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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 January 2026 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the amended claim language cures the contingent claim interpretation and therefore the claims are patent eligible. While the Examiner agrees that the contingent claim language is now no longer contingent, further issues persist with potential eligible subject matter that is not positively recited. Claim limitation (2) “prompting the buyer to, using the buyer’s Scanning device, scan the authentication message” does not contain a positive recitation of “scanning, by the buyer’s scanning device, the authentication message on the last buyer’s scanning device” and it would be advantageous to further amend the claims to recite “uploading, by the buyer’s scanning device, a second scanning result to the transaction clearing center, wherein the second scanning result is a scan of the authentication message.”
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, 5-8, and 10 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, claim 1 is directed to “a tracking management method for commodity circulation information”. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of “conducting a transaction and verifying the authenticity of the transaction” which is grouped under “organizing human activity… fundamental economic practice (conducting a transaction is a fundamental economic practice) and commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, sales activities and business relations are similar to ensuring the authenticity of the product and transaction as well as conducting a purchase transaction” in prong one of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). Claim 1 recites marking an identity code on a product unit; writing product unit information; prompting a buyer to scan the identity code on the product unit, whereby uploads an ID and a first scanning result, and initiates a current transaction; determining that a seller of the product unit in the current transaction is a last buyer of the product unit in a previous transaction comprises: reading a record of the previous transaction using the product unit information obtained from the Product Database; sending an authentication message to a last buyer’s Scanning Device, prompting the buyer to scan the authentication message on the last buyer’s Scanning Device whereby the buyer’s Scanning Device uploads a second scanning result to the Transaction Clearing Center, determining based on the second scanning result that the seller is the last buyer; transferring payment for the product unit by the buyer; and entering a record of the transaction, wherein said record of the current transaction includes the identity code of the product unit, and the ID of the buyer's Scanning Device. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the additional elements of the claim such as Product Database, Scanning Devices, a network, a transaction settlement software, a dealer database, and a Transaction Clearing Center represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use (MPEP 2106.05(f)&(h)). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they do no more than represent a computer performing functions that correspond to (i.e. implemented) the acts of conducting a transaction and verifying the authenticity of the transaction.
When analyzed under step 2B (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely describe the concept of conducting a transaction and verifying the authenticity of the transaction using computer technology (e.g. transaction clearing center). Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ a computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea, which cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)).
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-8, and 10 do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims and are rejected accordingly. In this case, all claims have been reviewed and are found to be substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea (see Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dattawadkar US 2020/0045538.
As per claim 1: Dattawadkar discloses a Tracking Management Method for Commodity Circulation Information, implemented by means of a Transaction Settlement System having a Product Database, Scanning Devices, and a Transaction Clearing Center, the Tracking Management Method comprising: (1) marking an identity code on a product unit; writing product unit information into the Product Database (Fig 6 ;512’ shows both a barcode and plain text, [0129]);
(2) prompting a buyer to scan the identity code on the product unit using a buyer's Scanning Device connected to the Transaction Clearing Center via a network, whereby the buyer's Scanning Device uploads an ID of the buyer's Scanning Device and a first scanning result to the Transaction Clearing Center, and initiates a current transaction (Fig 6 ;512’ shows both a barcode and plain text, [0129]-[0130]);
(3) determining, with the Transaction Clearing Center, that a seller of the product unit in the current transaction is a last buyer of the product unit in a previous transaction, wherein this step (3) comprises: (1) reading, at the Transaction Clearing Center, a record of the previous transaction using the product unit information obtained from the Product Database (Fig 30, ¶¶ [0135]-[0136] checks if the item was transferred to a downstream entity indicating the manufacturer sold the item to a distributor); sending, from the Transaction Clearing Center, an authentication message to a last buyer's Scanning Device (Fig 2 ¶¶ [0140]-[0142] ‘seller code’ reads on an authentication message); and (2) prompting the buyer to, using the buyer's Scanning Device, scan the authentication message on the last buyer's Scanning Device, whereby the buyer's Scanning Device uploads a second scanning result to the Transaction Clearing Center (Fig 2, ¶¶ [0142]-[0143]; determining, based on the second scanning result, that the seller is the last buyer (Fig 31 & 2, ¶¶ [0143]-[0144], [0151] sending the results of the authenticity system that the retailer is an authorized seller and that the item is authentic);
(4) transferring payment for the product unit from the buyer based on the determination (Fig 2 ¶¶ [0152]-[0153] causing a user to ‘checkout’); and
(5) entering a record of the current transaction into the Product Database, wherein the record of the current transaction includes the identity code of the product unit, and the ID of the buyer's Scanning Device (Fig 2 ‘219’, ¶¶ [0155]-[0158])
As per claim 2: Dattawadkar further discloses the Tracking Management Method according to claim 1, wherein: the Transaction Settlement System further includes: a Settlement Account dedicated by a manufacturer to receive and transfer payments for a plurality of transactions of a plurality of product units of the manufacturer; and a Transaction Settlement Software; and in step (4), transferring the payment for the product unit from the buyer comprises: receiving, at the Settlement Account, the payment (Fig 2 ¶¶ [0152]-[0153] causing a user to ‘checkout’); and
transferring, by the Transaction Settlement Software, the payment to the seller (Fig 2 ¶¶ [0152]-[0153] causing a user to ‘checkout’).
As per claim 3: Dattawadkar further discloses the Tracking Management Method according to claim 2, wherein each product unit of the plurality of product units corresponds to, and is marked with, a unique identity code (Fig 6 ;512’ shows both a barcode and plain text, [0129]).
As per claim 5: Dattawadkar further discloses the Tracking Management Method according to claim 1, wherein step (3) further comprises: prompting the seller to, using a seller's Scanning Device, scan the identity code to upload an ID of the seller's Scanning Device and a third scanning result to the Transaction Clearing Center (Fig 4 ¶¶ [0197]-[0209] ‘seller information’); and determining, at the Transaction Clearing Center and using the record of the previous transaction, that the ID of the seller's Scanning Device matches an ID of the last buyer's Scanning Device (Fig 4, ‘412’ ¶¶ [0197]-[0209]).
As per claim 6: Dattawadkar further discloses the Tracking Management Method according to claim 1, wherein: the Transaction Settlement System further comprises a Dealer Database including: dealers authorized or registered by a manufacturer as being qualified to sell products of the manufacturer; and Scanning Device IDs of the dealers (Fig 26); and
step (3) further comprises determining, by searching the Dealer Database with an ID of the last buyer's Scanning Device, that the buyer of the product unit in the previous transaction is a dealer authorized or registered by the manufacturer as being qualified to sell the product unit (Fig 26, ¶¶ [0064]-[0066]).
As per claim 7: Dattawadkar further discloses the Tracking Management Method according to claim 2, wherein step (4) further comprises: generating, at the Transaction Clearing Center, a transaction statement for the buyer; and upon receipt of the payment at the Settlement Account, executing, with the Transaction Clearing Center, the Transaction Settlement Software to transfer the payment to the seller in accordance with the transaction statement (Fig 2 ¶¶ [0152]-[0153] causing a user to ‘checkout’).
As per claim 8: Dattawadkar further discloses the Tracking Management Method according to claim 1, wherein the record of the current transaction further includes: a unit price, a quantity, a total amount, a time, a place, and a manner of the current transaction; a name of the buyer and a name of the seller; a Settlement Account number of the buyer and a Settlement Account number of the seller; and a location of the buyer's Scanning Device (Fig 2 ‘219’, ¶¶ [0155]-[0158]).
As per claim 10: Dattawadkar further discloses the Tracking Management Method according to claim 1, wherein the identity code comprises: a bar code, a QR code, and/or an RFID (Fig 8 ‘QR code’).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P SHARVIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9863. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan Donlon can be reached at 571-270-3602. 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.
/DAVID P. SHARVIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3692
/DAVID P SHARVIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692
Prosecution Insights