DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
1. This action is in reply to the Request for Reconsideration dated July 18, 2025.
2. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 6-10 are newly added.
4. Claims 1-3 and 5 have been amended.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
5. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation – Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
6. In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted using the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during the examination of a patent application since the applicant may then amend his claims.” See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. See In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969); MPEP § 2111. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP 2173.05(q) All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. See MPEP 2143.03.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if, may, might, can, could”, are treated as containing optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “wherein, whereby”, that fail to further define the steps or acts to be performed in method claims or the discrete physical structure required of system claims.
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. see MPEP § 2103(I)(C); In re Johnson, 77 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed Cir 2006). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e. the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope. It is this subject matter that must be examined.
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See MPEP 2111.04, 2143.03.
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art. In other words, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble (MPEP 2111.02);
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby” (MPEP 2111.04)
Contingent limitations (MPEP 2111.04)
Printed matter (MPEP 2111.05) and
Functional language associated with a claim term (MPEP 2181)
Examiner notes that during examination, “claims … are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and … claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” See In re Bond, 15 USPQ 1566, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1990), citing In re Sneed, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983). However, "in examining the specification for proper context, [the examiner] will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims". See CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 75 USPQ2d 1733, 1738 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Prater, 162 USPQ 541, 550 (CCPA 1969).
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention as expressing the intended result of a process step positively recited and are not given further weight:
As in Claim 1:
reference the second information indicating a relationship among a plurality of products that are included in a target product to specify a plurality of included products included in the target product and specify, for each of the plurality of products, a corresponding account associated with a company authorized to update the first information for each of the plurality of included products; and
transmit, via the communication interface, a request to each of the specified accounts to update the first information by the update.
As in Claim 5:
referencing second information indicating a relationship among a plurality of products that are included in a target product to specify a plurality of included products included in the target product and specify, for each of the plurality of products, a corresponding account associated with a company to update the first information; and
transmitting, via the communication interface, a request to each of the specified accounts to update the first information by the update deadline.
As in Claim 2:
in a case where the response has not been received, reference the second information to specify a downstream company associated with a company corresponding to a non-responding account, and
transmit a second request to an account associated with the downstream company to prompt the associated company to request an update the first information.
As in Claim 3:
wherein the first information includes at least one of an amount of greenhouse gas emissions, a recycling rate of a predetermined raw material, and information about due diligence.
As in Claim 4:
wherein the target product is a product related to batteries.
As in Claim 6:
wherein the second information comprises tree information representing a hierarchical relationship between the target product and the included products.
As in Claim 9:
wherein the device is further configured to transmit a second request to the account associated with the downstream company prompting that company to request the associated upstream company to update the first information.
As in Claim 10:
wherein the first notification includes a query indicating whether any data in the first information requires updating.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: the software loading and configuration of the server in order to perform the functional steps recited.
Claim 1, as amended, recites an information processing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication interface, the device configured to perform steps. The claim then recites “acquire, from the memory, an update deadline associated with first information” followed by additional details regarding the first information and second information.
The manner in which Applicant has amended the claims is not in sync with the specification and appears to be missing elements that would be required in order to effectuate the processes indicated and as to Claim 5, the claim substantially similarly lacks the recitation of the required elements to perform the method.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen above with regard to Figure 1, server 200 includes a computer having a processor, a main storage unit, an auxiliary storage unit and a communication interface. This is also consistent with the recitation of a computer comprising a processor, memory, and a communication interface assuming that elements 230 and 220 are the memory.
Applicant Spec para 29 discloses the following:
“The server 200 includes a computer having a processor 210, a main storage unit 220, an auxiliary storage unit 230, and a communication interface (communication I/F) 240. Processor 210 is, for example, a Central Processing Unit (CPIU) or a Digital Signal Processor (DSP). The main storage unit 220 is, for example, Random Access Memory (RAM). The auxiliary storage unit 230 is, for example, a read-only memory (ROM). Further, the auxiliary storage unit 230 is, for example, a Hard Disk Drive (HDD), or a disc recording medium such as a CD-ROM, a DVD disc, or a Blu-ray disc. The auxiliary storage unit 230 may be a removable medium (a portable storage medium). Examples of the removable medium include a USB memory or an SD card. The communication I/F 240 Is, for example, a Local Area Network (LAN) interface board or a wireless communication circuit for wireless communication.” (See Applicant Spec para 29)
Below is Figure 3 of the drawings which discloses other elements of server 200.
PNG
media_image2.png
415
540
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“In the server 200, the auxiliary storage unit 230 stores an operating system (OS), various programs, various information tables, and the like. Furthermore, in the server 200, the processor 210 loads the program stored in the auxiliary storage unit 230 into the main storage unit and executes it, thereby realizing various functions (software modules) as described below. However, some or all of the functions in the server 200 may be realized by a hardware circuit (hardware module) such as an ASIC or an FPGA. Note that the server 200 does not necessarily need to be realized by a single physical configuration, and may be configured by a plurality of computers that cooperate with each other. Note that the server 200, the company terminal 100 is also configured to include a computer.” (See Applicant Spec para 30)
Software Configuration
“Next, the software configuration of the server 200 that constitutes the information processing system 1 will be described based on FIGS. 3 to 5. FIG. 3 is a block diagram schematically showing an example of the software configuration of the server 200. The server 200 includes a control unit 201, a communication unit 202, a tree information database 203 (tree information DB 203), and a traceability information database 204 (traceability DB 204).” (See Applicant Spec para 31)
“The control unit 201 is configured to execute arithmetic processing for controlling the server 200. The control unit 201 may be configured by a processor 210. The communication unit is configured 202 is configured to connect the server 200 to a network (transmission/reception of data). The communication 202 may be configured by a communication I/F 240.” (See Applicant Spec para 32)
“The control unit 201 receives, via the communication unit 202, product information from the company terminals 100 related to each company included in the supply chain. The control unit 201 stores product information about each company in the traceability information held in the traceability information DB 204. Further, the control unit 201 receives update information from the company terminals 100 related to each company included in the supply chain via the communication unit 202. The control unit 201 updates the traceability information held in the traceability information DB 204 using the received update information. That is, the control unit 201 updates product information about each company using the update information.” (See Applicant Spec para 36)
“By acquiring traceability information from the traceability information DB 204, the control unit 201 can grasp information regarding greenhouse gas emissions, recycling rate of predetermined raw materials, and due diligence for products produced by each company. Furthermore, by acquiring traceability information from the traceability information DB 204, the control unit 201 can grasp the date and time when each company last updated its product information.” (See Applicant Spec para 39)
“The control unit 201 acquires a deadline (hereinafter sometimes referred to as an “update deadline”) by which updated traceability information (product information for each company) is required. The control unit 201 may obtain, for example, an update deadline input by an administrator of the server 200 or the like. Further, the control unit 201 may obtain an update deadline defined by a rule regarding a deadline for updating product information. Further, if updating of product information is required by law or the like, then control unit 201 may obtain the update deadline specified by the law or the like. Further, the control unit 201 may obtain update deadlines set at predetermined intervals. Further, the update deadline is, for example, the final deadline for which updated product information is required. Further, the update deadline may be a provisional deadline.” (See Applicant Spec para 40)
“The control unit 201 acquires information that specifies the target product (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “designation information”). Here, the target product is the final product X, for example. Furthermore, the target product may be a product (intermediate product) produced by a company located upstream from the OEM company. The control unit 201 refers to the tree information held in the tree information DB 203 to identify products included in the target products specified by the specified information (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “inclusive products”). Further, the control unit 201 refers to the tree information held in the tree information DB 203 to identify a company (hereinafter sometimes referred to as a “target company”) that produces the included product. Specifically, the control unit 201 obtains the tree information, refers to the supply relationships of the plurality of products that make up the final product X, and identifies the included products and the target company.” (See Applicant Spec para 41)
The further disclosure of the specification, noted above, makes clear that it is not merely acquiring data from memory as claimed, but rather the processor must execute a program that is retrieved from auxiliary storage, loaded into the main storage unit and then execute it in order to perform the functions via software modules.
In order for the control unit, communication unit, tree information database and traceability information database to be used, the server requires a software configuration to be loaded and executed. As disclosed by the Specification, the software configuration cannot be presumed, or simply referred to as memory, rather it requires software being actively executed to perform the functions recited in the amended claims.
The dependent claims 2-4 and 6-10 further require the software modules to be loaded and executed in order to enable the subsequently claimed steps. As such, these claims further are missing essential elements of the claims and are further rejected.
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.
9. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
ANALYSIS:
STEP 1:
Does the claimed invention fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition matter?
Yes and No. The claimed invention in Claim 1 recites a device claim and in Claim 5 recites a method claim. However, currently Claim 5 has a separate rejections as being non-statutory (as shown below), but Examiner assumes that Applicant will rectify the claims to properly claim within statutory categories.
STEP 2A:
Prong One: Does the Claim Recite A Judicial Exception (An Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or Natural Phenomenon)? (If Yes, Proceed to Prong Two, If No, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material)
Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of information collection of data regarding a target product in a supply chain. This idea is described by the following limitations:
acquire an update deadline associated with first information that includes traceability data of products of each company included in a supply chain;
reference second information indicating a relationship among a plurality of products that are included in a target product to specify a plurality of included products included in the target product, and specify, for each of the plurality of products, a corresponding account associated with a company authorized to update the first information for respective included products; and
transmit a request to each of the specified accounts to update the first information by the update deadline.
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea of information collection of data regarding a target product in a supply chain. This idea is described by the following limitations:
acquiring an update deadline associated with first information;
referencing second information indicating a relationship among a plurality of products that are included in a target product to specify a plurality of included products included in the target product, and specify, for each of the plurality of products, a corresponding account associated with a company authorized to update the first information; and
transmitting, a request to each of the specified accounts to update the first information by the update deadline.
The Applicant Specification indicates that the application is intended to efficiently collect the latest information about traceability of products through the entire supply chain that are included in a target product. (See Applicant Spec paras 4-5)
The specification further notes that input and transmission of product information may be performed, for example, by an operator such as an employee of each company where the company terminal transmits product information about the product to the server 200 via the network. (See Applicant Spec para 24)
Under a BRI, the claims may reflect no more than collecting information from company employees regarding product information on products produced by various companies included in the supply chain of a target product.
Notably, the independent claims do not actually require that the information be updated, rather the claims merely indicate transmitting a request to update first information.
As a result, the abstract ideas describe mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
As to the mental processes, the steps describe concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion as seen above. These steps are performing a mental process in a computer environment that recites observing, receiving and evaluating information and with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human mentally.
As to certain methods of organizing human activity, the steps involve commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) and’/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions) as seen above.
In the case of the instant claims, for example, the claims may be reciting no more than a computer that may ask for and possibly receive information from employees at various companies related to a target product. (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes, the claims are abstract)
Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application of the Exception? (If Yes, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and qualifies as subject matter patent eligible material. If No, Proceed to Step 2B)
The claims do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, are not applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine, are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Claim 1 recites an information processing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication interface.
Claim 5 recites a computer comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication interface.
In particular, the claims only recite an information processing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication interface, and a computer comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication interface which are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Further, the device outlined in Claim 1 and the method outlined in Claim 5 do not sufficiently tie the steps to a particular machine within the body of the claim. As such, the recitations are further failing to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application on this basis.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 5 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A, Prong 2: No, the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application)
STEP 2B: If there is an exception, determine if the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); ii) performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); iii) electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; v) electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition); and vi) a web browser’s back and forward button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015). (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II))
This listing is not meant to imply that all computer functions are well‐understood, routine, conventional activities, or that a claim reciting a generic computer component performing a generic computer function is necessarily ineligible. Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). On the other hand, courts have held computer-implemented processes to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic. (MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) – emphasis added)
Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: recording a customer’s order, Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1856 (Fed. Cir. 2016); shuffling and dealing a standard deck of cards, In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 819, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016); restricting public access to media by requiring a consumer to view an advertisement, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755-56 (Fed. Cir. 2014); identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data, Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, -- F.3d --, -- USPQ2d --, slip op. at 32 (Fed. Cir. August 28, 2017); presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; determining an estimated outcome and setting a price, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and arranging a hierarchy of groups, sorting information, eliminating less restrictive pricing information and determining the price, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1331, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Here, the steps are receiving or transmitting data over a network; storing and retrieving information in memory and electronically scanning or extracting data– all of which have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine and conventional functions.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements that do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because they require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
For the next step of the analysis, it must be determined whether the limitations present in the claims represent a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. A claim directed to a judicial exception must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself.
For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry.” Further, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”
Applicant’s specification discloses the following:
“An information processing system 1 in this embodiment will be described based on FIG. 1. FIG. 1 is a diagram schematically illustrating a configuration of an information processing system 1. The information processing system 1 includes a plurality of company terminals 100 and a server 200. In the information processing system 1, a company terminal 100 and a server 200 are interconnected via a network. For example, a Wide Area Network (WAN), which is a world-wide public communication network such as the Internet, may be adopted as the network.” (See Applicant Specification para 14)
“The company terminal 100 is a terminal related to each supplier company. The company terminal 100 receives input of product information about products produced by each company. The company terminal 100 transmits product information to the server 200 via the network. At this time, the company terminal 100 can receive input of product information and transmit product information by logging into the information processing system 1 using an account allocated to each company. In other words, each company is given an account that has the authority to update product information. Further, the company terminal 100 can receive various information from the server 200 by logging into the information processing system 1 using an account allocated to each company.” (See Applicant Specification para 21)
“Input and transmission of product information may be performed, for example, by an operator such as an employee of each company. The company terminal 100 transmits product information about the product to the server 200 via the network.” (See Applicant Specification para 24)
“The server 200 is a device for managing information (product information) on products produced by each company included in the supply chain. As a method for collecting the latest (current) information regarding traceability using the server 200, one possible method is to identify each company included in the supply chain through individual communication between companies, from the most downstream company to the most upstream company in the supply chain, and to notify each identified company of the update request of the product information. However, if such a method is adopted, it is assumed that there will be a problem that it will take time and effort to collect the latest information of each company.” (See Applicant Specification para 25)
“Therefore, in this embodiment, the server 200 identifies an account that has the authority to update the target product information using tree information to be described later, and then sends a request to update the product information via the network. 1 notification information is sent to the specified account (company terminal 100 associated with each company). This encourages the company to update its product information. The server 200 receives information for updating product information (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “update information”) transmitted from the company terminals 100 associated with each company via the network. The server 200 then updates the product information using the received update information.” (See Applicant Specification para 26)
“The server 200 includes a computer having a processor 201, a main storage unit 220, an auxiliary storage unit 230, and a communication interface (communication I/F) 240. Processor 210 is, for example, a Central Processing Unit (CPU) or a Digital Signal Processor (DSP). The main storage 220 is, for example, Random Access Memory (RAM). The auxiliary storage unit 230 is, for example, a read-only memory (ROM). Further, the auxiliary storage unit 230 is, for example, a Hard Disk Drive (HDD), or a disc recording medium such as a CD-ROM, a DVD disc, or a Blu-ray disc. The auxiliary storage unit 230 may be a removable medium (a portable storage medium). Examples of the removable medium include a USB memory or an SD card. The communication I/F 240 is, for example, a Local Area Network (LAN) interface board or a wireless communication circuit for wireless communication.” (See Applicant Specification para 29)
“In the server 200, the auxiliary storage unit 230 stores an operating system (OS), various programs, various information tables, and the like. Furthermore, in the server 200, the processor 210 loads the program stored in the auxiliary storage unit 230 into the main storage unit 220 and executes it, thereby realizing various functions (software modules) as described below. However, some or all of the functions in the server 200 may be realized by a hardware circuit (hardware module) such as an ASIC or an FPGA. Note that the server 200 does not necessarily need to be realized by a single physical configuration, and may be configured by a plurality of computers that cooperate with each other. Note that, like the server 200, the company terminal 100 is also configured to include a computer.” (See Applicant Specification para 30)
“The present disclosure can also be implemented by supplying a computer with a computer program that implements the functions described in the above embodiment, and causing one or more processors of the computer to read and execute the program. Such a computer program may be provided to the computer by a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium connectable to the system bus of the computer, or may be provided to the computer via a network. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, is, for example, a disc of any type such as a magnetic disc (floppy (registered trademark) disc, or hard disk drive (HDD), etc.), an optical disc (compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), digital versatile disc (DVD), or Blu-ray disc, etc.), a read-only memory (ROM), a random access memory (RAM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), an electrically erasable programmable read only memory (EEPROM), a magnetic card, a flash memory, or any type of medium suitable for storing electronic commands such as an optical card.” (See Applicant Specification para 66)
Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The collective functions appear to be implemented using conventional computer systemization.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The independent claims 1 and 5 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent Claims 2-4 and 6-10 further define the abstract idea that is presented in the respective independent Claims 1 and 5 and are further grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity and are abstract for the same reasons and basis as presented above. No additional hardware components other than those found in the respective independent claims is recited, thus it is presumed that the claim is further utilizing the same generic systemization as presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea .
Thus, Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding Claims 5-10, Examiner notes that the method of Claim 5 would also have been rejected under the earlier §101 standards based upon In re Bilski, which have been superseded by the current §101 standards based upon the Alice-Mayo test. Specifically, Claim 5 contains an insufficient recitation of a machine or transformation as the involvement of the machine. As recited, the machine is merely nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps.
Examiner notes that the only explicit reference to a machine is in the preamble of Independent Claim 5 as being executed by a “computer comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication interface”. There is insufficient direct ties between a machine and the limitations of the independent claim. Examiner is only noting this as §101 under the Alice-Mayo test is considered a substantially higher bar than under In re Bilski. Examiner suggests Applicant incorporate language into the body of the claim reciting the machine elements performing the recited process.
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
10. Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwabe et al. (WO 2023/117957) (“Schwabe”) in view of Fang et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0276679) (“Fang”)
Regarding Claim 1, Schwabe discloses the following:
An information processing device comprising a processor, a memory, and a communication interface, the device configured to: (See Schwabe page 19, line 8- page 22, line 20, Fig. 3a)
acquire, from the memory, an update deadline associated with first information that includes traceability data of products of each company included in a supply chain; (See Schwabe page 3, lines 35-38; page 4, lines 9-27; page 8, lines 15-19, 30-35; page 9, lines 4-14; page 13, line 13-page 14, line 25; page 17, line 36- page 18, line 10; page 28, lines 16-34; page 29, lines 14-17; page 37, lines 25-29)
reference second information indicating a relationship among a plurality of products that are included in a target product to specify a plurality of included products included in the target product, and specify, for each of the plurality of products, a corresponding account associated with a company authorized to update the first information for respective included products; and (See Schwabe page 1, lines 27-34; page 8, lines 15-19, 30-35; page 9, lines 4-14; page 13, line 13-page 14, line 25;page 14, lines 15-25; page 23, lines 14-17; page 24, line 17-page 25, line 27; page 26, line 15-page 27, line 3 – providing a decentral identifier associated with battery data of at least one component of a battery or of at least a component of a battery; data consuming service, e.g., associated with a first battery component producer, requesting to access the battery data and/or the data provider service, e.g., associated with a second battery component producer such as a downstream supply chain participant, providing access to the chemical process data may be authenticating. Based on authorization rules that data provider service, e.g., associated with the second battery component producer such as a downstream supply chain participant, may provide controlled access to part(s) or subset(s) of the battery data to the data consuming service)
transmit, via the communication interface, a request to each of the specified accounts to update the first information by the update. (See Schwabe page 4, lines 30-33; page 21, line 36-page 22, line 11 – receiving a request to provide a decentral identifier associated with battery data of at least the component of the battery)
Schwabe discloses his invention as to an apparatus for producing a battery component associated with a battery passport that includes a collector configured to collect battery data associated with the component of the battery, wherein the component of the battery comprises a physical identifier; an assignor configured to assign the physical identifier to a decentral identifier for generating the battery passport associated with the produced component of the battery, a battery passport generator configured to generate the battery passport by receiving a request to provide a decentral identifier associated with battery data of at least the component of the battery and in response to the request, generating the battery passport including the decentral identifier and data related to battery data of at least the component of the battery. (See Schwabe Abstract)
While Schwabe discloses the invention as disclosed above, it does not fully disclose acquiring a deadline for the first information or notifying each of the specified first accounts of a request to update the first information by the update.
Fang discloses a computer-implemented green product management system wherein the management system comprises a database, a restricted-substance management module and a carbon footprint module. (See Fang para 5) In some embodiments, the database is configured to store data required by the restricted-substance management module and the carbon footprint module. (See Fang para 19) The data required by the restricted-substance management module comprises an accessory disassembly attribute, an accessory weight, an accessory name, a homogeneous material weight after disassembly, a homogeneous material name after disassembly, base and coating properties. (See Fang para 19) The data required by the carbon footprint module comprises a distance between a current position (a product manufacturing place) and an accessory manufacturing place, a transport manner of the accessory, whether the accessory is recyclable, carbon emission base data of basic energy sources in producing countries of the accessory and the product. (See Fang para 19 – data related to first information)
In some embodiments, the restricted-substance management module comprises a detection module configured to detect restricted-substance containing condition of a raw material and all contacted auxiliary consumptive materials in a production process of a product, and a determination module, configured to determine, according to a restricted-substance related predetermined criterion, and based on a detection result of the detection module and data in the database, whether the product conforms to the restricted-substance related predetermined criteria. (See Fang para 20 – detection data and other data)
In some embodiments, the detection module may be an X-ray fluorescence analyzer (XRF) being capable of identifying whether there is a restricted substance and obtaining a content of each restricted substance. (See Fang para 21) The green product management system (“system”) has the function of automatically collecting and analyzing the restricted-substance detection result of the raw material. (See Fang para 21 – data related to first information) The system may grab the XRF detection result automatically and collect detection data within a period of time. (See Fang para 21) The incoming XRF detection data grabbed by the system may be managed according to the accessory name and the test time and a pie chart may be drawn according to the detection result of each accessory for the administrator account to query. (See Fang para 21)
The administrator account may select a period of time, so as to enable the system to output all test results and the test result tendency chart within this period of time. (See Fang para 21) The administrator may query the detection results of all accessories under the bill of material (BOM) of a product of a certain model, and may derive all detection data. (See Fang para 21 – all detection data may be derived) The data grabbed by the system includes batch number of incoming product, operator, factory, test time. (See Fang para 21) The administrator account may select these key information for query. (See Fang para 21) This query-related function will be implemented in conjunction with the query module. (See Fang para 21) By automatically grabbing data and analyzing data, the system may analyze the quality performance of the incoming restricted substance within a period of time, and observe the quality of each supplier and each material, so as to provide management basis for the incoming quality management personnel. (See Fang para 21 – within a period of time)
In some embodiments, the restricted-substance management module comprises a notification module. (See Fang para 22 – notification module related to first information) The notification module may release an up-to-date notice to the us