disclosed in Panzavolta, in order to provide a trusted food traceability system to change the nutritional substance information (see Brown ¶0006).
The combination of Panzavolta in view of Brown does not disclose calculating an evaluation of the first article from the first sensor data using a trained evaluation model and the trained evaluation model acquired, by machine learning, an ability to calculate an evaluation of an article from sensor data.
Cai however discloses calculating an evaluation of the first article from the first sensor data using a trained evaluation model and the trained evaluation model acquired, by machine learning, an ability to calculate an evaluation of an article from sensor data (¶0013, ¶0017, ¶0018, ¶0020)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the method of Panzavolta to include “calculating an evaluation of the first article from the first sensor data using a trained evaluation model; wherein the trained evaluation model acquired, by machine learning, an ability to calculate an evaluation of an article from sensor data”, as disclosed in Cai, in order to provide a system for blockchain based resource predictions and management (see Cai abstract).
Regarding Claim 2, Panzavolta discloses in the changing of the manner of storage from the first article to the plurality of second articles, measuring a decrease amount of the first article and an increase amount of the plurality of second articles; and issuing the second NFTs by a number corresponding to the decrease amount of the first article and the increase amount of the plurality of second articles (¶0023, ¶0181)
Regarding Claim 3, Panzavolta discloses wherein the managing of the first NFT further includes discarding the first NFT in response to a further second article being unable to be obtained from the first article due to the issuing of the plurality of second NFTs (¶0188-¶0189)
Regarding Claim 4, Panzavolta discloses wherein the managing of the first NFT further includes adding, to the first NFT, information that disables further issuing of a second NFT from the first NFT in response to a further second article being unable to be obtained from the first article (¶0149, ¶0159, ¶0181)
Conclusion
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 ZEHRA RAZA whose telephone number is (571)272-8128. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-6:30PM.
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.
/ZEHRA RAZA/Examiner, Art Unit 3697
/ZESHAN QAYYUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697